Sack this revolting specimen

[visualnickmos]

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.

I would stop digging right there, Waldo....

[Serial_Apologist]

There was the case of the preacher who paraded around with a sign saying Homosexuality Is Immoral. In that case he was attacked by an angry crowd and when the police arrived they had to decide whether to defend him or arrest him. In the end they arrested him and he was convicted for a Public Order Offence on the grounds that his action was unreasonable (and he 'started it'). His various appeals were all rejected. But that's under UK law.

But so much for being innocent if you don't commit the violence yourself. (Not an uncontroversial decision, however).

Indeed! :yikes: and very much in terms of consequences the obverse of scenarios we've considered thus far. I was not aware of this case; on the surface it might appear to corroborate the "sticks and stones" argument, but, while I hold no sympathies for his views, I hope the preacher appealed!

[visualnickmos]

......I don't believe anyone was threatened in that article she wrote

WHAT! This really does take the biscuit! Ask a gay man or woman if they found the article threatening.

Who are YOU to say what another human being may or may not find threatening to themselves.

[waldo]

So Mrs Thatcher was innocent of the economic violence meted out by her policies to poor people in UK? And Mr Blair is innocent of the current situation in Iraq?

They'd both agree with you I'm sure, which may give the lie :biggrin:

Well, they actually formulated and implemented policies which had direct consequences. Not at all what I am defending. The military (in Blair's case) was acting under orders, so a direct line can be established between their actions and Blair's statements (which, since they carry executive weight, are no longer mere words, but "orders" in the hard sense of the word - an "illocutionary act" in the jargon). In the case of this singer, she simply stated her opinions in an open letter. I think you will agree that this is not quite the same thing as issuing executive orders to a body of people who are legally and institutionally charged with the carrying out of those orders.

[waldo]

WHAT! This really does take the biscuit! Ask a guy man or woman if they found the article threatening.

Who are YOU to say what another human being may find threatening to themselves.

Oh dear. You have latched onto a quite different (and irrelevant) sense of the word "threatening" here. The relevant (legal) sense must involve an intention on the part of the speaker to carry out the said act. Simply saying something that makes people feel worried or upset or frightened isn't enough. That happens all the time, every day, and it isn't a criminal offense and I do not believe that the government ought to ban everything that makes people "feel threatened." I feel threatened by the way my neighbour looks at me, but I don't think he ought to be locked up for it.

Perhaps you would think a little better if you got off your high horse for a few moments. You have no right whatsoever to take such a superior stance. The fact is you don't really understand the logic of my position. As a consequence, you have somehow convinced yourself that your position is more compassionate or more sympathetic than mine is - as if you cared more about the gay people who are suffering as a result of all the prejudice out there. But that isn't true. We just have different approaches to the issue of human rights.

[amateur51]

Well, they actually formulated and implemented policies which had direct consequences. Not at all what I am defending. The military (in Blair's case) was acting under orders, so a direct line can be established between their actions and Blair's statements (which, since they carry executive weight, are no longer mere words, but "orders" in the hard sense of the word - an "illocutionary act" in the jargon). In the case of this singer, she simply stated her opinions in an open letter. I think you will agree that this is not quite the same thing as issuing executive orders to a body of people who are legally and institutionally charged with the carrying out of those orders.

I was thinking rather more of the situation in which 'radicalised' Muslims of whatever persuasion perceive the citizens of UK as being fair targets because Mr Blair has, to the eyes, deliberately killed Muslims. We elected Blair under our much-vaunted democratic system, so we should pay the price as they see. That's what i meant by unintended consequences.

[visualnickmos]

Oh dear. You have latched onto a quite different (and irrelevant) sense of the word "threatening" here. The relevant (legal) sense must involve an intention on the part of the speaker to carry out the said act. Simply saying something that makes people feel worried or upset or frightened isn't enough. That happens all the time, every day, and it isn't a criminal offense and I do not believe that the government ought to ban everything that makes people "feel threatened." I feel threatened by the way my neighbour looks at me, but I don't think he ought to be locked up for it.

Perhaps you would think a little better if you got off your high horse for a few moments. You have no right whatsoever to take such a superior stance. The fact is you don't really understand the logic of my position. As a consequence, you have somehow convinced yourself that your position is more compassionate or more sympathetic than mine is - as if you cared more about the gay people who are suffering as a result of all the prejudice out there. But that isn't true. We just have different approaches to the issue of human rights.

Finished?

[waldo]

Finished?

Careful, visualnickmos. I am beginning to feel threatened. Perhaps you should be sacked.........

[Flosshilde]

Threat is quite different. I don't believe anyone was threatened in that article she wrote.

"I believe" - i.e. I haven't the faintest idea. I am fairly certain (because, being gay, I know how I would feel) that LGBT people in Georgia would find that pretty threatening. “often, in certain cases, it is necessary to break jaws in order to be appreciated as a nation” . "

Are you really claiming that no-one has the right ... to say that other people are disgusting or revolting and so on? Is it ever permitted to make negative claims about other people or other groups?

It depends on where & how you say it, I think.

Are you really claiming that no-one has the right to approve of violence against others?

A government, in very limited circumstances, possibly. An individual, against people she happens to dislike, never.

[Ferretfancy]

Careful, visualnickmos. I am beginning to feel threatened. Perhaps you should be sacked.........

waldo

As a gay man I've spent most of my long life hearing anti gay threats, varying from behind hand sniggers to homophobic jokes which I was supposed to find funny, all the way to threats of violence.

Why do you suppose that gay teenagers are still being bullied and in some cases attacked ? Perhaps you believe that immature children should be sensitive to every nuance of homophobic behaviour, with some subtle ability to differentiate between all the gradations of hate that they receive?

We are very fortunate to have a better society than some. This is not Uganda or Nigeria, but please don't assume that there's nothing to worry about.Free speech should exist alongside responsibility for others.

[waldo]

waldo

As a gay man I've spent most of my long life hearing anti gay threats, varying from behind hand sniggers to homophobic jokes which I was supposed to find funny, all the way to threats of violence.

Why do you suppose that gay teenagers are still being bullied and in some cases attacked ? Perhaps you believe that immature children should be sensitive to every nuance of homophobic behaviour, with some subtle ability to differentiate between all the gradations of hate that they receive?

We are very fortunate to have a better society than some. This is not Uganda or Nigeria, but please don't assume that there's nothing to worry about.Free speech should exist alongside responsibility for others.

I don't assume for one minute that "there's nothing to worry about". That is not my position, at all. I don't for one minute underestimate the harm and suffering caused by those who villify and attack gay people. My only position concerns freedom of speech.

To repeat: if we ban people from making offensive or unpleasant comments, we have no basis for protecting the rights we all want for ourselves. If you think it is okay for the government to ban people from making offensive comments about gay people, then it is not easy to see how we can argue for the rights of those who are oppressed all around the world. The right has to be inviolable and cannot depend on the notion of "offense" or "violates community standards" or "causes upset" and so on. If we accept that, we have no ground for demanding rights for people in, say, Russia or parts of Africa or the Middle East and so on.........When we confront the fools in Russia or elsewhere (or even here in the UK.....), we have to be able to say: "You may well find it repulsive and frightening and disgusting and so on, but that IS NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS YOU CANNOT TAKE FROM THEM." We can only do this if we are prepared to accept views which we, ourselves, find upsetting or repugnant.

You might disagree, but I hope you will at least accept that my position has nothing to do with a lack of appreciation of the plight of minorities around the world. On the contrary........

And since we are now going round in circles, that is my last word on this thread.

[richardfinegold]

Perhaps you would think a little better if you got off your high horse for a few moments. You have no right whatsoever to take such a superior stance. The fact is you don't really understand the logic of my position.
[QUOTE=waldo;409288]

You will have to excuse Nick, Waldo. It is rather a stretch for most of us to try and understand how someone could value the rights of the club wielder to bash away and think that those rights are equal to the those of the victims of the bashing.
Essentially you're position can be boiled down to a restatement of the Doctrine of Moral Equivalency. In your view all opinions have equal weight. No one is allowed to assert that their view occupies a higher moral ground than any other competing view.
Perhaps you haven't paid much attention to the History of the last 100 years or so, and not observed what outcomes can result when violence against groups of people is sanctioned or considered a desireable outcome.
The Freest Societies have decided that there are limits to Free Speech. The line has been drawn at inciting violence against groups of people. We have decided that the protection of threatened groups against such violence outweighs the rights of the inciter.
It's really not that complicated.

[Maclintick]

By all means disagree with me, but why do you have to be so rude about it? Faux-libertarian? Why faux? Because it sounds insulting? Because it implies my position is pretentious? How would you know if it was? What do you know about me?

OK Waldo, I know you've terminated your contribution to this thread, but I hope you'll allow me my last post in response. First of all, thank you for allowing me to express my “insulting” opinions. I would have thought that someone who approves of the right to encourage violence against others might not be so sensitive to mere insults. I say "faux-libertarian" because I find a lot of the arguments, including yours, avowedly in support of the wonderfully naïve concept of “freedom of expression”, to be totally spurious, when viewed in real-life contexts. This includes such gems as “the free market” - in reality a cesspit of cartels, vested interests & corrupt government, & where many in the global marketplace are condemned to near-slavery. Likewise, your sacred ”freedom of expression” which in many muslim countries allows politicians and clerics to incite persecution and actual murder of Christians, or in Russia to inveigh against gays.

[QUOTEIn any case, in partial response to your post: I think you will find that in America there is a right to "urge violence against" others. Right this minute, many thousands of people are urging the President to bomb Iraq. I believe that is a pretty clear cut case of urging violence against others........perhaps they ought not to be allowed to have this discussion, though. Perhaps someone should silence them.[/QUOTE]

There’s no express law prohibiting lots of dubious stuff in America, including the right to bear arms ( but not, conversely, the right to arm bears ) & keeping adult tigers in your Manhattan apartment . Maybe we should repeal UK laws to allow freedom to incite hatred to flourish here , or give gunshops zero VAT-rating to encourage more high-school massacres ? There are specific restrictions to the first amendment's enshrining of freedom of speech, & case law & precedent are key to its application.

[QUOTEIf you believe that we should resort to "community" standards in this matter then you open yourself to a pernicious form of relativism which undermines just about everything you have said. If the community gets to decide, then the community must always be right. (Since there is no other standard, as you say). In that case, it is not easy to see how we could ever argue for the rights of minorities in their own oppressive communities. Let the Russian community decide how to treat gay people: what other standard is there?[/QUOTE]

By “community standards” here I mean living in the “relativistic” jungle that is national law in whatever country one finds oneself in. In this sense there’s no agreement internationally as to what constitutes “incitement to violence” , or even whether it’s an indictable offence, so in practical terms it makes no sense to pretend that there are these absolute values “FREEDOM” & “JUSTICE” which must be defended – their meaning is purely contextual. Had Iveri launched her diatribe here in the UK , it’s possible she may have been interviewed by the police, & the DPP may have felt there was a case to answer. A British jury, if asked to decide on similar evidence to Iveri’s publications, may see precious little difference between encouraging violence towards LGBT people, and inciting that violence.

[QUOTE In addition, your focus on the legal aspect of this issue is entirely beside the point since we are talking about what kind of rights people have irrespective of those currently recognised in law. If we simply stuck to the law (and had no other standard), it is hard to understand how we would ever be entitled to argue for changes to the law. That would require a conceptualisation of rights which transcends the narrow limits of legal definitions.[/QUOTE]Er, I’ve not expressed opinions about rights other than those currently recognised in UK law, & to be honest I’m not much interested in them . UK Law is framed to restrict the proclivity of people to inflict harm on others, in which case my focus on the legality of incitement to violence under foreign jurisdictions is valid. This is surely what parliaments are for – to pass laws which have democratic legitimacy and are then enforced impartially for as long as they’re on the statute. Your “conceptualisation of rights” only has validity within society at large if framed within those “narrow limits of legal definitions” .
[/QUOTE]These are standard positions in the philosophy of law, by the way. I assume your own particular expertise lies in other directions.[/QUOTE]

What nonsense. In British law, Parliament legislates to protect natural rights and to provide the statutory framework for the exercise of civil rights. It’s a constantly evolving process of balancing interests which as been going on for centuries. I rest my case m'lud ( & no, I'm not a legal practitioner )

[waldo]

Well, that serves me right, I suppose. The moronic inferno is never more than a mouse click away..........

[Flosshilde]

By all means disagree with me, but why do you have to be so rude about it? .

:erm: