secretsqirrel
Active Member
If you teach 6-8 year olds then I would say your legacy is assured.
Free speech
- Thread starter Ianonabike
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
If you teach 6-8 year olds then I would say your legacy is assured.
CXRAndy
Shaman
Bazzer
Über Member
Personally I couldn't care less about being remembered after I am gone. Although beyond the records of births, marriages and deaths, I know my name will survive in at least one set of reference books, having been involved in three tax cases. Two of which established case law, with one of them, to my surprise, having to learned by future inspectors of taxes.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
Hamit Coskun has won his appeal in the Qur'an burning case:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9v7wlj3pr2o.amp
Judges ruling:
""There is no offence of blasphemy in our law. Burning a Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive. The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset. The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb. "We live in a liberal democracy. One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so. The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9v7wlj3pr2o.amp
Judges ruling:
""There is no offence of blasphemy in our law. Burning a Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive. The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset. The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb. "We live in a liberal democracy. One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so. The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us."
C R
Guru
What religious people in general seem to miss is that what allows them to say that heretics, unbelievers, gays and other undesirables are wicked also allows those heretics, unbelievers, gays and other undesirables to make fun of and offend religious people.
Beebo
Guru
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
monkers
Shaman
classic33
Missen
Patrick and Mary, James and Roisin.
dutchguylivingintheuk
Veteran
They are not coherent, but the added context needed is that law in Europe is not written in a way it would always be absolute the courts/prosecutors and police should always wager the law for it's intended purpose societal changes etc. etc.
The man who was arrested for burning a Koran is a perfect example, police in the end charged him with an ''public offence'' he was convicted but somewhere last week in the appeal he his conviction was withdrawn, as the courts ruled burning an Koran can cause offensive to muslims but (and thus can be read as falling under article 19) However as part of an society where people have freedom of expression the freedom to share his personal opinion and showing that by burning a Koran he bought and thus owns is ruled not to be an offence.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
My irony meter's beggared again.....
monkers
Shaman
Actually citing an example of where you think the articles are not read as to be coherent ought have the effect of you realising that it just might be some judgments that are wrongly made.
I'm at risk of sounding condescending, but please allow my explanation as this is my own area of some expertise in the way that Human Rights law is read at the ECtHR.
Article 1 sets out that we should live in a spirit of brotherly love.
Article 19 sets out the freedom of expression should be ''without frontiers''.
Herein lies the problem. What does ''without frontiers'' mean?
Firstly, it could mean frontiers as geographical boundaries - but it doesn't because it couldn't. You see, freedom of expression is a qualified right. Each UN member state is at liberty to vary it according to need using domestic law. Therefore Article 19 can not be uniform across geographical boundaries - different member states have varied it the application within primary legislation.
Secondly, it could mean frontiers as discussion between ordinary citizens - but it doesn't, because people would spend more time squabbling about their rights as their differences of opinion. This specific reading places Articles 1 and 19 in conflict. Note: this is what is now being promoted and as a result is what we see happening.
Thirdly, it could mean, that there shall be no frontier between the ordinary citizen and the state and its recognised authorities - the right of the citizen to speak truth to power without consequence. This is the only version that is congruent with Article 1, and is therefore the correct version.
Summary. The right to freedom of expression and the right to protest are the pair of articles that grant the rights of ordinary citizens to stand up for themselves against abuses of the state. The separation of powers of the legislature and the judiciary is intended to prevent abuses, while article 19 is intended to be the means of individual and collective action to protect human rights. The ECtHR exists essentially to ensure that the Supreme Court can exercise diligence and good judgment without interference of the state. Yet, political parties have objected to judgments of the court, and stated in manifesto to challenge the power of the courts.
A political figure or party that promotes that the state can act contrary to human rights using the legislature is enacting an abuse of the state on the people. And yes, in the UK this is happening. Their device is promote the idea that inciting hatred is a permission under freedom of expression - the purpose of Article 1 is show that it is not.
Question. If this interpretation is not correct, how can it be that parliamentarians with their extra permissions to speak without constraint in parliament precludes the use of abuse against each other? You've no doubt heard the term ''unparliamentary language''. You'll note the dual standard without further explanation I hope.
Further question. When the UK signed the articles of the UNDHR, who was recognised as sovereign, the monarch, parliament, or the people?
Last edited:
OP
OP
Ianonabike
Regular
View: https://x.com/BBCr4today/status/1978174718558748962
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002krj2
Only available for 29 more days. I haven't listened to it yet - 42 minutes is a bit of a commitment right now. The description:
OP
OP
Ianonabike
Regular
So far I've listened to about half of that. What most interested me so far was when the presenter mentioned Nick Haslam's paper on concept creep - specifically, where the law now has trouble dealing with the "self-reporting of internal feelings and psychological dispositions... the subjective world of personal offence and personal harm."
Am also keeping an eye on what happens with this - Oxford Union alumni will descend on city to try to oust president-elect. It has to do with George Abaraonye's celebratory remarks when news was breaking about the sniper attack on Charlie Kirk.
See also https://unherd.com/newsroom/oxford-...ancel-culture-worse-after-charlie-kirks-death
Last month, Abaraonye acknowledged that he had “reacted impulsively” in the immediate aftermath of the Kirk shooting and quickly deleted his comments. “Those words did not reflect my values,” he said. “Nobody should be harmed or killed for the views they hold.” Kirk was killed during a campus event at Utah Valley University, and Abaraonye explained his response on What’s Left? by saying that he had not seen video footage of the shooting and was unaware that it was fatal. He admitted that he “reacted poorly”, but the media response was “a massive misrepresentation of what happened”.
Am also keeping an eye on what happens with this - Oxford Union alumni will descend on city to try to oust president-elect. It has to do with George Abaraonye's celebratory remarks when news was breaking about the sniper attack on Charlie Kirk.
See also https://unherd.com/newsroom/oxford-...ancel-culture-worse-after-charlie-kirks-death
Last month, Abaraonye acknowledged that he had “reacted impulsively” in the immediate aftermath of the Kirk shooting and quickly deleted his comments. “Those words did not reflect my values,” he said. “Nobody should be harmed or killed for the views they hold.” Kirk was killed during a campus event at Utah Valley University, and Abaraonye explained his response on What’s Left? by saying that he had not seen video footage of the shooting and was unaware that it was fatal. He admitted that he “reacted poorly”, but the media response was “a massive misrepresentation of what happened”.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
I don't think he was misrepresented. Young people do and say stupid things and the internet and social media make people act in ways they never would in real life, especially when they think they are anonymous. If he had integrity he would resign from his post and consider it a lesson learnt. Cries for him to be chucked out or arrested are over the top and unlikely to be what Charlie Kirk would have demanded.
