...To Think Free Speech is Dead in the UK

[RockyBayEve]

After 3 free speech advocates American Brittany Pettibone, her Austrian boyfriend and Canadian journalist Lauren Southern are detained by UK border force, barred from speaking at Speakers Corner, deported or barred entry.

You do not understand the problems of making criticism of religion illegal and you clearly do not have a background understanding of how we managed to get to a secular society in this country. How long that took and the benefits we all enjoy as a result.

Quite. We should never, ever take this for granted.

I’ve lived under a theocracy and I came here to ensure the next generation will not.

Please do not conflate your feelings for lovely friends of other beliefs with your terror of the obligation we all have to hold up each religion to examination, comment, criticism, ridicule and downright insult.

These are beliefs. They are not skin colour, genitals or sexual orientation.

I am as afraid of the far-left antifa intolerance and glee at the banning of speakers from Hyde Park as I was of skinhead lads in boots in Sweden in the 80s.

Speakers’ Corner.

Oh, the irony.

Oh for goodness sake. I give up on this thread. You know I'm not advocating for blasphemy laws at all, nowhere did I say that. A few of you seem quite determined to twist my meaning. Enjoy. But when someone attacks something you strongly believe in or a part of your identity, for no other reason, no deeper purpose than to piss you off, then perhaps you will understand what I'm saying.

This woman was not making any clever point about free speech, or creating a work of art, she is best mates with Tommy Robinson, they just want to wind up Muslims then play victim. That is all. I'm sure some of you on this thread will also be on the white privilege thread too telling people there that they are racist because they have a more complex idea of privilege and are questioning things.

Also at no point have I advocated banning her, i believe in debate and free speech, I just can't help being pleased that she was and went through stress because she is not a nice person. She is a racist.

But yeah carry on twisting my words. You know I'm right deep down. And the police and authorities agree with me. She was here to incite violence. Inciting violence or inciting terrorism doesn't mean just going up to someone and smacking them in the face. It's a bit more complex as you already know.

I could tell you more about my personal views but what's the point? You are determined to interpret my posts in a skewed way.

I believe in free speech, whatever the subject matter, nothing should be censored.

Oh for goodness sake. I give up on this thread. You know I'm not advocating for blasphemy laws at all, nowhere did I say that. A few of you seem quite determined to twist my meaning. Enjoy. But when someone attacks something you strongly believe in or a part of your identity, for no other reason, no deeper purpose than to piss you off, then perhaps you will understand what I'm saying.

how intelligent her points are is not important. we don't have free speech for only intelligent ideas. It there to protect crass, indecent and in particular offensive ideas. It's not there so we can talk about the weather. Given the importance religion has in our lives, and how much it affects people within and outside religions, if there is only one place where free speech should outweigh any concerns like offence, it is religion (and, I'd argue, the government. so two places).

I agree with a PP that this isn’t strictly a free speech issue; it’s the UK exercising it’s discretion as to who it lets into the country.

I know Canadians who have hard a very difficult time at the border when simply wanting to visit friends in the UK. Lengthy and hostile interviews, the friend they’re visiting being interviewed, etc.

So yeah, not really surprised that they won’t let someone in to partake in provocative ‘social expirements’ and meet up with the likes of Tommy Robinson.

I think we need to remember that be it far left or far right, those awful societies that removed people's human rights and murdered millions, from the Nazis, to Stalinist Russia, to the Khmer Rouge had one thing in common. They did not allow dissenting voices. There was no debate.

I will hold my hands up, in my long ago student past I was happily on board with my SU's no platform for racist or homophobic or sexist speakers policy.

But the trans debate (or lack of it) has opened my eyes. Issues do need to be discussed, we need to hear all sides, all the voices. We need to have structures in place that hold good whoever is in power and trying to impose their values. It's a basic part of living in a democratic society.

I'm sure some people think if they hear something terrible and get offened they'll crumble into dust or explode.

So yeah, not really surprised that they won’t let someone in to partake in provocative ‘social expirements’ and meet up with the likes of Tommy Robinson.

But letting Hezbollah supports who are virulently anti-Jewish and homophobic march in London isn't provocative and is allowed to go ahead .

If you are going to ban people for saying offensive things, at least be consistent rather than let one group do whatever they like whilst silencing everyone else.

You are missing the point because you don't understand Islam. To compare God to any human being even Jesus or Muhammad is a huge blasphemy and makes people angry immediately. This isn't about Muslim attitudes to gay rights.

I know Islam. Better than most.

When I was about 14 I came here on holiday and saw ‘The Life of Brian.’ It made me laugh and think and was the beginning of my love for the humour and bravery and intelligence of this country.

I live here now and I’m very scared that those who want to force me to respect religion are gaining the backing of the state.

There’s another word for that.

I want to be able to take the piss out of anything; no religion should have special status.

A relationship where one side is forced to censor their speech because they are frightened the other will retaliate with anger and violence is a very very dysfunctional one.

Is that really how we want to live? I have. I won’t let it happen to my kids.

Backyard, our favourite comic growing up was Dave Allen. If you are not familiar with him some old recording are on YouTube and I recommend them heartily!

There's nothing funny on MSM these days. Which is quite a thought.

At what point do you stop defending hate speech under the guise of protecting free speech?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/08/nottingham-student-reports-racist-chants-in-hall-of-residence

Simply put, if you can't tolerate Lauren Southern standing on a soapbox talking about the dangers of immigration, then you're pathetic. Because it means you can't come up with a better argument that convinces people that she's wrong.
That's not a persuasive argument. It assumes people who spout hate speech are responsive to logic.

I think hate speech as a concept should be up for discussion. It's acceptance as a concept seems to be at the root of a lot of this lack of societal resilience.

SpringMayHaveSprung You didnt look at the video in my link, did you.

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=PsgTkNZGKMY

Tinkly, I can understand your change of heart. Richard Dawkins calls those SU no-platforming obsessives the 'regressive left' and I would have to agree. Having free and open debate however, being able to criticise the government, a free press and so on are of course essential parts to liberal democracies. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Responsibility, however, goes hand-in-hand with freedom of expression and I see no internal conflict there at all. The press is obliged to report real news rather than fabricated stuff or slander for example. Speakers in public cannot incite law breaking or hatred against others. Only in the States will you find the extreme free speechers that disagree. Over there, free speech ends in Charlottesville and extremely liberal pornography laws. But even in the States, FoS forms part of a balance of rights. There is no such thing as unlimited FoS anywhere in the world, sometimes for very good reasons! And guess what, no laws exist that prevent people offending other people's sensibilities, whatever some sections of society would have us believe.

Spring yes I remember him, thanks for reminding me, I’ll have a lost afternoon tomorrow! No, I agree there’s very little that makes me laugh like I used to.

The joylessness and terror of offending reminds me of where I have been before. It’s not a good way to live. We should laugh at everything without fear of anger and violence.

no laws exist that prevent people offending other people's sensibilities, whatever some sections of society would have us believe

Yes.

You know I'm not advocating for blasphemy laws at all, nowhere did I say that... But when someone attacks something you strongly believe in or a part of your identity, for no other reason, no deeper purpose than to piss you off, then perhaps you will understand what I'm saying.

You are advocacating for blasphemy laws. Under your threshold for not "pissing people off" we would have banned The Book of Mormon, Life of Brian, Jerry Springer the Opera, the piss Christ, the Satanic Verses.... The list goes on and on.

In a healthy secular society religion is frequently tested. It is often "provoked" in order to check that it's not outgrowing its limited sphere of influence. That it's not becoming too powerful nor it's followers so devout that they might resort to violence. In this way Christianity has been tamed in this country. The same cannot be said for a certain other religion. Our state authorities are afraid and they are trying to obstruct these natural tests that come in the form of provocative free speech

And indeed you have rather proved the point by asserting that violence is inevitable from this particular group when they are being "wound up". So far from pointless, Southern's attempt at free speech and the reaction to it has therefore been very useful indeed. Your pleasure at her obstruction just demonstrates to the rest of us that we have a growing religious problem on our hands in this country.

Well said Scatterolight.

At what point do you stop defending hate speech under the guise of protecting free speech?

well, well, well beyond someone calling Allah gay. As to the video posted, let them say it and show their face.

But letting Hezbollah supports who are virulently anti-Jewish and homophobic march in London isn't provocative and is allowed to go ahead
Were those Hezbollah supporters existing UK residents, or did some of them enter the UK specifically to speak at it?

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-we-must-have-the-right-to-call-allah-gay/21225#.WqvW5ImnzYV

I thought this was an interesting read.

Were those Hezbollah supporters existing UK residents, or did some of them enter the UK specifically to speak at it?

Is Tommy Robinson an existing UK resident? If police can stop him from speaking at Speakers Corner, they can presumably stop Hezbollah supporters from marching. I wonder why they did one and not the other?

Makes me laugh all the bollocks spouted on this thread to justify all sorts of nasty stuff.

All when right here in the UK we do not have any right to freedom of speech at all. None.

We have the right to freedom of expression with certain exceptions - we are not allowed to express ourselves in ways that would alarm, harass or cause distress. We are not allowed to express ourselves in a way that would be a breach of the peace. We are not allowed to express ourselves in any way that is considered incitement.

That is the law in this country since 1998.

If it's freedom of speech you're after that's a US thing.

All when right here in the UK we do not have any right to freedom of speech at all. None.

there are two different arguments. Is it in accordance with the law here, and is the law correct.