|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Sept 27, 2024 16:17:18 GMT
wapentake Yep, ‘props’ is a bit antiquated, and it was only when I had chance to read up a bit this morning on the Hatun Tash case that I realised that the modern term is ‘visual aid’ ….. the ‘Christian Today’ website being the only one that used the term ‘prop’ to describe Hatun’s ‘customised’ Koran. But even if we take the drilled Koran out of the equation, I struggle to be convinced that the T shirt would be exempt from the public order act purely on the basis it was being worn at Speakers Corner. Some will remember back to last Summer and the football fan who wore his Manchester United shirt to Wembley for their game against Liverpool, with ‘Not Enough’ and 97 on the back. Under the same Public order act that ‘Christian Concern’ informs us that Hatun was told she was being arrested under, the football fan received a £1000 fine, £400 surcharge, £85 costs, and a 4 year ban from attending football matches.Yet supposedly, had he only been in a different part of the same City, and been at Speakers Corner instead, no such law would have applied ? I’ll have to remain sceptical on that one for the moment.  link - Christian Concern |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 27, 2024 16:42:20 GMT
wapentake Yep, ‘props’ is a bit antiquated, and it was only when I had chance to read up a bit this morning on the Hatun Tash case that I realised that the modern term is ‘visual aid’ ….. the ‘Christian Today’ website being the only one that used the term ‘prop’ to describe Hatun’s ‘customised’ Koran. But even if we take the drilled Koran out of the equation, I struggle to be convinced that the T shirt would be exempt from the public order act purely on the basis it was being worn at Speakers Corner. Some will remember back to last Summer and the football fan who wore his Manchester United shirt to Wembley for their game against Liverpool, with ‘Not Enough’ and 97 on the back. Under the same Public order act that ‘Christian Concern’ informs us that Hatun was told she was being arrested under, the football fan received a £1000 fine, £400 surcharge, £85 costs, and a 4 year ban from attending football matches.Yet supposedly, had he only been in a different part of the same City, and been at Speakers Corner instead, no such law would have applied ? I’ll have to remain sceptical on that one for the moment. link - Christian ConcernA cartoon then its banter isn t it? and free speech I mean that works both ways  |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Sept 27, 2024 17:44:51 GMT
Wapentake Any suggestion that much of a semblance of free speech still exists in Britain is total bollards Carlos, as I expect we'd both agree on  The football fan pleaded 'banter', explaining that his Grandad died aged 97 and that he didn't have enough children ...a lot of use that did him. Aren't we about to witness the 'wolf whistle' soon to be labelled extreme misogyny, and as such categorised as terrorism ? Banter doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving as an explanation, as a defence, or another 4 years of Labour Government. You find out whether it's banter or not, by the reaction it provokes. That seems to be how the law is interpreted, and is written in corresponding fashion. Baroness Warsi knows which way the wind is blowing and fully intends that the Muslim population doesn't get left behind when special protections are being doled out. A Rangers fan stood among 20,000 Celtic fans, and try starting up some jokes and banter about the Pope ....... the Police will march him out before his feet touch the ground. A couple of protesters can't stand in the road holding up a banner stating Hamas are terrorists if 10,000 pro Gaza marchers are about to head in that direction. And by the same standard I don't believe there's a special exemption for Hatun Tash, her drilled up Koran and her Charlie Hebdo T shirt. As for working both ways, it'll work in the ways that Keir and Yvette most prefer ...... but free speech and free banter ain't coming back, that's the one thing we can be sure on. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 27, 2024 17:55:41 GMT
For freedom of speech to persist, it has to be held as ubiquitous, or very common, value. The uk has been broken up into ghettos dominated by third world values and sentiment.
Not only will free speech go, but most of the values the underpin democracy - ie freedom of association and a right to privacy. In fact, those last two have already gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 27, 2024 18:11:56 GMT
Wapentake Any suggestion that much of a semblance of free speech still exists in Britain is total bollards Carlos, as I expect we'd both agree on The football fan pleaded 'banter', explaining that his Grandad died aged 97 and that he didn't have enough children ...a lot of use that did him. Aren't we about to witness the 'wolf whistle' soon to be labelled extreme misogyny, and as such categorised as terrorism ? Banter doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving as an explanation, as a defence, or another 4 years of Labour Government. You find out whether it's banter or not, by the reaction it provokes. That seems to be how the law is interpreted, and is written in corresponding fashion. Baroness Warsi knows which way the wind is blowing and fully intends that the Muslim population doesn't get left behind when special protections are being doled out. A Rangers fan stood among 20,000 Celtic fans, and try starting up some jokes and banter about the Pope ....... the Police will march him out before his feet touch the ground. A couple of protesters can't stand in the road holding up a banner stating Hamas are terrorists if 10,000 pro Gaza marchers are about to head in that direction. And by the same standard I don't believe there's a special exemption for Hatun Tash, her drilled up Koran and her Charlie Hebdo T shirt. As for working both ways, it'll work in the ways that Keir and Yvette most prefer ...... but free speech and free banter ain't coming back, that's the one thing we can be sure on. Well the woman holding the banner that depicted Sunak and Braverman as coconuts at a Palestine demo had the case against her thrown out of court she claimed it was banter hence my reply regards the. Charlie hebdo t shirt. |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Sept 27, 2024 19:21:56 GMT
Wapentake
Perhaps she did claim that, but that was of no interest to the Court who were deciding whether it was, or was not racially abusive.
To quote from the BBC report: 'What the court had to contend with was whether, on Ms Hussain’s placard, it could be considered racially abusive'.
And it probably gets to Court solely because one politically correct jumped up nutcase at the CPS has started screaming Racism !!!!!
So they spend a load of taxpayers money bringing it to Court, only to find they can't find any witnesses to say it is racism.
Back to the BBC: 'The court heard that the investigating team had also contacted three experts in racism to give evidence for the prosecution, but they had all refused. One of those, Black Studies specialist Prof Kehinde Andrews, sent “quite a lengthy response” saying the word was not a racial slur, and asked that this be shared with the CPS.
Prof John told the court he was “disappointed” that the CPS hadn’t called any experts to support their case.
“I’d have wanted to be informed and educated on when coconut is a racist slur,” he said. “I would have loved to see the evidence of that. I’m not aware of that at all.”
The experts knew it was Politically Correct bollards and were laughing at the CPS and their non-existent evidence.
But even if it had been banter on trial, what sort of victory would have been achieved ? Ms.Hussain after what she'd been put through wouldn't have attempted 'banter' again, and would anyone reading about her ordeal think the price for indulging in banter was worth paying ?
To quote for the last time from the BBC report: In the 10 months since that day, anonymous accounts on social media called her a racist while tabloid newspapers published details of her family and the cost of her parents’ home. Ms Hussain, 37, also lost her job as a secondary school teacher. As the verdict was read out, cheers and whooping erupted from the public gallery while Ms Hussain burst into tears. Outside the court she said: “The damage done to my reputation and image can never be undone. It goes without saying that this ordeal has been agonising for my family and I. Instead of enjoying my pregnancy I’ve been vilified by the media, I’ve lost my career, I’ve been dragged through the court system'
So I'd contend that banter was never the issue to be decided upon in the Coconut case or the Speakers Corner Incident.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 28, 2024 7:38:48 GMT
Wapentake Perhaps she did claim that, but that was of no interest to the Court who were deciding whether it was, or was not racially abusive. To quote from the BBC report: 'What the court had to contend with was whether, on Ms Hussain’s placard, it could be considered racially abusive'. And it probably gets to Court solely because one politically correct jumped up nutcase at the CPS has started screaming Racism !!!!! So they spend a load of taxpayers money bringing it to Court, only to find they can't find any witnesses to say it is racism. Back to the BBC: 'The court heard that the investigating team had also contacted three experts in racism to give evidence for the prosecution, but they had all refused. One of those, Black Studies specialist Prof Kehinde Andrews, sent “quite a lengthy response” saying the word was not a racial slur, and asked that this be shared with the CPS.Prof John told the court he was “disappointed” that the CPS hadn’t called any experts to support their case.“I’d have wanted to be informed and educated on when coconut is a racist slur,” he said. “I would have loved to see the evidence of that. I’m not aware of that at all.”The experts knew it was Politically Correct bollards and were laughing at the CPS and their non-existent evidence. But even if it had been banter on trial, what sort of victory would have been achieved ? Ms.Hussain after what she'd been put through wouldn't have attempted 'banter' again, and would anyone reading about her ordeal think the price for indulging in banter was worth paying ? To quote for the last time from the BBC report: In the 10 months since that day, anonymous accounts on social media called her a racist while tabloid newspapers published details of her family and the cost of her parents’ home. Ms Hussain, 37, also lost her job as a secondary school teacher. As the verdict was read out, cheers and whooping erupted from the public gallery while Ms Hussain burst into tears. Outside the court she said: “The damage done to my reputation and image can never be undone. It goes without saying that this ordeal has been agonising for my family and I. Instead of enjoying my pregnancy I’ve been vilified by the media, I’ve lost my career, I’ve been dragged through the court system'So I'd contend that banter was never the issue to be decided upon in the Coconut case or the Speakers Corner Incident. It is not racist against brown people it is racist against white people. It implies that there is something wrong with a brown person who behaves like a white person and by extension of that implies that brown, black and white people have modes of behaviour and no independence of action, thought and duty outside their ethnicity. It is a slur akin to n* lover as used against white people who promote racial equality. It may not be illegal but it says vast amounts about the individuals who use the joke against their own in an ethnic group and those who regard themselves as academics and see it as OK. It tells us all we need to know how the multiethnic society will always be divided no matter what laws one makes to try and contain those divisions. |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Sept 28, 2024 13:57:35 GMT
sandypine
It could well be that District Judge Vanessa Lloyd had reached that very same conclusion, Sandy. And if a multiethnic society is always going to be divided anyway, then a more futile attempted containing measure than making drawings that contain a depiction of coconuts illegal on placards would be hard to imagine, particularly given the vast amount of useful information, as you've explained, that is conveyed ... and even more so by the spoken c---nut word, one dark person to another. Far worse still I'd suggest, it would have told the World all it needed to know about Britain in 2024, and none of it would have been good, if the coconut artwork placard had been declared illegal. That's one bit of global embarrassment we've wisely sidestepped.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Sept 28, 2024 14:10:19 GMT
sandypine It could well be that District Judge Vanessa Lloyd had reached that very same conclusion, Sandy. And if a multiethnic society is always going to be divided anyway, then a more futile attempted containing measure than making drawings that contain a depiction of coconuts illegal on placards would be hard to imagine, particularly given the vast amount of useful information, as you've explained, that is conveyed ... and even more so by the spoken c---nut word, one dark person to another. Far worse still I'd suggest, it would have told the World all it needed to know about Britain in 2024, and none of it would have been good, if the coconut artwork placard had been declared illegal. That's one bit of global embarrassment we've wisely sidestepped.Not at all, we have buildings in Wales that are now deemed racist. Global embarrassments and absurdities like this have now become a forte of Britain's. www.spiked-online.com/2024/08/20/can-buildings-be-racist/Jesus christ, I'm expecting a knock at the door from Starmer's social media police! |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 28, 2024 17:36:41 GMT
sandypine It could well be that District Judge Vanessa Lloyd had reached that very same conclusion, Sandy. And if a multiethnic society is always going to be divided anyway, then a more futile attempted containing measure than making drawings that contain a depiction of coconuts illegal on placards would be hard to imagine, particularly given the vast amount of useful information, as you've explained, that is conveyed ... and even more so by the spoken c---nut word, one dark person to another. Far worse still I'd suggest, it would have told the World all it needed to know about Britain in 2024, and none of it would have been good, if the coconut artwork placard had been declared illegal. That's one bit of global embarrassment we've wisely sidestepped. I have to disagree as we have made the laws and we either have to apply them without fear or favour or ditch them. The sign was both offensive to those so depicted as it stated clearly they were not following their ethnic responsibilities (goodness knows what they are) but it was extremely offensive to white people as well and falls easily within hate speech and race laws. |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Sept 29, 2024 17:51:39 GMT
I wonder if the CPS prosecuter had considered making a case from an 'offensive to whites' angle ? Quite a long shot I'd guess, but he couldn't have done any worse, and the Judge would surely have awarded marks for ingenuity even if she didn't buy the argument. In the meantime I see Ms. Hussain's solicitors have filed complaints against both the CPS and the Police Watchdog, claiming they both 'failed inexcusably in their duties and seriously undermined free speech'. More taxpayer cash to be forked out in compensation no doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 29, 2024 18:22:15 GMT
Why not have two teams of highly paid lawyers arguing over a right to speak in every case of a human speaking?
Byzantine collapse
|
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Sept 29, 2024 18:40:59 GMT
Why not have two teams of highly paid lawyers arguing over a right to speak in every case of a human speaking? Byzantine collapse And in Coconut gate the poor woman lost her job and was dragged to Court, and she hadn't even uttered a word, and nor were there any words on her placard. There's only one way to go, particularly these days when everyone has a smartphone; a Government website listing the words it is permissible to use. If you're in two minds as to whether it's on the allowable list, check first rather than take the chance, ignorance of the law is no excuse. It'll be a brave new offence free world.  |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 29, 2024 19:11:41 GMT
I wonder if the CPS prosecuter had considered making a case from an 'offensive to whites' angle ? Quite a long shot I'd guess, but he couldn't have done any worse, and the Judge would surely have awarded marks for ingenuity even if she didn't buy the argument. In the meantime I see Ms. Hussain's solicitors have filed complaints against both the CPS and the Police Watchdog, claiming they both 'failed inexcusably in their duties and seriously undermined free speech'. More taxpayer cash to be forked out in compensation no doubt. Well think about it carefully the placard was being critical of two ethnic minority people. That criticism was predicated on the fact that they were ethnic minority personnel but were behaving as if they were white. That does not mean the placard indicated they were either doing a grand job or a job as expected it means they were behaving in a fashion that they should not due to their skin colour and they were behaving like a group of people identified by their white skin and that behaviour was not acceptable to the critics. In other words white like behaviour is bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Sept 29, 2024 20:52:53 GMT
Sadly Sandy, it does rather look as though the presiding Judge, the CPS, and Ms.Hussain herself are probably still all aware of the racist abuse that was targeted at the white race, though maybe it's some consolation that you've spotted and possibly been offended by it, when so many others have missed out. But as you say in an earlier post, 'it was extremely offensive to white people as well and falls easily within hate speech and race laws', and given the BBC estimate there were about 300,000 at this demonstration last November, perhaps a sufficient number of White attendees can club together to bring a private prosecution ?
It will pain many on the Forum to see Ms.Hussain currently escaping justice.
|
|
