Tommy Robinson How Is He Viewed In Britain At The Moment

[WILF 47,206]

Sandymere,

i dont happen to agree with you, how do set the bar on what someone finds offensive or dangerous?........Lennon was shot by a bloke who read “Catcher In The Rye” so should that book be banned?

That's the logic of your argument matey.

[sandymere 8,263]

24 minutes ago, WILF said:

Sandymere,

i dont happen to agree with you, how do set the bar on what someone finds offensive or dangerous?........Lennon was shot by a bloke who read “Catcher In The Rye” so should that book be banned?

That's the logic of your argument matey.

There is a judgement attached to every act or admission, society has to make the judgments on what is acceptable and we have processes to do that in this country.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

1 minute ago, sandymere said:

There is a judgement attached to every act or admission, society has to make the judgments on what is acceptable and we have processes to do that in this country.

Wouldn't you agree that censoring opinion is making the situation worse?

That aside there are many external influences unaccountable to the British citizenry that make judgements on what is acceptable and are allowed to influence British law.

[WILF 47,206]

47 minutes ago, sandymere said:

There is a judgement attached to every act or admission, society has to make the judgments on what is acceptable and we have processes to do that in this country.

But society dont make the judgement, that’s precisely the point......the CPS and some judge make the judgement.

There is NO measure of what is or is not offensive or dangerous.....it’s completely down to the authority’s disgression.

By any measure of the imagination that’s bad law surely? 

Let me give an example:

I personally believe that your brand of politics and the way you (I assume) vote and the ideology you support is of utmost danger to our society and our freedom......I genuinely believe that you and other like you have done and are doing more to undermine the liberty and democracy of the UK and in fact the world.

That is a genuinely held belife.....you work to anialate all we have ever held dear and our freedom to protest about it.

Does that mean you should be put in prison ?

I dont think it does but it seems you do? 

Edited June 11, 2018 by WILF

[sandymere 8,263]

But are not the laws an aspect of our society? A society that is the people...................

[ChrisJones 7,975]

4 minutes ago, WILF said:

By any measure of the imagination that’s bad law surely? 

This is the thing though, mate. It's not even law it's a European ruling that offers a guideline on how to interpret that law... That's how freedom of speech becomes hate crime through evolving interpretation. Judges used to be the ones to interpret such now it's dedicated hate crime officers and if we can all agree on one thing with public sector employees it's that they will do what they can to justify their position.

[WILF 47,206]

7 minutes ago, sandymere said:

But are not the laws an aspect of our society? A society that is the people...................

History proves that trying to criminalise that which you disagree with, trying to dismantle a culture and making indigenous people feel second best is the pathway to slaughter......Hitler was first seen as absurd, then he was put in prison........and 50 million dead later nobody was laughing anymore.

[sandymere 8,263]

1 hour ago, ChrisJones said:

Wouldn't you agree that censoring opinion is making the situation worse?

That aside there are many external influences unaccountable to the British citizenry that make judgements on what is acceptable and are allowed to influence British law.

Indeed there are many outside influences but the seminal points remain such as

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”  (Karl Popper in 1945.)

As discussed in an interesting article.

 

http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/should-we-tolerate-the-intolerant

[WILF 47,206]

Theories and fine words, the facts of history teach us otherwise don’t they? 

[ChrisJones 7,975]

7 minutes ago, sandymere said:

Indeed there are many outside influences but the seminal points remain such as

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”  (Karl Popper in 1945.)

As discussed in an interesting article.

 

http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/should-we-tolerate-the-intolerant

We're not differentiating between speech and deeds here though. Freedom of speech doesn't extend the right to aggression.

[Born Hunter 17,775]

8 minutes ago, sandymere said:

Indeed there are many outside influences but the seminal points remain such as

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”  (Karl Popper in 1945.)

As discussed in an interesting article.

 

http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/should-we-tolerate-the-intolerant

The words of a fella who doesn't seem to believe in virtue of reasoned debate or in fact democracy.

If the Tolerant weren't idle and used their freedom of speech to challenge the intolerant his whole premise collapses. If though, even then, the alleged 'intolerant' win the debate then you are forced to re-evaluate whether it's in the interests of democracy to be 'intolerant' of intolerance. 

[ChrisJones 7,975]

1 minute ago, Born Hunter said:

The words of a fella who doesn't seem to believe in virtue of reasoned debate or in fact democracy.

If the Tolerant weren't idle and used their freedom of speech to challenge the intolerant his whole premise collapses. If though, even then, the alleged 'intolerant' win the debate then you are forced to re-evaluate whether it's in the interests of democracy to be 'intolerant' of intolerance. 

I was just about to post... CATO Institute: "Hate Speech" Laws Undermine Free Speech And Equality.

[sandymere 8,263]

I am the tolerant and I challenge the intolerant................

 

Says it all really........

[ChrisJones 7,975]

3 minutes ago, sandymere said:

I am the tolerant and I challenge the intolerant................

I'm the same. I utterly oppose some ideology but because I believe in the system that allows it to be expressed I'll defend that expression.

The guy in the picture is a bellend, IMHO. However, he has every right to salute his fuhrer and I will defend his right. Ironically if the roles were reversed I doubt very much that he would extend me the same courtesy, such is the fickle nature of liberty vs authoritarianism.

[sandymere 8,263]

5 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

I'm the same. I utterly oppose some ideology but because I believe in the system that allows it to be expressed I'll defend that expression.

The guy in the picture is a bellend, IMHO. However, he has every right to salute his fuhrer and I will defend his right. Ironically if the roles were reversed I doubt very much that he would extend me the same courtesy, such is the fickle nature of liberty vs authoritarianism.

 

 

Hence we arrive at

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”  (Karl Popper in 1945.)