Forum:Free speech in Britain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19604735

I don't understand. How can this be the law in any civilized western society? Why aren't people protesting against this? I would be. ^{— Unsigned, by: LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant / talk / contribs}

Because we Brits - and several other countries - don't put the massive emphasis on free speech that the US does. It's important but not that important. That's part of the problem with the film thing - you can't measure everything by US standards - there are others. Bad Faith (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Try this, from WP - Brits have Freeom of expression with a

“” broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[57][58] incitement,[59] incitement to racial hatred,[60] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[59][61] glorifying terrorism,[62][63] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[64][65] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[66] sedition,[66] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[67] defamation,[68] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[69][70] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[70] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[70] time, manner, and place restrictions,[71] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

Bad Faith (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The libel laws in Britain are notoriously fucked up. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We're working on that one. ^pathetic 00:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"incitement to religious hatred" But I want to incite religious hatred! LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well don't do it anywhere around Europe - or near me, for that matter. Bad Faith (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My husband talks a lot about our freedom of speech, here, as a French citizen. There, you can't call someone a nigger (literally, or the french equivalent), you can't put down other people's religion, specific kids of references to Nazi Germany are outlawed, there are strict limits to what you can say about political figures, etc. He's generally shocked that anyone can just post anything, anywhere at any time in the US, and face no legal repercussions. I'm always torn. I hate that some people feel free to say any old disgusting thing about another human or group - but I'm loath to deny him his right to say it. GodotBe informed. Vote. 21:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)(ec)

I want to incite hatred against most religions. That is exactly the right words. I want to foment hatred against the Catholic church for the ignorance and harm it does with AIDS in Africa, for the continued and official protection of child rapists. I want to foment hatred against (the certain branches of) Islam for fomenting a culture where a perceived slight is just cause to riot and kill people. In short, religion is loathsome, and one of my aims in life is to make other people aware of how loathsome faith and religion generally is. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hell, by that standard, the Satanic Verses are illegal because there's more than good reason to believe that publishing something like that will lead to violence. Do you really want to justify such an insane censorship policy where you immediately surrender to those who threaten violence? Then, it may take a moment, realize that there is no practicable standard that can guarantee the right of someone to publish the Satanic Verses, but deny someone the right to say something inflammatory like the guy in the bbc article who said all soldiers deserve to die. -- Ok, I'm done. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, we Brits get along fine. But, of course, according to you, we're "uncivilised" - do you wonder why large parts of the workd loath the US? Bad Faith (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. For some, calling a person a "nigger" is as hurtful as hitting them and, as such, they should both be illegal. That's the basis. We believe freedom of expression needs limits and regulation. You obviously don't. You're perfectly entitled to believe that you're right and I'm wrong but don't expect me to want to live in your version of civilisation - I prefer mine. And don't you dare try and impose it - as the US tried in Iraq. Look how well that worked. Bad Faith (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Iraq, talk about a straw man misdirection. Ignoring that and moving on. Ok, you think that calling someone a name is as hurtful as hitting them. Do you agree with the facts that republishing the Satanic Verses will likely cause a break of the peace? Do you agree with the conclusion that the Ayatollah of Iran basically can decide what is and is not legal to say and print in Britain? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You just don't get it. Try this from the European Convention on Human Rights

“”The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Did you spot the "may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society" - and this is Europe wide. You're now calling the whole of Europe "uncivilised". Try to take that US arrogance from your mind and realise there are other ways of doing things. Bad Faith (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and whilst on the subject of misdirection, The Satanic Verses is freely available in bookshops and public libraries today, in Britain. On the other hand, try finding Jennifer Has Two Daddies in a school library in Texas. Bad Faith (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooops - wrong book. Try "Heather has two mommies". Bad Faith (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that book is not banned in the US. C₆₅₄₁ (T↔C) 22:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My biggest concern with denying a right to free speech, is where do you draw a line. I talked about nigger in France, but this ALSO applies to rap artists and black comedians talking about themselves. It also applies to music that is imported - again,self directed.

And it's very unclear who gets to call foul, when, if it's not the use of a word on a list of words. Can you criticize your religion? and say it's violent? Can you criticizes someone eles's religion and say it's violent? Dawkins has said that he could get arrested for things he says about religion. Is that true? and if so, how do you ever say "jesus this system is broke and needs fixed" without fear of reprisals? And by the way, why is it my job not to hurt your feelings? seriously. you said "some people find nigger as hurtful as a physical blow", what if someone finds a black person simply talking, hurtful? What if someone finds it hurtful to talk about science as proof and religion as a myth? This is why such laws deeply trouble me. GodotBe informed. Vote. 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, let me try to address Bad Faith's points. -- I'm sorry for potentially insinuating that Britain is not civilized. The intended and IMHO more reasonable reading is that the comment assumes Britain is civilized, and wonders how this law can exist in this civilized country. Offense was not intended at you. Instead, a mere puzzlement. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the US isn't perfect, and I work too to try and get such books (i.e. "Heather has two mommies") in public libraries. You're framing this as some kind of hypocrisy on my part. Sorry, I disagree this constitutes hypocrisy. This also constitutes another attempt to dodge the discussion at hand (like the bizarre out of left field "Iraq" line). LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Satanic Verses are available today, because it seems that it won't spark public violence. Let me ask you again, because you seem to be dodging the question. What if someone makes a tasteful and artistic adaption of the book into a movie? What if the Ayatollah of Iran declares another death warrant fatwa against the creator of the movie? This seems like a very plausible result from the creation of a major movie which tastefully and artistically blasphemes Islam. It also seems quite plausible that this will lead to a disturbance of the peace (amongst other retributions). Explain to me how the law in Britain would not allow censorship, or even worse how the law would not require censorship, of this hypothetical Satanic Verses movie. Explain to me how the Ayatollah of Iran is not in effect in control of deciding what can and cannot be published in Britain. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't make me find that link which explains how the BBC has very recently pulled a tasteful documentary (!!) about Islam for fear of causing violence. Did they do it because of the legal ramifications? Perhaps not. I think there's still enough sense in your judicial apparatus to allow "artistic merit" as an excuse. Still, I don't see exception that in the legaleze you just posted, which makes me wonder as to the level of hypocrisy present in your system. "It's illegal when it causes violence, except when we think the speech has value." I think that's a very very dangerous mindset. Who decides what speech has value? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)::The only film BBC pulled recently was Murder in Beruit, which had a host of reasons to be delayed. It's not just a "tasteful documentary", it full out accused one group of the Murder of PM al-Hariri, an accusation that was found (at the time) only in the movie. Probably a very wise decision that was not about censorship, but timing. the film was released a few weeks later, when tensions in Beruit had settled a bit. Your zeal to show "we are better" is not exactly tempered with what i'd call real consideration on the issue. I largely agree with you, but can see how "rah rah rah, do it like us" is not the only way to go.GodotBe informed. Vote. 22:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the Channel 4 documentary The Untold Story of Islam, which the Islamic Education & Research Academy objected to. Balaam (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) "Explain to me how the Ayatollah of Iran is not in effect in control of deciding what can and cannot be published in Britain." Or really anyone in position to whip up enough outrage. What really bothers me that often goes unremarked about is the censorship of books such as Mein Kampf. It seems, like the campaigns in the US to bowdlerize books like Huck Finn by removing the word "nigger," not driven so much by an intent to avoid offense so much as to whitewash one's past sins. If you wanted to see a return of the racial animus that drove the Holocaust, the first step would surely be to shove its history down the memory hole. Santayana rolls in his grave. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(lots of EC)A British court would have to decide whether the film would "incite racial violence" - if such charges were brought and they probably wouldn't be - and, although it is hard to prejudge, I would assume the court would decide otherwise. There is plenty of precedent. OK, so it's a different religion - but The Jerry Springer Opera was shown on prime time TV - well, just after the watershed.

I'm no expert on British free speech law, but I was asking more about the section you quoted, "behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace". How can any reasonable believe other than the publication of a major box office movie of the Satan Verses will likely cause a breach of the peace? That standard is insane, and a complete surrender to group of nutjobs threatening violence. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"I would assume the court would decide otherwise." But why? Surely not according to the legal rules you've laid out thus far. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't see Freedom of Expression as an absolute. Like all freedoms, it has to be regulated. Now, I know we part company at this point but we Europeans get along pretty well and manage that balance. It's the same as porn. You Americans have freedom of expression - well, until you try depicting pubescent girls sexually. And that is how it should be. You cannot have absolute Freedom of Expression. There has to be limits. We just draw the limits in a different place.

I take great issue with your equivocation between a general law aimed to prevent "harm" from merely being insulted and a narrowly law aimed at removing economic incentives to rape children. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You can take all the issue you like. They're both restrictions on free speech. It's the same line, drawn in a different place. Bad Faith (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And I didn't mean Iraq as a straw man. The point I was trying to make is that Americans appear to believe that their values are absolute. Bush's advisors were sure that, as soon as Iraq was introduced to democracy it would embrace it - guess what, they didn't. Like Europe they draw their lines in different places. The reason for using it as an example is it was a classic case of failing to realise that US values don't neccessarily travel. They are not absolute.

Fun factoids! This wasn't originally an American value. Freedom of speech even in spite of offense is a value of the European enlightenment, championed by such greats as Mill, Voltaire, Thomas Paine. Perhaps nowadays it is an American value if only because it seemingly died everywhere else. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, we discovered the limitations. Bad Faith (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

All politics and law involves trade-offs. That, and I want to be able to call my boss an asshole on the internets. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Enough of the waffle. Bad Faith (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Americans are being painted with a pretty broad brush here, I certainly don't believe my values are to be applied to anyone else but myself. C₆₅₄₁ (T↔C) 23:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll give some balance to that sentiment by noting that I'm a Brit who agrees entirely with the OP and shuddered face-palmed upon reading BadFaith's "Oh, we Brits get along fine" remark. We get along fine because we either don't give due concern to just how far these laws could potentially reach out or otherwise shove our heads in the sand. British incitement laws are a legal cop-out for dealing with tensions between different segments of our society and I consider them to be a national embarassment at best.Grumblejaws (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a question for those champions of free speech

And I'm being quite serious here and wanting to continue the debate (although, at 00:40, I'm off to bed) Do you believe that the person who dubbed the Innocence trailer into Arabic bears any blame for the consequences of his (or her) actions? Bad Faith (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Complicated question. I'm not sure of the some of the particulars myself. Let's start with this. My gut reaction is to ignore real world realities where people would kill me and other innocent people for saying it, but my gut reaction is that the official US policy ought to be stated to everyone as "In the US, we have freedom of speech. If you don't like it, plug your ears and cover your eyes. Close the browser tab if you see something you don't like. If you attack our people over speech merely because it's offensive or blasphemous, then we will defend ourselves." I think that answers how I would like our foreign policy and the US's official response to be. If you can present another alternative plan that will eventually allow us to reach that point by temporarily placating them, I'm open to such a plan, but I'm not really open to wholesale abandoning legal protections for people to be assholes to other people. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What would I say to the guy who made the film? Let's see... I'd ask if he intended for people to get killed, if he intended just to troll. On the idea that intent is magic, and if he answered yes to those questions, I would call him a dick, and I would say his motivations are reprehensible. Regardless, I think I'm left with paraphrasing Voltaire, "While I do not agree with what you have to say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it." The complicated part for me is how much social pressure am I willing to bring down on this guy, and how much that would change depending on magic intent, and how much that would change because I think we need to take back our free speech rights from crazies who would do violence triggered by merely offensive speech. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Put another way, I think that people ought to have the legal right to be assholes, to make racist remarks, and so on. I think it's vital to individuality and free expression for that right. I think it's wholly unreasonable to be expected to be nice all the time. I think sometimes that insulting someone is both allowed and required for individuality and free expression. I can also justify this from a utilitarian argument of public policy as Mill does. However, I also think that everyone else has the right to look down on such an asshole, and to try and curtail such behavior through remonstration, breaking contact, and so on. However, this is a very nuanced discussion. This is addressed at length in Mill's book On Liberty, where he talks about how social pressure can be stronger than government censorship. It's been quite a while since I've read it in full, and I don't recall if he reached any particularly good clear concise conclusion. I don't have one offhand (and I'll have to read that bit of Mill later to see if I can agree with it, or help point me in a good direction). LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Part of my problme with your question, is that you are repeating a media honed line "the film is the cause", begging the question, in effect, without really knowing how much this film (or comic, or song, or painting) actually caused ANYTHING, and how much the dynamics of arabic world politics is the actual source of the riots. To me, to be "responsible" for an outcome such as this, your film (words, actions) must themselves be implicit in the problem. could this have been "any depiction of Mo" or did it have to be yours? has a single one of the people involved actually seen your film (and largely, the answer there is no). And if not, how can you be responsible for what someone thinks is in your film, assumes is in your film, or simply tells others is in your film.

Let's take something less complex. Anti abortion and "pro violence" language on websites about a given clinic or doctor. Obviously, from my stance, this is abhorrent. But if someone says "Doctor so and so is a vile man who murders children", i don't think he would be or should be held accountable when I read that and then go shot the doctor. But, if the same page then goes on to say "justice is ours to take. An Eye for an Eye", or shows shooting targets behind the individual, or gives an address, then he or she is making innuendos about direct calls to action and should be held accountable.

To be accountable (to me), you have to show some intent that your speech was intended to directly harm and/or that your speech has direct lies or exaggerations that would lead one to actions, and that there is no positive thought provoking aspect of your speech act. (Ie., criticizing Islam as violent; talking about god as an imaginary figure.)

The real trouble with freedom of speech laws, again, is that it is virtuallly impossible to know who will be offended by something I say or write, and it should not be my job to protect those who are offended, but to challenge those who are not.

And here's a question for you, Bad Faith. what if this film was never seen by the "right guys" who talked about it on the air. What if what was seen was a documentary about Islam that showed a drawing of Mo. or, as happened, South Park where mo was in a Bear outfit. would you still be asking this question? clearly, it offended someone, but at the same time, the speech at itself seems to have more value than the trash of a film, innocence. GodotBe informed. Vote. 00:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The abortion doctors names, faces, and addresses online is a good example of where I'm very conflicted. I'm very conflicted, but I need to explain why. The justification to limit the speech is not because it's offensive, nor it's so offensive that people will kill over the offense, but because it's facilitating people to murder them apart from the existence of this particular speech. Because we're not banning it for mere offense, I'm much more open to it, though still really hesitant. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"You can take all the issue you like. They're both restrictions on free speech. It's the same line, drawn in a different place. Bad Faith (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)" This is the key critical distinction. You think any limitation of free speech is equally justifiable. I believe in Mill's Harm Principle, where you can only limit someone else's actions if it is for the well being of another person - with an explicit exception for "merely offensive speech". I admit my justification is mixed and ambiguous; I'll attempt to both justify it with a consequentialist utilitarian approach, and I'll assert it as a naked fiat. I like the way Jefferson puts it: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." If you disagree, then I can try the utilitarian approaches that show this will lead to very bad outcomes, but I also believe as a starting principle that the speaker has the legal and moral right to offend, and the listener has the right to listen or to leave. Like I said, I'm unclear partially myself, and you're making me think about it - so thanks - but I don't want to live in a magic world where we had brain reading technology attached to our heads that gave us an electric shock every time we ever said something that was intended to cause even a minor amount of offense. -- Perhaps something you can relate to: I don't want to live in a world where everyone, especially me, is high on soma (Brave New World) all the time. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This gets to another aspect of my philosophy. I hate the idea of treating humans as automatons. I do not believe for most intents and purposes that there are magic words, which, when spoken, will necessarily cause a human to commit an act of violence. I also will say that we ought to operate as though there were no such words because otherwise I fail to see how you can have a workable morality. A workable morality requires personal responsibility. It is not the fault in any large part of the film maker that people died. It's the fault of the people who actually burned down the embassy that people died. The buck stops at the last person to make an informed choice. (I am usually willing for narrowly tailored exceptions for legitimate examples of incitement to riot, but this film is not that.) I really don't like saying that the filmmaker is "responsible" for the deaths. To do so reduces the murderers in question to sub-human tools, mere automata. At a certain level I can see the argument, and I don't know right now if I want to reject it wholesale, or whether I want to greatly downplay the responsibility of the filmmaker. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hitchens shouting fire in a crowded "theatre", because he's boss. Oh, and Hitchens explains how that example was used in a horrible court opinion which upheld the guilty verdict against some socialists protesting against the war. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, Schenck v. United States. If you think the current SCOTUS is bad... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A famous example of words which might or might not "cause a human to commit an act of violence" is "let him have it". A man was hanged for those words in Britain in 1953. Today of course he could only be killed for those words in America and a handful of other states that retain active use of the death penalty for murder. Nobody argued that Bentley was just exercising his freedom of speech, his utterance was undoubtedly intended to compel Craig to do something. The English court decided that it was intended to bring about Craig's next action, which was to shoot a policeman. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to complete that story, he was posthumously pardoned in 1998. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We have different rules in Europe.

1. One positive side is the problems Fred Phelps and the rest of the Westboro Baptist Church cause couldn't happen here.
2. One negative side is that specific power groups and interest groups can manipulate the rules so what they don't want said becomes illegal.

Muslims have attacked free speech here in Europe often and sometimes they got their way. Now the judges have to show or at least pretend they're evenhanded. So a hot headed 19-year old wrote stuff that was utterly objectionable and later apologized. Haven't all of us said and done silly things at that age? I hope he just gets ordered to attend some counseling course where he can learn better. I hope he doesn't go to prison. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately quite a number of UK Muslims have similar views to those promoted at East London Mosque, I hope they are a minority but don't know for sure. If this lad grew up in a family and a culture where he learnt from early childhood that waging Jihad against enemies of Islam is virtuous, it doesn't surprise me that at 19 he wrote something impulsive and grossly offensive. I don't know the background of this case but I suspect his childhood indoctrination may be the cause of this and the lad is paying for the prejudice of his community. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, there's a related debate (well, if you can call two posts a debate) going on at FSTDT about whether a particularly unpleasant British bigot should be reported to the authorities. Balaam (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly the fact that specific special interest groups, power groups, and the state can manipulate the free speech rules in various European country, to me, is dreadfully frightening. It just feels one step short of the government saying "free speech for all, unless it is something we don't want you to talk about". I have no issue with Westboro running around being the public bigots that they are as it only serves to expose them and their abhorrent beliefs. The only real results of Westboro's little proclamations and protests is how they serve to unify just about everyone else in American society against them (witnessed at any protest that they conduct); they are pariahs here, tolerated only for the sake of free speech.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

One positive side is the problems Fred Phelps and the rest of the Westboro Baptist Church cause couldn't happen here. - Why is that positive? It's not as if we don't have similarly hateful idiots living in Britain. Why force them - allow them even - to scurry around on the fringes with incitement laws when we could just let them stand and fall on their own bullshit rhetoric? Grumblejaws (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider the distress the Phelps cause when they tell the friends and family of someone who recently died that the diseased is in hell? A higher proportion of Americans believe in hell than do people in the UK but I’m pleased we don’t get that here. Many atheists believe teaching children about Hell is harmful and child abuse, see this video for more. Teaching Christian Children They Are Sinful, Worthless And In Need Of Redemption also Richard Dawkins believes Religion's Real Child Abuse. In the UK I suspect we would prevent Phelps and his ilk upsetting grieving relatives. We have Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom and UK Christians sometimes can, sometimes can't suggest that being gay is sinful, see Selected cases, saying or writing that gay people go to Hell would be risky here. Teaching children about Hell is legal here (still?) though I suspect childhood indoctrination does more harm. I feel we’re inconsistent in the UK and I’m not sure where to draw the lines either. UK freethinkers can't leave anti-religious material in a prayer room. (I didn't know that and could have got into trouble.) Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No blame, whatsoever, because of (CENSORED). And fuck 'em if they can't take a joke. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 19:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an interessting point. if we are condemming those who make fun of religion, shoudln't we be condemming South Park? I think this is why I'm against speech protection laws. I don't knwo where you draw the line. GodotBe informed. Vote. 23:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I consider the speech as those the Phelps may use that causes some people distress a very small price to pay for the right of freedom of speech. You give the example that publicly arguing that those who do not place their faith in Jesus, or because they are gay, would go to hell, or that their deceased relatives are in hell. Do I think this should be allowed? Yes. Because once we cross that line that argues that proselytizing at others is deemed illegal, that same line of reasoning can be used against someone like Dawkins for publicly arguing that religion is not only false, but evil. Ideas and beliefs should rise and fall on their merits, but they can only be properly understood when properly exposed, without censorship. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Do you consider the distress"... i think there are ways you deal with that, without having to risk South Park being taken off the airwaves for making fun of someone's religion. (again, no one has said how SP is different from Phelps or innocens of muslims). You make laws that say no one may protest at funeral homes, graves sites, holy shrines, or secular shrines (vietnam memorial, for example). the real problem with "consider the distress" laws is that we have no idea who is distressed. Every vet is likely distressed that people picket war memorials. Or picket against a war - anywhere. The president is probably "distressed" that people saying he sucks at his job. UK hate speech laws are problamatic, cause they tend (as has been pointed out) to be reactionary. the protect the free practics of Islam, but not of christianity. (ie., south park is not found to be hate speech). and as Proxie said, if you are attacking all religion on the grounds that they are stupid, which is your right as much as it is their right to teach their kids about god, then you are limited in how and where you can talk. I'm curious, would it also be illegal to leave global warming and pro-evo literature in said prayer rooms? I'm betting it would be. --GodotBe informed. Vote. 14:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In the UK sometimes we don't know what is legal and what isn't until many cases have been decided and judges can rely on previous case law. I guess global warming leaflets in prayer rooms would be legal if the person who left them there could argue that he/she felt our Christian/religious duty is to protect the planet. If an atheist with past history of upsetting Christians leaves global warming leaflets that might be different. A lot could depend on the stance of a particular judge who tries a case about global warming leaflets or evolution leaflets. Leaflets teaching theistic evolution would almost certainly be legal in a prayer room. Texts by Richard Dawkins, even if those particular texts weren't offensive about religion? I'm not sure. For a long time we in the UK will be inhibited and we won't know exactly what we can do and what we can't. I am uneasy about this law, I opposed it before it was passed. As I wrote above there is a positive and a negative side to the law against inciting religious hatred. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fred Phelps would not be banned in the UK for causing distress. He would be banned for inciting hatred. That's why we have no problems with South Park - or satire in general. It pokes fun - and offends - but it doesn't incite hatred. And all these "it's hard to draw a line" arguments. It is - quite rightly in my view - illegal to display pictures of naked minors. But what about all those pictures in the National Gallery that have cherubs? Where do you draw the line? The courts use common sense. OK, before you all jump in, I know they often get it wrong and there was the famous case of the person who took pictures of their children in the bath getting reported, but just as pornography is hard to define but easy to spot so hate speech is hard to define but easy to spot. We don't stop having laws about child pornography because of the problems and, here in the UK, I'm quite happy, in general, with the way the hate speech laws are applied. Bad Faith (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So it's not true, just an exaggeration by some, that anti-theists are being targeted by these laws? GodotBe informed. Vote. 15:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the only convictions I can remember recently were have been racist in origin. Wasn't the woman on the tube prosecuted, and then there was John Terry. On the other hand Jerry Springer: The Opera - the prosecution never happened, despite the best endeavours of Christian Voice due to lack of prima facie evidence that a crime had been committed, and a provision of the 1968 Theatres Act which enshrines the right of free expression in theatrical works. I certainly see no suppression of atheism - it's all but the norm over here and Dawkins was give pretty much free rein on prime time TV to rip religion a new one. Bad Faith (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article, Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom suggests that theists and anti-theists have both been targeted and as shown above at least one Muslim was targeted. I don't know if that particular article is as neutral as Wikipedia claims to be. Where there isn't free speech a great many people with a wide range of different beliefs will try to use the law to silence opponents. Anti-theists who had problems with the law or who know of others of their persuasion who had trouble with the law may well get the impression that they are being targeted disproportionately whether it's happening or not. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An interesting list of cases. The only ones targetting anti-theists are a guy - with previous convictions - who repeatedly left offensive cartoons in a prayer room and someone abusing another for wearing a hijab - and they were cleared. This does not, in any reasonable way, amount to suppression of atheistic views. One conviction of a known trouble maker who went out of his way to cause offence. Oh, and 100 hours unpaid work is hardly Guantalamo Bay. Bad Faith (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Bad Faith, what does "incite hatred" mean to you? How does Fred Phelps incite hatred, and Hitchens and Dawkins do not? Fred Whelps says mean hurtful (false usually) things about gays and other religions. Hitchens and Dawkins say (or used to say) mean hurtful (usually true) things about religions. In the video above, Hitchens says that religion is the number one source of hate in the world, and goes on with a wonderful tirade against religion (and hate speech laws). This, among other things, has greatly helped shape my distaste, and hate, of the Catholic Church. Really - I'm left with the only workable conclusion that in practice it's judged based on tone, not whether it incites hatred. It seems that you don't care what it said, just whether it's said politely. Is that right? Or do you want it to be illegal for me to say the following in Britain? "I believe the scientific evidence shows that people of immediate African descent are demonstrably less intelligent, more prone to rape, theft, <etc.>. I believe that we ought to raise consciousness about the dangers to society that these people pose, and that we ought to enact policy to deal with these dangers." (Of course, I don't think any of that at all. Hypothetical only.) If you don't think that's indicative of what Fred Phelps has to say, please work with me to try and make a polite form of it, and ask yourself whether it would run afoul of British law, and whether it promotes religious hatred or not. Perhaps you think only impolite speech can cause hatred? I think that's patently silly. (Sorry for going off on this perhaps incorrect tangent for so long.) LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Context is everything but I find it hard to think of a context where " more prone to rape, theft" or "enact policy to deal with these dangers" would be legal. Having said that, I can't see the pub bigot being arrested. It's when you shove it in peoples faces that you get done.

But you appear to be saying that a law that cannot be clearly defined is a bad law because it can be misused. Let's go back to pornography. Do you accept that there have to be limits on freedom of expression when it comes to pornography? I'll assume the answer is "yes". Now let's say that the material is pictures, not photographs, of little... sorry, can't even write it but you get the point. Now the apologetics of this world would say "but no child is being harmed and it's only a fantasy. Why can't I have this freedom of expression. Most, if not all, governments still say no.

OK, from that it is clear that there are certain things that are so abhorrent that they outweigh the right to freedom of expression. It's a balance. One the one side, the right, on the other the harm that exercising that right might cause. In the US the weight given to the right to freedom of expression is greater than in Europe. Thus the weight of the harm on the other side of the balance has to be greater but, as from the child porn example, the balance is still there.

Now, here in Europe, we still have a desire for freedom of expression but, possibly because of our history, we didn't cross the ocean to escape persecution, we give slightly less weight to it. The balance is different.

As to where the balance should be - that's a very difficult question. The UK has an astounding amount of cultural diversity and we are far more crowded. As such it's far more important that we get along. This, to my understanding, is why we draw the lines where we do.

And it's not that bad. You really have to be quite extreme - or go looking for trouble - to get prosecuted. What's more, each time a prosecution takes place it tends to get significant media attention - which is kind of where we came in - so the debate is always ongoing. If you look at the list of cases that PC linked to the only ones that get prosecuted are those who ask for it. Stand up in the market place and shout "god hates fags" or make a point of placing anti religious cartoons in a chapel then you'll get what you ask for, your day in court, a slap on the wrist and a small fine.

In short, it works. Really, it does. GrumbleJaws and PC are allowed to disagree but I defy them to come up with a case where the prosecution was oppressive. Bad Faith (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What about all the ads that say, Republicans want to poison children! Who the fuck are these religious people, and their apologists, who think this hate-filled crap is less offensive or morally repugnant than a slapstick comedy or cartoon picture of Muhammad? Who the fuck thinks their fucking morality (or their apologists morality) justifies rioting, looting and killing, while others who are just as offended by hate speech directed at them can go fuck themselves? nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 21:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Seriously Rob, try and make sense. I know you can if you put your mind to it. Bad Faith (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Do you accept that there have to be limits on freedom of expression when it comes to pornography? I'll assume the answer is "yes"." "OK, from that it is clear that there are certain things that are so abhorrent that they outweigh the right to freedom of expression." I'm sorry. I thought I was extraordinarily clear on this already. Let me say it again. No. There is no such thing that is so abhorrent that it ought to be illegal to say merely because of its abhorrence. I understand your insinuation about obviously drawn cartoon "child porn". I say even that ought to be protected. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Having said that, I can't see the pub bigot being arrested. It's when you shove it in peoples faces that you get done."" This is indeed one of the central issues. You put freedom of speech as the right of the speaker to speak. I agree with Hitchens, and Mill, and Paine, and Voltaire, and the rest of the enlightenment, that it is equally important that there be the right of the listener to hear the offensive speech. Without that part, then freedom of speech carries far less value. If you cannot say offensive and controversial things, then just drop freedom of speech altogether. You already have in principle. (Note that this is not a defense of harassment, which is something entirely else. Please tell me if you want to invoke that false equivocation.) LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"And it's not that bad. You really have to be quite extreme - or go looking for trouble - to get prosecuted." Apparently not. I want to say that (some kinds of) Islamic culture are that of promoting intolerance, hatred, bigotry. It also creates a culture that is highly prone to violence. I believe Islam, along with the a lot of the other religions in the world, are a major source, if not the biggest source, of rape, murder, suffering, etc. in our world. It is worthy of our scorn, and we ought to do away with it (the religions) (through reasoned discourse). Apparently expressing that opinion clearly and openly in certain contexts in Britain can earn me jail time. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you can't see my point. And I'm not an outlier - the views I have expressed above are those of most European countries. What you find dreadful I find appropriate - and here we get to the real nub of the matter.

Different cultures put different weight on freedom of speech. The US is really quite extreme and, although I know it's a thing they're proud of, it doesn't necessarily make them right. I can understand your point of view, that you put so much weight on freedom of expression that you put up with Fred Phelps, but try, seriously try, to see that Europe isn't some repressive hell hole. Come and live here for a while - I've done it the other way around - and see for yourself. Oh, and you can express all those things and more without gaol time.

There are other ways of thinking and, just because they go against things you hold dear doesn't mean they're wrong. Beyond that, I'm done here, you're not hearing what I'm saying and I guess I'm not hearing you either. Bad Faith (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I must politely disagree, as apparently my efforts at making the world a better place, and my drive for truth, are apparently liable to earn me jail in your country. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read anything you've written here (outside the hypothetical) that would earn you jail time, at least not in the UK. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Europe isn't some repressive hell hole

Jesus, why do you think so many of or white forebearers left Europe, cause it is a repressive hell hole. That's why we celebrate Thanksgiving, as any schoolchild can tell you. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 22:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Rob, dude, WTF? Do you understand the concept of "the past"? Ajkgordon (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Free speech and entrepreneurship made the US the richest and freest land of opportunity for immigrants the world has ever seen, with a GDP three times larger than the second, third, fourth, and fifth place followers. Lack of Free speech and entrepreneurship is what makes Europe a repressive hell hole. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 00:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Shh. You're just making me look bad. (lol) LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's right Rob. That's also the reason why millions and millions of Europeans are fleeing to America every year even today and the reason why nobody EVER immigrates to Europe. It's also the reason why the combined GDP of the Schengen Zone isn't bigger than that of the USA, even though the United States have less citizens than France or Germany or the UK. Back in the days of theocratic monarchist mo-rules-apply-capitalist good Christian censorship of the mid-19th century, when so many Americans fled to Europe for the unbelievable amount of foods GOD gave the Europeans. Nowadays, Europe has awfully repressive economic circumstances, we have governments that try to commit the unbelievable disgusting and revolting sin of helping people who can't help themselves, governments that disgust their own people by keeping the air clean and making sure that health care isn't run on a 400% profit margin, in which morally abusive gays, transgender and other sexually motivated satanists try to live and have support by only the liberal elite not to — can you believe their audacity? — get beaten up in public while the good Christians cheer on the cleaning of streets from these dangers to society. Yes Rob, you are right! --K. (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rob, if you genuinely believe that Europe is a repressive hell-hole, then you're speaking from a position of extreme ignorance. Educate yourself, man. Better still, take a flight. It's relatively cheap these days. Take in places like London, Berlin, Paris, Milan, Barcelona, Oslo, Dublin and Vienna. Then tour the countryside. Go hiking in the Pyrenees, canoe down the Gorges du Verdon, swim in the Aegean, ride a dog sled in the Arctic Circle, stay in a chocolate-box B&B in the Lake District, go fishing on the coast near Cork. OK, so you might find some countries' functionaries a little more officious than others, you might find it irritating when all the shops in some places close at midday and on Sunday, you might even find your Big Mac a little more expensive than back in God's Own Country. But really, a repressive hell-hole? No. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I exaggerate. Always wanted to see Budapest, or Bayreuth. And I am amazed how extremes in France, on both the left and right (from monarchists to communists), have always held some degree of legitimacy versus the US were whackos are not welcome in any mainstream coalition. The point is, Americans are soon to experience European-style socialism with new healthcare mandate. Personally, I believe it means perpetual unemployment at 7.5%% or worse and perpetual hostility toward the businessman and entrepreneurship. We'll see how it goes. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 20:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

GrumbleJaws and PC are allowed to disagree but I defy them to come up with a case where the prosecution was oppressive. I need to be pretty clear on my position here: I think all prosecutions of these type are intrinsically oppressive. The fact that a conviction might not necessarily follow is irrelevant, because the point is the State is still intervening to scare people straight. You're position that these are people who are asking for it and that society at large abhors anyway is what agitates me because it puts incitements laws and their carry-over to other public order laws at the whim of very fluid social mores, which is why we end up with cases like this, this and the example that kicked off this discussion. These weren't people screaming slurs in a crowded street, they were just pricks expressing their stupid opinions (or in the case fo the Postman Pat guy, attempting humour) in a pretty low-key way. I don't believe that anyone should have reasonably expected to be collared by the Crown, but it happened. I'd expand on this but my lunchbreak is over, ttyl. Grumblejaws (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't know exactly what we can say and what we can't, and that's a serious problem. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Bollocks! Total complete and absolute bollocks. You make it sound like the thought police are knocking people's doors in on a day-by-day basis and you know that simply isn't true. You're such a fucking drama queen. Ooh, my rights are being oppressed!

And, if you really do overstep the line. OMG! What do you get - a baby fine. They gave that wally from Liverpool community service because he made it quite clear he had no respect for the law or for the court and simply wanted to make trouble. The judge wanted him to stop fucking making trouble in a chapel. Even then, he was wasn't exactly thrown in gaol. This is a molehill and however much you shout about the rights of man, it simply won't turn into a mountain. Bad Faith (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a mountain but it's certainly a big hill and difficult to climb.

1. Seriously yesterday I spent about an hour on The National Secular Society website because I wanted some indication what is safe to write online. And I'll have to spend more time on UK atheist websites before I have a clear idea about things.
2. Next port of call the LIBERTY, they're the UK equivalent of the ACLU.
3. Free Speech and Protest.
4. Speech offences. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't know exactly what we can say and what we can't, and that's a serious problem. There is an easy solution: You could just stop talking, like forever. This is one of the most pointless and stupid arguments I've ever read Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 17:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You really believe that? You really believe that this (mostly) genuine discussions of free speech qualify as "one of the most pointless and stupid arguments [you've] ever read"? Really? I am aghast at your apparent complete disregard for civil liberties. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Scheisse Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So kann man's auch sagen ;-)Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 17:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the drama queen comment was directed at me, but you asked for cases I thought were troubling and all I did was give some examples. No Orwell references or anything. As for "baby fines" and the like, I already said above it's the very fact that people have been reprimanded for speech that I find oppressive - court sentences, to whatever degree, just compound the issue for me. Your entire stance rests on two very dodgy principles: 1) If people react consistenly and violently enough to certain kinds of speech and expression, then we should criminalise the speaker and 2) Laws like this are fine so long are they're only being used to prosecute people I don't particularly like. Grumblejaws (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Even what you call a baby fine gives a person a criminal record which may be disclosed to employers and potential employers etc. It's something that matters. Further finding £200 can cause hardship for an unemployed person. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

1. 2 days ago 2 police women were shot in Manchester. 2 men have been arrested in connection with the murders, no problem there unless there is insufficient evidence. Someone has also been arrested in connection with an offensive Facebook page, Police shootings: Arrest over PC deaths Facebook comments. Was that justified? This looks like what we should discuss.
2. I've found more about that Facebook page now Internet awash with trolls’ vile messages following police shootings & Nicola Hughes And Fiona Bone Killings: Man Arrested Over Offensive Facebook Page.

I'm still not sure if the arrests were justified but it's likely the UK public will approve and may carry on approving as progressively more free speech is eroded. It's late in the evening here but I'll return tomorrow morning and see what you Americans have to say. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This stuff is quite common in the US. In my town a cop who killed a gangmember and Iraqi War vet had "human waste disposal" as his job title on Facebook. It was a questionable shooting, but the officer is still on the force and there's no witnesses to say any different than what the cop said. In the US, people are expected to act emotionally in an emotional situation. Yes, statements that are offensive to victims families (like the Phelps case or the cop killings in Britain) are vile and disgusting. They reveal more about the character of the speaker, which is worth knowing versus keeping them quiet and allowing them to fool everyone else with an illusion of normality. Generally speaking, Americans would shame the government agency (police and prosecutors) for exploiting an emotional situation to promote themselves as defenders of decency. Violating a person's basic human right of free speech threatens all our basic rights, and would turn the US into a police state. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 21:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Only one comment, I hoped for more. Do these statements reveal the characters of the speakers or were some reacting to corruption and abuse of power by the police?^{— Unsigned, by: Proxima Centauri / talk / contribs}

That is very interesting indeed; one wonders what sort of internet postings were made by British citizens after this police officers arrest, before he was ever convicted of anything? And why the selective prosecution? Truthfully, I'm amazed at the huge outpouring of sympathy for the deceased policewomen, it makes GB look like a bunch of redneck-law-n-order types, to use a US idiom. OTH, most Americans probably don not know that most cops in GB are unarmed, and any shooting violence evokes massive horror in GB. Here the horror and recriminations about what kind of society the US is lasts about one news cycle, or 24 hours. A good example is the wp:Gabby Giffords shooting perpetrator just got a life sentence, which received about two sentences in my local newspaper. This means he was found competent to stand trial, after the universal judgement in media and the public was he was just a nutcase. Such is the attention span, even after the most horrific events. nobs^{Corporations are people, too} 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A question to the censors

"I haven't read anything you've written here (outside the hypothetical) that would earn you jail time, at least not in the UK." Quoting Ajkgordon

Wait, so I can say that "the Muslim religion, as practiced by a large subpopulation of that religion, tends to make you a violent intolerant bigot", but I can't say that "science demonstrates blacks are stupid and immoral"? The hell? (I don't actually believe that about blacks.) LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like an answer here, if possible, please. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Bad Faith? Ajkgordon? This is important to me, to understand where you draw the line. (I also harbor a hope, against all reason, that this might make you realize your mistake.) Or have I lost you already by daring to say that practicing certain kinds of Islamic culture promotes hatred, bigotry, intolerance, and violence? (Just like being a practicing Catholic, and most organized religions, though to differing degrees.) LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I am genuinely curious, as I see no functional distinction between the "meanness" of both of those sentences, and yet Ajkgordon thinks there is a difference. Maybe he didn't read that part when he said what he said? It's more exploration than argument. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Many UK people want Azhar Ahmed to go to prison, see The Petition there's also more about exactly what he wrote.

1. He cares about families being murdered which is good.
2. He cares about women getting raped which is good.
3. He cares about children being sliced up which is good.
4. He is naive in believing the propaganda of his side which is bad.
5. He stereotypes all soldiers and believes all deserve to die and go to hell. In fact only a small minority commit serious war crimes.

I still fear he's paying for the intolerant way many Muslim communities are and should get counseling rather than prison. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed I’ve linked to sites with quotes but haven’t quoted those who got prosecuted directly? Quoting would almost certainly be OK so long as I make it clear that I disagree with the quotes but it’s an unnecessary risk to take.

Many UK judges have been to UK public schools and support the establishment. Judges would more likely be down on me than they are to be hard on the Daily Fail or the Daily Torygraph. The UK establishment tends to support the Christianity either because they believe it or because they hope religion keeps the lower orders in check. My Militant atheism might put the establishment against me. Proxima Centauri (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why this conversation is over for me

Like all LANCB's I can't resist the Parthian shot. This one is directed at LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant.

You have made it quite clear that, as far as you are concerned, your mind is made up. You know the "truth" and there is nothing I can say or do that will make you change your views one iota. When I presented the basic premise of my argument you hand waved it away with some utilitarian bollocks and refused to give it any credence. Once again you stuck with "this is what I believe and any other belief is wrong"

What is more, you have made it quite clear that you feel a need to evangelise, to, in your very words "make the world a better place", to "make [me] realize [my] mistake". You don't want a discussion, you want to verbally beat me up, you want to win. You have said elsewhere how much you hate - yes, that's the word you used - religion. You also express similar disdain for my quite middle of the road position - indeed, as far as you are concerned all of Europe is beyond the pale and as for the middle east... You have no more tolerance than the Mullahs you so despise.

So, if I'm not going to change your mind then this conversation becomes a little one sided.

Meanwhile, if you're going to change my mind, you're going to need to meet me somewhere in the middle. In six decades on this earth I've heard most of the arguments from both sides of this and, balancing them all out, I've come to a position that suits me. Having some hot head shouting the odds really isn't going to make a ha’p’orth of difference.

Now, I could answer your question but, if you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours, then this conversation becomes a small child shouting at a braying donkey. A lot of hot air but essentially meaningless. Bad Faith (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree it seems unlikely you'll change my mind. I would still like to understand your position better. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like the above is totally worth reading. </sarcasm> ^narchist 16:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I do not understand the sarcasm, nor your point. I do genuinely want to understand what Bad Faith feels are the limits of preference and/or of Britain. Sure, I don't think I'll have my mind changed, but I would still like to understand those who disagree with me. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)