Jump to content

The Count Dankula Verdict


Restonbabe

Recommended Posts

Stephen Lennon aka Tommy Robinson is live streaming the verdict from Airdrie sherrif Court today. 

I really hope common  sense prevails here. 

The repercussions from a guilty verdict will change British life and not for the better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really torn on this one.

 

I firmly believe that common sense should prevail, and genuinely hope that it does.

 

However, the accused is an odious wee (mod edit), and would love the seethe that would come from him and his followers if he was jailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Restonbabe said:

Stephen Lennon aka Tommy Robinson is live streaming the verdict from Airdrie sherrif Court today. 

I really hope common  sense prevails here. 

The repercussions from a guilty verdict will change British life and not for the better. 

 

I thought he was laready found guilty, isnpt this about what sentence he will recieve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans were absolutely falling over themselves on social media to say how much Scotland is a "joke of a country" because they presumed he'd go to jail.

 

Back to your nude Waffle House shootings now :rofl: .

 

£800 is still a bit crap for a joke, no doubt it'll be GoFundMe'd though, he won't pay a penny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

£800 fine. and a lot about nothing. Its still worrying that the police can haul you in off the street for saying something deemed as a joke and fine you for it.

i believe he is going to fight the charges. we will see.

personally hope he wins, and some sort of narrative is placed upon the legal system that the PF cant be harassing members of the public for something someon find offensive. otherwise we would all be going to jail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo

fine is about right

with freedom of speech comes responsibility for what you say.

 

you should be just as responsible in what you post online as you would in a stadium or on the street

 

you shout "gas the jews " in the street, or at the footie and you're in trouble

same should apply online

 

there is a reason that comedians are more out there at the live gigs than in the papers

-its about the audience

dankula posted it publically to the whole world

deserved his fine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davemclaren
11 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

fine is about right

with freedom of speech comes responsibility for what you say.

 

you should be just as responsible in what you post online as you would in a stadium or on the street

 

you shout "gas the jews " in the street, or at the footie and you're in trouble

same should apply online

 

there is a reason that comedians are more out there at the live gigs than in the papers

-its about the audience

dankula posted it publically to the whole world

deserved his fine

Agreed. The ‘gas the jews’ comment was a stupid one to make online. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Restonbabe said:

£800 fine. and a lot about nothing. Its still worrying that the police can haul you in off the street for saying something deemed as a joke and fine you for it.

i believe he is going to fight the charges. we will see.

personally hope he wins, and some sort of narrative is placed upon the legal system that the PF cant be harassing members of the public for something someon find offensive. otherwise we would all be going to jail

 

Think this misses the point a bit. 

 

No one is harassing anyone. The law is there to protect people. There's been a complaint against the guy in question. A crime deemed to have been committed and a successful prosecution brought. As a first offender deemed unlikely to reoffend he's got a fine. A low fine at that.

 

Not everyone would go to jail either. There's a lot of crap being spoken about here. He broke a law about offensive content on line. Why, if this was purely for annoying his girlfriend, did he publicly share it on YouTube?

 

But what really gets me is the far right are actively defending this guy. The likes of Tommy Robinson of the EDL rocking up isn't about free speech but something darker. Dog whistling on the go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GlasgoJambo
8 hours ago, davemclaren said:

Agreed. The ‘gas the jews’ comment was a stupid one to make online. 

 

You just said the same comment online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

He'll be pleased with that. Lots of publicity and won't cost him a penny. 

Cost him £800

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cade said:

Cost him £800

 

GoFundMe will be taking a battering tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SpruceBringsteen
36 minutes ago, Cade said:

Cost him £800

 

The legions of far right mutants that have attached themselves to him will pay that in quick order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
10 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

fine is about right

with freedom of speech comes responsibility for what you say.

 

you should be just as responsible in what you post online as you would in a stadium or on the street

 

you shout "gas the jews " in the street, or at the footie and you're in trouble

same should apply online

 

there is a reason that comedians are more out there at the live gigs than in the papers

-its about the audience

dankula posted it publically to the whole world

deserved his fine

Very much agree. 

 

For a start, we've never had freedom of speech in the UK, it's an american concept - we've always had to take responsibility for what we've said. 

 

Everyone went mental about hate preachers and why? Because deep down we all know the potential dangers of words - of course you can't just say anything without consequence!

For sure you can have a laugh with your mates, when you know the boundaries and can be as shocking as you like, even in your stand up routine where people expect the risqué. But publishing "gas the jews" in public isn't just a harmless joke aimed at his girlfriend (send it to your girlfriend if that's the case!) There's clearly a risk of normalising some stuff that we don’t want normalised if this is allowed, not to mention setting a precedent that scum like Robinson can latch on to. What next? The EDF claiming they're joking when they chant "gas the jews"?

 

What's more important? Letting this arsehole say anything he wants without any responsibility or the rights of millions of Jews to not have their horrific history belittled?

 

I'm definitely more libertarian than authoritarian but the prick got what he deserved if you ask me and the racists have done a cracking job of convincing people it's an insult to freedom of speech (not aimed at you OP!)

Edited by Smithee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Smithee said:

Very much agree. 

 

For a start, we've never had freedom of speech in the UK, it's an american concept - we've always had to take responsibility for what we've said. 

 

Everyone went mental about hate preachers and why? Because deep down we all know the potential dangers of words - of course you can't just say anything without consequence!

For sure you can have a laugh with your mates, when you know the boundaries and can be as shocking as you like, even in your stand up routine where people expect the risqué. But publishing "gas the jews" in public isn't just a harmless joke aimed at his girlfriend (send it to your girlfriend if that's the case!) There's clearly a risk of normalising some stuff that we don’t want normalised if this is allowed, not to mention setting a precedent that scum like Robinson can latch on to. What next? The EDF claiming they're joking when they chant "gas the jews"?

 

What's more important? Letting this arsehole say anything he wants without any responsibility or the rights of millions of Jews to not have their horrific history belittled?

 

I'm definitely more libertarian than authoritarian but the prick got what he deserved if you ask me and the racists have done a cracking job of convincing people it's an insult to freedom of speech (not aimed at you OP!)

I get all the points you make but I have to disagree. Context is vital. To me, the only people that would incite towards racial or anti-semitic hatred are the arseholes who support the 3rd reich anyway. And there's no shortage of genuine shit out there for these ****** wombles to get frothed up about, rather than some unfunny guy making a dog give Nazi salutes and teaching it to go radge at "gas the Jews". People say the repitition of the phrase was the big thing. Personally, if you want to train a dog to get worked up over the phrase "gas the Jews", I don't see how you can do it without repeating the phrase. 

 

Is the guy a bit of a twat? Yes, but I don't think being an offensive twat should be a criminal offence. Inciting hatred should probably be an offence but as I say, the only people I can think who'd be incited by that are the arseholes who have those views anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ibrahim Tall
10 hours ago, Smithee said:

The EDF claiming they're joking when they chant "gas the jews"?

 

Cant imagine that's a good sales technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
15 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

I get all the points you make but I have to disagree. Context is vital. To me, the only people that would incite towards racial or anti-semitic hatred are the arseholes who support the 3rd reich anyway. And there's no shortage of genuine shit out there for these ****** wombles to get frothed up about, rather than some unfunny guy making a dog give Nazi salutes and teaching it to go radge at "gas the Jews". People say the repitition of the phrase was the big thing. Personally, if you want to train a dog to get worked up over the phrase "gas the Jews", I don't see how you can do it without repeating the phrase. 

 

Is the guy a bit of a twat? Yes, but I don't think being an offensive twat should be a criminal offence. Inciting hatred should probably be an offence but as I say, the only people I can think who'd be incited by that are the arseholes who have those views anyway. 

I agree context is vital, and if he'd made that video and sent it privately to his Mrs I'd also agree it was no one's business but theirs. 

 

But we all know (him included) that what he did is against the law, and for good reason.

 

In my time in Holland I met a lot of people for whom this stuff is still really sensitive, there are people alive who remember tanks in the streets of amsterdam, a city with a large Jewish presence. I also lived in a wee place called soesterberg where people still grieve those taken to camps and those shot in the woods nearby. This guy's right to be a prick shouldn't over ride those peoples' right to a bit of dignity in remembering their families and loved ones in one of the worst episodes in recent humanity.

 

So yeah, I suppose I'm applying the context of what I've experienced and can't really expect anyone else to have lived my life, but letting this go would have been the start of a slippery slope IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

So yeah, I suppose I'm applying the context of what I've experienced and can't really expect anyone else to have lived my life, but letting this go would have been the start of a slippery slope IMO

 

Likewise, punishing speech is well past the start of a slippery slope.

 

You can imagine my perspective differs on this just a wee bit for obvious reasons. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
Just now, Justin Z said:

 

Likewise, punishing speech is well past the start of a slippery slope.

 

You can imagine my perspective differs on this just a wee bit for obvious reasons. :wink:

So you have no problem with hate preachers being allowed a platform or Alex Jones being allowed to lie about grieving parents being actors because it's free speech?

 

Seems to me that many believe in freedom of speech when it suits them but want the government to shut it down when it doesn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Smithee said:

So you have no problem with hate preachers being allowed a platform or Alex Jones being allowed to lie about grieving parents being actors because it's free speech?

 

Seems to me that many believe in freedom of speech when it suits them but want the government to shut it down when it doesn't. 

 

Of course I have a problem with all of that. Did you seriously just ask me that question, knowing what you do about me? :lol:

 

There's a massive, universe-sized difference between my having a problem with it and thinking there ought to be a law put in place to stop it. And my reason is almost verbatim what you wrote in your second paragraph, to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
5 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Likewise, punishing speech is well past the start of a slippery slope.

 

You can imagine my perspective differs on this just a wee bit for obvious reasons. :wink:

The reasons might be obvious to you by the way, but colour me oblivious! Apologies if I've missed something I shouldn't have

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

The reasons might be obvious to you by the way, but colour me oblivious! Apologies if I've missed something I shouldn't have

 

The only super obvious one I was actually referring to was in regards your allusion earlier, that free speech is an American concept. It's one of the very few things I feel we've consistently gotten right in the post-WWII era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

The only super obvious one I was actually referring to was in regards your allusion earlier, that free speech is an American concept. It's one of the very few things I feel we've consistently gotten right in the post-WWII era.

Freedom of speech doesn't exist, never has - you absolutely are not free to say anything you want without consequence, and correctly so IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Freedom of speech doesn't exist, never has - you absolutely are not free to say anything you want without consequence, and correctly so IMO.

 

Yes, you mentioned you thought that was the correct way to go about it.

 

And in a vacuum, of course it is. But we don't live in a vacuum, we live in a messy political reality full of power imbalances.

 

The election of the current American president has flown completely over the heads of the leftists in the US who continue to lobby for hate speech laws and changes to the First Amendment. Somehow in their fervour, even with the biggest con man in the history of the presidency staring them in the face every single day, they miss one very important, very salient fact: It's not them who get to decide what speech violates laws such as these. It's the government. Sure, in this particular case in the UK, with this particular individual, we can say, "what an arsehole, he deserves a fine for being such a tube". But what about Stephen Fry in Ireland? What if the DUP were also running the Republic? What might have happened then?

 

If you think to yourself you've discovered a sensible limitation on free speech, one befitting a liberal, modern society, and you can't seriously say you'd want to task Donald J. Trump with enforcing that limitation . . . then it's not a good limitation. Because he won't enforce it the way you want, the way you intend, or in any way remotely approaching justice, 100% dead solid guaranteed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Yes, you mentioned you thought that was the correct way to go about it.

 

And in a vacuum, of course it is. But we don't live in a vacuum, we live in a messy political reality full of power imbalances.

 

The election of the current American president has flown completely over the heads of the leftists in the US who continue to lobby for hate speech laws and changes to the First Amendment. Somehow in their fervour, even with the biggest con man in the history of the presidency staring them in the face every single day, they miss one very important, very salient fact: It's not them who get to decide what speech violates laws such as these. It's the government. Sure, in this particular case in the UK, with this particular individual, we can say, "what an arsehole, he deserves a fine for being such a tube". But what about Stephen Fry in Ireland? What if the DUP were also running the Republic? What might have happened then?

 

If you think to yourself you've discovered a sensible limitation on free speech, one befitting a liberal, modern society, and you can't seriously say you'd want to task Donald J. Trump with enforcing that limitation . . . then it's not a good limitation. Because he won't enforce it the way you want, the way you intend, or in any way remotely approaching justice, 100% dead solid guaranteed.

Yeah, democracy's flawed. I still see no justification for letting this guy, or anyone for that matter, say what he wants with impunity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Yeah, democracy's flawed. I still see no justification for letting this guy, or anyone for that matter, say what he wants with impunity.

 

I've just given you the most stark one I can: Good people don't get to decide what that is. Besides, even if they did, it would ultimately hinge upon their belief "in freedom of speech when it suits them but want[ing] the government to shut it down when it doesn't". That's not an acceptable reason to codify anything that infringes upon a fundamental human right--to expression.

 

Europe has always been more illiberal on this issue than the US. As I said, one of the few things we've gotten right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
Just now, Justin Z said:

 

I've just given you the most stark one I can: Good people don't get to decide what that is. Besides, even if they did, it would ultimately hinge upon their belief "in freedom of speech when it suits them but want[ing] the government to shut it down when it doesn't". That's not an acceptable reason to codify anything that infringes upon a fundamental human right--to expression.

 

Europe has always been more illiberal on this issue than the US. As I said, one of the few things we've gotten right.

 

You agreed hate preachers shouldn't be allowed a stage nd that Jones shouldn't be allowed to lie about grieving parents, so you actually agree that pure freedom of speech isn't and shouldn't be allowed yourself.

 

Yeah there's a demagogue in the white house but that's a well trodden path in democracy and there'll be a reaction to that sooner or later, the pendulum will swing the other way. It's no reason to abandon the most reasonable control system we have.

 

So where's the line and who decides?

If not the democratically elected representatives of the population, who should decide where the line is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Smithee said:

 

You agreed hate preachers shouldn't be allowed a stage nd that Jones shouldn't be allowed to lie about grieving parents, so you actually agree that pure freedom of speech isn't and shouldn't be allowed yourself.

 

Yeah there's a demagogue in the white house but that's a well trodden path in democracy and there'll be a reaction to that sooner or later, the pendulum will swing the other way. It's no reason to abandon the most reasonable control system we have.

 

So where's the line and who decides?

If not the democratically elected representatives of the population, who should decide where the line is?

 

Smithee, slow down and actually read what I've written. Where have I agreed either of those things? I've agreed I, as someone who tries to be a decent person, have a problem with them, yes. I then immediately said that didn't mean I agreed there ought to be a law preventing them doing it.

 

I do agree pure, 100% unrestrained freedom of speech is problematic. I also agree that it doesn't exist, not even in the US. My idea of what reasonable restrictions on speech entail is far more narrow than yours, and for good reason.

 

The whole point of fundamental rights, of which speech most certainly is one, is that they are not subject to democracy. The rights are the line and they decide. They are inviolable, no matter how upset the current majority might be at their use. Democracy, as good a system as it may be (and that's debatable), is dangerously close to mob rule by its very nature.

 

On a more philosophical level, you are committing a basic legal error--you're advocating for results-based legislation. You want arseholes that say bad things to get punished. I do too, so on that point we're not so far off. What you seem to fail to recognise is if you're not really careful when legislating away fundamental rights, you end up creating far more collateral damage in the making of those laws than the amount of justice generated and wrongdoing prevented by them.

 

There are more ways for arseholes who say bad things to get punished than by through the arm of the State. We can say they're arseholes. We can choose not to do business with them. We can do and say just, good things that anger them because they are arseholes. The State wields enormous power, power that is limited by very few things--but one of those things is our fundamental rights. If we give those rights away, there will be nothing left to protect us should the State decide to turn its focus onto us. And it will be cold comfort indeed if we've been persecuted as a result, once the pendulum swings back the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
12 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Smithee, slow down and actually read what I've written. Where have I agreed either of those things? I've agreed I, as someone who tries to be a decent person, have a problem with them, yes. I then immediately said that didn't mean I agreed there ought to be a law preventing them doing it.

 

I do agree pure, 100% unrestrained freedom of speech is problematic. I also agree that it doesn't exist, not even in the US. My idea of what reasonable restrictions on speech entail is far more narrow than yours, and for good reason.

 

The whole point of fundamental rights, of which speech most certainly is one, is that they are not subject to democracy. The rights are the line and they decide. They are inviolable, no matter how upset the current majority might be at their use. Democracy, as good a system as it may be (and that's debatable), is dangerously close to mob rule by its very nature.

 

On a more philosophical level, you are committing a basic legal error--you're advocating for results-based legislation. You want arseholes that say bad things to get punished. I do too, so on that point we're not so far off. What you seem to fail to recognise is if you're not really careful when legislating away fundamental rights, you end up creating far more collateral damage in the making of those laws than the amount of justice generated and wrongdoing prevented by them.

 

There are more ways for arseholes who say bad things to get punished than by through the arm of the State. We can say they're arseholes. We can choose not to do business with them. We can do and say just, good things that anger them because they are arseholes. The State wields enormous power, power that is limited by very few things--but one of those things is our fundamental rights. If we give those rights away, there will be nothing left to protect us should the State decide to turn its focus onto us. And it will be cold comfort indeed if we've been persecuted as a result, once the pendulum swings back the other way.

 

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

So you have no problem with hate preachers being allowed a platform or Alex Jones being allowed to lie about grieving parents being actors because it's free speech?

 

Seems to me that many believe in freedom of speech when it suits them but want the government to shut it down when it doesn't. 

 

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

Of course I have a problem with all of that. Did you seriously just ask me that question, knowing what you do about me? :lol:

 

There's a massive, universe-sized difference between my having a problem with it and thinking there ought to be a law put in place to stop it. And my reason is almost verbatim what you wrote in your second paragraph, to boot.

 

We're clearly not going to agree on the role of the state in deciding free speech!

 

So I'll just give my view on it.

The point of the state is to represent the population's interests and legislate accordingly whether we like the current incumbents or not, and for me that includes what can and can't be said without consequence - the state is a reflection of society. 

 

I'm glad we have the laws we do so guys like Jones can be sued for lying, but it isn't about punishing bad guys for me (although I did have a flash of anger at this guy), it's about protecting victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

We're clearly not going to agree on the role of the state in deciding free speech!

 

So I'll just give my view on it.

The point of the state is to represent the population's interests and legislate accordingly whether we like the current incumbents or not, and for me that includes what can and can't be said without consequence - the state is a reflection of society. 

 

I'm glad we have the laws we do so guys like Jones can be sued for lying, but it isn't about punishing bad guys for me (although I did have a flash of anger at this guy), it's about protecting victims.

 

No, and that's fine. The state is indeed a reflection of society. Therefore it is a god damn good thing the US has what checks and balances remain to prevent Trump becoming an autocrat. If it didn't, he might. This is the fundamental idea underlying everything I've just said--that our rights hold our state in check.

 

I'm glad there are libel laws too, but keep in mind, Jones is being sued, not prosecuted. For me that's a massive difference, and I feel it ought to be a massive difference to anyone. And in the US, no one could sue Dankula, because an individualised harm must be shown. Indeed, the Sandy Hook families can show that, because his untrue statements have been directed at them, personally (and for various other legalese reasons). It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

"Protecting victims" is a noble idea. It's also the basis for some of the worst legislation in history. Seeing as you now live in Holland, perhaps you'd like to give me your opinion on all of the victims of the dangers of drugs the American drug war has protected. :lol: You don't need to--I think I've made my point; moral panics result in absolute shambles of laws. Because no matter what laws we craft, one law will always control: The law of unintended consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

No, and that's fine. The state is indeed a reflection of society. Therefore it is a god damn good thing the US has what checks and balances remain to prevent Trump becoming an autocrat. If it didn't, he might. This is the fundamental idea underlying everything I've just said--that our rights hold our state in check.

 

I'm glad there are libel laws too, but keep in mind, Jones is being sued, not prosecuted. For me that's a massive difference, and I feel it ought to be a massive difference to anyone. And in the US, no one could sue Dankula, because an individualised harm must be shown. Indeed, the Sandy Hook families can show that, because his untrue statements have been directed at them, personally (and for various other legalese reasons). It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

"Protecting victims" is a noble idea. It's also the basis for some of the worst legislation in history. Seeing as you now live in Holland, perhaps you'd like to give me your opinion on all of the victims of the dangers of drugs the American drug war has protected. :lol: You don't need to--I think I've made my point; moral panics result in absolute shambles of laws. Because no matter what laws we craft, one law will always control: The law of unintended consequences.

Good post and one I generally agree with. When we talk of holocaust denial and Gas the Jews chat though it's different, it's no knee jerk or moral panic, this stuff has to be dealt with because black stuff can grow from it if it isn't.

In my younger days I would have agreed with you 100% but unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world so I ask myself "what's the greater evil?"

 

A bad government can be voted out and the laws they made changed, but a fascist government can't. So I accept that there have to be compromises on the rights I'd have in an ideal world to prevent the rise of the nasty side of humanity.

 

It's not ideal but I'll take the current system over pure freedom of speech any day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only error in your analysis, I'd say, is how we get to the fascist government. The answer is giving away our fundamental rights, rights which prevent a government from ever wielding enough power to become dictatorial. In your noble desire to do good, your chosen path creates greater potential for harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

 

 

We're clearly not going to agree on the role of the state in deciding free speech!

 

So I'll just give my view on it.

The point of the state is to represent the population's interests and legislate accordingly whether we like the current incumbents or not, and for me that includes what can and can't be said without consequence - the state is a reflection of society. 

 

I'm glad we have the laws we do so guys like Jones can be sued for lying, but it isn't about punishing bad guys for me (although I did have a flash of anger at this guy), it's about protecting victims.

 

Spot on Smithee.

 

Added to this I recommend Justin Z check the ECHR and the definition of Freedom of Speech. Especially the clause qualifying the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

The only error in your analysis, I'd say, is how we get to the fascist government. The answer is giving away our fundamental rights, rights which prevent a government from ever wielding enough power to become dictatorial. In your noble desire to do good, your chosen path creates greater potential for harm.

 

Those rights are usually eroded by facists who have come to office because they take advantage of unrestricted rights which alloe their bile to be viewed as authoritative. Wiemar Germany being a prime example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Spot on Smithee.

 

Added to this I recommend Justin Z check the ECHR and the definition of Freedom of Speech. Especially the clause qualifying the right.

 

I'm well aware of the ECHR's definition. It's hardly the only one out there.

 

By contrast, there is no clause qualifying the right to freedom of speech in the American Constitution, but there are still restrictions. The government is required to show that any restrictions on speech pass an exacting legal test, known as "strict scrutiny".

 

4 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Those rights are usually eroded by facists who have come to office because they take advantage of unrestricted rights which alloe their bile to be viewed as authoritative. Wiemar Germany being a prime example.

 

The Weimar Republic had an exception for hate speech and quite rigorously prosecuted anti-Jewish National Socialists, so your point is kind of self-destructive against that relief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo
25 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

The only error in your analysis, I'd say, is how we get to the fascist government. The answer is giving away our fundamental rights, rights which prevent a government from ever wielding enough power to become dictatorial. In your noble desire to do good, your chosen path creates greater potential for harm.

 

That is why in a democracy such as the UK, the government and courts are separate- we have an independent judiciary to protect us against the foibles of government.

This is why the EU is p'd off at Poland, where the government is attacking its judicial system to get its own way

and why the courts in the US are fending off Trump

 

And also why it is really hard for governments to get guys like Hamza despite the rants of the ruling party- it took years to get him

the law protected him from the public and government

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, having separation of powers is a very good protection. Actually, it serves as a much more in-depth retort to ideas like "if only the Weimar Republic had restrictions on its free speech (even though it did), there would have been no way for the Nazis to rise to power, therefore heavy-handed restrictions on speech are necessary to stop the Holocaust repeating". No, there were much deeper reasons, including things like poor separation of powers.

 

For what it's worth, I find the lack of written constitution here, as well as basically no separation between the legislative and executive, problematic. However, at least the various Human Rights treaties to which the UK are signatory provide some level of protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Think this misses the point a bit. 

 

No one is harassing anyone. The law is there to protect people. There's been a complaint against the guy in question. A crime deemed to have been committed and a successful prosecution brought. As a first offender deemed unlikely to reoffend he's got a fine. A low fine at that.

 

Not everyone would go to jail either. There's a lot of crap being spoken about here. He broke a law about offensive content on line. Why, if this was purely for annoying his girlfriend, did he publicly share it on YouTube?

 

But what really gets me is the far right are actively defending this guy. The likes of Tommy Robinson of the EDL rocking up isn't about free speech but something darker. Dog whistling on the go.

No there wasnt a complaint made against him. If you want to deem police Scotland ( the state) being the complainer then your comments are justified. 

It was the state went after him. Not the Joe public. I think that is dangerous to the society we live in. A judge cannot say what I'd deemed offensive or not. 

 

As for your edl remarks. He left 5 years ago. And had went to prison because of the state forced him too after activity campaigns against Muslim rape gangs. 

He knows better than most what the full power of the law can do to someone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Restonbabe said:

No there wasnt a complaint made against him. If you want to deem police Scotland ( the state) being the complainer then your comments are justified. 

It was the state went after him. Not the Joe public. I think that is dangerous to the society we live in. A judge cannot say what I'd deemed offensive or not. 

 

As for your edl remarks. He left 5 years ago. And had went to prison because of the state forced him too after activity campaigns against Muslim rape gangs. 

He knows better than most what the full power of the law can do to someone. 

 

So how did it come to the attention of the Police then?

 

Robinson went to jail for mortgage fraud, didn't he?  Bugger all to do with muslamic ray guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Restonbabe said:

No there wasnt a complaint made against him. If you want to deem police Scotland ( the state) being the complainer then your comments are justified. 

It was the state went after him. Not the Joe public. I think that is dangerous to the society we live in. A judge cannot say what I'd deemed offensive or not. 

 

All criminal actions are - for court - the PF (the crown) against a law breaker. But a crime has to be brought to the Police by someone, found to be a crime and if necessary prosecuted. The state has done it's job.

 

The case is not saying it is universally offensive. It's saying some in the community were offended beyond what is reasonable and therefore this guy has been sanctioned with a fine and a criminal offence.

 

Everything that should've happened did. People do realise this guy was saying something most other folk would find reprehensible repeatedly and has offended people in the process? This isn't Mandela's demands for equality being prevented from being aired.

 

26 minutes ago, Restonbabe said:

 

As for your edl remarks. He left 5 years ago. And had went to prison because of the state forced him too after activity campaigns against Muslim rape gangs. 

He knows better than most what the full power of the law can do to someone. 

 

Doesn't change his political views. As Boris said his crime was mortgage fraud. Hardly a freedom fighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
52 minutes ago, Restonbabe said:

No there wasnt a complaint made against him. If you want to deem police Scotland ( the state) being the complainer then your comments are justified. 

It was the state went after him. Not the Joe public. I think that is dangerous to the society we live in. A judge cannot say what I'd deemed offensive or not. 

 

As for your edl remarks. He left 5 years ago. And had went to prison because of the state forced him too after activity campaigns against Muslim rape gangs. 

He knows better than most what the full power of the law can do to someone. 

Yes, the state under the guise of the PF went after him, that's how it works, The Crown vs...

The BBC and telegraph both reported that the police responded to complaints by the way, what makes you say that isn't the case?

 

Also, wasn't the verdict reached by a jury? I don't think you're right to say a judge decided but happy to be corrected if I'm wrong there. 

 

As for Robinson, this guy's been heavily involved in the BNP and Pegida UK, not to mention his anti islam speeches for the FLA. We can't pretend all the nasty is behind him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Also, wasn't the verdict reached by a jury? I don't think you're right to say a judge decided but happy to be corrected if I'm wrong there. 

 

My understanding as a lawyer, albeit a foreign one, is that a sheriff would have heard this without a jury--a jury is reserved only for "serious" criminal cases. I'm not sure exactly what those include but I imagine it's along the lines of murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo
8 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

My understanding as a lawyer, albeit a foreign one, is that a sheriff would have heard this without a jury--a jury is reserved only for "serious" criminal cases. I'm not sure exactly what those include but I imagine it's along the lines of murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.

Your right Justin- Sherrif only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
17 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

My understanding as a lawyer, albeit a foreign one, is that a sheriff would have heard this without a jury--a jury is reserved only for "serious" criminal cases. I'm not sure exactly what those include but I imagine it's along the lines of murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.

Ok, then that is a flaw, we then come down to how this particular guy judges the situation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...