Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 04 May 2010, 13:10:39
-
This is not a thread about religion, that's been done to death here of late.
It is a thread about freedom of speech.
Is it right or wrong to have a view on sexual orientation? There are laws to protect all groups from discrimination, but can one still, in a free society, express one's views?
Well clearly not, when you take this article into account.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
You may disagree with the man, you may agree with the man, you may think he's mad, you may think he's sane.
That is not the issue.
What is at issue is the ability to express one's views in public, a time-honoured tradition that goes back centuries and is particularly evidenced at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park.
When someone cannot speak their mind without being taken away to the local police station where fingerprints, a palm print, a retina scan and a DNA swab are taken in a police cell, something is VERY, VERY, wrong.
Free speech has died in this country.
>:( >:( >:( >:( :(
-
In Russia, many years ago, a little black car would draw up, you would be dragged inside, and probably taken to a gulag somewhere to live out your life.........
England is one of the few places in the world you can publically express your views without (much) trouble from the government/police/authorities.
-
This sounds like a conflict of interest on behalf of the PSCO who openly identified themselves as homosexual and the LGBT Liaison for her area. And then the preacher is arrested under section 5(1) and 5(6) of the Public Order Act..... hmmmmm. Any good lawyer will get this thrown out pdq :y
-
I'd get the PCSO thrown out pdq. His skin is obviously too thin for the job and he is abusing his position.
On a slightly different tangent -- WHY do they have such things as LGBT Liason Officers ?? Do they have an S (for straight) Liason Officer ?? >:(
Why do "other than straight" people insist on shoving their sexuality in peoples faces ? (As this PCSO has done, in a roundabout way) >:(
-
This bloke was set up imo.The PCSO will probably go a long way in the modern
thoughtpolice service. The Old world order must be smashed regardless of consequence,conform to the ways of the new elite or you will be crushed.Very sinister imo. >:( >:(
-
I'd get the PCSO thrown out pdq. His skin is obviously too thin for the job and he is abusing his position.
On a slightly different tangent -- WHY do they have such things as LGBT Liason Officers ?? Do they have an S (for straight) Liason Officer ?? >:(
Why do "other than straight" people insist on shoving their sexuality in peoples faces ? (As this PCSO has done, in a roundabout way) >:(
Since when did Lehmann Gross Bahn Trains need a liaison officer?
-
I'd get the PCSO thrown out pdq. His skin is obviously too thin for the job and he is abusing his position.
On a slightly different tangent -- WHY do they have such things as LGBT Liason Officers ?? Do they have an S (for straight) Liason Officer ?? >:(
Why do "other than straight" people insist on shoving their sexuality in peoples faces ? (As this PCSO has done, in a roundabout way) >:(
Since when did Lehmann Gross Bahn Trains need a liaison officer?
::) ::)
-
I'd get the PCSO thrown out pdq. His skin is obviously too thin for the job and he is abusing his position.
On a slightly different tangent -- WHY do they have such things as LGBT Liason Officers ?? Do they have an S (for straight) Liason Officer ?? >:(
Why do "other than straight" people insist on shoving their sexuality in peoples faces ? (As this PCSO has done, in a roundabout way) >:(
Since when did Lehmann Gross Bahn Trains need a liaison officer?
::) ::)
LGB of course ::) ::)
-
I find it hard to comprehend that on this forum any mention of the contents of the Bible, either real or perceived, is so often derided as either completely out of line with modern life at best, or even that it is just a fairy story!
Yet there is obvious favour being given to an individual who goes around spouting out so called "truths" from the Bible, who also ignores completly the teachings of Jesus Christ on tolerance and the love for all men (and I hope women!!), and is casting his own form of narrow mindness that should be rightly discredited and cast aside.
I can't imagine what it must be like to be "gay", but all this so called 'Christian' is doing is spreading more misery on those who are already trying to come to terms with their sexuality, with the added fear that they may be attacked by 'followers' of such evil sentiment.
I spend some time with Kent Police helping them to tackle hate crime, and it is quite astonishing what some in our so called liberal and broad minded society will do to others when they do not agree with their beliefs, colour, seuality, or even just appearance.
Some may rubbish the laws that protect individual from descrimination, that in a case I officially know of involved brake lines being cut, razor blades being placed in ways designed to hurt the victim of discrimination, and the usual taunts of course! But these laws protect us all from others who do not agree with who we are, how we live, and our way of life, as in history we have witnessed taking place.
Only today I was talking to a white South African who now lives and works as a dentist in the UK. He explained how there is a senior member of the ANC who has spread 'a song' throughout his movement extolling the worth of eradicating all white farmers. Inciting the attacking and murder of those they do not like. But there are apparently no laws to stop them from spreading this racial hatred, as there was not in Nazi Germany against all Jews, and non-Aryans.
Let us treasure our laws that in fact protects free speech, but conversely stops individuals and groups, such as the so called 'Christian', abusing that right by spreading hatred, unhappiness, isolation, and perhaps encourage violence from those with twisted minds. 8-) 8-)
-
If you read the actual words he used and read the interview he gave after his arrest - he doesnt hate gays, he has gay friends etc , he is a very reasonable man BUT his personal beliefs are that homosexuality doesnt comply with the law of god. Agree or disagree if you like, but why is it a crime to hold that belif in this country nowadays ? :-/
-
If you read the actual words he used and read the interview he gave after his arrest - he doesnt hate gays, he has gay friends etc , he is a very reasonable man BUT his personal beliefs are that homosexuality doesnt comply with the law of god. Agree or disagree if you like, but why is it a crime to hold that belif in this country nowadays ? :-/
What he says in private Albs is between him, his conscience, and God. What he says in public is another matter, and the way it is said can be construed as inciting hatred and is against the law. ;) ;)
Believe me when I say these cases can escallate quickly with those of a twisted mind taking action no one wishes to see. ::) ::)
-
He said what he said to a woman he was having a conversation with. He didnt know the woman. When he finished speaking to her, the CPSO (who is the local rep for the gay police assoc.)went over to the woman, had a conversation with her and then events started to unfold.Entrapment imo. ;)
-
If you read the actual words he used and read the interview he gave after his arrest - he doesnt hate gays, he has gay friends etc , he is a very reasonable man BUT his personal beliefs are that homosexuality doesnt comply with the law of god. Agree or disagree if you like, but why is it a crime to hold that belif in this country nowadays ? :-/
What he says in private Albs is between him, his conscience, and God. What he says in public is another matter, and the way it is said can be construed as inciting hatred and is against the law. ;) ;)
Believe me when I say these cases can escallate quickly with those of a twisted mind taking action no one wishes to see. ::) ::)
Hmmm -- one word springs to mind ....Pope !
-
He said what he said to a woman he was having a conversation with. He didnt know the woman. When he finished speaking to her, the CPSO (who is the local rep for the gay police assoc.)went over to the woman, had a conversation with her and then events started to unfold.Entrapment imo. ;)
But the women made a complaint that the PCSO is duty bound to follow up.
This case may not be proved, with the CPS no doubt deciding not to pursue the matter further. However, the principles I have outlined still hold good for the law of this land to protect the vunerable, and to be used against those that abuse the right of free speech and actions. ;) ;)
-
Let us treasure our laws that in fact protects free speech, but conversely stops individuals and groups, such as the so called 'Christian', abusing that right by spreading hatred, unhappiness, isolation, and perhaps encourage violence from those with twisted minds. 8-) 8-)
I'm sorry, but I think you've totally missed the point, Lizzie. He is, in my view, perfectly entitled to believe that sodomy is wrong. You may disagree, I may disagree, we may both agree, who knows? The important point is that he is entitled to his view and is entitled to express it. Who decides when freedom of speech is "being abused"? You? Kent Police?
Free speech is only abused when a person uses that right to encourage others to commit crime. He wasn't.
>:( >:(
-
He said what he said to a woman he was having a conversation with. He didnt know the woman. When he finished speaking to her, the CPSO (who is the local rep for the gay police assoc.)went over to the woman, had a conversation with her and then events started to unfold.Entrapment imo. ;)
But the women made a complaint that the PCSO is duty bound to follow up.
This case may not be proved, with the CPS no doubt deciding not to pursue the matter further. However, the principles I have outlined still hold good for the law of this land to protect the vunerable, and to be used against those that abuse the right of free speech and actions. ;) ;)
I dont think she did make a genuine complaint. she was either an agent provocatuer or he extracted a complaint rrom her to enable him to persue his agenda.
No matter really, my opinion on this sort of thing is that it has gone much to far. We used to have gay bashing etc. years ago and no reasonable person would ever want to turn the clock back to that, but like many other things in this country in recent years we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and gone almost completely in the opposite direction.
The gay militant lobby have been much too succesful in recent times imo. Its not "Good As You "anymore.Its "Better then you and dont ever forget it" which seems to be the message.
We are now at the point where Peter Tatchell wants us to stop thinking in terms of an age of consent for young gays.How young is young ? - you tell me. :(
-
Let us treasure our laws that in fact protects free speech, but conversely stops individuals and groups, such as the so called 'Christian', abusing that right by spreading hatred, unhappiness, isolation, and perhaps encourage violence from those with twisted minds. 8-) 8-)
I'm sorry, but I think you've totally missed the point, Lizzie. He is, in my view, perfectly entitled to believe that sodomy is wrong. You may disagree, I may disagree, we may both agree, who knows? The important point is that he is entitled to his view and is entitled to express it. Who decides when freedom of speech is "being abused"? You? Kent Police?
Free speech is only abused when a person uses that right to encourage others to commit crime. He wasn't.
>:( >:(
Again Nick I think it is best to agree to disagree ;) ;)
-
If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? ::)
-
If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? ::)
...and the relevance of that post to this thread is what exactly? ::) ::) ::)
-
If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? ::)
...and the relevance of that post to this thread is what exactly? ::) ::) ::)
sorry - I thought we were discussing freedom of speech.....whats not relevant exactly? :-?
-
If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? ::)
...and the relevance of that post to this thread is what exactly? ::) ::) ::)
sorry - I thought we were discussing freedom of speech.....whats not relevant exactly? :-?
You know perfectly well that we're discussing the ability to voice one's views and opinions.
Is that too difficult for you? ::)
-
If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? ::)
...and the relevance of that post to this thread is what exactly? ::) ::) ::)
sorry - I thought we were discussing freedom of speech.....whats not relevant exactly? :-?
You know perfectly well that we're discussing the ability to voice one's views and opinions.
Is that too difficult for you? ::)
ahh, bless - sorry Nick I forgot - I'll explain for you:
Freedom of speech isn't a switch thats either on or off - it's all relative to the context and the situation, if someone - inspired by those words (either the nutjob shouting fire or the cleric spouting hate) to cause harm then, no you don't have free speech 8-)
-
If I stood in the middle of a full cinema and started shouting "Fire! Fire!" and the ensuing panic caused a number of deaths and injuries, would I be able to hide behind freedom of speech? ::)
...and the relevance of that post to this thread is what exactly? ::) ::) ::)
sorry - I thought we were discussing freedom of speech.....whats not relevant exactly? :-?
You know perfectly well that we're discussing the ability to voice one's views and opinions.
Is that too difficult for you? ::)
ahh, bless - sorry Nick I forgot - I'll explain for you:
Freedom of speech isn't a switch thats either on or off - it's all relative to the context and the situation, if someone - inspired by those words (either the nutjob shouting fire or the cleric spouting hate) to cause harm then, no you don't have free speech 8-)
The cleric was not "spouting hate" as you put it. Did he say that he hated gays? Nope. Did he espouse harming gays? Nope.
All he claimed was that sodomy was against the teachings of the deity to which he adheres.
Am I going too fast for you? ::) ::)
-
your wasting your time Nick. ;)
-
your wasting your time Nick. ;)
how dare you Albs! Nick spends hours reading up on freedom of speech, whatever your views he doesn't need you criticising him :o
-
your wasting your time Nick. ;)
Yes, indeed, Albs. Taking up cudgels against someone who believes Gordon Brown is a good steward of the economy is a lost cause! ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
Exactly :y
-
your wasting your time Nick. ;)
Yes, indeed, Albs. Taking up cudgels against someone who believes Gordon Brown is a good steward of the economy is a lost cause! ;) ;D ;D ;D
Is he not??? Problem caused by the banks and everyone else wants to Cut services via local government to solve the problem. The same people will be the ones who shout when we have another Baby P.......... :-X
-
I'm glad Nick, that you and Albs are all for freedom of speech ::)
maybe you'll not direct so much hostility to other opinions in the future - we'll see :y
-
your wasting your time Nick. ;)
Yes, indeed, Albs. Taking up cudgels against someone who believes Gordon Brown is a good steward of the economy is a lost cause! ;) ;D ;D ;D
Is he not??? Problem caused by the banks and everyone else wants to Cut services via local government to solve the problem. The same people will be the ones who shout when we have another Baby P.......... :-X
No Mike, he is arguably the worst steward the British economy has ever had.The point about the banks is arguable to a degree but what isnt arguable is that he proudly boasted of his "light touch" regarding banking regulations administereed by his brainchild the useless FSA. He sold the national gold reserves at the bottom of the market and then lied that he was advised to do so by the treasury and the bank of England.
He levied more than 50 tax increases on the taxpayers, bringing in many billions to the treasury.
The city had the biggest boom in its history while he was chancellor which brought in mind boggling amounts of money to the treasury. He was advised to put some of this money aside for the hard times, but there was no need, he had abolished boom and bust - there would be no hard times.
He not only spent all of the huge revenue which came into the Treasury but he borrowed enormous amounts of money to finance all of the new Labour social engineerin projects.
So when he was proved wrong and boom did indeed turn to bust (it always does) the country was already skint, so he had to embark on a borrowing spree which was previously unimaginable in this country and no matter what he or anyone else says, public spending will have to be cut very deeply very soon. :(
-
Historically, Labour spend more than the country earns and wreck the economy - the Tories get back in and fix it.
Btw, Ive never voted Tory in my life and I wont be this time either. :)
-
If you read the actual words he used and read the interview he gave after his arrest - he doesnt hate gays, he has gay friends etc , he is a very reasonable man BUT his personal beliefs are that homosexuality doesnt comply with the law of god. Agree or disagree if you like, but why is it a crime to hold that belif in this country nowadays ? :-/
What he says in private Albs is between him, his conscience, and God. What he says in public is another matter, and the way it is said can be construed as inciting hatred and is against the law. ;) ;)
Believe me when I say these cases can escallate quickly with those of a twisted mind taking action no one wishes to see. ::) ::)
This is typical of this country
A man of god gets "lifted" for stating his beliefs yet this sort of thing is tolerated
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg174/r0x0rz1337/cid_image007_jpg01CADD44.jpg)
whats wrong with this country
I blame labour!!
Doug
-
your wasting your time Nick. ;)
Yes, indeed, Albs. Taking up cudgels against someone who believes Gordon Brown is a good steward of the economy is a lost cause! ;) ;D ;D ;D
Is he not??? Problem caused by the banks and everyone else wants to Cut services via local government to solve the problem. The same people will be the ones who shout when we have another Baby P.......... :-X
No Mike, he is arguably the worst steward the British economy has ever had.The point about the banks is arguable to a degree but what isnt arguable is that he proudly boasted of his "light touch" regarding banking regulations administereed by his brainchild the useless FSA. He sold the national gold reserves at the bottom of the market and then lied that he was advised to do so by the treasury and the bank of England.
He levied more than 50 tax increases on the taxpayers, bringing in many billions to the treasury.
The city had the biggest boom in its history while he was chancellor which brought in mind boggling amounts of money to the treasury. He was advised to put some of this money aside for the hard times, but there was no need, he had abolished boom and bust - there would be no hard times.
He not only spent all of the huge revenue which came into the Treasury but he borrowed enormous amounts of money to finance all of the new Labour social engineerin projects.
So when he was proved wrong and boom did indeed turn to bust (it always does) the country was already skint, so he had to embark on a borrowing spree which was previously unimaginable in this country and no matter what he or anyone else says, public spending will have to be cut very deeply very soon. :(
....
......You're not serious are you?. .....greedy banks .....and the greedy inept selfish bastards who run the show have a lot to answer for.....Never mind though....if enough cooks and cleaners on minimum wage tighten their belts for the next few years...then perhaps these poor impoverished bankers may be able to keep their large well deserved bonus payments. :) :) :) However ...I agree with you about the "light touch " regulation it was a disaster. FDR had the right attitude to banks and bankers.... :) :) :)
-
anyone care to comment on the Eastenders islam/gay stotyline then............. ;D
Religion-as opposed to faith-has been at the root of many a war. Freedom of speach is important and ,to a degree, encompassed in that is a right to "offend" the beliefs of others, however, the line must surely be drawn if what someone says is an incitement to either hatred or violence against others.
-
I've heard about this on the news. I believe i'm right in saying christianity frowns on such activities so he's not only exercising his right to free speech but also standing by his religion both of which he is perfectly entitled to do. I feel the police were heavy handed in thier actions & if they were acting within thier guidelines then the law in this case most certainly is "a" ass.
Somebody once said...(Debs told me who last time i quoted it, Voltaire?) "I do not agree with what you say but i defend your right to say it". :-/
-
I've heard about this on the news. I believe i'm right in saying christianity frowns on such activities so he's not only exercising his right to free speech but also standing by his religion both of which he is perfectly entitled to do. I feel the police were heavy handed in thier actions & if they were acting within thier guidelines then the law in this case most certainly is "a" ass.
Somebody once said...(Debs told me who last time i quoted it, Voltaire?) "I do not agree with what you say but i defend your right to say it". :-/
.............and John Locke (1632 - 1704) would add everyone is entitled to their God given freedom, providing it hurts no one else, with us all entering into a social contract with society in general. ;) ;)