On free speech, what concerns me is that it's determined by who might be offended. Some of the Muslim clerics we've had here have gotten away with preaching all sorts of offensive nonsense. But I've always felt that because the people who object to it aren't likely to kick off then the authorities are less likely to be bothered.
If Donald Trump made a visit to the UK to give a speech or something you know that rent a mob would show up to cause trouble and thus the authorities would be more likely to intervene.
Which is exactly why we need to call out this "I am offended" malarkey for the nonsense on stilts that it is. The claim about being offended is rarely about offence in any meaningful sense but more usually because someone has made a criticism of the "offendee", usually one with more than a grain of truth in it, and the "offendee" does not want to hear the criticism or thinks it an impertinence that they should ever hear anything bad about themselves at all.
It is the cry of the perpetually brittle adolescent, demanding "respect" for no visible achievement while at the same time wholly unwilling to show anyone else the slightest consideration. It should be treated with the scorn and pity which such behaviour demands.
The only exception to free speech should be incitement to violence by the speaker and only him/her (and, possibly, defamation, provided it is very very tightly drawn - and even then I'm not sure).
So "Go out and kill Jews" and "Behead those who offend Islam": No: this is incitement. But "Jews are rich and grasping" and "Muslims are too slow to condemn terrorism": yes - even if some might object to the content or the stereotyping because no violence is being incited.
Otherwise, the professional grievance-mongering cry-baby bully gets to determine what can and cannot be said and, as we have seen, those limits end up being more and more tightly drawn until eventually we'll be able to say little more than "good morning".
Those who seek to shut down someone who is saying something they don't want to hear are too quick to use violence or the threat of it, if not by them by others, to shut the speaker when, in fact, the speaker is not inciting violence at all. Thus is the reaction of those who don't like the speaker used to shut down free speech on the grounds of "incitement to violence". It is a perfect example of our liberal tolerant values being perverted so that they end being used to destroy those same values and completely contrary to their stated intention.
We have been far too slow at realising this and taking steps to stop this perversion of what the classic exceptions to free speech should be.
On free speech, what concerns me is that it's determined by who might be offended. Some of the Muslim clerics we've had here have gotten away with preaching all sorts of offensive nonsense. But I've always felt that because the people who object to it aren't likely to kick off then the authorities are less likely to be bothered.
If Donald Trump made a visit to the UK to give a speech or something you know that rent a mob would show up to cause trouble and thus the authorities would be more likely to intervene.
Which is exactly why we need to call out this "I am offended" malarkey for the nonsense on stilts that it is. The claim about being offended is rarely about offence in any meaningful sense but more usually because someone has made a criticism of the "offendee", usually one with more than a grain of truth in it, and the "offendee" does not want to hear the criticism or thinks it an impertinence that they should ever hear anything bad about themselves at all.
It is the cry of the perpetually brittle adolescent, demanding "respect" for no visible achievement while at the same time wholly unwilling to show anyone else the slightest consideration. It should be treated with the scorn and pity which such behaviour demands.
The only exception to free speech should be incitement to violence by the speaker and only him/her (and, possibly, defamation, provided it is very very tightly drawn - and even then I'm not sure).
So "Go out and kill Jews" and "Behead those who offend Islam": No: this is incitement. But "Jews are rich and grasping" and "Muslims are too slow to condemn terrorism": yes - even if some might object to the content or the stereotyping because no violence is being incited.
Otherwise, the professional grievance-mongering cry-baby bully gets to determine what can and cannot be said and, as we have seen, those limits end up being more and more tightly drawn until eventually we'll be able to say little more than "good morning".
Those who seek to shut down someone who is saying something they don't want to hear are too quick to use violence or the threat of it, if not by them by others, to shut the speaker when, in fact, the speaker is not inciting violence at all. Thus is the reaction of those who don't like the speaker used to shut down free speech on the grounds of "incitement to violence". It is a perfect example of our liberal tolerant values being perverted so that they end being used to destroy those same values and completely contrary to their stated intention.
We have been far too slow at realising this and taking steps to stop this perversion of what the classic exceptions to free speech should be.
Which is exactly why we need to call out this "I am offended" malarkey for the nonsense on stilts that it is. The claim about being offended is rarely about offence in any meaningful sense but more usually because someone has made a criticism of the "offendee", usually one with more than a grain of truth in it, and the "offendee" does not want to hear the criticism or thinks it an impertinence that they should ever hear anything bad about themselves at all.
It is the cry of the perpetually brittle adolescent, demanding "respect" for no visible achievement while at the same time wholly unwilling to show anyone else the slightest consideration. It should be treated with the scorn and pity which such behaviour demands.
The only exception to free speech should be incitement to violence by the speaker and only him/her (and, possibly, defamation, provided it is very very tightly drawn - and even then I'm not sure).
So "Go out and kill Jews" and "Behead those who offend Islam": No: this is incitement. But "Jews are rich and grasping" and "Muslims are too slow to condemn terrorism": yes - even if some might object to the content or the stereotyping because no violence is being incited.
Otherwise, the professional grievance-mongering cry-baby bully gets to determine what can and cannot be said and, as we have seen, those limits end up being more and more tightly drawn until eventually we'll be able to say little more than "good morning".
Those who seek to shut down someone who is saying something they don't want to hear are too quick to use violence or the threat of it, if not by them by others, to shut the speaker when, in fact, the speaker is not inciting violence at all. Thus is the reaction of those who don't like the speaker used to shut down free speech on the grounds of "incitement to violence". It is a perfect example of our liberal tolerant values being perverted so that they end being used to destroy those same values and completely contrary to their stated intention.
We have been far too slow at realising this and taking steps to stop this perversion of what the classic exceptions to free speech should be.
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
I hope this is not to trivialise mass murder by making it a debating point, but the Holocaust was permitted to happen not merely because of specific (secret) incitements by the German government to its employees and servants, but also because Jews had been dehumanised by anti-Semitic rhetoric so that the average German working in the chemical plants or the railways didn't object.
It seems to me that if speech should be incredibly free, then that should not only include speech like "I'm offended", it actually positively REQUIRES speech like "I'm offended" rather than reliance on state sanctions for dangerous words.
Which is exactly why we need to call out this "I am offended" malarkey for the nonsense on stilts that it is. The claim about being offended is rarely about offence in any meaningful sense but more usually because someone has made a criticism of the "offendee", usually one with more than a grain of truth in it, and the "offendee" does not want to hear the criticism or thinks it an impertinence that they should ever hear anything bad about themselves at all.
It is the cry of the perpetually brittle adolescent, demanding "respect" for no visible achievement while at the same time wholly unwilling to show anyone else the slightest consideration. It should be treated with the scorn and pity which such behaviour demands.
The only exception to free speech should be incitement to violence by the speaker and only him/her (and, possibly, defamation, provided it is very very tightly drawn - and even then I'm not sure).
So "Go out and kill Jews" and "Behead those who offend Islam": No: this is incitement. But "Jews are rich and grasping" and "Muslims are too slow to condemn terrorism": yes - even if some might object to the content or the stereotyping because no violence is being incited.
Otherwise, the professional grievance-mongering cry-baby bully gets to determine what can and cannot be said and, as we have seen, those limits end up being more and more tightly drawn until eventually we'll be able to say little more than "good morning".
Those who seek to shut down someone who is saying something they don't want to hear are too quick to use violence or the threat of it, if not by them by others, to shut the speaker when, in fact, the speaker is not inciting violence at all. Thus is the reaction of those who don't like the speaker used to shut down free speech on the grounds of "incitement to violence". It is a perfect example of our liberal tolerant values being perverted so that they end being used to destroy those same values and completely contrary to their stated intention.
We have been far too slow at realising this and taking steps to stop this perversion of what the classic exceptions to free speech should be.
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
Indeed. The sick blood libel - often taught across the middle east - is an example.
The obvious and egregious examples can often be discounted. The subtle examples that are frequently repeated also do massive harm.
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
I see your point - but then as a Kipper I could do Cameron for his closet racists remark a few years ago.
Which is exactly why we need to call out this "I am offended" malarkey for the nonsense on stilts that it is. The claim about being offended is rarely about offence in any meaningful sense but more usually because someone has made a criticism of the "offendee", usually one with more than a grain of truth in it, and the "offendee" does not want to hear the criticism or thinks it an impertinence that they should ever hear anything bad about themselves at all.
It is the cry of the perpetually brittle adolescent, demanding "respect" for no visible achievement while at the same time wholly unwilling to show anyone else the slightest consideration. It should be treated with the scorn and pity which such behaviour demands.
The only exception to free speech should be incitement to violence by the speaker and only him/her (and, possibly, defamation, provided it is very very tightly drawn - and even then I'm not sure).
So "Go out and kill Jews" and "Behead those who offend Islam": No: this is incitement. But "Jews are rich and grasping" and "Muslims are too slow to condemn terrorism": yes - even if some might object to the content or the stereotyping because no violence is being incited.
Otherwise, the professional grievance-mongering cry-baby bully gets to determine what can and cannot be said and, as we have seen, those limits end up being more and more tightly drawn until eventually we'll be able to say little more than "good morning".
Those who seek to shut down someone who is saying something they don't want to hear are too quick to use violence or the threat of it, if not by them by others, to shut the speaker when, in fact, the speaker is not inciting violence at all. Thus is the reaction of those who don't like the speaker used to shut down free speech on the grounds of "incitement to violence". It is a perfect example of our liberal tolerant values being perverted so that they end being used to destroy those same values and completely contrary to their stated intention.
We have been far too slow at realising this and taking steps to stop this perversion of what the classic exceptions to free speech should be.
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
One is inciting crime; the other is being obnoxious.
I hope this is not to trivialise mass murder by making it a debating point, but the Holocaust was permitted to happen not merely because of specific (secret) incitements by the German government to its employees and servants, but also because Jews had been dehumanised by anti-Semitic rhetoric so that the average German working in the chemical plants or the railways didn't object.
It seems to me that if speech should be incredibly free, then that should not only include speech like "I'm offended", it actually positively REQUIRES speech like "I'm offended" rather than reliance on state sanctions for dangerous words.
The government had been propagandising that Jews were sub-human for years; banning every argument to the contrary; and enacting increasingly discriminatory laws against them. I don't think the holocaust demonstrates the dangers of free speech in a democracy
How are Man United 4th in the table ? They look complete garbage. 2-1 has flattered them.
If Spurs win tomorrow they go 4th
COYS
Chortle. If Arsenal win (and they bloody well better!) they will go top, until Leicester stuff the chavs.
Spurs usually find a way of messing up games like tomorrow, that said Poch really seems to have something about him, moulding a young, fit and hungry group of players.
I hope this is not to trivialise mass murder by making it a debating point, but the Holocaust was permitted to happen not merely because of specific (secret) incitements by the German government to its employees and servants, but also because Jews had been dehumanised by anti-Semitic rhetoric so that the average German working in the chemical plants or the railways didn't object.
It seems to me that if speech should be incredibly free, then that should not only include speech like "I'm offended", it actually positively REQUIRES speech like "I'm offended" rather than reliance on state sanctions for dangerous words.
The government had been propagandising that Jews were sub-human for years; banning every argument to the contrary; and enacting increasingly discriminatory laws against them. I don't think the holocaust demonstrates the dangers of free speech in a democracy
Correct. If anything I'd argue that the mantra that the terrorists aren't Muslims is just as potentially dangerous. But I wouldn't want to stop people spouting it if that's what they believe.
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
Indeed. The sick blood libel - often taught across the middle east - is an example.
The obvious and egregious examples can often be discounted. The subtle examples that are frequently repeated also do massive harm.
How are Man United 4th in the table ? They look complete garbage. 2-1 has flattered them.
If Spurs win tomorrow they go 4th
COYS
Chortle. If Arsenal win (and they bloody well better!) they will go top, until Leicester stuff the chavs.
Spurs usually find a way of messing up games like tomorrow, that said Poch really seems to have something about him, moulding a young, fit and hungry group of players.
You have a very good manager. I was very impressed with Spurs at the Emirates and I'd suggest that Top 4 should be the bottom of Spurs's ambitions this season.
"One in four Britons (25%) think that Jeremy Corbyn is turning out to be a good leader of the Labour Party – including around half of Labour voters (56%). By comparison 29% say that Hilary Benn would make a good leader of the Labour Party, although only 25% of Labour voters agree (compared to 42% of Conservative voters)."
How are Man United 4th in the table ? They look complete garbage. 2-1 has flattered them.
If Spurs win tomorrow they go 4th
COYS
Chortle. If Arsenal win (and they bloody well better!) they will go top, until Leicester stuff the chavs.
Spurs usually find a way of messing up games like tomorrow, that said Poch really seems to have something about him, moulding a young, fit and hungry group of players.
You have a very good manager. I was very impressed with Spurs at the Emirates and I'd suggest that Top 4 should be the bottom of Spurs's ambitions this season.
I hope you're right, the key will be another striker in January to help Kane out. He loves football, his attitude is a breath of fresh air but we need back up.
I fancy Remi Garde to do a number on his mentor tomorrow
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
Indeed. The sick blood libel - often taught across the middle east - is an example.
The obvious and egregious examples can often be discounted. The subtle examples that are frequently repeated also do massive harm.
One scholar. And much of the pain of the blood libel is on concentrating not on what happened, but what they say is happening now. After all, most religions would find it hard to defend what has been done in that religion's name in the past.
There is a big difference between saying: "one group of people from religion x did heinous act y," and "one group of people from religion x are doing heinous act y," which, AIUI, is at the heart of the current teaching of the libel.
"One in four Britons (25%) think that Jeremy Corbyn is turning out to be a good leader of the Labour Party – including around half of Labour voters (56%). By comparison 29% say that Hilary Benn would make a good leader of the Labour Party, although only 25% of Labour voters agree (compared to 42% of Conservative voters)."
How are Man United 4th in the table ? They look complete garbage. 2-1 has flattered them.
If Spurs win tomorrow they go 4th
COYS
Chortle. If Arsenal win (and they bloody well better!) they will go top, until Leicester stuff the chavs.
Spurs usually find a way of messing up games like tomorrow, that said Poch really seems to have something about him, moulding a young, fit and hungry group of players.
You have a very good manager. I was very impressed with Spurs at the Emirates and I'd suggest that Top 4 should be the bottom of Spurs's ambitions this season.
I hope you're right, the key will be another striker in January to help Kane out. He loves football, his attitude is a breath of fresh air but we need back up.
I fancy Remi Garde to do a number on his mentor tomorrow
Tomorrow will be my seventh trip to Villa Park - I haven't seen us lose there yet. That was true of Brom a few weeks back but they have Pulis. For some reason Sky took first pick this week, but I'm glad they did as BT would almost certainly have taken Villa v Arsenal at lunchtime today which wouldn't have been ideal having travelled back from Athens on Thursday morning.
I hope this is not to trivialise mass murder by making it a debating point, but the Holocaust was permitted to happen not merely because of specific (secret) incitements by the German government to its employees and servants, but also because Jews had been dehumanised by anti-Semitic rhetoric so that the average German working in the chemical plants or the railways didn't object.
It seems to me that if speech should be incredibly free, then that should not only include speech like "I'm offended", it actually positively REQUIRES speech like "I'm offended" rather than reliance on state sanctions for dangerous words.
The government had been propagandising that Jews were sub-human for years; banning every argument to the contrary; and enacting increasingly discriminatory laws against them. I don't think the holocaust demonstrates the dangers of free speech in a democracy
There are plenty of instances of democracies committing or abetting serious outrages against their people; not to the scale of the Holocaust, of course. Still, what matters for this argument is not really the form of government. It is surely the consequences of actions. And I find it impossible to believe that the direct incitements against Jews would have been as destructive without the dehumanising rhetoric - just imagine the difference between England during the time of pogroms and today - would the same exhortation to violence have the same effect? No, because humans are intelligent and respond to words in their context. So creating the context is perhaps even more damaging than the exhortation itself, though its effect may be a little harder to understand.
"One in four Britons (25%) think that Jeremy Corbyn is turning out to be a good leader of the Labour Party – including around half of Labour voters (56%). By comparison 29% say that Hilary Benn would make a good leader of the Labour Party, although only 25% of Labour voters agree (compared to 42% of Conservative voters)."
So Tories hate Corbyn, love Benn. Labour loves Corbyn, hates Benn.
No surprise there.
40% of the sample gave a Tory VI, 29% Labour. If Labour want to win a general election they need to attract people who currently intend to vote Tory. This is fairly basic.
@Andrew_ComRes: While just 6% of Con voters think Corbyn doing good job as Lab leader, 42% of Tories think Hilary Benn wd make good leader
And by definition that would make Benn a Tory!
Anyone who can win an election is a Red Tory or a Blue Labour or whatever the idiots say about adults.
Benn wouldn't carry his party's voters in an election, this poll confirms it that there are few labour voters who like him, in the event of a Benn leadership Labour would suffer a Jim Murphy like meltdown in England.
He would do well if he ran for the Tory leadership though, he's right wing enough for their leadership but too right wing for the Labour leadership.
How are Man United 4th in the table ? They look complete garbage. 2-1 has flattered them.
If Spurs win tomorrow they go 4th
COYS
Chortle. If Arsenal win (and they bloody well better!) they will go top, until Leicester stuff the chavs.
Spurs usually find a way of messing up games like tomorrow, that said Poch really seems to have something about him, moulding a young, fit and hungry group of players.
You have a very good manager. I was very impressed with Spurs at the Emirates and I'd suggest that Top 4 should be the bottom of Spurs's ambitions this season.
I hope you're right, the key will be another striker in January to help Kane out. He loves football, his attitude is a breath of fresh air but we need back up.
I fancy Remi Garde to do a number on his mentor tomorrow
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
Indeed. The sick blood libel - often taught across the middle east - is an example.
The obvious and egregious examples can often be discounted. The subtle examples that are frequently repeated also do massive harm.
One scholar. And much of the pain of the blood libel is on concentrating not on what happened, but what they say is happening now. After all, most religions would find it hard to defend what has been done in that religion's name in the past.
There is a big difference between saying: "one group of people from religion x did heinous act y," and "one group of people from religion x are doing heinous act y," which, AIUI, is at the heart of the current teaching of the libel.
Well I agree with that. What some religious maniacs may or may not have done half a millennia ago has little direct bearing on what happens today. It is a historical question. But one which should be treated like any other, and put to rational enquiry.
@Andrew_ComRes: While just 6% of Con voters think Corbyn doing good job as Lab leader, 42% of Tories think Hilary Benn wd make good leader
And by definition that would make Benn a Tory!
Anyone who can win an election is a Red Tory or a Blue Labour or whatever the idiots say about adults.
Benn wouldn't carry his party's voters in an election, this poll confirms it that there are few labour voters who like him, in the event of a Benn leadership Labour would suffer a Jim Murphy like meltdown in England.
He would do well if he ran for the Tory leadership though, he's right wing enough for their leadership but too right wing for the Labour leadership.
If Benn replaced Jezza would there be much left to meltdown?
"One in four Britons (25%) think that Jeremy Corbyn is turning out to be a good leader of the Labour Party – including around half of Labour voters (56%). By comparison 29% say that Hilary Benn would make a good leader of the Labour Party, although only 25% of Labour voters agree (compared to 42% of Conservative voters)."
So Tories hate Corbyn, love Benn. Labour loves Corbyn, hates Benn.
No surprise there.
40% of the sample gave a Tory VI, 29% Labour. If Labour want to win a general election they need to attract people who currently intend to vote Tory. This is fairly basic.
It's also fairly basic that to win an election you need to have a party base in the first place (basic SLAB mistake).
If Benn only gets the quarter of the labour votes that likes him and the 42% of the Tories that's only 24%, that's worse than what Corbyn does presently. And that's assuming that those Tories who like Benn would vote for him instead of staying Tory, while there little guarantee that those who like Corbyn would vote for Benn.
Not much in the ComRes poll to cheer Labour. If the Conservatives are anywhere near 40%, they're home again. Nothing in the subsidiaries gives Labour much hope at present.
I hope this is not to trivialise mass murder by making it a debating point, but the Holocaust was permitted to happen not merely because of specific (secret) incitements by the German government to its employees and servants, but also because Jews had been dehumanised by anti-Semitic rhetoric so that the average German working in the chemical plants or the railways didn't object.
It seems to me that if speech should be incredibly free, then that should not only include speech like "I'm offended", it actually positively REQUIRES speech like "I'm offended" rather than reliance on state sanctions for dangerous words.
The government had been propagandising that Jews were sub-human for years; banning every argument to the contrary; and enacting increasingly discriminatory laws against them. I don't think the holocaust demonstrates the dangers of free speech in a democracy
There are plenty of instances of democracies committing or abetting serious outrages against their people; not to the scale of the Holocaust, of course. Still, what matters for this argument is not really the form of government. It is surely the consequences of actions. And I find it impossible to believe that the direct incitements against Jews would have been as destructive without the dehumanising rhetoric - just imagine the difference between England during the time of pogroms and today - would the same exhortation to violence have the same effect? No, because humans are intelligent and respond to words in their context. So creating the context is perhaps even more damaging than the exhortation itself, though its effect may be a little harder to understand.
Actually, I think form of government matters a lot. Anti-semitism existed in 1900 Germany, but it's inconceivable that the Kaiserreich would have carried out a holocaust. Under a dictatorship, such things become more possible.
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
Indeed. The sick blood libel - often taught across the middle east - is an example.
The obvious and egregious examples can often be discounted. The subtle examples that are frequently repeated also do massive harm.
One scholar. And much of the pain of the blood libel is on concentrating not on what happened, but what they say is happening now. After all, most religions would find it hard to defend what has been done in that religion's name in the past.
There is a big difference between saying: "one group of people from religion x did heinous act y," and "one group of people from religion x are doing heinous act y," which, AIUI, is at the heart of the current teaching of the libel.
Well I agree with that. What some religious maniacs may or may not have done half a millennia ago has little direct bearing on what happens today. It is a historical question. But one which should be treated like any other, and put to rational enquiry.
But that's irrelevant to the way the blood libel's apparently being taught today.
'One subgroup may have ...' becomes 'they all do'
It's why it's so pernicious. No religion, or even major country, could withstand it.
@Andrew_ComRes: While just 6% of Con voters think Corbyn doing good job as Lab leader, 42% of Tories think Hilary Benn wd make good leader
And by definition that would make Benn a Tory!
Anyone who can win an election is a Red Tory or a Blue Labour or whatever the idiots say about adults.
Benn wouldn't carry his party's voters in an election, this poll confirms it that there are few labour voters who like him, in the event of a Benn leadership Labour would suffer a Jim Murphy like meltdown in England.
He would do well if he ran for the Tory leadership though, he's right wing enough for their leadership but too right wing for the Labour leadership.
If Benn replaced Jezza would there be much left to meltdown?
Whatever it was let's hope Gabble makes a Speedy return to PB ....
Well the 59% of the 29% is 17 points of VI, I suppose most of those would leave for other left wing parties rather than stay under a Benn led Labour party, but there is little guarantee that Benn will take those Tories who like him to vote Labour, not with Tory voters so satisfied with their leadership. So there is every prospect of Benn being a Labour Nick Clegg if he ever gets the top job, being more accommodating to the Tories than his own party base.
But the lack of support to Benn from Labour voters is entirely predictable, and it rubs negatively on him that the enemy side likes him much more than his own.
Not much in the ComRes poll to cheer Labour. If the Conservatives are anywhere near 40%, they're home again. Nothing in the subsidiaries gives Labour much hope at present.
Quite so.
Labour under Jezza are more doomed than Private Frazer's worst doomed laden prediction of doom for all published in the Rogerdamus "Chronicle of the 2020 General Election".
I hope this is not to trivialise mass murder by making it a debating point, but the Holocaust was permitted to happen not merely because of specific (secret) incitements by the German government to its employees and servants, but also because Jews had been dehumanised by anti-Semitic rhetoric so that the average German working in the chemical plants or the railways didn't object.
It seems to me that if speech should be incredibly free, then that should not only include speech like "I'm offended", it actually positively REQUIRES speech like "I'm offended" rather than reliance on state sanctions for dangerous words.
The government had been propagandising that Jews were sub-human for years; banning every argument to the contrary; and enacting increasingly discriminatory laws against them. I don't think the holocaust demonstrates the dangers of free speech in a democracy
There are plenty of instances of democracies committing or abetting serious outrages against their people; not to the scale of the Holocaust, of course. Still, what matters for this argument is not really the form of government. It is surely the consequences of actions. And I find it impossible to believe that the direct incitements against Jews would have been as destructive without the dehumanising rhetoric - just imagine the difference between England during the time of pogroms and today - would the same exhortation to violence have the same effect? No, because humans are intelligent and respond to words in their context. So creating the context is perhaps even more damaging than the exhortation itself, though its effect may be a little harder to understand.
Actually, I think form of government matters a lot. Anti-semitism existed in 1900 Germany, but it's inconceivable that the Kaiserreich would have carried out a holocaust. Under a dictatorship, such things become more possible.
The Kaiserreich's holocaust was in present-day Namibia.
@Andrew_ComRes: While just 6% of Con voters think Corbyn doing good job as Lab leader, 42% of Tories think Hilary Benn wd make good leader
And by definition that would make Benn a Tory!
Anyone who can win an election is a Red Tory or a Blue Labour or whatever the idiots say about adults.
Benn wouldn't carry his party's voters in an election, this poll confirms it that there are few labour voters who like him, in the event of a Benn leadership Labour would suffer a Jim Murphy like meltdown in England.
He would do well if he ran for the Tory leadership though, he's right wing enough for their leadership but too right wing for the Labour leadership.
If Benn replaced Jezza would there be much left to meltdown?
Whatever it was let's hope Gabble makes a Speedy return to PB ....
Well the 59% of the 29% is 17 points of VI, I suppose most of those would leave for other left wing parties rather than stay under a Benn led Labour party, but there is little guarantee that Benn will take those Tories who like him to vote Labour, not with Tory voters so satisfied with their leadership. So there is every prospect of Benn being a Labour Nick Clegg if he ever gets the top job, being more accommodating to the Tories than his own party base.
The reason it's called a core vote is axiomatic, save for times when the core thinks the leader is a bad apple.
If Jezza "leads" Labour into the 2020 general election then all the Tories general election Christmases will come in one night of cataclysm for Labour.
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
Indeed. The sick blood libel - often taught across the middle east - is an example.
The obvious and egregious examples can often be discounted. The subtle examples that are frequently repeated also do massive harm.
One scholar. And much of the pain of the blood libel is on concentrating not on what happened, but what they say is happening now. After all, most religions would find it hard to defend what has been done in that religion's name in the past.
There is a big difference between saying: "one group of people from religion x did heinous act y," and "one group of people from religion x are doing heinous act y," which, AIUI, is at the heart of the current teaching of the libel.
Well I agree with that. What some religious maniacs may or may not have done half a millennia ago has little direct bearing on what happens today. It is a historical question. But one which should be treated like any other, and put to rational enquiry.
But that's irrelevant to the way the blood libel's apparently being taught today.
'One subgroup may have ...' becomes 'they all do'
It's why it's so pernicious. No religion, or even major country, could withstand it.
Well, you say 'apparently'. We need a specific example, I suppose...
The Tories need to expel everyone involved in this disgraceful behaviour.
Mr Ashworth has written a formal complaint to seek urgent clarification after we revealed the senior Tory advisers colluded to block the career of Liam Walker, 25, who had embarrassed the PM over comments about foodbank users.
An aide to ex Tory Chairman Grant Shapps’s then ordered the disgraced Clarke send Mr Walker intimidating messages and drew up a complaint to try boot him from the Conservative Party.
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
In one there is a clear statement to the listener telling them to do something whereas the other is descriptive. The way to deal with offensive stereotypes and tropes is through argument and persuasion and explanation and intellectual challenge not through closing down free speech. But when a line is crossed from saying something that many people might disagree with or which makes people feel bad to telling people to carry out acts of violence then it is appropriate to stop the person saying it or, rather, to prosecute them.
Otherwise you get into the nonsense where a statement about not wanting to let Muslims into the country, which contains no incitement to violence, is stopped because of the reaction of some of the group whereas another (like the beheading one) is not stopped because those affected do not react violently. The incitement needs to be assessed by reference to what the speaker says and the natural and ordinary meaning of the words not by the hyper-sensitivity or otherwise of those affected. The test cannot be - must not be, IMO - the level of violence engendered by those who do not like the statement.
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
Indeed. The sick blood libel - often taught across the middle east - is an example.
The obvious and egregious examples can often be discounted. The subtle examples that are frequently repeated also do massive harm.
One scholar. And much of the pain of the blood libel is on concentrating not on what happened, but what they say is happening now. After all, most religions would find it hard to defend what has been done in that religion's name in the past.
There is a big difference between saying: "one group of people from religion x did heinous act y," and "one group of people from religion x are doing heinous act y," which, AIUI, is at the heart of the current teaching of the libel.
You are not aware of who you are debating with. Rod Crosby does not believe the holocaust happened....
What's the clear line that distinguishes between violence incited by "Behead those who offend Islam" and violence incited by words like "Jews are rich and grasping"? If words themselves should be free, then the only difference should be based on their consequences, and if anything more violence has been meted out to Jews as victims of generalised anti-Semitic tropes, than to victims of beheadings for offensiveness.
Indeed. The sick blood libel - often taught across the middle east - is an example.
The obvious and egregious examples can often be discounted. The subtle examples that are frequently repeated also do massive harm.
One scholar. And much of the pain of the blood libel is on concentrating not on what happened, but what they say is happening now. After all, most religions would find it hard to defend what has been done in that religion's name in the past.
There is a big difference between saying: "one group of people from religion x did heinous act y," and "one group of people from religion x are doing heinous act y," which, AIUI, is at the heart of the current teaching of the libel.
Well I agree with that. What some religious maniacs may or may not have done half a millennia ago has little direct bearing on what happens today. It is a historical question. But one which should be treated like any other, and put to rational enquiry.
But that's irrelevant to the way the blood libel's apparently being taught today.
'One subgroup may have ...' becomes 'they all do'
It's why it's so pernicious. No religion, or even major country, could withstand it.
Well, you say 'apparently'. We need a specific example, I suppose...
Since I am not in the ME, and you are not either, and neither of us are in the schooling system in those areas, we have to go via sources rather than direct experience.
How are Man United 4th in the table ? They look complete garbage. 2-1 has flattered them.
There are 6 teams in the Premier League within the M25. Chelsea are currently 6th.
Moreover there are 8 English teams south of the Watford Gap. Chelsea are currently 8th. (This is slightly cheating, as they have a game in hand over Bournemouth, but still.)
The Tories need to expel everyone involved in this disgraceful behaviour.
Mr Ashworth has written a formal complaint to seek urgent clarification after we revealed the senior Tory advisers colluded to block the career of Liam Walker, 25, who had embarrassed the PM over comments about foodbank users.
An aide to ex Tory Chairman Grant Shapps’s then ordered the disgraced Clarke send Mr Walker intimidating messages and drew up a complaint to try boot him from the Conservative Party.
How are Man United 4th in the table ? They look complete garbage. 2-1 has flattered them.
There are 6 teams in the Premier League within the M25. Chelsea are currently 6th.
Moreover there are 8 English teams south of the Watford Gap. Chelsea are currently 8th. (This is slightly cheating, as they have a game in hand over Bournemouth, but still.)
Just backed Chelsea at 8/1 for top four, I don't necessarily think they will achieve it but three wins on the spin will make it a good bet to trade
Comments
I used to enjoy the X Factor but probably haven't watched it since 2010ish
This is similiar to Corbyn but not the same.
It is the cry of the perpetually brittle adolescent, demanding "respect" for no visible achievement while at the same time wholly unwilling to show anyone else the slightest consideration. It should be treated with the scorn and pity which such behaviour demands.
The only exception to free speech should be incitement to violence by the speaker and only him/her (and, possibly, defamation, provided it is very very tightly drawn - and even then I'm not sure).
So "Go out and kill Jews" and "Behead those who offend Islam": No: this is incitement.
But "Jews are rich and grasping" and "Muslims are too slow to condemn terrorism": yes - even if some might object to the content or the stereotyping because no violence is being incited.
Otherwise, the professional grievance-mongering cry-baby bully gets to determine what can and cannot be said and, as we have seen, those limits end up being more and more tightly drawn until eventually we'll be able to say little more than "good morning".
Those who seek to shut down someone who is saying something they don't want to hear are too quick to use violence or the threat of it, if not by them by others, to shut the speaker when, in fact, the speaker is not inciting violence at all. Thus is the reaction of those who don't like the speaker used to shut down free speech on the grounds of "incitement to violence". It is a perfect example of our liberal tolerant values being perverted so that they end being used to destroy those same values and completely contrary to their stated intention.
We have been far too slow at realising this and taking steps to stop this perversion of what the classic exceptions to free speech should be.
Jacket to go with your shirt:
http://tinyurl.com/JacketEaglesred
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35083150
Does make me wonder how characters from classical history might have used Twitter. Caligula would've been the worst troll in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2NJhGCuCck
It seems to me that if speech should be incredibly free, then that should not only include speech like "I'm offended", it actually positively REQUIRES speech like "I'm offended" rather than reliance on state sanctions for dangerous words.
The obvious and egregious examples can often be discounted. The subtle examples that are frequently repeated also do massive harm.
COYS
CON 40% (-2) LAB 29% (+2) LD (-) UKIP 16% (+1) GRN 3% (-)
http://www.haaretz.com/anger-after-bar-ilan-historian-suggests-blood-libels-based-in-fact-1.212510
"One in four Britons (25%) think that Jeremy Corbyn is turning out to be a good leader of the Labour Party – including around half of Labour voters (56%).
By comparison 29% say that Hilary Benn would make a good leader of the Labour Party, although only 25% of Labour voters agree (compared to 42% of Conservative voters)."
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/independent-on-sunday-sunday-mirror-december-2015-political-poll/
So Tories hate Corbyn, love Benn.
Labour loves Corbyn, hates Benn.
No surprise there.
I fancy Remi Garde to do a number on his mentor tomorrow
There is a big difference between saying: "one group of people from religion x did heinous act y," and "one group of people from religion x are doing heinous act y," which, AIUI, is at the heart of the current teaching of the libel.
He would do well if he ran for the Tory leadership though, he's right wing enough for their leadership but too right wing for the Labour leadership.
Laid Arsenal as part of my ongoing 'system'.
................................................................................................. Whatever it was let's hope Gabble makes a Speedy return to PB ....
If Benn only gets the quarter of the labour votes that likes him and the 42% of the Tories that's only 24%, that's worse than what Corbyn does presently.
And that's assuming that those Tories who like Benn would vote for him instead of staying Tory, while there little guarantee that those who like Corbyn would vote for Benn.
'One subgroup may have ...' becomes 'they all do'
It's why it's so pernicious. No religion, or even major country, could withstand it.
So there is every prospect of Benn being a Labour Nick Clegg if he ever gets the top job, being more accommodating to the Tories than his own party base.
But the lack of support to Benn from Labour voters is entirely predictable, and it rubs negatively on him that the enemy side likes him much more than his own.
Labour under Jezza are more doomed than Private Frazer's worst doomed laden prediction of doom for all published in the Rogerdamus "Chronicle of the 2020 General Election".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide
If Jezza "leads" Labour into the 2020 general election then all the Tories general election Christmases will come in one night of cataclysm for Labour.
Jezza is Ed to the power of ten.
SNP 45%, Con 21%, Lab 14%, LD 10%, UKIP 6%, Greens 4%
I call Scottish Tory surge
Sample size 35 and a West Highland White Terrier named "Braveheart"
Just saying
Otherwise you get into the nonsense where a statement about not wanting to let Muslims into the country, which contains no incitement to violence, is stopped because of the reaction of some of the group whereas another (like the beheading one) is not stopped because those affected do not react violently. The incitement needs to be assessed by reference to what the speaker says and the natural and ordinary meaning of the words not by the hyper-sensitivity or otherwise of those affected. The test cannot be - must not be, IMO - the level of violence engendered by those who do not like the statement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35066940
A Glasgow pensioner who bet £30,000 on a Conservative majority at the UK general election has collected his £240,000 winnings.
The man placed his bet at odds of 7/1 in a branch of Ladbrokes in the city centre on 29 April.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961726
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-revives-passover-blood-libel/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel#20th_century_and_beyond
etc. As ever, be aware of sources.
And that's without even getting onto the protocols:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Modern_era
Moreover there are 8 English teams south of the Watford Gap. Chelsea are currently 8th. (This is slightly cheating, as they have a game in hand over Bournemouth, but still.)
If the same intensity was focused on Labour there would be no one left in the party.