Sack this revolting specimen

[Barbirollians]

She could quite properly I imagine be refused a visa on the basis that her presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good .

As for her contract I suspect a court or tribunal would be sympathetic to an argument that anyone who publicly expresses rather than simply holds such opinions that violence towards a certain sector of society whether defined by race, sexuality , creed or any other group has broken the implied term of trust and confidence even if her contract did not deal with such matters.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Nazi war crimes were legal where carried out. OK, I agree that I am probably taking the argument to its ultimate 'end point' which is perhaps not very relevant here, but at the same time, not completely disassociated.

Am I correct in thinking some Russians are being refused visas on the grounds of not liking actions that are legal where they occurred; eg the invasion and occupation of part of another sovereign state. Mugabe is not permitted to enter certain European scenarios for violations of human rights - which are perfectly legal in Zimbabwe where they occur? Please correct me if I am mistaken. That is only my 'take' on events, nothing more. Both of these apparently 'legal' where they occurred.

War crimes are a special category, or Nazi ones anyway, and the greater the crime (murder, mass-murder) the greater the willingness to make special rules. Also, all nations agree there's a crime of murder, but there's nothing like the same consensus on sexual matters.

Mugabe is a different matter I think: the action surely is political rather than legal. Rather a big subject here, and I don't pretend to be an expert.

[visualnickmos]

...Rather a big subject here, and I don't pretend to be an expert.

I agree; it is rather expanding the debate, but interesting, nonetheless, and probably best left for fora more specifically dedicated to such discussions. In a way it is rather salient that the debate has found its way on to this path.... slightly worrying?

[Flosshilde]

If this singer has done something that would have breached UK law if it had happened in this jurisdiction it will I think be of no interest whatsoever to our immigration authorities. I can't begin to imagine the political and international-law mess we'd be in if we started pulling the trick of refusing visas on the grounds of not liking actions that were legal where carried out.

I think that people have been refused entry because of what they might do while here, based on what they have said elswhere (even where they have not broken any specific laws).

I woulod equate it with someone who is arrested for kissing another man, not because the act was illegal, but because it was 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace'; no such breach of the peace needs to have occurred, and the police don't, or didn't, have to present any evidence that a breach of the peace might occur.

[richardfinegold]

Certainly not "OK" ... Different question: would she be arrested if she did it here? Probably, on balance:

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_sp...United_Kingdom

I am not a Lawyer (:laugh:) but I can't help but wonder: What is the relevance of this when it pertains to a statement made by a Georgian Citizen while she apparently is working in Australia and posting in a Social Media outlet that knows no boundaries?
Has anyone commented on the irony of an Opera Singer, of all professions, being critical of people who blur gender lines? The next time she sings Fidelio or some other Trouser Role I hope that she is arrested by a local constable for offending Public Morals.
The issue here is the Rights of a group of people to be protected from hateful and potentially dangerous statements, versus the free speech rights of the individual to make such statements.
I don't think anyone here is agreeing with the twaddle expressed by the Caucassian Cuckoo. Some people are concerned about setting limits on free speech.
Limitations on free speech can be abused. For example, the New York Times ran an Op Ed by then Candidate for President Barack Obama, but refused to run a rebuttal by his Opponet John McCain because an editor decided that McCain's positions were 'hateful" presumably because they did not concur with those of Obama. I think some people on this forum worry about where limitations on free speech can lead.
I don't agree with that position, but I understand the argument, and I do not think that people who make it should be vilified.
I'm Jewish. Do I wish that someone had silenced the Austrian Corporal when he wrote Mein Kampf? Absolutely. Would I worry that his rights of free speech had been violated? Don't think so.
An American Supreme Court Justice once declared, "I can't define Pornography, but I know it when I see it." The same standard should apply here. Most of us realize when someone is expressing an opinion with which we might not agree but is within the bounds of decency, versus expressions of bile that are intended to injure or possibly incite others to injure groups of people.
Meanwhile, the guilty party here is in the Entertainment Industry. She depends upon the goodwill of the Public and it's desire to support her. The Public has the right to censure her with their pocketbooks. Let it be known that she will sell no tickets or recordings and her career with change accordingly. She will learn the folly of gratuitously insulting one of the fingers from the hand that feeds her.

[visualnickmos]

richardfinegold

Absolutely, and eloquently written. Nothing more to add. :ok:

[gurnemanz]

La Monnaie appears to have banned her.

http://slippedisc.com/2014/06/opera-house-bans-homophobe-soprano/

[waldo]

An American Supreme Court Justice once declared, "I can't define Pornography, but I know it when I see it." The same standard should apply here. Most of us realize when someone is expressing an opinion with which we might not agree but is within the bounds of decency, versus expressions of bile that are intended to injure or possibly incite others to injure groups of people.

I can only presume that Tamar Iveri would make exactly the same point (as would all the other groups in the world who demand that their opponents views are silenced). She would say: a line has been crossed that all right thinking, decent people can recognise. This gay march has threatened the cohesion of our orthodox Christian community and introduced ideas which are harmful to our young people. Therefore, although I recognise the right of free speech, these people have crossed a line which means they can legitimately be silenced.

You can see the problem. Different people and different groups have competing, and often irreconcilable, ideas as to what is acceptable or repugnant. Simply saying "We know when this or that line has been crossed" is just too easy - and too tempting. The right thinking people on this thread demand that Tamar Iveri is silenced. But she thinks the gay people in her country should be silenced. Someone else reading this thread may well think we ought to be silenced, too.

This is where the value of liberty comes in. If we don't recognise the right of people to say offensive and disgusting and repugnant things, how can we expect our rights to speak freely (and to offend others, perhaps) to be recognised in return? How can we complain about the rights of gay people in Russia if we don't, first of all, respect the rights of those who are opposed to them?

Resorting to a "commonsense" or "community" standard just doesn't do the job. All that does is allow the powerful to silence the weak. The fascist demands that the trade unionist is silenced. The communist demands that the pro-democracy campaigner is silenced. The ultra-orthodox Christian conservative demands that the gay spokesperson is silenced. It looks very tempting when we are in the majority, but not so tempting when we aren't. My political views are, I am sure, fairly typical of the views of my country and education. I think Tamar Iveri's views are repugnant. But I support her right to express them because it is the same right which allows me to criticise her, and to make comments, which others, in their turn, will find disgusting or repugnant.

In addition, adding the idea of "incitement" to debate generally adds nothing of any substance. Anyone who doesn't like anyone else's views can use this idea to silence opponents. The Chinese government minister can argue that a student demonstrating for free elections is "inciting" violence - and then lock them up. The governor of Alabama (in 1935) may argue that a campaigner for black rights is inciting violence. And so on. There is indeed a hard, technical sense in which one can incite violence (There they are! Go get 'em boys! Here's the noose!), but it demands far more than simply supporting or approving a particular course of action. It must (at the very least) involve a direct chain of causation to the ultimate act of violence. What Tamar Iveri has done is say that she approves of the violent actions taken against those on a gay rights march. In a society where there are so many different views, we surely have to have the right to say whether or not we approve of violent actions without being silenced on the basis that we are thereby "inciting" violence itself. How else could we discuss events in war or protests against totalitarian states or violent police officers......and so on.

The libertarian recognises that there are competing views of the good life. Placing the value of liberty at the centre of our civil society gives everyone equal protection. I get to say what I want, and so do those who don't agree with me. I get to write the books I want, and so do they. I accept that I may be offended and disgusted, and so do they. It is the only basis for a peaceful, harmonious society. Furthermore, only by allowing everyone to articulate their views can we learn from them and engage in discussion which benefits everyone. If there is such a thing as moral progress, it is only through discussion and a free exchange of views that it can be ever be achieved.

[LeMartinPecheur]

waldo: well put:ok::rose:

[Don Petter]

waldo: well put:ok::rose:

Well put indeed! A little calm sense amongst the ranting.

[teamsaint]

I'M not sure why this thread hasn't been sent to the dungeon, but I'm pleased that it hasn't.

That is a really interesting post Waldo.
Your last line about learning from others through discussion is particularly important, in my opinion, particularly in these days of highly centralised, and powerful media.

[Serial_Apologist]

You can see the problem. Different people and different groups have competing, and often irreconcilable, ideas as to what is acceptable or repugnant. Simply saying "We know when this or that line has been crossed" is just too easy - and too tempting. The right thinking people on this thread demand that Tamar Iveri is silenced. But she thinks the gay people in her country should be silenced. Someone else reading this thread may well think we ought to be silenced, too.

This is where the value of liberty comes in. If we don't recognise the right of people to say offensive and disgusting and repugnant things, how can we expect our rights to speak freely (and to offend others, perhaps) to be recognised in return? How can we complain about the rights of gay people in Russia if we don't, first of all, respect the rights of those who are opposed to them?

Gay and lesbian people aren't claiming that violence against heterosexuals is justified because of heterosexuality being vile and disgusting. In the interest of fairness all round maybe I'd go along with this, were that the case. This is where "tolerance" falls down.

Resorting to a "commonsense" or "community" standard just doesn't do the job. All that does is allow the powerful to silence the weak. The fascist demands that the trade unionist is silenced. The communist demands that the pro-democracy campaigner is silenced. The ultra-orthodox Christian conservative demands that the gay spokesperson is silenced. It looks very tempting when we are in the majority, but not so tempting when we aren't. My political views are, I am sure, fairly typical of the views of my country and education. I think Tamar Iveri's views are repugnant. But I support her right to express them because it is the same right which allows me to criticise her, and to make comments, which others, in their turn, will find disgusting or repugnant.

Not if you're dead as a consequence of her contribution to the stirring up of violence against gays. Which leads us onto:

In addition, adding the idea of "incitement" to debate generally adds nothing of any substance. Anyone who doesn't like anyone else's views can use this idea to silence opponents. The Chinese government minister can argue that a student demonstrating for free elections is "inciting" violence - and then lock them up. The governor of Alabama (in 1935) may argue that a campaigner for black rights is inciting violence. And so on. There is indeed a hard, technical sense in which one can incite violence (There they are! Go get 'em boys! Here's the noose!), but it demands far more than simply supporting or approving a particular course of action. It must (at the very least) involve a direct chain of causation to the ultimate act of violence. What Tamar Iveri has done is say that she approves of the violent actions taken against those on a gay rights march. In a society where there are so many different views, we surely have to have the right to say whether or not we approve of violent actions without being silenced on the basis that we are thereby "inciting" violence itself. How else could we discuss events in war or protests against totalitarian states or violent police officers......and so on.

But who IS actually inciting violence? You conveniently let 'em off the hook!

The libertarian recognises that there are competing views of the good life. Placing the value of liberty at the centre of our civil society gives everyone equal protection. I get to say what I want, and so do those who don't agree with me. I get to write the books I want, and so do they. I accept that I may be offended and disgusted, and so do they. It is the only basis for a peaceful, harmonious society. Furthermore, only by allowing everyone to articulate their views can we learn from them and engage in discussion which benefits everyone. If there is such a thing as moral progress, it is only through discussion and a free exchange of views that it can be ever be achieved.

So you're really saying that one person's view as a homophobe is everybody's good life, excluding gays who forfeit that by giving others carte blanche to incite. I see.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i rather felt that waldo was making the point that freedom is hard and tolerance very demanding; you can not with one hand strike for freedom and liberty and with the other start to lock up/exclude/boycott people who''s views you find anathema .... else i have a list :whistle:

[Pianorak]

. . . only by allowing everyone to articulate their views can we learn from them and engage in discussion which benefits everyone. If there is such a thing as moral progress, it is only through discussion and a free exchange of views that it can be ever be achieved.

All that presumes good intentions on all sides. Have a listen to what Andrew White, the “vicar of Baghdad” had to say on that subject on R4's “Sunday” programme this morning (might be on iPlayer). Makes for depressing listening.

[waldo]

You seem to have missed the point of my arguments, Serial Apologist. The rights which gay people have to say whatever they wish are the same rights which their opponents have. If we take away the freedom of their opponents, you also take away the freedom of gay people. They are one and the same. Gay people may not wish to praise violence against heterosexuals, but they have the right to do so and, of course, they have the right to praise violence in other circumstances, too: against the Ugandan police force, for instance. Or a Nazi organisation which has taken control of the government........

The problem you seem to have here is that you seem to think that it is possible to define a neutral, objective ground from which it is possible to curtail the rights of one group without simultaneously undermining the basis upon which you ascribe rights to others. It isn't possible, unfortunately. When you take out the gag, the gag is out for everyone else too. You may feel that your views and opinions are just too commendable to ever be threatened, but others in the world may not see it that way. That is what I meant be competing views of the good life. I am not claiming that homophobes get to define this view for everyone else, only that they have one too - just as everyone else does. If we take away their right to articulate it, then it is not obvious why we have the right to articulate ours, either.