to think it's finally time England deals with its Katy Hopkins problem?

[Fliptophead]

I know she feeds off publicity and the best thing really would be to ignore her until she shrivels and dies of fame starvation so I apologise for the thread but this is really too much now isn't it?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-bombing-katie-hopkins-final-solution-muslims-arena-terror-attack-phillip-schofield-a7750656.html

When was the law changed to accommodate Muslim beliefs?

I thought we invoked the “religious exemption” from the EU’s slaughter directive in 2009?

If we know that this method of slaughter is inhumane, why would we carry on doing it? That is the bigger question - what are we afraid of? Why is everyone so tetchy talking about it? Accusing me of racism? Why don't we do the right thing even in the face of criticism?

You imply you don't eat Halal meat, Walrus, so it makes me wonder why you wouldn't eat it? Is it because you don't agree with the slaughtering methods? Yet, you still defend the right for someone to do it?

"Why is everyone so tetchy talking about it? Accusing me of racism?"

We've already told you why, because you repeatedly bring up ideas that have nothing to do with the animals that are killed without being stunned, like restaurants, supermarkets and pretending unstunned meat is being eaten by people who are unaware of it, because you tried to link to an organisation that protests about products being halal that don't involve any animal slaughter, because you're concentrating on one religions slaughtering methods as being the reason for religiously exemption.

Nobody is afraid of it.

I don't eat any meat, and I look down on people who argue about how they kill their dead animals. It's all a bit angels on pinheads.

The terrorist threat is also a new type of threat

Clearly not sufficiently educated.

*you have to defend the right to speak

Unless it's hate speech. *

No. You are either for free speech or for censorship.

As soon as you start censoring, you can define and re-define what "hate speech" is based on your agenda. Hate speech in some countries e.g. Saudi Arabia can be just insulting the king! Slippery slope which can lead to dictator-like state.

The fact we can allow people like KH to say whatever she wants is a testament to the freedom in our society.

Goady fucker KH calls for final solution to be applied to solve radical islamic terrorism.
We end up discussing halal meat in the UK.

Are you KH throwing dead cats?

Oh, look muslims are bad because they don't stun animals. Our society is rotten because 12% of halal meat is not pre-stunned (despite that methods of humane slaughtering can be disputed).

Never mind that some people are inciting hate against muslims.

No. You are either for free speech or for censorship

Bollocks. Like most things, its a spectrum. Few people are for full free speech, there have always been exceptions to any rule of free speech. Nobody ever had the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, did they?

Yes, but once you move off the end of the free speech spectrum (total free speech), the government are free to draw the line wherever they want. So to some governments, saying left-wing or anti-leadership comments are crossing the line. I think it's safest to leave the line at the end rather than placing it arbitrarily.

And always have been. You don't imagine you have ever had a right tio free speech, do you?

Yes, obviously, but banning Katy Hopkins talking is moving the line dangerously close to dictatorship territory.

There are laws against hate speech. She can, same as everyone else, say what she likes within the law.
Nothing dictator-like about that.

No. You are either for free speech or for censorship.

I disagree. I think you have to look at the consequences of both unfettered and hate-speech-exclusive free speech. Clearly they can both lead to undesired consequences. On the one hand there is China etc. On the other there's fascism, lynchings etc. Not many people here want either of those, so in the real world you are left with finding a balance.

It is just not as simple as being for one or the other, it's a false dichotomy.

If enough people don't like where their government draw that line, then they can vote them out. I am deeply concerned about TM's plans for internet censorship and therefore won't be voting for her (plus I'd never vote Tory anyway), for instance. However, I don't think people should be able to whip up hateful sentiments leading to horrific actions, either.

"No. You are either for free speech or for censorship"

As somebody said "You have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre"

banning Katy Hopkins talking is moving the line dangerously close to dictatorship territory

It really depends on what she says.

I think she should think about the consequences of her actions. People with extremist views can feel their views are common when they hear them echoed back to them some can act on them.

How many people with extreme views are listening to her and deciding it's ok to act out their views?

There isn't total free speech in this country. You can't incite racial hatred. You also can't use threatening or alarming behaviour which includes some speech.

I really like how we are discussing the censorship of KH

When the bomber himself was most likely radicalised in a community where all sorts of stuff was normalised.

But yep - let's ban KH!

Who said ban her?

And again, if you want to have that discussion, you can start a new thread. How do you people cope when you can't have two thoughts in a day?

This thread is specifically about Hopkins. There are plenty of other threads discussing radicalization. Although some may argue that people like Hopkins are part of the bigger picture.

Eh? The whole thread is about censorship of KH.

I think the thread is about how Hopkins should think carefully about her words.

Well it's called "England dealing with its KH problem" and not "KH should choose her words carefully"

Ah the irony. Scores of young people killed and we must not ask for a solution. Silly us.

Charlie

I don't want to censor her.
I'm just sad and honestly quite frightened that a surprising amount of people seem to support or at least defend her.

I agree with a lot of what she says. I suspect a lot of moderate muslims do too!

I'm sad and honestly quite frightened that people think the solution lies in anything other than lifting the lid on a hotbed of issues.