Regardless of whether it was intended to be private or public, it was a joke. The fact that he was even arrested for this is beyond ridiculous and honestly pretty unsettling.
Yet almost hilarious in its own way isnt it?
I mean, isnt this ironically exactly like something the Nazis would do?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
I don't think it's reasonable for a citizen to interpret what is or is not grossly offensive, and they face the consequence of prison if they choose wrongly.
As a result, people become afraid to speak. I don't think it was reasonable for Meechan to have known that he could spend a year in jail for the video. The video had 3 million views and nobody complained to the police. How is that grossly offensive?
Fair enough. Freedom of speech is fundamental to a true democracy. Why have hate speech laws then? Public offices often step in and complain in the absence of private citizens' complaints, nothing new here. The law is the accepted societal rule and the courts must interpret them accordingly.
This Wikipedia quote below quotes from UK statute and clarifies the intention. Remember, this was not some monkey court in Siberia.
Quote:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
...
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.[7]
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Somehow the definition has changed from inciting to hate speech.
From we want to stop people from saying things that will cause violence and riots, to you insulted me and that's criminal.
Its to me an erosion
We're now onto the whole who's defining what is hate speech and what isn't?
I mean the police now have to make that determination.
Honestly with this guy, probably public pressure should have controlled this situation. His boss, saying, you can't represent a company like ours. People saying? Are you stupid this isn't funny, in fact its really in bad taste, you should take it down and apologize for it.
But instead, we're realistically wasting time and money on an over reaction to a moron who made a unfunny joke and couldn't control his video.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Law enforcement in UK seems to be getting increasingly ideological, just this week there's been stories of a canadian far right journalist being barred from entering the country (Lauren Southern), a man is going to jail over nazi pug jokes and stories of police allowing massive rape gangs to go unchallenged because they were muslim and the police didn't want to look racist: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8261846.html
The article you linked to doesn’t actually provide any evidence that police “allowed massive rape gangs to go unchallenged because they were Muslim and the police didn’t want to look racist”. So, that’s seems like a mixture of pure speculation and alarmist fear-mongering.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Based on the little that I know about this conviction, it’s quite surprising that the court found the intent element had Brennan proven (presumably beyond a reasonable doubt). Would be curious to see what an appellate court would do with it.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
The article you linked to doesn’t actually provide any evidence that police “allowed massive rape gangs to go unchallenged because they were Muslim and the police didn’t want to look racist”. So, that’s seems like a mixture of pure speculation and alarmist fear-mongering.
This is all being investigated still, but that allegation is definitely part of the probe:
Quote:
The newspaper's probe alleges that social workers were aware of the abuse in the 1990s, but that it took police a decade to launch Operation Chalice, an inquiry into child prostitution in the Telford area in which seven men were jailed.
It is also claimed that abused and trafficked children were considered "prostitutes" by council staff, that authorities did not keep details of abusers from Asian communities for fear of being accused of "racism" and that police failed to investigate one recent case five times until an MP intervened.
What we're seeing in the U.S. today is a resurgence of populism. It happens periodically. Populism =/= fascism.
Anyone who thinks Trump is on the road to taking over all the arms of government, the media, the judiciary, and the schools has let reason become hostage to their fears. Get back to me when men with truncheons break into the taping of the John Oliver show and beat the host and audience senseless while the police stand by smiling and the courts turn a blind eye, and then we'll talk about American Nazis.
This.
Until Jim Jefferies mysteriously dissapears I'm not worried. Arguing and getting into pissing matches with journalists is still far from taking control of the media
Thanks. That was more detailed. Still, inadequately investigation Andrew prosecution of sexual assaults is endemic regardless of religion or ethnicity of the alleged assaulted so I would be hesitant to conclude that these failures were due rimarily to “political correctness” without some pretty good evidence of such. But perhaps such evidence will surface.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Who decides what is and isn't considered grossly offensive?
I'm assuming in this case it was the judge, but what makes him qualified to rule on what's offensive?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipetype
k im just not going to respond to your #### anymore because i have better things to do like #### my model girlfriend rather then try to convince people like you of commonly held hockey knowledge.
The article you linked to doesn’t actually provide any evidence that police “allowed massive rape gangs to go unchallenged because they were Muslim and the police didn’t want to look racist”. So, that’s seems like a mixture of pure speculation and alarmist fear-mongering.
At least 1000 girls were victimized over 40 years in just this one area as a result of coordinated gang efforts, police had ample time to deal with this (their current response seems entirely due to this getting international attention). A lot more girls are coming out now that is has gotten attention. I was trying to find a mainstream source that got this point across.
Here's a right wing youtuber going into it in detail, he provides a number of sources over two videos he did on the subject. Definitely taking the sensationalist approach here (on account of the mass rape of very young women):
Earlier generations thought the best way to confront #######s like the Nazis was to make fun of them. Expose them for the pitiful creeps they were. You don't react to a clown wearing jackboots and ranting about racial contamination by crossing yourself and clutching a crucifix like he's the devil. That only gives him power. No, you deflate his self-important pomp with ridicule. Expose him for the insecure loser that he is. Why should that tactic be any less legitimate today?
I hate to get technical on you but actually earlier generations thought the best was to confront Nazis was to ultimately go to war to defeat them.
You're comparing getting banned from an internet forum to being tried in a court of law? This post cannot possibly get any dumber.
... It seems I was wrong, it can. Are you really incapable of distinguishing support for the content of a joke from the view that making a joke should not result in prosecution? Seriously? The posters you're referencing would be entirely consistent, in that they would all say that said known Canadian politician should not be arrested for his video.
And we've reached the zenith of blinding stupidity here, with the "this guy is bad, so I don't care if his rights were violated". Seriously, people like you, who only want basic rights to apply in the easy cases, are among the biggest threats to the rule of law.
Ironic that the guy complaining loudest about the quality of posts on the Board can't make a point without referring to anyone who disagrees with as "dumb" and "stupid".
I hate to get technical on you but actually earlier generations thought the best was to confront Nazis was to ultimately go to war to defeat them.
That's grossly disingenuous, British policy at the time was to appease the short failed artist. I mean Neville Chamberlains body of work is one of cowering into a corner and pleading don't hit us.
Also a helpful reminder from the Scottish Police
__________________
Tacitus: Rara temporum felicitate, ubi sentire quae velis, et quae sentias dicere licet.
Wow, educate yourself on what actually happened in Europe back then, trying to compare that to the minor problems of today is ridiculous. What we see today is nothing like the rise of the nazis, America is still the most free country on the face of the Earth. Get a grip on yourself.
I can see that you likely view the world in black and white and not on a spectrum so let me break this down a bit more and try again as I really don’t feel like your spaz was warranted on my post (not sure you even read the whole thing).
The Nazis didn’t just get elected and then start gassing Jews. The descent into tyranny that was their rule was a slow and steady decline starting with governing decisions that seem at a superficial glance similar in nature. This doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s the same at all, I’m saying there are similarities to what the Trump Administration are doing and what the Nazis did at the beginning of their rule.
I even cited several examples, unlike you as to why you disagree. Can you counter my examples? No, because I’m right.
There are a variety of elements to governance and just because the US isn’t on the brink of invading another foreign country doesn’t mean that other elements of their governing aren’t similar in nature or, (actually what I said in my first post which you conveniently left out when you quoted me for seemingly dramatic effect) closer down the spectrum to what the Nazis did then where they were earlier.
If you care to actually discuss in detail we can but maybe you should brush up on history yourself circa 1930-1939 to see what I’m actually talking about rather than getting huffy and condescending.
I’ll give you one small example to think about. Nazis burned all books they didn’t like. Trump administration has attempted to reform education, science, etc. in ways that only speak to their agenda. Similarity? Yes. Same? No.
If you guys have 40 minutes to spare this video is very relevant to this topic, especially for those who are bringing up Mel Brooks and The Producers. And if you don't have 40 minutes then maybe break it up into segments? It's a really well researched and articulated discussion on a very complex topic.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Party Elephant For This Useful Post:
Until Jim Jefferies mysteriously dissapears I'm not worried. Arguing and getting into pissing matches with journalists is still far from taking control of the media
It doesn’t have to be murdering people to still be closer to fascism than they were, and worse for America (and therefore troubling).
Populism =\= fascism, I agree, I also didn’t say that and I’m not sure why people think I did. Trumps administration is closer to fascism than previous administrations and by a long shot. Is it really shocking people have a visceral and negative reaction, such that they think about the worst case scenario as a possibility? I don’t think it’s right to outright dismiss concern for what this could eventually become, even if we’re not there yet.
Hell nobody thought trump would get elected, yet here we are. Nobody thought he’d be this bad. Yet here we are... closer on the spectrum.
Xi Jinpang eliminates two term caps. Trump is asked about it, his response is what a great idea. We should do that here.
Same as Nazism? Of course not and not close. Similar? Yes, and a concerning comment from the “leader of the free world”.
I get that it's not like Xi Jinpang and China are a true unflawed democracy...but is it really concerning that Trump doesn't believe in term caps? Other than it being Trump.
China's not the best example to live up to for democracy rules, but United Kingdom, Switzerland, New Zealand...and oh yeah, Canada, have how many term limits?
It's concerning to Americans, because they've sort of pigeonholed themselves into certain "freedoms." Ironically, not being able to vote for who they want to lead them (after 8 years) is somehow a point of freedom to them.
