It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The UK has hit rock bottom - detaining a US citizen because she was to interview Tommy Robinson

page: 11
79
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveDogSecret




No one has to listen to her. It's not like she will speak and suddenly there will be hoards of swastikas on the streets of London.
Meanwhile, the UK will not let anyone even think about some of the more morally questionable aspects of Islam without serious consequences.


That's what I mean. What in the hell are they so worried about that they would impede the very foundation of democracy in order to stop it?




posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I don't support mocking anyone's religion, although one should be able to respectfully debate religious theology or cultures. However, Islam is not a race it's a religion... I know personally a blonde blue eyed Muslim from Serbia. It's not "racist" to criticize Islam. a reply to: oddnutz


edit on 12-3-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Good question.

I think the growing disillusionment of people with the current political paradigm is leading to stuff like this becoming the norm.
Honestly, I do not remember people from the far right (before the alt-right united them under their weird umbrella) giving talks about their racist views out in public when I was younger. This pushback is a recent thing since, for quite a while, the left has dominated much of the talking space. Perhaps rightfully so.
But in that, we have lost perspective and a sense of balance. Countries are groaning under the weight of immigration and culture is becoming precious land to be fought over and protected at all costs.
No one until recently really decided to actually question the outcomes that are being seen the world over.

I think this represents a potential turning point in the West.

Note: I do not like the Alt-Right. I think they are the worst kind of idealists. Ones that will put aside facts and reason to further some woo-woo nonsense whilst sitting on various forums obsessing over the Jews and other crap.
But that does not mean we have to shut down the Western value of open discussion.
Want to shut them down? Come to their talks and denounce their crap not with protests but with your own ability to wreck them with your points. They are only as powerful as the people who follow them.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   
The challenge is that now practically everything is being redefined as hate speech. At least many are suggesting such redefinitions. In the US many liberals have started "deplatforming" conservative speakers at various events because they claim they are purveyors of hate speech. I'm sure some are, but for some it's only because they disagree with the new identity politics/social justice religion.
a reply to: RAY1990



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I think the limits are blurrier than ever. Do we allow people like the Alt-Right to stand around with tiki torches and spew what is very obviously hate speech?
Do we allow those like Antifa a platform despite having what could be considered the moral high ground despite their violent behaviour?
I agree that we are constantly drawing new boundaries of what hate speech is to the detriment of the times. But I think we are also pushing the boundaries of what is allowed as well. Someone like Richard Spencer is sneaking his way into the popular consciousness under that guise of free speech.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We have free speech (within sensible boundaries such as not inciting violence, murder, yelling fire in a theater ...). We also value tolerance and respect; hence why these two numpties were denied entry to the UK as their sole reason for entering was to spread intolerance and sow hate.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion

Does one have to explicitly incite violence or are they held responsible for the idiots that may commit it on their behalf?

I am no fan of Islam. Let's say I go to the UK to make a speech about it and I do not incite violence of any kind, to which one of the idiots in the crowd then decided to stand there and abuse every Muslim he sees. Is that my responsibility?



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveDogSecret
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I think the limits are blurrier than ever. Do we allow people like the Alt-Right to stand around with tiki torches and spew what is very obviously hate speech?
Do we allow those like Antifa a platform despite having what could be considered the moral high ground despite their violent behaviour?
I agree that we are constantly drawing new boundaries of what hate speech is to the detriment of the times. But I think we are also pushing the boundaries of what is allowed as well. Someone like Richard Spencer is sneaking his way into the popular consciousness under that guise of free speech.
The thing is that those tiki torch neo Nazis are a very minute percentage of the US. Invoking them is basically a straw man. Antifa doesn't necessarily have the moral high ground, one from a violent perspective, and two many of them believe in shutting down not just literal hate speech, but any conservative view or not full left wing. I ironically am pretty left, i.e. more than democrats. But, I believe that shutting down opposing ideas or thought policing disagreement with social justice holds more danger in the so called "totalitarian tiptoe" than potential offense.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveDogSecret
a reply to: bastion

Does one have to explicitly incite violence or are they held responsible for the idiots that may commit it on their behalf?

I am no fan of Islam. Let's say I go to the UK to make a speech about it and I do not incite violence of any kind, to which one of the idiots in the crowd then decided to stand there and abuse every Muslim he sees. Is that my responsibility?
Then I'd say you are getting towards Orwellian levels. Here in the US you are allowed to criticize a group or religion. It doesn't matter if someone else does something illegal. However, you aren't allowed to literally invite violence. I agree with that. Anything else is dangerous. By your logic someone shouldn't criticize politicians because some idiot may attack them. People shouldn't question patriarchy and male sexual harassment, because it might offend males and a woman might attack them. Etc etc. at that point there are no real conversations.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We have free speech (within sensible boundaries such as not inciting violence, murder, yelling fire in a theater ...). We also value tolerance and respect; hence why these two numpties were denied entry to the UK as their sole reason for entering was to spread intolerance and sow hate.
If you can't criticize or debate the ideological or cultural merits of different religions then you can't have real philosophy of any kind, as its "hateful" to dissect any ideas or beliefs.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I should have said 'perceived moral high ground' due to the fact that they perceive themselves as having it, whether or not they do is debatable.
Those examples were used because they are basically what the conversation has come to. Either you are with Antifa "bashing the fash" in the name of some unspoken agreement that they are the embodiment of true liberalism (lol) or you are an Alt Right nazi, trying to undo years of social progress.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I think you have misread some of my points (potentially my fault). I am 100% for discussions of these topics in a fair and balanced way.
In no way does this weird new left have any right to shut down anything other than that which directly and explicitly incites violence.

Eg. The idea that someone like Jordan Peterson should be shut down by the left is very concerning.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Not under UK law it isn't - here's how it actually works in practice: www.legislation.gov.uk...

Protection of freedom of expression
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.

edit on 12-3-2018 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We have free speech (within sensible boundaries such as not inciting violence, murder, yelling fire in a theater ...). We also value tolerance and respect; hence why these two numpties were denied entry to the UK as their sole reason for entering was to spread intolerance and sow hate.


Tolerance and respect, but not for views I disagree with, is neither tolerant nor respectful. In fact it’s the opposite.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveDogSecret
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I think you have misread some of my points (potentially my fault). I am 100% for discussions of these topics in a fair and balanced way.
In no way does this weird new left have any right to shut down anything other than that which directly and explicitly incites violence.

Eg. The idea that someone like Jordan Peterson should be shut down by the left is very concerning.
Apologies for misconstruing. I agree with you.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What I was trying to say was the polarity of the current climate. This idea of Antifa vs Alt Right and everyone, no matter their views, falls into either one or the other.
Somehow Peterson is now Alt right because he is not in strict, unwavering agreement with what I have dubbed the New Left.
Re Violence: Violence is not something I like, I have seen and been a part of it and it will more often than not, achieve nothing.
This violence is seen as something of an imperative by the New Left because, in their eyes, it is justified.

I am thankful to live where I do. We are not perfect but when Peterson was here a few nights ago giving a talk, there was none of this nonsense.
I am curious, where do you think this New Left is getting this stuff from? What is their mindset? Do they believe so much that they are willing to actually burn down the country for this?

When I see all this stuff, it is from the outside looking in. The videos on Youtube are seriously quite concerning. The last time we banned a speaker coming here was Julian Blanc and RooshV. Blanc, a self-confessed Pick Up Artist known for his rather...um...physical methods of picking up women, is quite out of touch with values here. Roosh runs a terrible website that really seems to undermine the Western idea that women can do whatever the # they want.

edit on 12/3/2018 by AboveDogSecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Not under UK law it isn't - here's how it actually works in practice: www.legislation.gov.uk...

Protection of freedom of expression
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.
I understand the intent, i.e. Respect for people's religions and so on. The issue here is that religions are powerful ideologies that have influenced both positive and negative events in history. Just as powerful as any other philosophy, if not more. That's included wars, oppression of minorities and dissidents, etc. So, the idea that people cannot discuss, debate, or even criticize a given religious ideology not only seems absurd, but historically dangerous. It matters not that there are believers. There are believers of all ideologies, from Nazism to communism. Can we now not question those?



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
double
edit on 12-3-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We have free speech (within sensible boundaries such as not inciting violence, murder, yelling fire in a theater ...). We also value tolerance and respect; hence why these two numpties were denied entry to the UK as their sole reason for entering was to spread intolerance and sow hate.


Tolerance and respect, but not for views I disagree with, is neither tolerant nor respectful. In fact it’s the opposite.
Right, because then they are privileging one view that can't be discussed (religious identity) and suppressing the belief or expression of the view of the person questioning.
edit on 12-3-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: yuppa
Actually...Depending on the time of your arrest and seeing a judge you could spend 3 days in lockup without charge.


Not without charge.

Hence my point that somebody is being disingenuous here.

The only way she was held without charge for more than 24 hours is if she was suspected in a serious crime, like murder.

Or terrorism.


Ah there we go. suspected terrorist incitrment of right wing or left wingers and that will be how they excuse it. and i know a few who sat in detention when they could not find a judge over 3 says.local. you never hear bout em. what about refusal to pay chiold support? its not a crime in my state but people get time for it.If it was a crime they would grant bond but since it not a crime they dont.
point is they do hld pople 3 days or more without crimes.



new topics




 
79
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join