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...
so naive
what happens when prime minister badenoch includes anti-zionism within the definition of hate speech
beware the Twitter Police (aka the Police)
beware the Twitter Police (aka the Police)
should start arresting journalists and politicians who in any way or form condone or agree with anything Hamas said or did, maybe at that point the jalfrezis of the world will understand why hate speech laws are always infinitely worse than any problem they purportedly should try to solve and that's why a complete ban on all hate speech laws with absolutely no exception is a fundamental building block of any democracy which wants to be a working liberal one
Support for proscribed terrorist organisations such as hamas is an offense in the UK
The home secretary called for people chanting that to be arrested. Fortunately we still have some sort of judicial system and you would have to prove an offense such as supporting hamas or breaking hate speech laws.
I'm very pleased to say that that doesn't mean asking some people on the internet what they know it means.
The home secretary called for people chanting that to be arrested. Fortunately we still have some sort of judicial system and you would have to prove an offense such as supporting hamas or breaking hate speech laws.
I'm very pleased to say that that doesn't mean asking some people on the internet what they know it means.
well so it's like I said, supporting Hamas CLAIMS isn't a crime, while supporting neonazi or otherwise racist claims is (for now).
so as I wrote, when the right governs in the future, maybe they criminalize supporting Hamas CLAIMS as well and that's when I hope the left will understand that hate speech laws are fully incompatible with liberal democracy.
Hate speech laws can be written to include many leftist ideas as hateful. including talking too badly about rich people.
It depends what the claim is. Neonazis might support zionism or even netanuahu but you aint going to be arrested for supporting those claims.
should start arresting journalists and politicians who in any way or form condone or agree with anything Hamas said or did, maybe at that point the jalfrezis of the world will understand why hate speech laws are always infinitely worse than any problem they purportedly should try to solve and that's why a complete ban on all hate speech laws with absolutely no exception is a fundamental building block of any democracy which wants to be a working liberal one
Hate speech laws here work pretty well. They're never going to be perfect, which is something all grown ups understand, Luciom.
Hate speech laws here work pretty well. They're never going to be perfect, which is something all grown ups understand, Luciom.
As i said, i am convinced you would change your mind if/when the actual right ever gets to power and writes them, and enforces them, according to their preferences.
You might think those laws work well for now for you because they are being enforced by people of your political tribe (or adjacent) and written by the same.
When/if people who have opposite values to yours write and enforce them you will understand what i mean.
It seems a valid point but I've long argued and still believe then when the far right comes to power, free speech laws will protect us from didly squat.
Hate speech laws can be written to include many leftist ideas as hateful. including talking too badly about rich people.
That will be veyy different laws because there no law against speaking badly about people. Sure if there's a mood like with the french revolution to kill all rich people then supporting that would be illegal.
It seems a valid point but I've long argued and still believe then when the far right comes to power, free speech laws will protect us from didly squat.
What would protect you would be a constitutional-equivalent provision that doesn't allow the goverment to restrict speech even if hateful. Not laws, very clear, unequivocal, constitutional elements proscribing the government from doing that.
Like, you know, the USA has.
And the path toward that is by dismantling all hate speech laws first, then working to change the constitution (which in your country is a fuzzy concept as it is non written and so on)
USA constitution isn't going to protect them from didly squat either.
Even in less extreme times, an old bitsof paper interpreted by 'wise men' is a bad mistake
I know we love hitler references so maybe worth remembering that germany had had a decent consitiution that included freedom of speech. And freedom of religion! Bits of paper protect from you nothing once the extremists get power.
USA constitution isn't going to protect them from didly squat either.
Even in less extreme times, an old bitsof paper interpreted by 'wise men' is a bad mistake
I know we love hitler references so maybe worth remembering that germany had had a decent consitiution that included freedom of speech. And freedom of religion! Bits of paper protect from you nothing once the extremists get power.
In the USA without that constitution people would have been jailed because of their vocal opposition to the covid vaccine (as the majority of democrats asked for), a lot of flag burners would have been jailed, a lot of other niche ideology groups would have been persecuted and so on.
And Trump won't be able to censor anyone (not that he would like to, he doesn't care), thanks to that constitution.
Sometimes the constitution doesn't hold (because the enforcers get captured as well), sure, but that means no other principle in society holds.
But as long as you have a working democracy, with free speech in the constitution people stop being put in jail for speech, simple as that. As the USA proves.
Ofc the USA has other provisions that make it harder for hitler wonnabe to get the entire power. But if Farage wins election he is not going to be Hitler. But thanks to the ABSURD follies of hate speech laws, he will be able to put people who say things he disagree with in prison, within the law.
And even if leftists deserve that in full, it's still not a good way to run a country
The USA demonstrates how stupid and dangerous it is. Some will ignore the dangers until after it's too late. The constitution is an aid to extremism, not a protection from it.
As usual I dont expect us to agree.
But if Farage wins election he is not going to be Hitler. But thanks to the ABSURD follies of hate speech laws, he will be able to put people who say things he disagree with in prison, within the law.
And even if leftists deserve that in full, it's still not a good way to run a country
More nonsense. It would depend on him winning with a huge majority and getting legislation through the Lords. The first of those is pretty unlikely.
Speaking of free speech, this is well worth a listen.
Somehwat ironically (although not suprisingly to me) I almost entirely agree with Stephen Fry on this.
But the problem isn't PC, it's that too many have justified (enjoyed might be a better word) an extremely divisive and counter productive method. It's the method of division, shaming and personal attacks that has been such a boon to the extremists and populists. PC does not require any of that. We should oppose it.
A reasonable question is whetehr PC can be implemented well. I thinks so but only if we return to demanding much more from our own side rather than justifying everything.
Who,cares what a pompous self regarding arse like Fry thinks about anything?
Fry once shared a stage with Jordan Peterson, so in the eyes of the loony left he's now "far right".
No, I've always had a much lower opinion of him and his ideas than he obviously does.
I'm old enough to remember him talking down to us when explaining to us how the internet works.
There are far too many Stephen Frys talking about subjects they are laypeople on, and far few informed opinions.
In other, non-celebrity, news, Asma al-Assad the wife of the former Syrian President and mass-murderer, is rumoured to be considering a return to the UK where she has citizenship.
Naturally, and in contrast to the treatment of Shamima Begum from East London who also married a terrorist, the authorities won't object to the billionairess's return.
The USA demonstrates how stupid and dangerous it is. Some will ignore the dangers until after it's too late. The constitution is an aid to extremism, not a protection from it.
As usual I dont expect us to agree.
Free speech? Extremism is on the rise, but it was mostly a non issue in the US until ten years ago. There were always fanatical groups, but they didn't have any power because no one took them seriously, and the damage they did was minimized. Social media and foreign influence have been key factors, but if anything, censorship provokes them.
In other, non-celebrity, news, Asma al-Assad the wife of the former Syrian President and mass-murderer, is rumoured to be considering a return to the UK where she has citizenship.
Naturally, and in contrast to the treatment of Shamima Begum from East London who also married a terrorist, the authorities won't object to the billionairess's return.
Are you arguing Britain should reject her and their kids? Or do you think it should allow British ISIS members to repatriate?
In other, non-celebrity, news, Asma al-Assad the wife of the former Syrian President and mass-murderer, is rumoured to be considering a return to the UK where she has citizenship.
Naturally, and in contrast to the treatment of Shamima Begum from East London who also married a terrorist, the authorities won't object to the billionairess's return.
What makes you think she wouldn't face very severe repercussions if she ever goes back to the UK?
