No freedom of speech in England.

[Dave-W]

My definition of free speech has been attributed to being a quote from Voltaire:

I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.

 

[Arcangl86]

The government forced these people out of business because they refused to compromise their liberal beliefs.

That's liberalism at work.

You can't use religion carte blanc to get out of breaking the law. They violated anti-discrimination laws passed at the state or local level and tried to justify it by saying "But Jesus!"

 

[Chesterton]

No, they don't. Nothing like.
Nor in Russia
"Atheist faces a year in prison for saying 'there is no God' during an argument over social media in Russia "
Admittedly he didn't say it that politely.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ying-no-God-argument-social-media-Russia.html

Nope. There's a fellow there who is going to get several thousand lashes and a few years in prison for posting "atheistic" views.
In Saudi Islamistan you can get beheaded for being too free with your opinions.

I could be wrong but from what I understand, in Saudi Arabia you must commit multiple instances of repeated offensive speech before you're charged with a crime, and even then you're given a chance to recant. Weston was arrested based on a single incident and not offered the chance to recant. To me it seems like the Saudi's repression is a bit more liberal.

I had to check on that, because I didn't recall the incident.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html

Campaigning for a seat in the European parliament, Paul Weston was arrested in the first place for not moving on ( a dispersal order) when asked to by police, and then for suspicion of of religious or racial harrassment.

The details of what he quoted through a megaphone can be found in the article.
No subsequent action, not even the giving of a caution, was taken concerning the content of his speech.

(Wiki) Police Commissioner Simon Hayes responded to the media coverage on the Hampshire Police and Crime Commission website:

"It has been wrongly suggested that Mr Weston was arrested for reciting passages written by Winston Churchill. I understand he was not welcome outside the Winchester Guildhall, the Police were called and he was asked to move on. I also understand that he was not prepared to move on and was arrested for this reason.

Members of the public are of course at liberty to debate issues of importance to them in private or public spaces. However, there must be a level of decorum and decency."

For some reason I can't pull up the article you linked, but it sounds like a bit of a whitewashing. Here's Weston's account. I may have mispoke when I said he was charged, but he was arrested. You're correct, they originally cited the disperal problem, but then dropped that and intended to charge him with a speech crime, which might as well be described as a thought crime. Amazing in the land of Orwell. Doubly amazing that quoting an English book by a man who earned a Nobel prize for literature fell beneath England's "level of decorum and decency".

 

[Murby]

Folks, I have close ties to Russia and Ukraine.. Family and all that. We communicate with them through skype every week and I have a really good idea how how things work over there.. I've also spent time in both countries.

I would bet the barn that the guy making the "no god" comment in Russia was punished due to his political affiliations, not his comment. He might be related to someone who is anti-Putin or something.

What you have to understand is that the Soviet Union was pretty much free of public religion.. after decades of banning it, most people who grew up during those times were not at all religious themselves.
The only reason Russia has endorsed religion is because they probably view it as a useful tool for manipulation of public opinion to further their own agenda.
To throw someone in jail for denouncing it screams political motives, not religious or social.

 

[Chris B]

Weston was arrested based on a single incident and not offered the chance to recant. To me it seems like the Saudi's repression is a bit more liberal..

Nah. He declined to move after several complaints... I don't think he was located on public ground. Guildhall staff than had a fair complaint.. particularly with a megaphone.

For some reason I can't pull up the article you linked, but it sounds like a bit of a whitewashing..

Checked again: works for me... Yes he was also arrested "on suspicion of..." but that was not proceeded with: on further investigation, no case...

. Amazing in the land of Orwell. Doubly amazing that quoting an English book by a man who earned a Nobel prize for literature fell beneath England's "level of decorum and decency".

Did you see what the passage quoted actually said? I was reluctant to post it here.
This was 1899 Churchill, not 1940's Churchill.


'How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.'

Churchill's text, and in italics the portions which Weston used.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I could be wrong but from what I understand, in Saudi Arabia you must commit multiple instances of repeated offensive speech before you're charged with a crime, and even then you're given a chance to recant.

Whether this the policy in Saudi Arabia, it was the policy in the Middle Ages.

Weston was arrested based on a single incident and not offered the chance to recant.

The spirit resemble nothing so much as a Soviet tribunal, where they demand you recant then shoot you anyway. This is why you never, ever, apologize for offending a leftist. Your apology will never be accapted, will never be taken in good faith. An apology is a confession, and a confession is evidence to be used against you. That's all.

You're correct, they originally cited the disperal problem, but then dropped that and intended to charge him with a speech crime, which might as well be described as a thought crime. Amazing in the land of Orwell.

Airstrip One

 

[William67]

People often falsely assume that freedoms extend to the workplace...they don't...

The moment you sign on the dotted line to work for someone else, you're voluntarily waiving certain rights and agreeing to play by their rules.

Same goes for any other case where you're on someone else's property. If someone has a rule that there's no cussing in their house...I can't claim first amendment violation if they ask me to leave for cussing.


Granted...I understand the frustration for some as there have been a number of double standards established in the past few years that make exceptions for certain groups that tread the line of violating a business owner's rights.

This wasn't the "workplace". This was at Uni. A place where he was "purchasing" an education.

Guy walks into a fast food restaurant...

Guy: Id like a cheeseburger.
Cashier: Do you want bacon on that?
Guy: No.
Cashier: Why not?
Guy: I'm Jewish.
Cashier: You will have to leave.
Guy: Because I'm Jewish?
Cashier: No, because you don't want bacon.
Guy: What does that have to do with it.
Cashier: Well, we here at Bigot Burger have a policy of not offending people who like bacon.
Guy: What does that have to do with me?
Cashier: Well, you just said you don't like bacon and that's offensive. So, you have to leave or we will have you arrested. BTW-That will be 4.90 for the burger.
Guy: But I didn't eat a burger.
Cashier: Doesn't matter. You ordered a burger, you must pay for it, even if you didn't eat it.

Student goes to Uni in the UK.

Guy: Id like an education.
Cashier: Do you accept all our left-wing, anti-Christian policies?
Guy: No.
Cashier: Why not?
Guy: I'm Christian.
Cashier: You will have to leave.
Guy: Because I'm Christian?
Cashier: No, because you don't reject your religious doctrine.
Guy: Isnt that the same thing?
Cashier: No. You can be a Christian as long as you don't actually believe the tenants of Christianity. We are all about labels here. Transgendered, gay, lesbian, etc.
Guy: And they are free to exercise their beliefs and lifestyle, but I as a Christian am not free to exercise my beliefs or lifestyle?
Cashier: Now you understand. Everyone is free to do as they please. They can do whatever makes them feel good. Well, except for Christians who actually stick to the tenants of their faith. Now, youre going to have to leave. That will be £450,000, please.
Guy: But I wasn't allowed to finish my education or receive my diploma.
Cashier: Doesn't matter. You ordered an education, you must pay for it, even if we kicked you out.

 

[Chesterton]

Nah. He declined to move after several complaints... I don't think he was located on public ground. Guildhall staff than had a fair complaint.. particularly with a megaphone.

I don't know that there were complaints about anything other than the words themselves. If he'd been reading "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" would there have been a complaint? You can see by the video he was peaceful, not being loud, disruptive, disorderly, not blocking anyone's movement.

Checked again: works for me... Yes he was also arrested "on suspicion of..." but that was not proceeded with: on further investigation, no case...

Yes they hauled him away with the first excuse which came to mind, then realized later it couldn't legally stick, as I note above. That's actually not uncommon in law enforcement.

Did you see what the passage quoted actually said? I was reluctant to post it here.

Yes, I've read the book. Don't know why you were reluctant to post it. I see worse things said about Christianity on here.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This wasn't the "workplace". This was at Uni. A place where he was "purchasing" an education.

Guy walks into a fast food restaurant...

Student goes to Uni in the UK.
Cashier: Now you understand. Everyone is free to do as they please. They can do whatever makes them feel good. Well, except for Christians who actually stick to the tenants of their faith. Now, youre going to have to leave. That will be £450,000, please.

Guy: But I wasn't allowed to finish my education or receive my diploma.
Cashier: Doesn't matter. You ordered an education, you must pay for it, even if we kicked you out.

What you're presenting is a bit of a false equivalency.

In a college environment, you're not buying a degree/diploma, you're paying for class time which earns class credits. You then earn your degree from the institution once you've met their requirement in terms of those credits.

Now, if he's getting kicked out mid-semester, I'd agree that they should refund the money he paid toward that particular semester. However, any amounts he paid up until that point aren't subject for refund as he was able to attend those full classes, and thus, got what he paid for.

That'd be like if I attended the first 5 years of a masters degree program, and in the 6th year, decided I was going to cuss out a teacher and they decided to kick me out...I'd have no valid claim for a refund for those first 5 years, nor a valid grievance as I paid for 5 years, and they gave me 5 years worth of education. It be the current year's payments that would be in dispute.


Now, with that being said, I'll say that my personal opinion is that I think people are far too sensitive these days and if you get offended by what someone else says about you on facebook, my advice would be "be an adult and quit crying about it and just ignore them". ...but in terms of the financial implications of this case, this guy has no leg to stand on.

 

[mindlight]

http://www.christianheadlines.com/b...rsity-for-quoting-bible-on-homosexuality.html

It's so sad that years of study and hard work can be wiped out for posting Biblical views on your FB account.

The HCPC code of conduct has more to do with the promotion of moral relativism than effecting positive change in society. That said it does not apply to students but only to registered social workers.

This was a private Facebook post. If it has in any way diminished the fitness of this potential social worker to work with the tiny % of the population that is gay then it is only because of the universities controversial actions and the publicity associated with their initial decisions. In practice he was working fine with gay people as people.

If he is not free to have an opinion about the gay lifestyle based on the broad teaching of scripture and the teaching offices of all the major churches then there is no freedom of speech in the UK

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Is it true England has banned people from wearing "religious icons" (such as a cross)?

 

[William67]

What you're presenting is a bit of a false equivalency.

In a college environment, you're not buying a degree/diploma, you're paying for class time which earns class credits. You then earn your degree from the institution once you've met their requirement in terms of those credits.

Now, if he's getting kicked out mid-semester, I'd agree that they should refund the money he paid toward that particular semester. However, any amounts he paid up until that point aren't subject for refund as he was able to attend those full classes, and thus, got what he paid for.

That'd be like if I attended the first 5 years of a masters degree program, and in the 6th year, decided I was going to cuss out a teacher and they decided to kick me out...I'd have no valid claim for a refund for those first 5 years, nor a valid grievance as I paid for 5 years, and they gave me 5 years worth of education. It be the current year's payments that would be in dispute.


Now, with that being said, I'll say that my personal opinion is that I think people are far too sensitive these days and if you get offended by what someone else says about you on facebook, my advice would be "be an adult and quit crying about it and just ignore them". ...but in terms of the financial implications of this case, this guy has no leg to stand on.

Its still a business arrangement. So, no false equivalency. If a business cant refuse to sell to someone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., what makes you think that a business can refuse to sell to someone based on their personal beliefs? A university is a business. They provide a product at a price.

Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Its still a business arrangement. So, no false equivalency. If a business cant refuse to sell to someone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., what makes you think that a business can refuse to sell to someone based on their personal beliefs? A university is a business. They provide a product at a price.

Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

Oh, I don't deny that liberalism is riddled with hypocrisy on the topic of the first amendment, I acknowledged that in my first post.

Where our conclusions differ is that I don't feel that the university has reneged on the agreement as it pertains to his prior time at the school.

College is very much a "pay as you go" model. The classes he's taken so far still equate to transferable credits that will be honored at other institutions so they haven't robbed him of anything in that regard. He's paid for a bunch of prior classes, passed them, and as a result has verified credits for each of those classes on the books. He's gotten what he paid for thus far. The university simply chose to no longer accept his payment in exchange for credits. Now, anything that's currently pending...for example, if he paid for this semester, and they're terminating their agreement halfway through...he should be refunded that portion of it.

 

[William67]

Oh, I don't deny that liberalism is riddled with hypocrisy on the topic of the first amendment, I acknowledged that in my first post.

Where our conclusions differ is that I don't feel that the university has reneged on the agreement as it pertains to his prior time at the school.

College is very much a "pay as you go" model. The classes he's taken so far still equate to transferable credits that will be honored at other institutions so they haven't robbed him of anything in that regard. He's paid for a bunch of prior classes, passed them, and as a result has verified credits for each of those classes on the books. He's gotten what he paid for thus far. The university simply chose to no longer accept his payment in exchange for credits. Now, anything that's currently pending...for example, if he paid for this semester, and they're terminating their agreement halfway through...he should be refunded that portion of it.

Unless, of course, any "future university" to which he applies uses the reason for his dismissal as grounds to deny his acceptance. In that case, the uni that expelled him has basically stolen any and all tuition they had received from him.

 

[TerranceL]

Disregard all that. I was just really mad about unrelated things when I psoted that.

Ah, I can understand that. That's when you take a step back from the keyboard.

 

[Armoured]

There is no sacred cows that the public will allow to infringe on their right to speak their mind. This overeaching will soon become tiresome by those who pretty much roll their eyes at all of this, because it wasn't their issue to begin with.

The entire reason that the situation changes is because the standards of one side reflected so little to the average citizen that those values were considered more irritating than beneficial. When the other side becomes so enamored by their victories, which were facilitated tin no small measure to these same middle of the road types, that they become as irritating as the first bunch, how long will it be before the new group gets their lunch handed to them?

If you have a better suggesting to change society-wide mainstream attitudes, be my guest.

 

[Chris B]

Is it true England has banned people from wearing "religious icons" (such as a cross)?

No. Some firms have rules against the overt (ostentatious?) display of religious identifiers.
It's in the UK but it's a classic "melting pot" vs "freedom" clash.
A variety of legal cases have emerged... including with Sikhs whose turban is a clear and unavoidable identifier.
But if crosses were allowed, say as a lapel pin (which would offend few) then an inverted cross could not easily be objected to either.

 

[Oafman]

Is it true England has banned people from wearing "religious icons" (such as a cross)?

Britain is a theocracy, with a state religion, the head of which is appointed directly by God. Unelected representatives of said state religion are permanent members of the British legislature.

And you foreigners, in your secular countries with leaders chosen by mere mortals rather than deities, have the nerve to question our religiosity!

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

If you have a better suggesting to change society-wide mainstream attitudes, be my guest.

All I said was when one side overreaches those in the middle will stop them. People call out the left and the right for what the crazies on either side do, but it's not those in the mainstream citizenry that try to silence people. It is those who feel that anything spoken will obliterate the hold they think they have on society.

society allows what they allow and it's not because they have suddenly become, to certain people radicalized. That's just those who don't like change having a pity party and wants a way to slash out at those he thinks have wronged either him or his ideals. They end up looking more and more desperate as time goes on and eventually gets ignored by main stream society.

The only way to change public opinion is to do things slowly and incrementally, which the progressive movement has been doing for decades. The move towards gay marriage started, probably before we were born and whan society was ripe for the change, the mechanics of chance made it happen.

Now we are in a transition period and everything is up in the air. We need legislation to find the right piece of this puzzle to place where it should go so that this can become a solid standard of society and not adversely effect the rights of the religious community.

 

[mindlight]

If you have a better suggesting to change society-wide mainstream attitudes, be my guest.

Treating people as people is one thing and promoting perversion another. A Social Worker ethos that actively promotes moral relativism does nothing for society.