|
Post by gawa on Jul 21, 2024 14:06:37 GMT
A real loss of freedom of speech is not being able to wear blue and yellow trainers, holding up blank sheets of paper and putting the wrong icing on cakes. Such misdemeanours get you 5 to 25 years in a forced labour camp. Still some people want to make apologies for him and acceed to his land grab. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4yv7nv8xloThe Ukrainian decommunization law applies, but is not limited to: the Flag of the Soviet Union the flags of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and of the 14 other republics of the Soviet Union, as well as the flags of the socialist countries of Eastern Europe and abroad the State Emblem of the Soviet Union and its constituent republics as well as the socialist countries of Eastern Europe and abroad the State Anthem of the Soviet Union and the republics the Red star the Hammer and sickle images bearing the likeness of Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, and Che Guevara military uniforms (Source - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommunization_in_Ukraine#Post-Euromaidan_reforms)One of the four bills in the package, On the Legal Status and Honouring of Fighters for Ukraine’s Independence in the Twentieth Century, covers a long list of individuals and organisations from human rights activists to guerrillas accused of ethnic cleansing. It would allow veterans of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), followers of Bandera, to receive state benefits, and rules that denial or disrespect of their role in fighting for Ukrainian independence is an unlawful “desecration of their memory”. Bandara was someone who fought for the German Nazis by the way. So any criticism of a nazi sympathiser and fighter also can land you in prison. (Source - www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/ukraine-decommunisation-law-soviet)However anything related to the soviet union, who fought against the nazis, is considered on par with the Nazis. However criticism of a nazi sympathiser who worked with the Nazis also isn't allowed, and doing that can get you imprisoned too. The first law “on the condemnation of the communist and Nazi totalitarian regimes” forbids both Soviet and Nazi symbols, making something as trivial as selling a USSR souvenir, or singing the Soviet national hymn or the Internationale, punishable by up to five years in prison for an individual and up to 10 years in prison for members of an organisation. It also makes it a criminal offence to deny the “criminal character of the communist totalitarian regime of 1917-1991 in Ukraine” in the media or elsewhere. (source - www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/21/ukraine-bans-soviet-symbols-criminalises-sympathy-for-communism)Since the law’s passage, treason and collaboration cases have exploded. According to data from the prosecutor general’s office, while 663 criminal proceedings for treason were recorded over the period 2014–2021, that number ballooned to 1,062 over 2022 alone. From February to March that year, the figure shot up more than fivefold, to 278. The number of collaborationist offenses, meanwhile, reached 3,851 between June, when they were first recorded, and the end of the year, with over six hundred referred to the courts. As reports of the arrest of dissidents began spreading early in the war, Zelensky and his party first suspended and then banned eleven opposition parties over “links to Russia.” Alongside the suspension of two of the 2019 election’s top vote-getting parties, most prominent was the ban on Ukraine’s second-largest bloc, the pro-Russian Opposition Platform — For Life (OPZZh). T his occurred even though most of its major figures took a pro-Ukraine position in the war and have since become reliable backers of Zelensky’s policies in parliament. OPZZh held nearly 10 percent of seats in parliament and, in 2020, achieved a major upset when its candidate beat a member of Zelensky’s party for the mayoralty of the president’s own hometown. A few months later, the two parties were running neck and neck in the polls, shortly before Zelensky began targeting OPZZh with sanctions and banning several of its media outlets on the basis that they were spreading Russian propaganda. In the process, he broke a previous explicit promise never to do such a thing and earned a scolding from the EU. “We never know what’s the basis of these accusations, what’s the pro-Russian link, because there’s no proof that any of the workers of these TV channels worked for Russian intelligence,” says Ukrainian journalist and press-union leader Serhiy Guz, who adds that many of the anchors from the shuttered outlets went on to get jobs at pro-government channels. “It starts to look like a political accusation rather than a genuine crime.” Since OPZZh’s ban in 2022, a number of its leaders — including cochairman and close Putin friend Viktor Medvedchuk, but also officials who have made no pro-Russian statements since the war — have been arrested, exiled, and stripped of their citizenship. Some, including the OPZZh candidate who became mayor of Zelensky’s hometown, have been killed. Also banned were a collection of left-wing parties, like the Union of Left Forces and the Socialist Party of Ukraine, once an important force of leftist opposition that by 2022 had fallen into disarray. Since then — at the SBU’s “initiative,” according to the agency — the courts have upheld the ban on all these and three other parties, as well as upholding the earlier ban on the Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU). Part of a wider “decommunization” effort launched after the 2014 Maidan uprising, the KPU’s 2015 ban was condemned by Amnesty International as a “flagrant violation of freedom of expression and association” that “sets a dangerous precedent.” Meanwhile, Zelensky has also centralized nearly all of Ukraine’s national TV channels into one government-controlled platform. Late last year, he further tightened government control of Ukraine’s media, signing into law a widely criticized bill that had earlier been considered too extreme by journalists, MPs, and media experts, with one press-freedom activist calling it “extremely toxic.” The law gives unprecedented powers to Ukraine’s state broadcasting regulator to fine and revoke the license of media outlets, block publications without a court order, and force social media platforms and search engines to remove content. Combating Russian propaganda was again the stated basis for the measure. “All opposition figures previously promoting the peaceful resolution of conflict with Russia have either fled or are in prison,” says Kotsaba. “Any thought about peace talks is perceived as playing for Putin, as the work of enemy agents.”Crackdowns on Russian cultural heritage — one of the policies that fueled civil strife in the country where many speak and ethnically identify as Russian — has intensified. The war has seen numerous regional and local bans on Russian products, and speaking and even learning Russian, so that by November, there were nearly no schools left that taught the language. June saw the Zelensky government create a special council to coordinate “the country’s movement for de-Russification”; parliament passed several laws curtailing Russian books and music. Fines for speaking Russian, even for the mayor of a Russian-speaking city, aren’t out of the question, while a leading university outright banned the language from its campus. This February, the government celebrated purging the country’s libraries of nineteen million books, some written in Ukrainian but from the Soviet era, and eleven million written in Russian. Meanwhile, Zelensky’s draconian media law wasn’t passed over Europe’s objections, but at its urging. When first introduced in 2020, it was with the express backing of EU bodies, its passage tied to Ukraine’s eventual accession to the union. Despite eventually stalling under a hail of criticism — and despite clearly violating the EU-Ukrainian association agreement’s provision on “respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country, particularly media freedom” — the Council of Europe and the EU delegation to Ukraine called for its immediate adoption at the time. The EU delegation likewise gave its thumbs-up when the bill was resurrected last year, despite being condemned by press-freedom groups in both Ukraine and Europe. (source - jacobin.com/2023/02/ukraine-censorship-authoritarianism-illiberalism-crackdown-police-zelensky)
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jul 22, 2024 1:14:13 GMT
A real loss of freedom of speech is not being able to wear blue and yellow trainers, holding up blank sheets of paper and putting the wrong icing on cakes. Such misdemeanours get you 5 to 25 years in a forced labour camp. Still some people want to make apologies for him and acceed to his land grab. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4yv7nv8xloThe Ukrainian decommunization law applies, but is not limited to: the Flag of the Soviet Union the flags of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and of the 14 other republics of the Soviet Union, as well as the flags of the socialist countries of Eastern Europe and abroad the State Emblem of the Soviet Union and its constituent republics as well as the socialist countries of Eastern Europe and abroad the State Anthem of the Soviet Union and the republics the Red star the Hammer and sickle images bearing the likeness of Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, and Che Guevara military uniforms (Source - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommunization_in_Ukraine#Post-Euromaidan_reforms)One of the four bills in the package, On the Legal Status and Honouring of Fighters for Ukraine’s Independence in the Twentieth Century, covers a long list of individuals and organisations from human rights activists to guerrillas accused of ethnic cleansing. It would allow veterans of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), followers of Bandera, to receive state benefits, and rules that denial or disrespect of their role in fighting for Ukrainian independence is an unlawful “desecration of their memory”. Bandara was someone who fought for the German Nazis by the way. So any criticism of a nazi sympathiser and fighter also can land you in prison. (Source - www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/ukraine-decommunisation-law-soviet)However anything related to the soviet union, who fought against the nazis, is considered on par with the Nazis. However criticism of a nazi sympathiser who worked with the Nazis also isn't allowed, and doing that can get you imprisoned too. The first law “on the condemnation of the communist and Nazi totalitarian regimes” forbids both Soviet and Nazi symbols, making something as trivial as selling a USSR souvenir, or singing the Soviet national hymn or the Internationale, punishable by up to five years in prison for an individual and up to 10 years in prison for members of an organisation. It also makes it a criminal offence to deny the “criminal character of the communist totalitarian regime of 1917-1991 in Ukraine” in the media or elsewhere. (source - www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/21/ukraine-bans-soviet-symbols-criminalises-sympathy-for-communism)Since the law’s passage, treason and collaboration cases have exploded. According to data from the prosecutor general’s office, while 663 criminal proceedings for treason were recorded over the period 2014–2021, that number ballooned to 1,062 over 2022 alone. From February to March that year, the figure shot up more than fivefold, to 278. The number of collaborationist offenses, meanwhile, reached 3,851 between June, when they were first recorded, and the end of the year, with over six hundred referred to the courts. As reports of the arrest of dissidents began spreading early in the war, Zelensky and his party first suspended and then banned eleven opposition parties over “links to Russia.” Alongside the suspension of two of the 2019 election’s top vote-getting parties, most prominent was the ban on Ukraine’s second-largest bloc, the pro-Russian Opposition Platform — For Life (OPZZh). T his occurred even though most of its major figures took a pro-Ukraine position in the war and have since become reliable backers of Zelensky’s policies in parliament. OPZZh held nearly 10 percent of seats in parliament and, in 2020, achieved a major upset when its candidate beat a member of Zelensky’s party for the mayoralty of the president’s own hometown. A few months later, the two parties were running neck and neck in the polls, shortly before Zelensky began targeting OPZZh with sanctions and banning several of its media outlets on the basis that they were spreading Russian propaganda. In the process, he broke a previous explicit promise never to do such a thing and earned a scolding from the EU. “We never know what’s the basis of these accusations, what’s the pro-Russian link, because there’s no proof that any of the workers of these TV channels worked for Russian intelligence,” says Ukrainian journalist and press-union leader Serhiy Guz, who adds that many of the anchors from the shuttered outlets went on to get jobs at pro-government channels. “It starts to look like a political accusation rather than a genuine crime.” Since OPZZh’s ban in 2022, a number of its leaders — including cochairman and close Putin friend Viktor Medvedchuk, but also officials who have made no pro-Russian statements since the war — have been arrested, exiled, and stripped of their citizenship. Some, including the OPZZh candidate who became mayor of Zelensky’s hometown, have been killed. Also banned were a collection of left-wing parties, like the Union of Left Forces and the Socialist Party of Ukraine, once an important force of leftist opposition that by 2022 had fallen into disarray. Since then — at the SBU’s “initiative,” according to the agency — the courts have upheld the ban on all these and three other parties, as well as upholding the earlier ban on the Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU). Part of a wider “decommunization” effort launched after the 2014 Maidan uprising, the KPU’s 2015 ban was condemned by Amnesty International as a “flagrant violation of freedom of expression and association” that “sets a dangerous precedent.” Meanwhile, Zelensky has also centralized nearly all of Ukraine’s national TV channels into one government-controlled platform. Late last year, he further tightened government control of Ukraine’s media, signing into law a widely criticized bill that had earlier been considered too extreme by journalists, MPs, and media experts, with one press-freedom activist calling it “extremely toxic.” The law gives unprecedented powers to Ukraine’s state broadcasting regulator to fine and revoke the license of media outlets, block publications without a court order, and force social media platforms and search engines to remove content. Combating Russian propaganda was again the stated basis for the measure. “All opposition figures previously promoting the peaceful resolution of conflict with Russia have either fled or are in prison,” says Kotsaba. “Any thought about peace talks is perceived as playing for Putin, as the work of enemy agents.”Crackdowns on Russian cultural heritage — one of the policies that fueled civil strife in the country where many speak and ethnically identify as Russian — has intensified. The war has seen numerous regional and local bans on Russian products, and speaking and even learning Russian, so that by November, there were nearly no schools left that taught the language. June saw the Zelensky government create a special council to coordinate “the country’s movement for de-Russification”; parliament passed several laws curtailing Russian books and music. Fines for speaking Russian, even for the mayor of a Russian-speaking city, aren’t out of the question, while a leading university outright banned the language from its campus. This February, the government celebrated purging the country’s libraries of nineteen million books, some written in Ukrainian but from the Soviet era, and eleven million written in Russian. Meanwhile, Zelensky’s draconian media law wasn’t passed over Europe’s objections, but at its urging. When first introduced in 2020, it was with the express backing of EU bodies, its passage tied to Ukraine’s eventual accession to the union. Despite eventually stalling under a hail of criticism — and despite clearly violating the EU-Ukrainian association agreement’s provision on “respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country, particularly media freedom” — the Council of Europe and the EU delegation to Ukraine called for its immediate adoption at the time. The EU delegation likewise gave its thumbs-up when the bill was resurrected last year, despite being condemned by press-freedom groups in both Ukraine and Europe. (source - jacobin.com/2023/02/ukraine-censorship-authoritarianism-illiberalism-crackdown-police-zelensky)Have to admit Gawa. You're certainly giving mrCoke a run for his money.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Aug 7, 2024 16:45:45 GMT
Should the use of the words Allahu Akbar be banned?
Do people find it offensive?
Is it a word that's associated with terrorists and makes people feel uncomfortable?
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 7, 2024 16:47:54 GMT
Should the use of the words Allahu Akbar be banned? Do people find it offensive? Is it a word that's associated with terrorists and makes people feel uncomfortable? If your rioting in a street with a machete then yes. If your doing it peacefully during prayers then no. Not cut and dry and should be dealt with on individual merits.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Aug 7, 2024 16:58:07 GMT
Should the use of the words Allahu Akbar be banned? Do people find it offensive? Is it a word that's associated with terrorists and makes people feel uncomfortable? If your rioting in a street with a machete then yes. If your doing it peacefully during prayers then no. Not cut and dry and should be dealt with on individual merits. So they should only be used in a place of worship then?
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 7, 2024 17:02:37 GMT
If your rioting in a street with a machete then yes. If your doing it peacefully during prayers then no. Not cut and dry and should be dealt with on individual merits. So they should only be used in a place of worship then? No anywhere is fine.. That was just an example. I'd suggest doing it on a far right racist riot then that should be treated as such. Everyone knows the connotations of it.. Lefty just want to hear people say it and accuse them of racism. It's laughable.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Aug 7, 2024 17:12:41 GMT
So they should only be used in a place of worship then? No anywhere is fine.. That was just an example. I'd suggest doing it on a far right racist riot then that should be treated as such. Everyone knows the connotations of it.. Lefty just want to hear people say it and accuse them of racism. It's laughable. Say what? I don't follow
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Aug 7, 2024 18:15:38 GMT
Should the use of the words Allahu Akbar be banned? Do people find it offensive? Is it a word that's associated with terrorists and makes people feel uncomfortable? Yes, yes and yes.
|
|
|
Post by wolfinsheepsclothing on Aug 7, 2024 18:30:05 GMT
A public order offence is seen as causing alarm and distress.
In the current climate marching and chanting this might just be included
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 8, 2024 16:44:25 GMT
Should the use of the words Allahu Akbar be banned? Do people find it offensive? Is it a word that's associated with terrorists and makes people feel uncomfortable? Yes, yes and yes. No - why not ban the phrase "Praise Be to God" because at some point some Christian will have used the phrase and committed an atrocity Yes - but you've got to ask why anyone saying "God is the Greatest" is considered offensive (incidentally you do know that the God of Islam is also the Christian God?) Again Yes but this the best answer I can find to that issue aboutislam.net/shariah/contemporary-issues/allahu-akbar-really-means/
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 8, 2024 17:09:10 GMT
Should the use of the words Allahu Akbar be banned? Do people find it offensive? Is it a word that's associated with terrorists and makes people feel uncomfortable? Yes, yes and yes. Like marching through Hanley chanting "Allah, Allah, who the fuck is Allah"?
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Aug 8, 2024 17:14:27 GMT
Like marching through Hanley chanting "Allah, Allah, who the fuck is Allah"? I don't condone that either Paul. I answered the questions asked honestly which was a yes to all three. That is my opinion and you don't have to agree. Sort of why it's called an opinion 👍
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Aug 8, 2024 17:15:28 GMT
No - why not ban the phrase "Praise Be to God" because at some point some Christian will have used the phrase and committed an atrocity Yes - but you've got to ask why anyone saying "God is the Greatest" is considered offensive (incidentally you do know that the God of Islam is also the Christian God?) Again Yes but this the best answer I can find to that issue aboutislam.net/shariah/contemporary-issues/allahu-akbar-really-means/ I think all religion is a load of bollocks mate if that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 8, 2024 17:21:02 GMT
Like marching through Hanley chanting "Allah, Allah, who the fuck is Allah"? I don't condone that either Paul. I answered the questions asked honestly which was a yes to all three. That is my opinion and you don't have to agree. Sort of why it's called an opinion 👍 I didn't say that I didn't agree, not remotely. I was just developing the conversation. If people think that Allahu Akhbar is offensive and should be banned, then the same should apply to chanting "Who the fuck is Allah". Personally I think this is waaay more offensive than chanting God is great.
|
|
ian57
Youth Player
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 287
|
Post by ian57 on Aug 8, 2024 17:21:42 GMT
Like marching through Hanley chanting "Allah, Allah, who the fuck is Allah"? I don’t know why but every time I hear the phrase allahu akbar I think of Bernard bresslaw black faced in carry on up the khyber
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Aug 8, 2024 17:25:05 GMT
I don't condone that either Paul. I answered the questions asked honestly which was a yes to all three. That is my opinion and you don't have to agree. Sort of why it's called an opinion 👍 I didn't say that I didn't agree, not remotely. I was just developing the conversation. If people think that Allahu Akhbar is offensive and should be banned, then the same should apply to chanting "Who the fuck is Allah". Personally I think this is waaay more offensive than chanting God is great. Yes I agree it should be banned aswell but I'm of the opinion that the world would be a better place without religion. I understand that I'm probably in a minority but I just feel that it causes more shit than it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 8, 2024 17:27:47 GMT
I didn't say that I didn't agree, not remotely. I was just developing the conversation. If people think that Allahu Akhbar is offensive and should be banned, then the same should apply to chanting "Who the fuck is Allah". Personally I think this is waaay more offensive than chanting God is great. Yes I agree it should be banned aswell but I'm of the opinion that the world would be a better place without religion. I understand that I'm probably in a minority but I just feel that it causes more shit than it's worth. Couldn't agree more. However whilst they still exist, we must show respect to people's faiths and that certainly wasn't happening in Hanley on Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Aug 8, 2024 17:31:12 GMT
Yes I agree it should be banned aswell but I'm of the opinion that the world would be a better place without religion. I understand that I'm probably in a minority but I just feel that it causes more shit than it's worth. Couldn't agree more. However whilst they still exist, we must show respect to people's faiths and that certainly wasn't happening in Hanley on Saturday. I'd find it easier to respect religion if people weren't constantly killed in the name of it. For me it has no place in the modern world but as I say I'm obviously in a minority as billions worldwide think differently.
|
|
|
Post by peterpan1 on Aug 8, 2024 17:42:57 GMT
Hey Gawa, Now Labour are doing the same, would you care to comment ?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 8, 2024 18:00:52 GMT
Hey Gawa, Now Labour are doing the same, would you care to comment ? Yes gladly. Labour have been cancelling any of their mps or candidates who dare lean to the left for months now and I've been documenting it in the starmer thread although most of that was pre election. I'm not a fan of starmers labour and haven't been for some time now. Two cheeks of the same arse. This labour and the tories ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif)
|
|
|
Post by peterpan1 on Aug 8, 2024 18:07:16 GMT
Hey Gawa, Now Labour are doing the same, would you care to comment ? Yes gladly. Labour have been cancelling any of their mps or candidates who dare lean to the left for months now and I've been documenting it in the starmer thread although most of that was pre election. I'm not a fan of starmers labour and haven't been for some time now. Two cheeks of the same arse. This labour and the tories ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif) I'd agree with that. Wouldn't pay any of them in washers.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Aug 8, 2024 18:30:31 GMT
The use of the words 'Allahu Akhbar' are contextual. Muslims use it many times a day during prayer without meaning offence to any other religion or ideology. However, used in a different context as when a Muslim extremist is carrying out an atrocity it becomes a battle cry of hate against any other religion. I have no intentions of going into the use of the words during these recent times. At best that can only be an opinion.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by knype on Aug 8, 2024 19:50:37 GMT
Yes I agree it should be banned aswell but I'm of the opinion that the world would be a better place without religion. I understand that I'm probably in a minority but I just feel that it causes more shit than it's worth. Couldn't agree more. However whilst they still exist, we must show respect to people's faiths and that certainly wasn't happening in Hanley on Saturday. Was that the peaceful faith carrying weapons ?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Aug 8, 2024 21:42:15 GMT
No - why not ban the phrase "Praise Be to God" because at some point some Christian will have used the phrase and committed an atrocity Yes - but you've got to ask why anyone saying "God is the Greatest" is considered offensive (incidentally you do know that the God of Islam is also the Christian God?) Again Yes but this the best answer I can find to that issue aboutislam.net/shariah/contemporary-issues/allahu-akbar-really-means/ I think all religion is a load of bollocks mate if that helps. Well so do, I'm an atheist. Pretty much every religion has been used to justify appalling behaviour, Islam and Christianity included. However that doesn't mean there aren't some religious people who are decent and deserve respect. Being scared of words is ridiculous. It isn't the words themselves, it's the context that matters and the phrase "God is the Greatest" in the majority of contexts isn't intended to be offensive.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Aug 8, 2024 21:50:52 GMT
Freedom of expression and a free press. Just two of a number of things that should be enshrined in a written Republican secular constitution. Vive la France.
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Aug 8, 2024 23:08:01 GMT
No - why not ban the phrase "Praise Be to God" because at some point some Christian will have used the phrase and committed an atrocity Yes - but you've got to ask why anyone saying "God is the Greatest" is considered offensive (incidentally you do know that the God of Islam is also the Christian God?) Again Yes but this the best answer I can find to that issue aboutislam.net/shariah/contemporary-issues/allahu-akbar-really-means/ I think all religion is a load of bollocks mate if that helps. I would say it is self-evidently bollocks. I really don't like conspiracy theories. But in fact I would say it is self-evidently a man-made bolloxy construct. The objective of which is also self-evident. Obviously that's an opinion. Nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 8, 2024 23:28:10 GMT
I think people confuse freedom of speech with speech without consequence.
If the speech is troublesome, there should always be consequence. And that to me has how it has always worked. You can say what you want but there are consequences if it’s certain things.
I would then argue that doesn’t make speech free. Which I’m cool with because if you’re being hateful then you shouldn’t have a platform for that and being saying those things. This is the consequence.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Aug 8, 2024 23:59:13 GMT
I don't condone that either Paul. I answered the questions asked honestly which was a yes to all three. That is my opinion and you don't have to agree. Sort of why it's called an opinion 👍 I didn't say that I didn't agree, not remotely. I was just developing the conversation. If people think that Allahu Akhbar is offensive and should be banned, then the same should apply to chanting "Who the fuck is Allah". Personally I think this is waaay more offensive than chanting God is great. If somebody said Allahu Akbar whilst you were in a public place, on public transport would you want to get the hell out of there? Would you be worried in the slightest? For me I would distancing myself because it's something I feel is linked to terrorists and I can guarantee that there are millions of people who would do the same. It should only be used in a place of worship and not outside of that in my opinion I don't think someone saying who the fuck is Allah is necessarily going to put the fear in anyone however it's very offensive and should be banned.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 9, 2024 6:14:23 GMT
I think people confuse freedom of speech with speech without consequence. If the speech is troublesome, there should always be consequence. And that to me has how it has always worked. You can say what you want but there are consequences if it’s certain things. I would then argue that doesn’t make speech free. Which I’m cool with because if you’re being hateful then you shouldn’t have a platform for that and being saying those things. This is the consequence. ![](//storage.proboards.com/800541/thumbnailer/iCMdxbU0FjpzVGEq0EBG.png) How about pictures that paint a thousand words?
|
|