If one or more persons take "offense", that is not a reason for censorship. As long as the prevailing laws of the land are not broken, free speech must be protected. I wonder how many people were "offended" by the forthright views and actions of Wilberforce, Pankhurst and many many more? The "I am offended" group belong in the same skip as the "I am owed compensation for (insert reason here)" group. Wastrels, the lot of 'em.
When you refer to Remembrance Sunday, I suspect you have in mind to a religious service taking place not in private premises (like a church or a barracks) but in a public street. Members of the public have the right to pass and repass and to speak, if they choose. The people holding the event, by deciding to hold it in an open public place, naturally open themselves to possible interruptions. This is only to be expected. They do not, however, expect to be assaulted or threatened with assault. Incidentally, I would greatly like to pay respect and honour to those who gave their lives for ours, but I am offended by the way the religionists always hi-jack Remembrance Day events and turn them into religious mumbo-jumbo.
Sharing distasteful views and spitting on any other human being are not the same. One often deserves indifference, the other a smack in the face. I'll let you choose which is which
The term "Hate Crime" is usually used to refer to crimes (such as assault, harassment, etc.) committed for the motive of hatred against the victim's race, religion, etc. That motive is an aggravating factor, justifying a more severe sentence on conviction. In practice, proving what the defendant has done is hard enough for a prosecutor; proving what his motive was may be even harder. Perhaps you have in mind "Hate Speech" which is rather different. That is when the use of certain speech is in itself an offence - see for example the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. The various Acts dealing with this topic over the past 30 years have created a complex pattern, with some few items which are clearly forbidden, some items which are specifically allowed, and (most) items where it is not simple to work out what the position is. I doubt whether calmly advocating a reasoned amendment to a law could ever be "Hate Speech" - but the kinds of arguments you have hypothetically put forward are rarely made calmly or reasonably.
Thanks Pete a great example of how our liberties have been eroded constantly since Labour came in to power and this lot continue to keep up the good work
The laws about hate speech enhance the liberties of the people who are the victims of the hate speech, but reduce the liberties of the people making the hate speech. That is what laws often do, and it is not all erosion. Nevertheless, I think freedom of speech should be given a more prominent role. No government has ever passed a "Freedom of Speech Act" defining and guaranteeing freedom of speech. Fortunately we have the Human Rights Act and the ECHR, which goes some way towards filling the gap.
Bollox! If someone is being a knob, then I will tell them so. If they take offence to that, then fack them! As for immigrants and Rememberance Sunday, then every normal person will see that as wrong. Kick them in the baws and send them back to Pakistan with their Kalashnikov stuck up their azz!
This can only get worse. As soon as you introduce phrases like 'hate crime' the great unwashed are going to grab it and use it as a shield at every opportunity. 'Cyber-bullying' is another cute little word that gets far too much airplay; now every kid that gets told a few home truths claims to be the victim of cyber-bullying, and that's not something they'll grow out of if we all fling ours arms up in moral outrage and cuddle the little bastard to death. Human beings are apt to say unsavoury things to one another, it's always been this way. It's a case of taking a little of what's bad for you in order to make you better. That normally happens in the playground at an early age, but it seems nowadays that adults want to shield their offspring from everything the world flings at them, and more often than not that's the wrong thing to do. We're growing up in a world where we can't do anything cos Health and Safety won't allow it, and can't say anything cos the Moral Majority won't hear of it. We'll end up housebound, glue to a heavily censored internet, making a living from suing anyone that dares to speak their mind on the grounds that 'they hurt my ears/eyes'.
Nothing really offends me that much, . But this makes my piss boil, and quite honestly scares me at where the future lies
Check this pearl out BBC Sport - Roy Hodgson: Andros Townsend says joke was a compliment beggars belief.
quite worrying. you dont see that up my way, i sense at times a bit of tension in some of the posts on here, starting to understand why.
i remember seeing this on t'internet....what a crap piece of 'journalism'..she spends most of her time kissing arses..
And the test of her time behaving like a Catherine Tate character...' You disrespecting my family...'
If you edit hours of footage you can make it say whatever you want. Youtube has a lot to answer for. What's it like in your street/village/town? That's what it's like in the rest of the country, apart from the odd chest-puffing incident, so let's not go down the race/religion route. Even the media are starting to back away from that.
