Labour councillor in FGM row
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 03 Aug 17 10.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
The law is quite clear that theft is a crime but you think it is ok if the thief considers themselves in 'poverty'. (Yet again - they did not discriminate because the gay trouble maker was gay, they would have refused a straight person who asked for the same slogan.) Edited by hedgehog50 (03 Aug 2017 9.20am) No I think its understandable, and people can visualise that compared to not feeding your family its the less moral transgression. So its not ok to break the law to feed your family, but its ok to break the law to refuse service to someone who is gay? The law clearly states otherwise that individual personal views do not exceed trade laws. You can see the contradiction here. You're saying one violation of the law is wrong, but the other is right...
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Stirlingsays Online 03 Aug 17 10.56am |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I think that free speech should not be free from consequences and repercussions - Comparing a gay parade to a parade for pedophiles has consequences when you belong to a political party that supports LGBTQA rights, because you represent that party. As such that party is quite within its rights to conduct disciplinary action for statements that don't represent its views - the same as someone who misrepresents a company being held accountable for what they say. Now if it was an individual, yes I'd agree. As its a representative - then there are consequences to the party and its support basis that have to be considered. I'm not so sure I agree fully. What you are essentially saying is that if you mostly agree with a political party that any areas where you differ in a controversial area....well you have to shut up or don't join it. I don't agree with that.....I say this while recognising that parties have the right to enforce things like....say 'cabinet responsibility'....But with that, you have the choice to leave the cabinet but still exist within the party and represent your constituents....there's no force to tow the line or else someone takes your living away. The militants who now run the Labour party were allowed for years to exist within it. They hold views that I find offensive and regard as very dangerous to my children's future like unilateral disarmament. Who was telling them to shut up? I certainly wasn't because I believe in the marketplace of ideas...even for ideas I find repugnantly dangerous. I believe in censorship along the grounds of libel...which is a subtext of lying...threats or incitement to violence...or obscenity....because we can't have p***. mags being sold to kids. Censorship of ideas must be at as low a bar as we can have it.....Without it we weaken secularism in my view.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 03 Aug 17 11.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You are one of them. Cos I said you smell of poo and wee?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 03 Aug 17 11.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Cos I said you smell of poo and wee? We all do in the end.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Aug 17 11.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I'm not so sure I agree fully. What you are essentially saying is that if you mostly agree with a political party that any areas where you differ in a controversial area....well you have to shut up or don't join it. I don't agree with that.....I say this while recognising that parties have the right to enforce things like....say 'cabinet responsibility'....But with that, you have the choice to leave the cabinet but still exist within the party and represent your constituents....there's no force to tow the line or else someone takes your living away. The militants who now run the Labour party were allowed for years to exist within it. They hold views that I find offensive and regard as very dangerous to my children's future like unilateral disarmament. Who was telling them to shut up? I certainly wasn't because I believe in the marketplace of ideas...even for ideas I find repugnantly dangerous. I believe in censorship along the grounds of libel...which is a subtext of lying...threats or incitement to violence...or obscenity....because we can't have p***. mags being sold to kids. Censorship of ideas must be at as low a bar as we can have it.....Without it we weaken secularism in my view. Yes, but if political parties have to accept views and opinions that contradict their policy and manifesto, then they also have to have the right to enforce those who contradict those positions. Should they be kicked out for being homophobic, no, but they should be accountable for undermining the political agenda of the party - or have that option available to them. The right to censure employees who 'bring the company or in this case, party, into disrepute is pretty important, and they also have to act to ensure their own voters and members that people who undermine those policies and positions are reassured of their position. The individual in question directly contradicted the position of the Labour party they're supposed to represent - I think they're right to discipline them - not for being a homophobic jerk - but to prevent their views damaging the party and those who support it. End of the day, the party has to 'defend' its votes, and if your the labour party, the LGBQT has a strong tendency towards the Liberal Democrats and Labour party. For the record, during the 80s, the Labour party also conducted mass expulsions of the far left from the labour party (targeting Militant)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 03 Aug 17 11.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Yes, but if political parties have to accept views and opinions that contradict their policy and manifesto, then they also have to have the right to enforce those who contradict those positions. Should they be kicked out for being homophobic, no, but they should be accountable for undermining the political agenda of the party - or have that option available to them. The right to censure employees who 'bring the company or in this case, party, into disrepute is pretty important, and they also have to act to ensure their own voters and members that people who undermine those policies and positions are reassured of their position. The individual in question directly contradicted the position of the Labour party they're supposed to represent - I think they're right to discipline them - not for being a homophobic jerk - but to prevent their views damaging the party and those who support it. End of the day, the party has to 'defend' its votes, and if your the labour party, the LGBQT has a strong tendency towards the Liberal Democrats and Labour party. For the record, during the 80s, the Labour party also conducted mass expulsions of the far left from the labour party (targeting Militant) The main parties are pretty broad churches these days and so you're never going to get everyone agreeing and that's a good thing as they should be representing the interests of their constituents first and foremost.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 03 Aug 17 12.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
For the record, during the 80s, the Labour party also conducted mass expulsions of the far left from the labour party (targeting Militant) Mmmm...obviously this wasn't down to opinions but to do with power positions. If holding militant opinions weren't ok in being an MP then the far left simply wouldn't had the opportunity to lead later on. As for the rest of your argument, I can hold ground with you to an extent....a party must have the right to decide who can be within it. But like I say....I believe that it has to be very careful about creating a platform where controversial opinions can't be debated and whole groups are more equal than others.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Aug 17 12.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
The main parties are pretty broad churches these days and so you're never going to get everyone agreeing and that's a good thing as they should be representing the interests of their constituents first and foremost. I think there is a bit of a distance between agreeing, and disagreeing and taking a stance that directly contradicts. Not agreeing with the Labour parties policy on LGBTQA rights is one thing. Referring to a pride march as a march for paedophiles is beyond that. That's not disagreeing or contributing to a debate that's denegration and an attack that directly contradicts the position of the party - and undermines the position of the party in the public forum. Debate, and discussion doesn't occur when people make directly prejudicial statements like that - it shuts down debate, because its simply a emotive statement from someone who isn't actually interested in a debate. I think they're entitled to the view, they're wrong and can't actually defend their position, and as such must be held accountable. If all you can achieve with free speech is to denigrate others, and restrict the idea of other people having their rights, you've entirely missed the point of free speech. Just like all the c**ts in the US who use free speech to issue border line hate speech and breed paranoia, fear and distrust (whilst profiting on it). They missed the point entirely. Humanity isn't ready for free speech, when its basically a large section of it is basically little more than some teenage troll on the Youtube comments. Freedoms have to come with responsibility - You cannot just have the freedom to say what you like without adopting the responsibility of the repercussions of what you say.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Aug 17 12.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Mmmm...obviously this wasn't down to opinions but to do with power positions. If holding militant opinions weren't ok in being an MP then the far left simply wouldn't had the opportunity to lead later on. As for the rest of your argument, I can hold ground with you to an extent....a party must have the right to decide who can be within it. But like I say....I believe that it has to be very careful about creating a platform where controversial opinions can't be debated and whole groups are more equal than others. People tend to think of Corbyn as far left, he isn't really compared to say the Socialist Party and SWP etc. Controversial opinions should be debated, definitely, but that isn't what has happened here. Someone is experessing an opinion likening gay people to pedophiles - which is about as far as debating your controversial opinion as you can get. Debate requires back and forth, evidence to support your argument. Opinions are meaningless if you cannot actually defend it, or demonstrate why its a valid opinion. If you just shouting out what you feel, you're not debating anyone. Ideally, I'd like to see people who express opinions in public office, actually back those reasons up and demonstrate the validity in a proper back and forth debate. But free speech doesn't work like that. How it works is people with influence and power get to say what they like, without accountability and typically those directly affected do not get a right to reply, because they don't have position or power to confront that person on an equal hasis. Corbyn is no extremist, he's an old school Labour lefty from the 80s. He's controversial, but he's not looking for an overthrow of the UK.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 03 Aug 17 12.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
That sounds to me like a justification for further restrictions on free speech. Libel, violence, obscenity. I see no 'responsible' arguments beyond this.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Aug 17 2.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
That sounds to me like a justification for further restrictions on free speech. Libel, violence, obscenity. I see no 'responsible' arguments beyond this. More of a critique of how its not really free, if only some people have access to a wider voice, and do not have counter-points. Take Infowars - its a product of free speech but its really one guys ranting without any counter-point. So those who are the target rarely get to respond and defend their point. The responsibility of free speech must include the requirement to allow the counter point. Thing about debate it only really has value if it has counter points. As it stands, free speech in the US is a commodity to be consumed - not a means of debate
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 03 Aug 17 4.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
No I think its understandable, and people can visualise that compared to not feeding your family its the less moral transgression. So its not ok to break the law to feed your family, but its ok to break the law to refuse service to someone who is gay? The law clearly states otherwise that individual personal views do not exceed trade laws. You can see the contradiction here. You're saying one violation of the law is wrong, but the other is right... As I have repeatedly stated, they didn't refuse service because of the gay trouble makers gayness, they would have refused a heterosexual too if they wanted the same slogan on the cake. It is you who are being inconsistent in saying it is ok to break the theft laws while championing a perverse judgement in the cake case. If the bakers had discriminated on the grounds of the gay trouble makers gayness, I would agree that they had broken the law. However, in general I think these discrimination laws are of dubious value and that business should be able to serve whoever they like or not.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.