Free speech

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Ian H

Ian H

Squire
Ianonabike said:
Well I didn't equate them, did I.
Tens of thousands of rape and death threats is still suffering in my book.
Click to expand...

Now do Diane Abbott.
 
OP
OP
Ianonabike

Ianonabike

Regular
Ian H said:
Now do Diane Abbott.
Click to expand...
Is there any other vile abuse you wish me to decry, else risk not being seen as inclusive enough?

Back to Rowling, here's the tweet, for those allergic to X.
I'm seeing quite a bit of comment about this, so I want to make a couple of points.

I'm not owed eternal agreement from any actor who once played a character I created. The idea is as ludicrous as me checking with the boss I had when I was twenty-one for what opinions I should hold these days.

Emma Watson and her co-stars have every right to embrace gender identity ideology. Such beliefs are legally protected, and I wouldn't want to see any of them threatened with loss of work, or violence, or death, because of them.

However, Emma and Dan in particular have both made it clear over the last few years that they think our former professional association gives them a particular right - nay, obligation - to critique me and my views in public. Years after they finished acting in Potter, they continue to assume the role of de facto spokespeople for the world I created.

When you've known people since they were ten years old it's hard to shake a certain protectiveness. Until quite recently, I hadn't managed to throw off the memory of children who needed to be gently coaxed through their dialogue in a big scary film studio. For the past few years, I've repeatedly declined invitations from journalists to comment on Emma specifically, most notably on the Witch Trials of JK Rowling. Ironically, I told the producers that I didn't want her to be hounded as the result of anything I said.

The television presenter in the attached clip highlights Emma's 'all witches' speech, and in truth, that was a turning point for me, but it had a postscript that hurt far more than the speech itself. Emma asked someone to pass on a handwritten note from her to me, which contained the single sentence 'I'm so sorry for what you're going through' (she has my phone number). This was back when the death, rape and torture threats against me were at their peak, at a time when my personal security measures had had to be tightened considerably and I was constantly worried for my family's safety. Emma had just publicly poured more petrol on the flames, yet thought a one line expression of concern from her would reassure me of her fundamental sympathy and kindness.

Like other people who've never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she's ignorant of how ignorant she is. She'll never need a homeless shelter. She's never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward. I'd be astounded if she's been in a high street changing room since childhood. Her 'public bathroom' is single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard outside the door. Has she had to strip off in a newly mixed-sex changing room at a council-run swimming pool? Is she ever likely to need a state-run rape crisis centre that refuses to guarantee an all-female service? To find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who's identified into the women's prison?

I wasn't a multimillionaire at fourteen. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made Emma famous. I therefore understand from my own life experience what the trashing of women's rights in which Emma has so enthusiastically participated means to women and girls without her privileges.

The greatest irony here is that, had Emma not decided in her most recent interview to declare that she loves and treasures me - a change of tack I suspect she's adopted because she's noticed full-throated condemnation of me is no longer quite as fashionable as it was - I might never have been this honest.

Adults can't expect to cosy up to an activist movement that regularly calls for a friend's assassination, then assert their right to the former friend's love, as though the friend was in fact their mother. Emma is rightly free to disagree with me and indeed to discuss her feelings about me in public - but I have the same right, and I've finally decided to exercise it.
Click to expand...
 
dutchguylivingintheuk

dutchguylivingintheuk

Veteran
Ianonabike said:
Speaking of authors, I don't suppose JK Rowling is often mentioned in the same breath as Rushdie, but both have certainly suffered for their art. Fortunately Rowling has never been stabbed, except metaphorically in the back.
Click to expand...
I don't think JK Rowing has never been stabbed because nobody tried, it's just harder to reach her. In the same bearth in the sense of both are bing hated for their opinion not in the same Breath as Rushdie dare the anger Muslims, Rowling typically other groups. which makes a big difference on it's own. (unless you name is Kirk according to some)
monkers said:
NCAP search ... ''truth to power''.




Nobody's actually interested in ''free speech'' only in using it to squabble. Same here as everywhere else.

Article 19​

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


Anyone care to interpret Article 19 so that it remains coherent with Article 1?


Article 1​

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood". This article establishes the fundamental principles of inherent freedom, equality, and dignity that apply to everyone, regardless of any other distinction.
Click to expand...
We don't have freedom of speech, often confused but only America has that. We have freedom of opinion and expression as you quoted above.
We trust our courts to be able to determine the ultimate call in what is allowed and what not as freedom of opinion or expression.
This has been one so deliberately because dynamics, changing tones and attitudes and a more restrictive description would potentially kill any debate before it's started.
 
CXRAndy

CXRAndy

Squire
matticus said:
She has a point.

(and her original statements on Trans peoples contained no hate, or any of the other silly things she's been accused of. )

Rushdie has definitely suffered more sticks and stones though, by some way!
Click to expand...

Because liberals have enabled islamists to act in a manner when anyone criticises their religion. That should never be tolerated.

Pretty much same aggressive attitude from trans antifa activists against Rowling et al
 
AndyRM

AndyRM

Elder Goth
What a wonderfully convoluted mess of thinking.
 
OP
OP
Ianonabike

Ianonabike

Regular
I missed blasphemy day! Cursing falls under the umbrella, as "it treats God casually and ignores His glory and honor" (thanks Billy Graham), so herewith the famous 7 words you couldn't say on American television back in the olden days:


View: https://youtu.be/1rP-U-ZbuzE

This forum doesn't like most of them either:
********er
daffodil
fark
**********er
Piss
shoot
Tits

Where there's a will there's a way:
Cocksucker
Cunt
Fuck
Motherfucker
Piss
Shit
Tits
 
secretsqirrel

secretsqirrel

Active Member
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

matticus
Free speech, democracy, and all that jazz ...
Replies
30
matticus
HM Gov vs Free Speech : who will win??
Replies
41
matticus
Free Speech collides with Cycling Twitter
Replies
9
RecordAceFromNew
Law & Order in Freefall. Only 1% of bike thefts charged, never mind convicted.
Replies
72
Top Bottom