Sack this revolting specimen

[ahinton]

Not too long ago, it was illegal to commit a "homosexual act" in the UK. That is what I meant by right. People now have the legal right to commit such acts; before 1967, they didn't. That's a fact.

As for Gove's "British Values", the very words make my blood run cold. The hidden agenda here is that the Tories are essentially anti-human rights and are waging a campaign in preparation for a withdrawal from The European Convention on Human Rights. If they win the next election, they probably will withdraw from it. However, in order to pretend that they aren't against rights (which they are; they always have been), they refer, instead, to "British Rights". So, "we aren't against Human Rights at all. We just have own, unique culture and traditions which we want to respect in this country."

Whilst I suspect that you are broadly correct in your surmise here, I fear that it may go farther than just this; there are some Tories who would like also to see the repeal not only of the UK Human Rights Act but also other similar legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act and, when you take such intent along with the constant curtailing of Legal Aid, it's clearly not simply a matter of withdrawing as a matter of supposed "principle" from ECHR. So, whilst all Tories are by no means "anti-human rights", there are those that would be happy to go beyond mere withdrawal from ECHR.

One of the procedures in the passage of new legislation in Parliament is the declaration, when deemed appropriate, that each such piece is compatible with the UK HRA; I have reason to doubt that this actually works in practice and, in any event, should anyone successfully mount and win a judicial review of any such legislation, a Court would be empowered only to award all the costs of the case against the government; it would then be obliged to issue a Declaration of Incompatibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara...ncompatibility) which would thenceforth be a mere matter of public record as it has no power to force government to change the errant law concerned. In the light of this, even such Parliamentary declarations that new legislation is compatible with UK HRA that are actually made would appear not to be worth the line on the page of in Hansard upon which they'd be written...

[P. G. Tipps]

Similarly, most of our older generations in the 19thc. and 20th c. were brought up, either to know nothing at all about homosexuality, or to learn via the occasional news 'scandal' of some (often famous) person being prosecuted. Whereas slavery seemed 'natural', homosexuality seemed 'unnatural'. In both cases, human beings suffered enormous pain./

Really? I'm not quite sure our ancestors would have been quite that ignorant about homosexuality, tbh. The real difference was that (generally) society had a whole different set of values than is (generally) the case today?

]Like Edward Colston, Kellett-Bowman could (one might argue) be understood as a product of her time, and being a staunch Conservative, considerably more resistant to changing attitudes than the more progressive sections of the population. In her case, I see her as standing on the beach as the tide reached the level of her mouth: in the end she became an irrelevance in the natural course of events.

Well, of course you might well see her like that but others may have seen her as a brave voice crying in the wilderness who might one day be vindicated. Who really knows? Society's mores can ultimately head back in the opposite direction just as easily as they arrived. Wholly unlikely as it may seem to us now, future generations may well experience another type of 'Victorian Age' after our current society is viewed as a horrible failure just like all the others before ... repugnant even!

My instinct is to say, for instance, in the case of the 'street preacher' who was arrested: yes, considering all the circumstances, it WAS a correct legal decision. He deliberately courted the anger of the public and was arrested as much for his own protection. There was clear evidence that he understood his action to be provocative (he covered his sign board in black plastic to avoid any trouble on the bus) and he was charged with a Public Order offence, not for his opinions.

That sounds eminently reasonable, but, as has been suggested elsewhere, exactly the same could easily apply to Gay Pride marches which deeply offend and provoke others? It wasn't the lone street-preacher who was a danger to public order but the youths who deliberately goaded and insulted him, surely. The phrase 'anger of the public' reminds one of 'the voice of the people'. Even today, quite a sizeable slice of the public might well share the preacher's view of things There is no single public and voice.

Put another way, If we consider the scenario of a lone Gay Rights' activist being assaulted by a group of moronic homophobic thugs, would it be right for police officers to arrest the law-abiding activist and then throw him in jail 'for his own protection' because he had been deemed 'a danger to public order'?

Though I might well disagree strongly with the activist, I certainly hope that would not be the case! Assuming no incitement to break the law, everyone should have the basic right to be at least heard in a free society, imv.

As you say this is a thought-provoking topic, French Frank, and certainly a most interesting and admirably hysteria-free discussion to date!

[waldo]

There was a story in the news today about a the number of complaints police now receive relating to "social media" crimes. They now claim that these represent HALF of all complaints they get. Half! It seems as if everyone now believes that they can call the police if someone says something they disagree with or find insulting. Help! He called me a fool! Arrest her! She said something nasty! Given the very, very limited exposure libertarian views get in society - and support they receive from politicians etc - it is not surprising, I suppose. The general belief seems to be that the state should protect each and every individual from hearing views that don't like. Merely being "offended" gives you an automatic right to take action against the offending party.

(It seems to be connected to the widespread, and alarming, belief that the state is more or less completely responsible for the well being of each individual. At some point in the future, I expect you will be able to lodge a complaint with your MP because you aren't happy......)

[amateur51]

Just to put a few things in perspective ...

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/24/two-arrested-over-east-london-attack-on-gay-couple/

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/02/18/gambian-president-yahya-jammeh-gays-vermin-tackled-like/

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/10/03/gambia-leaves-the-commonwealth-days-after-president-told-un-that-gays-want-to-end-human-existence/

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/24/gambia-new-bill-will-ban-homosexuality-and-lgbt-rights-groups/

[teamsaint]

There was a story in the news today about a the number of complaints police now receive relating to "social media" crimes. They now claim that these represent HALF of all complaints they get. Half! It seems as if everyone now believes that they can call the police if someone says something they disagree with or find insulting. Help! He called me a fool! Arrest her! She said something nasty! Given the very, very limited exposure libertarian views get in society - and support they receive from politicians etc - it is not surprising, I suppose. The general belief seems to be that the state should protect each and every individual from hearing views that don't like. Merely being "offended" gives you an automatic right to take action against the offending party.

(It seems to be connected to the widespread, and alarming, belief that the state is more or less completely responsible for the well being of each individual. At some point in the future, I expect you will be able to lodge a complaint with your MP because you aren't happy......)

really? do you REALLY think this is the case?

My experience is that many people have long since decided that the state is definitely not going to be there for their needs in lots of ways, (pensions, higher education, benefits, housing, jobs, to name just a few) and that they need to look after themselves as best they can.

The state seems to be be intrusive in ways that we don't want, (surveillance, layers of bureaucracy to access important services,) and evasive when it comes to actually providing support, such as for example help for the very vulnerable and associated costs.

Libertarian and many other political philosophies do indeed need better discussion and understanding, but the idea that people are increasingly expecting to turn to the state for their every need as a result of lack of exposure to libertarian ideas is the stuff of daily mail fantasies.

[french frank]

Really? I'm not quite sure our ancestors would have been quite that ignorant about homosexuality, tbh. The real difference was that (generally) society had a whole different set of values than is (generally) the case today?

Well, to clarify - and this is only my impression - I think the difference was probably social in the 20th century; the upper classes or sophisticates well aware, the lower classes or masses not. My mother used on occasion to refer to 'things we never heard about when I was young', by which she meant homosexuality (you may gather that we were not even upper middle class! :-) ). I didn't pursue discussion with her, but I suspect she was more bewildered than censorious. But she was of a non-conformist liberal family, not a conservative.

[Re EK-B] Well, of course you might well see her like that but others may have seen her as a brave voice crying in the wilderness who might one day be vindicated. Who really knows? Society's mores can ultimately head back in the opposite direction just as easily as they arrived. Wholly unlikely as it may seem to us now, future generations may well experience another type of 'Victorian Age' after our current society is viewed as a horrible failure just like all the others before ... repugnant even!

It may sadden me, but that could well be right.

That sounds eminently reasonable, but, as has been suggested elsewhere, exactly the same could easily apply to Gay Pride marches which deeply offend and provoke others? It wasn't the lone street-preacher who was a danger to public order but the youths who deliberately goaded and insulted him, surely. The phrase 'anger of the public' reminds one of 'the voice of the people'. Even today, quite a sizeable slice of the public might well share the preacher's view of things There is no single public and voice.

True - but are there not 'prevailing attitudes'?

Put another way, If we consider the scenario of a lone Gay Rights' activist being assaulted by a group of moronic homophobic thugs, would it be right for police officers to arrest the law-abiding activist and then throw him in jail 'for his own protection' because he had been deemed 'a danger to public order'?

That conjures up the picture of a 'known activist' simply walking down the street and being attacked, probably more for being gay than being an activist. In that case, of course the law should protect him/her and and arrest the thugs - their target may be a Downs syndrome person next. Or a boy with ginger hair.

Though I might well disagree strongly with the activist, I certainly hope that would not be the case! Assuming no incitement to break the law, everyone should have the basic right to be at least heard in a free society, imv.

I agree. And in general I feel we have a climate where a reasonable point of view, reasonably put, will be listened to.

As you say this is a thought-proving topic, French Frank, and certainly a most interesting and admirably hysteria-free discussion to date!

You may notice a couple of differences about this (the P&CA) forum. The normal forum emoticons are not allowed and the latest posts don't appear in the What's New? list. A few people have been excluded, a few messages have been deleted (not recently) and a few people have complained that their or their friends are being censored for their views. Censored, perhaps, for their views, no. But the sole intent is to provide a discussion forum where any ideas can be discussed. If they are discussed in intemperate or - yes - provocative ways rational debate is impossible. And I value rational debate. The opinions are not always the problem: it's the ways they're expressed. Does freedom of speech imply: I can say what I like, when I like, how I like, to whomever I like or freedom means nothing?

[waldo]

really? do you REALLY think this is the case?

My experience is that many people have long since decided that the state is definitely not going to be there for their needs in lots of ways, (pensions, higher education, benefits, housing, jobs, to name just a few) and that they need to look after themselves as best they can.

The state seems to be be intrusive in ways that we don't want, (surveillance, layers of bureaucracy to access important services,) and evasive when it comes to actually providing support, such as for example help for the very vulnerable and associated costs.

Libertarian and many other political philosophies do indeed need better discussion and understanding, but the idea that people are increasingly expecting to turn to the state for their every need as a result of lack of exposure to libertarian ideas is the stuff of daily mail fantasies.

Hmmm. I think you are right in many ways. I spoke far too carelessly.

The state is certainly withdrawing at the moment - at least in terms of welfare and it's overall size measured in economic terms. There are also movements towards a different (private, smaller, more exclusive) system of healthcare. It hasn't happened yet, but that is clearly the direction of travel. The "think tanks" and media figures are already out and about, getting public opinion ready for the move. (Drunks should be excluded from A and E! Should drug addicts really be entitled for care? Health system faces crippling deficit!) As someone else has said on this thread, the state is beginning to withdraw from the provision of legal cover. All that - to me, anyway - is very worrying.

But at the same time, if people are gradually learning to accept a smaller coverage in times in illness and poverty, there is a countervailing movement towards greater intrusion and greater reliance on the state. I think people now look to the state in ways that would have been unimaginable in previous generations. People demand that sugary foods are banned. They think women should be told what they can and can't wear by the state (no "veil"). The BMA has just called for smoking to be banned, outright. They think the state should pay for childcare. A huge number of people believe the government should legislate to make summer holidays cheaper..........Also, of course, a lot of people expect to be protected from offensive comments.

Some, but not all of this, is due to a lack of understanding about the nature of personal freedom and related ideas. Some is just plain idiocy.

[Flosshilde]

That sounds eminently reasonable, but, as has been suggested elsewhere, exactly the same could easily apply to Gay Pride marches which deeply offend and provoke others? It wasn't the lone street-preacher who was a danger to public order but the youths who deliberately goaded and insulted him, surely. The phrase 'anger of the public' reminds one of 'the voice of the people'. Even today, quite a sizeable slice of the public might well share the preacher's view of things There is no single public and voice.

As I have pointed out above, the police have in the past arrested gay men for 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace' (ie kissing each other), and I'm sure still do & will do in the future. They need not produce anybody who is offended, upset, outraged etc by the behaviour, but simply assert that they believed that people would be.

[mercia]

"released from contract" - am I on the right thread ?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/soprano-tamar-iveri-dropped-opera-australia-anti-gay

[jean]

Yes, but there have been several pages of digression since

She has now apparently been 'released' (sacked) by the company in Australia. Apologies if everyone else knew this already.

[visualnickmos]

Yes, but there have been several pages of digression since

To put it ultra-mildly!

I still wonder if it had been a racist rant, would there have been the same seeming level of acceptance (bordering on support for, sadly) of a 'right' to be so abusive without consequence, as expressed by some on here.

[P. G. Tipps]

To put it ultra-mildly!

I still wonder if it had been a racist rant, would there have been the same seeming level of acceptance (bordering on support for, sadly) of a 'right' to be so abusive without consequence, as expressed by some on here.

Well, forgive me, but wasn't it your very goodself who started, er, abusive ranting on this thread in the first place?

Some of us will stoutly defend the right of others to rant even if we deeply deplore the ranting. It's called freedom of speech, even if it offends and upsets us from time to time. As for 'consequences' I'm not aware that anyone here has suggested there should be never be any, simply that it is not up to outside observers to dictate what can or cannot be said by others.

None of this suggests any form of 'support' for those who say things which would make all moderate and tolerant folk cringe.

Of course, tolerance has to work both ways ... or should?

[Flosshilde]

Well, forgive me, but wasn't it your very goodself who started, er, abusive ranting on this thread in the first place?

No.

Of course, tolerance has to work both ways ... or should?

Tolerance doesn't mean that we accept or allow people to advocate & support violent attacks on others. There is a difference between saying that you disagree with, or dislike, certain peoples activities and behaviour, and calling them 'fecal matter'. It's perfectly reasonable for me, as a gay man, to express my abhorance when someone abuses me and suggest - even demand - that they should be penalised for it.

[visualnickmos]

Well, forgive me, but wasn't it your very goodself who started, er, abusive ranting on this thread in the first place?

Some of us will stoutly defend the right of others to rant even if we deeply deplore the ranting. It's called freedom of speech, even if it offends and upsets us from time to time. As for 'consequences' I'm not aware that anyone here has suggested there should be never be any, simply that it is not up to outside observers to dictate what can or cannot be said by others.

None of this suggests any form of 'support' for those who say things which would make all moderate and tolerant folk cringe.

Of course, tolerance has to work both ways ... or should?

What? Oh I see, it was me after all that was abusive and in praise of violent acts against others who want nothing more than to live their own lives peacefully and without the threat of violence and castigation for doing so. How idiotic of me.

What about if had been a rant against black people - what would be your response? Still the same notion of 'freedom of speech?'

[amateur51]

To put it ultra-mildly!

I still wonder if it had been a racist rant, would there have been the same seeming level of acceptance (bordering on support for, sadly) of a 'right' to be so abusive without consequence, as expressed by some on here.

What if she'd bitten the tenor? There'd have been a right ol' rumpus then, no doubt :winkythingy: