Freedom of speech - contentious thread

[Saracen]

....

Living without violence should be a basic human without the threat as well.

Indeed, and we have laws about using violence, and about inciting it, and if you do either you very likely will be held to account for it. But it's worth noting that neither sets of laws actually prevent all such incidents. Having a notional "right" to something doesn't mean it'll never happen.


But there's a problem with the "dog-whistle" argument and, in a nutshell, it's this .... how do you avoid chucking baby out with the bathwater, and, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

One of the biggest single protectors of all the freedoms we take for granted in modern, 'liberal' and 'democratic' societies, is the right to free speech .... subject to the limitations of the law, like incitement to violence.

And about the first thing autocrats and dictators try to dismantle is that right, the right to criticise, the right to express opinions, and to do so even if they mock or, yes, offend.

There is a right to not be subjected to violence, but I'm utterly unaware of any right to not be offended. Start chipping away at that and we run the risk, via the law of unintended consequences, sich as ending up with a Putin, a Kim Jong Un or an Erdogan (or Saddam Hussein, Ghaddafi or Attilla the Hun) running the joint.

An example is BoJo's now infamous article. He was actually arguing that Muslim women should be allowed to burka-ize, or whatever, if they wish, even if they look ridiculous. And, on an objective basis, there is more than a passing resemblance to the garb a bank robber would wear (i.e. covered head to foot, usually in black, with face covered, and you don't have to be inspired to get the reason for the letterbox analogy.

Is this a ridiculous look? Well, sorry, but IMHO, yes it is. Does that mean I want to see it banned? Hell, no.

I think Muslim women should wear whatever they damn well please BUT .... don't tell me I don't have a right to, a) think it looks daft, and b) say so. Because down that path lies either political or religious autocracy. We've already seen how some religious types react to any mockery or criticism, or failure to believe what they say you should. No Muslim has the right to kill others because they mock the Prophet (such as Charlie Ebdo) any more than the Crusaders had the right to invade Islamic lands for the grave offence of having the temerity to not be Christian.

Here's the thing. Whether Christian, Muslim or Atheist (or anything else) you should have the rights to believe what you wish, express it via the wearing of crucifixes, Stars of David, Turbans, kurpans or, yes, burkas, right up to the point where your belief system impinges on the identical right of other people to not believe what you do, and express it.

Sacrifice that, and we are on a path to burning witches at the stake, the Spanish inquisition or, yes, ISIS (or whatever we're supposed to call them this week).

So if I think burkas are daft and make people look ridiculous, I'm entitled to say so just as the burka-wearer is entitled to say my jeans-and-t-shirt make me look like a '60's hippy-reject, my beard looks like the rear-end of a sheep and my butt looks big, enormous even, in those jeans and by the way, what's with the tears in them? Can't afford new ones?

Two things.

First, just because I can say a burka looks like a bank-robber outfit doesn't mean I would.

Second, I support the right to wear a burka except in situations where it prevents necessary interactions (like where identity is an issue) or for security reasons. Then, the same ID and security rules as apply to the rest of us take precedence.

[philehidiot]

Also, as I understand it, the material he was reading for some social media channel was promptly deleted.

Yeh one of the criticisms of the appeals court was that if a contempt had occurred (bearing in mind that they did not say what he did that was in contempt which is bizarre - how can you not know what you've done wrong??) then yes there was definitely a rush to get it seen to ASAP. However, he deleted the live stream from the internet as soon as he was asked to and as a result there was absolutely no rush to convict. Once he deleted it, the case should have been adjourned in order that both sides could prepare their cases properly. The appeal Judge's ruling is very damning given the sheer number of procedural errors which he says went "far beyond" just a couple of technical mistakes.

I personally find this deeply disturbing that someone can end up in prison with so many elements of the judicial process being skipped and it taking 2 months to see any rectification of this. Also, he's lucky in that he has a lot of supporters donating to his legal fund. If they can do it to him, they can do it to anyone.

Regardless, I hope that his repeat trial is properly covered by the press and that he is subjected to proper scrutiny. Guilty or not, we should know. That, too is part of British justice. Given what apparently happened to him in prison, I expect if he's found innocent he'll be suing. That will also be interesting to watch.

Also, interesting to hear the journalist perspective regarding defamation, etc.

[peterb]

On similar lines, there is the storm in a tea cup over Boris Johnson's comments about the Burkha.

[Corky34]

<Snip>I'm honestly not sure what I think about Tommy Robinson but this was an absolutely disgusting abuse of power....

My understanding is that he was serving a suspended sentence for breaking reporting restrictions on a previous case and despite that went ahead and broke reporting restrictions again, he had already been found guilty and was serving a probation period so doing the same thing he had already been found guilty of was stupid to say the least.

Reporting restrictions are a good example of freedom of speech not being absolute, they're put in place so a defendant can't claim the case has been unfairly influenced and get the case dismissed. What TR did on two separate occasions (afaik) was to live stream to FB from outside the court, if anyone on the jury has seen that live stream, or there was even the potential for it to be seen, the defendants could have put forward a motion to have the case dismissed.

It wasn't an abuse of power IMO, it was making sure the scumbags who were facing trail can't get away with what they did because of a simple technicality.

[wazzickle]

Indeed, and we have laws about using violence, and about inciting it, and if you do either you very likely will be held to account for it. But it's worth noting that neither sets of laws actually prevent all such incidents. Having a notional "right" to something doesn't mean it'll never happen.


But there's a problem with the "dog-whistle" argument and, in a nutshell, it's this .... how do you avoid chucking baby out with the bathwater, and, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

One of the biggest single protectors of all the freedoms we take for granted in modern, 'liberal' and 'democratic' societies, is the right to free speech .... subject to the limitations of the law, like incitement to violence.

And about the first thing autocrats and dictators try to dismantle is that right, the right to criticise, the right to express opinions, and to do so even if they mock or, yes, offend.

There is a right to not be subjected to violence, but I'm utterly unaware of any right to not be offended. Start chipping away at that and we run the risk, via the law of unintended consequences, sich as ending up with a Putin, a Kim Jong Un or an Erdogan (or Saddam Hussein, Ghaddafi or Attilla the Hun) running the joint.

An example is BoJo's now infamous article. He was actually arguing that Muslim women should be allowed to burka-ize, or whatever, if they wish, even if they look ridiculous. And, on an objective basis, there is more than a passing resemblance to the garb a bank robber would wear (i.e. covered head to foot, usually in black, with face covered, and you don't have to be inspired to get the reason for the letterbox analogy.

Is this a ridiculous look? Well, sorry, but IMHO, yes it is. Does that mean I want to see it banned? Hell, no.

I think Muslim women should wear whatever they damn well please BUT .... don't tell me I don't have a right to, a) think it looks daft, and b) say so. Because down that path lies either political or religious autocracy. We've already seen how some religious types react to any mockery or criticism, or failure to believe what they say you should. No Muslim has the right to kill others because they mock the Prophet (such as Charlie Ebdo) any more than the Crusaders had the right to invade Islamic lands for the grave offence of having the temerity to not be Christian.

Here's the thing. Whether Christian, Muslim or Atheist (or anything else) you should have the rights to believe what you wish, express it via the wearing of crucifixes, Stars of David, Turbans, kurpans or, yes, burkas, right up to the point where your belief system impinges on the identical right of other people to not believe what you do, and express it.

Sacrifice that, and we are on a path to burning witches at the stake, the Spanish inquisition or, yes, ISIS (or whatever we're supposed to call them this week).

So if I think burkas are daft and make people look ridiculous, I'm entitled to say so just as the burka-wearer is entitled to say my jeans-and-t-shirt make me look like a '60's hippy-reject, my beard looks like the rear-end of a sheep and my butt looks big, enormous even, in those jeans and by the way, what's with the tears in them? Can't afford new ones?

Two things.

First, just because I can say a burka looks like a bank-robber outfit doesn't mean I would.

Second, I support the right to wear a burka except in situations where it prevents necessary interactions (like where identity is an issue) or for security reasons. Then, the same ID and security rules as apply to the rest of us take precedence.

Re: your first line. Yes, laws and social conventions may not succeed in entirely eradicating ills in society, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce harm. Doing so might mean a combination of different laws, different enforcement, and social change. It might never succeed completely, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

You make some good points, but you're missing out the ability of humans - particularly those who have studied, for example, the law, or philosophy, etc etc, to break things down into component parts and analyze the nuance. We avoid chucking the baby out with the bathwater by stopping to think, ask questions, consider our judgements, consult others, etc etc, rather than apply laws or strictures blindly.

There is no right to be offended, of course. My views on all religions is that they're ridiculous, the last bastion of the weak and scared who don't like the idea of dying or the idea that morality is a human endeavour, not a god-given one. It's make-believe, on a particularly grandiose scale, that we should be growing out of as a race. Religious ideas do not deserve any level of protection over others. If you have the right to try to convert me to your religion, I should have the right to laugh in your face and ridicule your views. However, the nuance that seems to be missing in this argument is that I'm not ridiculing you. I might think you are in fact ridiculous, but I won't say it, because that's the part that's offensive.

All these 'down the line' or 'slippery slope' arguments simply miss out the fact that we have the power to educate ourselves and then say 'ok, here's the line'. We don't say 'religious people should be free from persecution' and then allow that to lead logically to 'all religious people get to say whatever the hell they want, and non-religious people can never criticise them'. We apply nuance and say 'you can believe whatever the hell you want, and meh I guess if you want to shout from the rooftops about your newfound nirvana I guess you can but I'm gonna keep on eating cows & bacon tyvm'. Religious autocracy could well be the end result if we don't stop the arguments down the line.

I agree with you on burkas. I think they're a sign of oppression, and don't like the idea of any system of thought that tells people to desex themselves; that your 'freedom from' is more valuable than your 'freedom to'; that all men are vicious sexual beings, and that women need protection from them, and that they're victims. The problem is, these people are victims, victims of absurd religious propaganda that doesn't actually relate closely to the teachings of Allah, in the same way modern evangelicals do not in any way act in the way Jesus told them to. They are victims, people who've been told by their entire life system that it's the right thing to do, for various reasons, and get threatened with murder for apostasy, and, I believe, even in some sects of Islam, simply for relaxing from a burka to a hijab.

On top of all that, they get abused in the streets, day in, day out. OK, when there's security concerns, I can understand reasons to change the rules (nuance). And do they look ridiculous to me? Yes, but so does pretty much everyone else in this instagram, basic society, with their fifteen layers of makeup, cookie-cutter appearances, status-obsessed suits, bishops and priests, blah blah blah. Everyone's got their cross to bear, just because one particular cross looks different to others doesn't give the right to abuse them. Do we need to point out that they look different to the rest of us? I mean that's pretty clear already. He knew what he was doing when he said that, whether or not he couched it in other terms. Boris is a disgusting human being and unfortunately an astute politician, even if he comes across as a bozo. Look at this recent tea bollocks. He's a master of 'ruling-class niceties'. He should have been jettisoned from the public sphere a long time ago, but the media seem to fall for him so often, and the Overton window is far enough to the right at the moment that his views are getting defended even from portions of the left. Bleh. Whole thing leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

[Ttaskmaster]

I think there is an element of attention-seeking in such assertions, though, and the trend toward denying big things like the moon landings, or cooking up a conspiracy theory is very much in fashion. While it's fine to openly and genuinely debate such things, there is also the element of not entertaining people who just use it for attention.

Does that impede free speech? Yes, and no. You are all free, as far as we're concerned, to express whatever opinions you wish in whatever way you wish ..... elsewhere. While here, well .... our house, our rules.

What about basic manners and common courtesy, though?

To deny the holocaust, for example, is both a symptom and a cause of a particularly perverse form of anti-semitism

Why is the Holocaust always anti-semitic, when the Jewish component was only 32% of the total and almost as many Soviets were victims? It's always the six million Jews, but with far fewer mentions of the twelve million others also killed...

Here's the thing. Whether Christian, Muslim or Atheist (or anything else) you should have the rights to believe what you wish, express it via the wearing of crucifixes, Stars of David, Turbans, kurpans or, yes, burkas, right up to the point where your belief system impinges on the identical right of other people to not believe what you do, and express it.

What about cultural conflict?
I've long held the belief that society can succeed as multi-racial and multi-religious, but never multi-cultural due to the conflicts that arise. To my knowledge, the various styles of headwear are culturally optional rather than religious - To that end, I'd suggest that such things cannot be banned... but, as with things like balaclavas, hoodies, gang colours, bike colours, football shirts and motorcycle helmets, individual premises should be free to prohibit them.

[Corky34]

Why is the Holocaust always anti-semitic, when the Jewish component was only 32% of the total and almost as many Soviets were victims? It's always the six million Jews, but with far fewer mentions of the twelve million others also killed...

Just guessing as I've not looked at loads of sources on death tolls, but i would guess the Holocaust is always seen as anti-Semitic because Semites made up the largest proportion of murders, if it was six million out of twelve then that would be 50%.

I'm awful at maths and i don't want to use my brain to work out what 32% would be in numbers.

[Ttaskmaster]

Just guessing as I've not looked at loads of sources on death tolls, but i would guess the Holocaust is always seen as anti-Semitic because Semites made up the largest proportion of murders, if it was six million out of twelve then that would be 50%.

Based on estimates, it's up to 6 million, out of 18 million total. Soviet citizens were about 4.5 million and POWs another 3.3. The groups persecuted also included homosexuals, the disabled, Romani, Freemasons and Jehovas Witnesses.

[wazzickle]

Why is the Holocaust always anti-semitic, when the Jewish component was only 32% of the total and almost as many Soviets were victims? It's always the six million Jews, but with far fewer mentions of the twelve million others also killed....

https://tenor.com/search/blow-brains-out-gifs

Edit: nsfw, and to be specific, this is how you make me feel, not what I want you to do, in case anyone gets upset

[ik9000]

Based on estimates, it's up to 6 million, out of 18 million total. Soviet citizens were about 4.5 million and POWs another 3.3. The groups persecuted also included homosexuals, the disabled, Romani, Freemasons and Jehovas Witnesses.

as well as Christians, slavs, persistent POW escapees, Czechs, Slovaks, and just about anyone who stood up to Nazism/Nazi idealogy as the Germans swept through Europe. But the final solution planned and implemented by Heydrich was deliberately targeted at Jews IIRC - they merely extended the programme to the others out of convenience. Pre-war Nazi propaganda was clear it was the Jews they blamed for all Germany's problems. It didn't just happen accidently.

[peterb]

What about basic manners and common courtesy, though?

Well, yes, we encourage that too - although it is fairly subjective. I have a dislike of swearing and in 95% of cases a swear word can be removed from a post without altering the meaning. Again, what is considered to be a swear word is subjective - but I have a low bar!

[philehidiot]

Stuff about anti-Semitism that I can't be bothered copying

Probably because in his lovely little book, Hitler said he was doing the work of God by exterminating the Jews. Nice chap. Liked dogs.

[Saracen]

....

What about basic manners and common courtesy, though?

....

What about cultural conflict?

....

On the first point, while I haven't (that I remember) put it quite like that, it's more or less where I've long been coming from in relation to HEXUS rules, and is more or less the yardstick I use.

Over the years, there've been a number of members on here with whom I've had some phenomenal arguments, wjere we come at many issues (Bredit being a prime example) from entirely different perspectives. So long as those arguments are kept courteous, anyone can disagree all they wish. Itvis, after all, the best way, bar none, to challenge each other's views.

As soon as you lose the courtesy, you lose the ability to objectively argue the issues.

So yeah, I'm wholeheartedly in favour of manners and courtesy. But then, the same probkems occur as I referred to earlier .... where to draw the line, and who watches the watchers.

In HEXUS terms, the mod and admin team determine where and how to draw the line, subject to oversight by the board owner.

Where I draw the line is where I feel it's right, and how I draw it depends on how and how far it's been ignored. Usually, if someone gets a bit carried away, a warning suffices. In past years, some people ignored warning after warning, and explanations of why we set linss where we do, and pushed, pyshedcand pushed more. That is precisely WHY, these days, an ignored warning results in immediate action. The result is not many ignore warnings, and even fewer do it twice, and so, rarely doI have to take action. Which suits me fine.



As for cultural conflict, in general and non-HEXUS contexts, part of the problem is that it can be hard to tell where culture begins and religion ends.

For example, I've heard many muslims claim the burka is religious observance, and many other muslims argue that, no, it's cultural not religious. How the bleep am I, a non-muslim, supposed to arbitrate that and decide who's right?

My personal view is that this country has some well-established cultural standards, one of which is to be accepting of the beliefs of others and their right to them, provided they don't seek to supplant the indigenous culture with their own.

That, is an "acceptance" to far.

An example. Relatives of mine are Jehovah's Witnesses. Lovely, warm, friendly people, too. However, their religious views are not mine. They are welcome in my home any time, but any attempt at preaching is not. Leave that outside, and we''ll,get on fine. Preach to me or any other guests and they'll be shown the door. My tolerance and acceptance has a limit. I don't shove my beljefs on them, and I expect the same courtesy in return. Belief what you want, but don't preach it in my home.

[Saracen]

Probably because in his lovely little book, Hitler said he was doing the work of God by exterminating the Jews. Nice chap. Liked dogs.

Big dogs or little dogs? Hate little dogs, yappy little beggars.


On a more serious note, I have reason for detesting yappy dogs, but it's well and truly off-topic.

[philehidiot]

That, is an "acceptance" to far.

An example. Relatives of mine are Jehovah's Witnesses. Lovely, warm, friendly people, too. However, their religious views are not mine. They are welcome in my home any time, but any attempt at preaching is not. Leave that outside, and we''ll,get on fine. Preach to me or any other guests and they'll be shown the door. My tolerance and acceptance has a limit. I don't shove my beljefs on them, and I expect the same courtesy in return. Belief what you want, but don't preach it in my home.

This is pretty much my view. I think we also have to remember that in the majority of Islamic countries the full top to toe covering is illegal and seen as extreme. In Turkey it would get you nicked.

Culture is an interesting thing. It basically is an expression of the behavioural elements which have been accepted by the group as in that combination they allow that society to function and prosper. So, for example, in some places there may be strict adherence to certain rules surrounding speech whereas in others the rules are far looser but both societies function in that everyone understands the culture and these individual behaviours integrate well with the variations on archetypal stories which they have integrated into their behaviours (stories such as those in the bible or Pinocchio. This means that if you take elements of your culture and try and use them in another, the end result is often dysfunction. I was once offered a really cushy job in the middle east with free accommodation, excellent pay and so on. I rejected on two grounds – one the language (I’m bad with languages and it’s not good enough to voluntarily go somewhere else to work without being able to speak to the people you’re working with) and their response was “everyone else speaks English!” which wasn’t good enough for me. The second reason was the highly religious culture – I’d not be interested in learning about their (or any) religion and it was an integral part of their culture and that would make me an obnoxious foreigner there for the money and not willing to learn about and abide by their culture whilst I was there. This in unacceptable to me and so I didn’t take the job – I won’t be expecting others to make accommodations for me or tolerating my ignorance of their culture. I expect no less from others.

[Saracen]

It also has to be tajen into consideration that while UK culture is pretty tolerant of other cultures, some of those other cultures are not very, or not at all, tolerant of ours.

There are, for instance, more than a few countries where ignorance might well land you in serious trouble, such as jail, because ignorance of their laws isn't an excuse. Being an ignorant foreigner might get you some lattitude .... but it might not.

There are still more than a few countries where, personally, I would not set foot as a tourist, much less work there. Many of those middle-eastern ountries where pay is especially high are so high for a reason. I know people that have done it for a few years, minted it and either come back with enough seed capital to start a business, or enough ib the retirement pot to retire years earlier than otherwise would have been the case.

Great opportunities, but by 'eck do you need to be careful, and wide-awake to the risks. Personally, much of the middle-east is off--limits, and nor would I even visit Russia, Iran, North Korea Libya or, under Erdogan, even Turkey.