United States Corrupt Twattery

[Raven]

I wasn't aware we'd arrested and convicted people for praying silently near abortion clinics.

JD Vance stuns Munich conference with blistering attack on Europe’s leaders

US vice-president questions whether European values are worth defending as he rails against ‘threat from within’

www.theguardian.com

We didn't, we arrested someone for breaking a restraining order against them, for harassing vulnerable women, because their skyfairy told them to.

 

[Scouse]

And so we should. And it wasn't once, it was over and over, and I've seen this shit in Ireland. When I got my vasectomy done the cunts "praying for me" outside the Marie Stopes clinic were laughable, but I'm a hard core atheist and give no fucks for their bullshit, but if I was a teenaged catholic girl it might have been rather different.

I'm a hardcore atheist too - but if we can't tolerate someone standing silently with their eyes closed and hands together then we're fucked.

The law has clearly tipped from protecting women from harrasment to thought crime.

 

[Scouse]

@DaGaffer - I would dearly love religion to die a death. I suspect it can't - because the religious impulse is part and parcel of the way we've evolved. We're a dumb dumb animal afraid of dying and some will always be vulnerable to it's allure.

I'm also sympathetic to your young catholic girl example - I'm a direct descendent of John Wesley and attended a Catholic school, so I know on a deep emotional level what religious guilt feels like.

But we are indeed legally restricting religious freedom and freedom of thought by this action. The state isn't protecting everyone's freedom to think and feel - it's taken a position. One I can understand - but the scottish government's statement - that people should not be "influenced without consent" is horrifying when you actually think about it.

To do this we have to ditch the principle of freedom of speech and thought. And if we can ditch it for this, we can (and do) ditch it for other things.

I'm sorry - whilst I do feel for her - a religiously inclined teenage girl should have to have enough emotional robustness to walk past a silent man on the way to the clinic.

What we have to give up to spare her from that angst is far too precious and the potential results of betraying those enlightenment principles are far too horrific.

Worst case scenario of upholding free speech is this girl is influenced and has a baby out of guilt. She still has the option to give it up for adoption if that is how she feels.

But the alternative? - by protecting the feelings of some poor religious idiot we put the entire country in danger. And you know that's no exaggeration.

To widen it out from the (clearly) triggering topic of abortion clinics - Vance (who I hate) made points we've been discussing here for a long time. Freedom of thought and speech are under attack on multiple fronts. that is clear.

It is wrong to support actions that infringe the freedoms of people who's opinions we dislike.

I detest what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it.

Even if you're not actually saying anything - just standing there.

 

[DaGaffer]

The

@DaGaffer - I would dearly love religion to die a death. I suspect it can't - because the religious impulse is part and parcel of the way we've evolved. We're a dumb dumb animal afraid of dying and some will always be vulnerable to it's allure.

I'm also sympathetic to your young catholic girl example - I'm a direct descendent of John Wesley and attended a Catholic school, so I know on a deep emotional level what religious guilt feels like.

But we are indeed legally restricting religious freedom and freedom of thought by this action. The state isn't protecting everyone's freedom to think and feel - it's taken a position. One I can understand - but the scottish government's statement - that people should not be "influenced without consent" is horrifying when you actually think about it.

To do this we have to ditch the principle of freedom of speech and thought. And if we can ditch it for this, we can (and do) ditch it for other things.

I'm sorry - whilst I do feel for her - a religiously inclined teenage girl should have to have enough emotional robustness to walk past a silent man on the way to the clinic.

What we have to give up to spare her from that angst is far too precious and the potential results of betraying those enlightenment principles are far too horrific.

Worst case scenario of upholding free speech is this girl is influenced and has a baby out of guilt. She still has the option to give it up for adoption if that is how she feels.

But the alternative? - by protecting the feelings of some poor religious idiot we put the entire country in danger. And you know that's no exaggeration.

To widen it out from the (clearly) triggering topic of abortion clinics - Vance (who I hate) made points we've been discussing here for a long time. Freedom of thought and speech are under attack on multiple fronts. that is clear.

It is wrong to support actions that infringe the freedoms of people who's opinions we dislike.

I detest what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it.

Even if you're not actually saying anything - just standing there.

The reason for the exclusion zones isn't just to stop religious nutters praying; women going into clinics were being filmed and doxxed so the idea was to ensure privacy in those areas. The reasons for exclusion weren't based on free speech or freedom of thought suppression, these things almost never are, it was a risk and threat issue, but of course it's weaponised by the nutters as infringement of their rights. In this case the guy was asked to leave on dozens of occasions and refused to leave, and it doesn't really matter if he was "only" praying; and besides, god can hear your prayers anywhere right?

 

[Scouse]

The reasons for exclusion weren't based on free speech or freedom of thought suppression, these things almost never are, it was a risk and threat issue, but of course it's weaponised by the nutters as infringement of their rights.

I respectfully disagree.

I agree that reasons behind it were not based on free speech or freedom of thought suppression - they come from a "good place". But you had to ignore the free speech arguments to implement those laws. They still undoubtedly infringe on those rights.

women going into clinics were being filmed and doxxed

This is harrasment. Very illegal and already has laws that prohibit that activty. No brainer. Full support.

However - making a "risk/threat based decision" on whether a man praying is going to film and doxx someone infringes our rights. This is explicitly prohibited in the US and is known as "prior restraint".

Prior restraint doesn't exist in the UK - and because it doesn't exist here our government is able to clamp down on our freedom to peacefully assemble and protest on a "risk/threat" basis - which both labour and the conservatives have been increasingly doing (and we've been getting called out on it).

The 1st Amendment of the United States is a shining beacon of freedom. When it was enshrined in the constitution it was done in the full knowledge that governments the world over - and their respective citizens - would want to act to restrict freedoms of "people they don't like". They also knew it could be messy and inconvenient - but that was the minimum price - and not just worth paying but essential to pay.

In this case the guy was asked to leave on dozens of occasions and refused to leave, and it doesn't really matter if he was "only" praying; and besides, god can hear your prayers anywhere right?

He shouldn't have to leave - that's a clear infringment of free expression. He's not praying to god - we all know that's bullshit - he's clearly peacefully demonstrating. He's standing still, eyes closed, hands together, expressing his views to anyone who passes him. The only thing the fucker was missing was an orange robe and a can of petrol.

Yes - god can hear his prayers anywhere - but because, like me, you hate his religion you are happy with a restriction on his freedom to express those beliefs. No matter how ridiculously peacefully.

Your support of that position makes the passing of other legislation that may infringe on peaceful stuff that I want to do more likely. It makes the world more dangerous for all of us.

 

[DaGaffer]

I respectfully disagree.

I agree that reasons behind it were not based on free speech or freedom of thought suppression - they come from a "good place". But you had to ignore the free speech arguments to implement those laws. They still undoubtedly infringe on those rights.



This is harrasment. Very illegal and already has laws that prohibit that activty. No brainer. Full support.

However - making a "risk/threat based decision" on whether a man praying is going to film and doxx someone infringes our rights. This is explicitly prohibited in the US and is known as "prior restraint".

Prior restraint doesn't exist in the UK - and because it doesn't exist here our government is able to clamp down on our freedom to peacefully assemble and protest on a "risk/threat" basis - which both labour and the conservatives have been increasingly doing (and we've been getting called out on it).

The 1st Amendment of the United States is a shining beacon of freedom. When it was enshrined in the constitution it was done in the full knowledge that governments the world over - and their respective citizens - would want to act to restrict freedoms of "people they don't like". They also knew it could be messy and inconvenient - but that was the minimum price - and not just worth paying but essential to pay.



He shouldn't have to leave - that's a clear infringment of free expression. He's not praying to god - we all know that's bullshit - he's clearly peacefully demonstrating. He's standing still, eyes closed, hands together, expressing his views to anyone who passes him. The only thing the fucker was missing was an orange robe and a can of petrol.

Yes - god can hear his prayers anywhere - but because, like me, you hate his religion you are happy with a restriction on his freedom to express those beliefs. No matter how ridiculously peacefully.

Your support of that position makes the passing of other legislation that may infringe on peaceful stuff that I want to do more likely. It makes the world more dangerous for all of us.

Yeah that's all bullshit. We live in the 21st century; the reason for "prior restraint" in this case is that once someone is doxxed, you can't "undox" them. Pragmatism over principles. So long as the law is constrained, and it is, then extensions into other areas can be dealt with on that basis.

NB. The US Constitution is a worthless dishrag that is now causing more harm than it's worth, because it's a. subverted all the time anyway, and b. treated as holy writ when fucknuts want to protect their rights to be assholes. The US gave up the last shred of it's moral authority last November when it handed itself over the barbarians, and make no mistake, they are barbarians.

 

[Scouse]

the reason for "prior restraint" in this case is that once someone is doxxed, you can't "undox" them. Pragmatism over principles.

Yeah. You can't justify that view.

Anything governments can do, they will do.

Principles over pragmatism. Anything else ends up in an authoritarian bunfight where we start locking people up for jokes and standing still and end up murdering them en masse. History shows this.

 

[Scouse]

BTW - you just called over half the US population barbarians there.

Vance is right when he says the Europeans are running scared of their electorate.

 

[Scouse]

Tarrifs:

Trump tariff VAT threat raises prospects of hit to UK

The surprise inclusion of VAT to calculate tariffs prompts questions over the possible impact on British businesses.

www.bbc.co.uk

Fiona Conor, managing director of Trust Electric Heating, a Leeds-based radiator manufacturer which has plans to expand into the US, said if tariffs applied to her products, she would not want to pass on the costs through higher prices to customers.

But she told the BBC's World At One that she was looking at starting production in the US "because there is real, huge tax breaks for innovative companies like us to set up manufacturing in the US".

Trumps tarrifs working for the US then?

 

[SilverHood]

Tarrifs:

Trump tariff VAT threat raises prospects of hit to UK

The surprise inclusion of VAT to calculate tariffs prompts questions over the possible impact on British businesses.

www.bbc.co.uk

Trumps tarrifs working for the US then?

A broken clock is right twice a day. So it goes with tariffs. Then Fiona has to get her raw materials, and then she realises she has to pay tariffs on those. And she just moved her problem from one place to another.

 

[Scouse]

A broken clock is right twice a day. So it goes with tariffs. Then Fiona has to get her raw materials, and then she realises she has to pay tariffs on those. And she just moved her problem from one place to another.

Her business is successful enough to expand, so I'm pretty sure she's got a handle on costs.

Since Brexit she's had to pay more to import materials and given she's making radiators then she's not importing exotics (soapstone is the core of her radiators). If it's selling in Blighty then it can sell in the US. But why make them here and export them? Tariffs hurt both sides, but generally they hurt one side more. It looks like Trump will indeed boost US manufacturing...

 

[DaGaffer]

Yeah. You can't justify that view.

Anything governments can do, they will do.

Principles over pragmatism. Anything else ends up in an authoritarian bunfight where we start locking people up for jokes and standing still and end up murdering them en masse. History shows this.

I can justify that view. I just did. See how that works?

 

[DaGaffer]

BTW - you just called over half the US population barbarians there.

Vance is right when he says the Europeans are running scared of their electorate.

They are. Throwing away everything for cheap eggs they won't get anyway.

 

[Scouse]

I can justify that view. I just did. See how that works?

I not sure why you think you did. The possibility of someone perhaps doing something criminal does not justify trampling over rights that apply to all. It seems a self-evidently ridiculous viewpoint and I've seen no argument as to why it's correct.

Conversely - our rights to peaceful protest are massively being rolled back. If we had a right to free speech and if our politicians could only introduce laws that took into account prior restraint that wouldn't happen. I'm not sure why the possibility that someone might get doxxed overrules that?

Meh. We should talk about this over a pint some time

 

[DaGaffer]

I not sure why you think you did. The possibility of someone perhaps doing something criminal does not justify trampling over rights that apply to all. It seems a self-evidently ridiculous viewpoint and I've seen no argument as to why it's correct.

Conversely - our rights to peaceful protest are massively being rolled back. If we had a right to free speech and if our politicians could only introduce laws that took into account prior restraint that wouldn't happen. I'm not sure why the possibility that someone might get doxxed overrules that?

Meh. We should talk about this over a pint some time

Freedom From versus Freedom To. In this case it's freedom from; the balance of rights is in favour of those who need protecting from those who would do them harm. It's not my fault that you think free speech trumps the opportunity to commit specific harm. This isn't a general thing, it's specific harm, the "shouting fire in a theatre" scenario. I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. And I'm ending the conversation there.

 

[Scouse]

you think free speech trumps the opportunity to commit specific harm

Free speech trumps nebulous theoretical possibility... Lots of people have an opportunity to commit harm - doesn't mean they intend to. Prior restraint.

Stick your fingers in your ears if you want to...

 

[Raven]

Free speech trumps nebulous theoretical possibility... Lots of people have an opportunity to commit harm - doesn't mean they intend to. Prior restraint.

Stick your fingers in your ears if you want to...

Free speech at all times.

How is that better than free speech extending to punching people in the throat, that want to make vulnerable women's life hell?

 

[Scouse]

Free speech at all times.

How is that better than free speech extending to punching people in the throat, that want to make vulnerable women's life hell?

Free speech doesn't extend to punching anyone. We're talking about a guy who was arrested for standing still with his eyes closed.

Well, he might have thought about wanting to punch her... oh. righto then. lock the fucker up.

 

[Embattle]

Prayer and prosecutions: the US ‘hate group’ waging war over Britain’s abortion clinic buffer zones

Anti-abortion campaigners cheer as JD Vance brands safe zones an attack on ‘liberties of religious Britons’

www.theguardian.com

As to the earlier discussion on Adam, he got charged up for breaking the law along with being a fuckwit.

 

[Scouse]

When it’s illegal to cause distress to believers, call it for what it is: a secular version of blasphemy | Kenan Malik

Language can ‘open eyes’, Salman Rushdie wrote, yet still ideas of profanity are being used to silence dissenting voices

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ormorof]

BTW - you just called over half the US population barbarians there.

Vance is right when he says the Europeans are running scared of their electorate.

A third at best

 

[Scouse]

A third at best

I mean, no more than the Europeans, right?

Or are we just 'othering' them because they're over the 'big' pond?

 

[Raven]

Nah, they are brain-dead twats, we have plenty here too. It's a cult.

Not dissimilar, yadda yadda.

 

[Scouse]

OK. Maybe @DaGaffer and the rest of you are right:

Jewish man mistakes two Israeli tourists for Palestinians and opens fire on them in Miami

Victims reportedly posted ‘death to Arabs’ on social media after shooting while suspect held on attempted murder charges

www.theguardian.com

Barbarians 🤦

 

[Raven]

French far-right leader cancels speech after accusing Bannon of 'Nazi gesture'

Former top Trump adviser Steve Bannon denies making Nazi salute at CPAC and says Jordan Bardella is "unworthy to lead France".

www.bbc.co.uk

France. Get rid.

 

[Bodhi]

I wasn't aware we'd arrested and convicted people for praying silently near abortion clinics.

JD Vance stuns Munich conference with blistering attack on Europe’s leaders

US vice-president questions whether European values are worth defending as he rails against ‘threat from within’

www.theguardian.com

Have to say I agreed with a lot Vance had to say here - the abortion clinic thing was one thing, however some of the arrests in Germany for social media comments are deeply worrying - especially from ze Germans.

However I saw this as a follow up speech and tbh I can't disagree with anything Kisin says here - bit more amusing also (the Kanye comment )

x.com

x.com