• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

Hercules56 said:
That doesn't fly without our constitution.

As long as your are peaceful, not violating volume regulations, not cursing, accusing people of murder, you have the right to be on the sidewalk and say "dont abort".

I guess we care about freedom more than feewings.
Click to expand...

For the umpty fifth time: the Merkinanian Constitution is of absolutely NO ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ RELEVANCE here.

And harassment is way beyond "feewings"

And keep your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ fundy dollars out of our public discourse.

How hard are any of those to understand? Or are you just going to say "Kool" again, like it actually means anything?
 
Ziggurat said:
You don't seem to understand the facts of the case, starting with the fact that he wasn't arrested. He was charged and convicted, but not arrested.

And the activity that he was charged for was the praying. It wasn't some other action that he was charged for, and the praying was incidental. There would have been nothing to charge him with absent the prayer.
Click to expand...
How do we know he was really praying?
 
Carrot Flower King said:
For the umpty fifth time: the Merkinanian Constitution is of absolutely NO ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ RELEVANCE here.

And harassment is way beyond "feewings"

And keep your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ fundy dollars out of our public discourse.

How hard are any of those to understand? Or are you just going to say "Kool" again, like it actually means anything?
Click to expand...
Fundy who????
 
Mojo said:
No,
Click to expand...
Then why the qualifier? Why are you concerned with whose freedoms are being protected, rather than what freedoms are being protected?
Mojo said:
but it needs to be balanced against other people's freedom, unless you're Fintan Stack.
Click to expand...
Whose freedoms were infringed in this case? How were they infringed?

I have to again question whether you actually understand the case. Because nothing about the charges against him indicate that he interacted with anyone other than the police (an interaction that they initiated, not him). If anyone else did, it played no role in the charges or the trial. Nothing about the case against him depended on anyone else even being aware that he was even there. This case really isn't equivalent to charging someone who accosts women outside an abortion clinic. Treating them as if they were isn't going to work.
 
Hercules56 said:
Fundy who????
Click to expand...

OK, now we pretend that you don't know about various Merkinanaian right wing and fundamentalist christian groups are funding anti-abortion protesters over here? Not to mention the likes of the "Christian" Legal Centre, who always crop up in any relevant legal cases?

Is that it now?

ETA geographical info added.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Really none of your business, now is it?

If someone says they were in silent prayer for unborn babies, you should believe them.
Click to expand...
That wasn't what he said, or what he was charged and convicted of. He notified council that he was conducting a demonstration in defiance of the law. That's what he said he was doing, and that's what he was convicted of.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
OK, now we pretend that you don't know about various right wing and fundamentalist christian groups are funding anti-abortion protesters over here? Not to mention the likes of the "Christian" Legal Centre, who always crop up in any relevant legal cases?

Is that it now?
Click to expand...
Not the thread topic.
 
Mojo said:
No
Click to expand...
Then it's not relevant. Unless you want to judge legal questions on the basis of biblical teachings, then there's no point in considering biblical teachings. And I'm pretty sure you don't want to judge legal questions on the basis of biblical teachings.
 
Thermal said:
That wasn't what he said, or what he was charged and convicted of. He notified council that he was conducting a demonstration in defiance of the law. That's what he said he was doing, and that's what he was convicted of.
Click to expand...
He was demonstrating solely through the terrible offensive act of silent prayer.

Oh my!! Oh the horror!! Oh the humanity!!

Call the Black & Tans!!!!
 
Thermal said:
He notified council that he was conducting a demonstration in defiance of the law.
Click to expand...
No, he did not. He notified them that he would be praying at a certain time and location. He believed he was doing so legally. In fact, in an encounter with police a week before the one for which he was charged, the police told him that he was doing so legally.

And you keep calling it a "demonstration" all you want, but that "demonstration" consisted of silently praying. Calling his praying a demonstration doesn't mean he wasn't charged and convicted of praying. Because that is in fact what he was charged and convicted for.
 
Hercules56 said:
He was demonstrating solely through the terrible offensive act of silent prayer.

Oh my!! Oh the horror!! Oh the humanity!!

Call the Black & Tans!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, we already established that you don't understand much about many things which happened in Ireland.

Why on earth mention the Black and Tans there? Or are you after a pint of pale ale and stout?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom