British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
No, that did happen. I don't have a significant problem with this as they are exercising free speech.
That some people will interpret this as a call for genocide is incidental to their right to say it.
Protests and demonstrations in public spaces are an intrinsic part of this country's history and you're a bunch of fascists for wanting to suppress them.
Check France and Italy where protests are a big thing done regularly.
They don't go to politicians houses.
France is probably the gold standard for protests being part of civil society and daily life. Protests make or break laws routinely, they change the course of national discourse.
They don't go after families of politicians
No, that did happen. I don't have a significant problem with this as they are exercising free speech.
That some people will interpret this as a call for genocide is incidental to their right to say it.
I have a problem with whomever authorized the use of an iconic building for speech that favours terrorists actually.
Or is anyone allowed at any time to project any word or symbol over that building?
Free speech is about allowing anyone to shout that, to write that online and to publish that if they find someone who wants to publish them. That would be normal.
No-one authorised it.
If its hate speech then it's illegal. Otherwise its OK.
The meaning is disputed. I'm never a fan of the geniuses who know. Ultimately courts decide these things
Check France and Italy where protests are a big thing done regularly.
They don't go to politicians houses.
France is probably the gold standard for protests being part of civil society and daily life. Protests make or break laws routinely, they change the course of national discourse.
They don't go after families of politicians
Its because our politicians made it so hard to protest people do this
Folk shouldn't be protesting outside someone's house in this way.
While we're on the subject, what would folks opinion be of a MP using their parliamentary privelege to arrange a protest blocking access to parliament?
Folk shouldn't be protesting outside someone's house in this way.
While we're on the subject, what would folks opinion be of a MP using their parliamentary privelege to arrange a protest blocking access to parliament?
Change rules so that no one is legally allowed to block access to parliament, it's a core vital function of society which shouldn't be legally disruptable.
As long as the rules permit it (no idea if that's the case, but i assume it is as you mentioned that) the MP is allowed to, even if i find it horrible to do so. But change those rules
The meaning is disputed. I'm never a fan of the geniuses who know. Ultimately courts decide these things
Sure but why should it be a free for all to use public buildings??? it's not like you have a human right to do what you want with public property, i don't get it.
Free speech isn't free platforming or free access to unique iconic public buildings.
Unless it's dangerous or doing some damage or something then I can't see an issue
Plenty of occasions where political messages have been displayed on public buildings. In fact, the FA were roundly criticised for not lighting Wembley up in Jewish colours as they have done for previous victims of terrorism.
As far as who gets to decide what is racist, the usual benchmark is the recipients get to decide, which in this case is Jewish people.
Plenty of occasions where political messages have been displayed on public buildings. In fact, the FA were roundly criticised for not lighting Wembley up in Jewish colours as they have done for previous victims of terrorism.
As far as who gets to decide what is racist, the usual benchmark is the recipients get to decide, which in this case is Jewish people.
Ok but that happened because the actual owners of the building (and/or the democratically tasked managers of the building) decided that right? not someone else?
I don't care if it's racist or not i am asking how it is possible to simply allow anyone to cover in images/writing other buildings they don't own
It's aesthetically really unpleasant, isn't the look of historical buildings possibly the most important reason to preserve them??
I agree it's hideous, as are the palaces of Westminster, but I wouldn't go as far as to say they shouldn't be preserved because we are pretty much stuck with them for touristy reasons.
So in the UK it's perfectly legal to project any imagery of any color to any building for as long as you like? or that works only for public buildings?
? If it's free speech, it can be racist free speech and it shouldn't matter (if something akin to the 1a is in place).
But ye true the UK probably doesn't have any right to speech given hate speech laws exist
We don't have the 1A because we don't have a written constitution to amend, more a collection of documents and conventions developed over many hundreds of years.
Of course there's a right to free speech, as long as it doesn't breach hate speech laws. You can stand on your soapbox at Speaker's Corner or anywhere else and rant and rave about immigration if you want, but if you start saying that brown skinned people are intrinsically criminal you can be arrested because your right to spout hateful racism does not trump the right of brown skinned people to go about their everyday life without being harassed and intimidated by you.
We don't have the 1A because we don't have a written constitution to amend, more a collection of documents and conventions developed over many hundreds of years.
Of course there's a right to free speech, as long as it doesn't breach hate speech laws. You can stand on your soapbox at Speaker's Corner or anywhere else and rant and rave about immigration if you want, but if you start saying that brown skinned people are criminals you can be arrested.
Ok so except for hate speech however defined, you can project anything on any public building? because i don't understand how that can be a norm, not for free speech reasons but for aesthetic reasons... i don't think people would be allowed to project images of pork meat on a mosquee, or am i wrong?
I think you're right that projecting pork meat onto a mosque or synagogue would be a very clear act of racial harassment and against the law, as would forcing pork through the letterboxes of people who you know are Muslim or Jewish.
So I'd advise you against doing any of those things.
I think you're right that projecting pork meat onto a mosque or synagogue would be a very clear act of racial harassment and against the law, as would forcing pork through the letterboxes of Muslim or Jewish people.
So I'd advise you against doing any of those things.
Ok so you can't project pork because deriding a religion is racial harassment (wtf has race to do with religious rules?), can you project the videos of hamas attacks on 10 7 on a mosquee?
Why the hell are people allowed to project things on buildings they don't own? that's the part i don't understand, it's a very basic property right violation
If it's a public building then it's owned by the public and the act of sending light rays to it doesn't materially affect the building, so you're not damaging it.
I'd still advise against setting up your projector to beam videos of 7/10 onto a mosque. That will probably fall foul of race hate laws in the same way that assuming that all Jewish people are pro-Israel is antisemitic.
If it's a public building then it's owned by the public and the act of sending light rays to it doesn't materially affect the building, so you're not damaging it.
.
Ye which is why i was assuming they were authorized by the public entity in charge of that building.
The idea that changing the appearance of something however temporarily doesn't affect materially something is... really weird. The look of something is one of it's material characteristics.
