Christian preacher on hooligan charge after saying he believes that homosexuality is a sin
Last updated at 11:59 PM on 1st May 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270364/Christian-preacher-hooligan-charge-saying-believes-homosexuality-sin.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270364/Christian-preacher-hooligan-charge-saying-believes-homosexuality-sin.html)
A Christian street preacher has been arrested and charged with a public-order offence after saying that homosexuality was sinful.
Dale Mcalpine was handing out leaflets to shoppers when he told a passer-by and a gay police community support officer that, as a Christian, he believed homosexuality was one of a number of sins that go against the word of God.
Mr Mcalpine said that he did not repeat his remarks on homosexuality when he preached from the top of a stepladder after his leafleting.
----------------------------------------------
Cops arrest preacher
over Christian beliefs
Sun, 2 May 2010
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/cops-arrest-preacher-over-christian-beliefs/ (http://www.christian.org.uk/news/cops-arrest-preacher-over-christian-beliefs/)
A Christian street preacher in Cumbria has been arrested and charged with a crime after he expressed his religious beliefs about homosexual conduct.
Dale Mcalpine, of Workington in Cumbria, appeared before local magistrates on Friday and pleaded not guilty to breaching section 5 of the Public Order Act.
Mr Mcalpine is being supported by The Christian Institute, a leading national defender of Christian religious liberty.
That's the UK for you. I've always been a staunch advocate for free speech even if I totally disagree with what they are saying. Someone has the right to tell me off for being trans as long as they aren't harrassing or threatening me. I also have just as much right to tell them off about something I don't like that they are doing. It's called freedom. A lot of countries have banned "hate speech" where someone may be arrested for declaring that "the Holocaust was a hoax." The problem with this is that when you decide what speech is legal and what is considered "hateful" it is a slippery slope that will likely get worse.
People should have the right to share their opinions as long as they aren't disturbing the peace, harrassing, threatening, or committing violence. That is a protected right in the U.S. Constitution. Sadly some countries feel that "the right not to be offended" trumps the right to free speech. I disagree.
Quote from: Rhalkos on May 04, 2010, 01:37:17 AM
Examples please?
What if I said it was hateful to be called Christian or an insult to be called ...human? What if that defined it as 'hate speech'? Then anything said could be so defined and not allowed including what most would not consider to be in any way offensive. Either all can speak or all risk losing the right to speak freely. Governments/lawyers tend to take a law and run with any possible loophole they can find.
Quote from: Rhalkos on May 04, 2010, 02:56:10 AM
I meant examples of the supposed slippery slope scenario actually happening.
Oh, I don't know ... how about
this precise event. This is waaaaaay far down the slope already. The notion that someone can get arrested for this is utterly shocking. If you need pay cops keep people from being offensive jerks, if you can't handle offensive jerks on your own either by ignoring them, telling them to buzz off, or even giving them a taste of their own medicine, then that's truly a sad reflection on your society.
I do have to say that I think there is a bit of double standards going on in the UK at the moment.
This guy gets arrested for publically stating his opinion which I may not like, but he has every right to hold and express.
Meanwhile a leading islamic cleric gets away with saying on BBC radio 4 that Homosexuals spread disease, and the pope is able to pronounce that the transgender lifestyle is one of the most evil and disruptive challenges that the church currently faces.
Both of these statements are way more offensive to me than some know nothing little two bit street preacher shooting his mouth off about something he knows nothing about. Yet the little man gets arrested, whilst the religious "leaders" who are presumably intelligent and well eductated enough to know better get off without even a censure - and in the case of the pope even get afforded a state visit.
Sorry but that is called having double standards.
If you are going to harrass the little guy then arrest the Pope and the leader of the Islamic group too!
...only they won't because these guys have the protection of being much higher profile. That is real double standards and it's extremely hypocritical too.
See this as well:
http://www.libelreform.org/ (http://www.libelreform.org/)
It's manifestly evident that British law does not place a terribly high value on freedom of speech, but rather on freedom from offense. There's no slope -- Britain is already at the bottom of the barrel.
There are a few points here.
1. The Daily Mail is well known for twisting information to create a scandal. Sadly, this is almost certainly the case here.
2. This man would not have been arrested simply for doing what is claimed. No police officer would risk his career by doing this.
3. The particular highlighting of the PSCO is interesting. PSCOs do not arrest people. They report to regular officers. It is inconcievable that regular officers would risk their careers by arresting anyone simply for saying that homosexualty is sinful. If they did, the cells would be regularly filled. Negative references to homosexuals are often made.
The rather extensive background on the PSCO, including posting his photograph is clearly the real point here. Such publicity will probably end this PSCO's career, sadly.
4. The intersting point is the use of the step ladder. It is more likely this man was arrested for obstruction.
Britney's comment is perhaps more telling. The Daily Mail and others have long been tryng to put over the message that life as we know it is over under Labour. We all support free speech love.
Similar claims have also been made claiming that Muslims can say this but 'we' can't and so on. This is just not true. Context is everything.
5. The Christian Institute is a rather unplesent organisation promoting values that few support. http://www.christian.org.uk/ (http://www.christian.org.uk/)
Sorry, but in reality, another non-Story the like of which we have been continuously fed with over the last 13 years and which, will undoubtedly stop if the Torys win the general election.
I have to agree with Spacial on the likelihood of this being only part of the story.
Having been a copper on the beat, my guess is that there was more than handing out a few leaflets, and speechmaking going on.
Obstruction with the ladder is likely, and then probably refusal to move it when directed, language offences, assault police, resist arrest and all the other things that people do in such a situation. "You can't arrest ME!", followed by, "Mind your head on the car door!"
There's no way that that piece of news is the whole story.
And the slippery slope argument is not considered reliable in any debate.
It's not a slippery slope argument.* It's not that we fail to comprehend the bias of the Daily Mail.
It's that, as reported, Rhalkos seemed clearly support what happened. As reported. Now, if you think, "Well, that's a preposterous story, and I seriously doubt it happened in anything like the way they say it did. But if I were to learn it really did happen, I'd be steaming mad and I'd demand that someone had better be held accountable," -- well, okay, then. Then we'd be on the same page.
But ... I just don't get that impression. The general impression I get from most Europeans I've met, including Brits, is that they simply don't value freedom of speech to nearly the extent that we do in America (on average, but overwhelmingly, regardless of political persuasion). Our reason for support isn't a slippery slope question (though, yes, that's a valid concern in general when talking about free speech: censorship is one of the most effective ways for authority to consolidate power). The most important reason is that we deal with crackpots by making them look like morons -- which usually takes no effort whatsoever. All you need to do is let them yap away. On rare occasions, a response is appropriate (i.e., exercizing your own freedom of speech).
Here's the rub: If this guy hadn't been arrested, he would have been completely ignored.
--
* ETA: That is, Britney used that argument, and I think it's completely germane and valid, but it's not by any means the only one, and I think it's somewhat less important than other arguments in a case like this one.
Here in Oz we just tend to take the piss out of them, and reduce them to a laughing stock. Probably related to the "Tall Poppy Syndrome"- stick up and you get cut down.
The slippery slope is simple. You start by censoring something that 99% of people disagree with. For instance, making it illegal hate speech to say that the Holocaust is a hoax. Once the populace has started to accept that certain extreme speech is banned, the government gradually makes less extreme speech illegal. Soon anything that goes against the status quo is "offensive speech" and illegal.
Maybe there is more to the story and maybe there is not. However, as it was reported someone was arrested for simply standing in the street preaching against homosexuality. That is already a long way down the slope if you ask me. If the person was screaming so loudly that it was causing a disturbance or if he was making threats of violence, or blocking traffic then that would be different. What I and most Americans are strongly against is any expectation that people have the right not to be offended. I'm sorry but if someone says or does something you don't like, you either use your own free speech to tell them you disagree or you just ignore them. Again, as long as they aren't threatening, harrassing, or being violent.
Sadly, many people want to live in a nanny state where everybody says, does, and thinks as they are told. That's not freedom but more like prison.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on May 04, 2010, 11:08:59 PM
It's not a slippery slope argument.* It's not that we fail to comprehend the bias of the Daily Mail.
It's that, as reported, Rhalkos seemed clearly support what happened. As reported. Now, if you think, "Well, that's a preposterous story, and I seriously doubt it happened in anything like the way they say it did. But if I were to learn it really did happen, I'd be steaming mad and I'd demand that someone had better be held accountable," -- well, okay, then. Then we'd be on the same page.
But ... I just don't get that impression. The general impression I get from most Europeans I've met, including Brits, is that they simply don't value freedom of speech to nearly the extent that we do in America (on average, but overwhelmingly, regardless of political persuasion). Our reason for support isn't a slippery slope question (though, yes, that's a valid concern in general when talking about free speech: censorship is one of the most effective ways for authority to consolidate power). The most important reason is that we deal with crackpots by making them look like morons -- which usually takes no effort whatsoever. All you need to do is let them yap away. On rare occasions, a response is appropriate (i.e., exercizing your own freedom of speech).
Nope.
We speak because we know the way the British press works.
The Daily Mail has a long history of this sort of reporting.
As to your claim that British people don't value freedom, that is verging on a trans Atlantic argument.
I am tempted to point out that Americans toss words like freedom, democracy and liberty around like salt. But I have yet to meet an American who know what any of these means.
Liberating the freedom loving people of Kuwait.
We Burned My Lei to Save it for Democracy.
But I won't.
1) Ad hominem attacks are really weak. Quit trashing the source and find an article from a more credible source (i.e., practically any source at all) that disputes the account in the Daily Mail.
2) Wow, why did you even bother quoting that text, since you obviously didn't even read what I wrote?
3) You said:
Quote from: spacial on May 05, 2010, 03:06:21 AM
But I won't.
In fact, you did. Knock it off.
behave children or you will have to go to bed early!
Seriously, have there been any other reports of this incident, in reputable newspapers?
a reminder from admin, no personal attacks!
Quote from: justmeinoz on May 05, 2010, 05:57:56 AM
Seriously, have there been any other reports of this incident, in reputable newspapers?
here's one:
Gay Cop Arrests Preacher for Antigay Comments
By Julie Bolcer
ADVOCATE.COM
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/04/Gay_Cop_Arrests_Preacher_for_Antigay_Comments/ (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/04/Gay_Cop_Arrests_Preacher_for_Antigay_Comments/)
A gay police officer arrested a Baptist preacher in the UK last month for telling a passerby that homosexuality is a sin.
According to the Daily Telegraph, "Dale McAlpine was charged with causing 'harassment, alarm or distress' after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of 'sins' referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same-sex relationships."
Police say the 42-year-old McAlpine, who preaches in Cumbria, used insulting language in violation of the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to control rioters at football games. He was held in jail for seven hours on April 20.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on May 04, 2010, 11:08:59 PMThe general impression I get from most Europeans I've met, including Brits, is that they simply don't value freedom of speech to nearly the extent that we do in America (on average, but overwhelmingly, regardless of political persuasion).
I don't think it's a question of value per say.
In all countries, including the US, where freedom of speech exists, there also exists a set of legislation that protects you from libel.
In many of the Europian countries, these laws don't just protect individuals but whole groups of people.
We 'value' freedom of speech, we just also value freedom from slander, libel, and verbal attacks.
In Iceland, it's legal to share your beliefs, but it's not legal to state your (generic you, not directed at any specific person) beliefs that all gay people are disease riddled sinners headed for hell as a fact.
QuoteA gay police officer arrested a Baptist preacher in the UK last month for telling a passerby that homosexuality is a sin.
This is not true.
The man is a PSCO. Not a police officer. He didn't arrest anyone as PSCOs do not have the authority of arrest that police officers have. All a PSCO can do is what any other civilian can do, that is report the matter to a police officer.
The report in the Telegraph is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html)
It seems the complaint was made by a woman.
QuoteMr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a "ticket to heaven" with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.
During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.
After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.
The man was arrested by three Police officers.
Until and if the matter goes to court, we only have McAlpine's word for the details. I will also add that I think it highly unlikely that the PSCO identifed himself as gay or anything other than a PSCO
Alyssa.
Of course I did, it was a joke.
But I apologise if it fell flat.
Sadly the Daily Telegraph is basically similar to the Daily Mail, but aimed at people who want to appear a bit more prosperus.
Having a report appearing, symultainously in the Mail and the Telegraph is not evidence of its veracity, I'm afraid.
These two papers regularly back each other up in their continuing attempts to make the world seem as black as possible. It is a favourite tack of the Mail, especially, to claim that freedoms are only being erroded for white, middle class, chirstian men. While Muslims, and those identifing by their sexuality are being given a free reign.
Not so.
This rather amusing video gives a pretty good idea of what the Daily Mail is really all about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI#)
Now let me add that like most Britons I am alarmed at how civil liberities are being eroded. However, nothing can be gained by hysterical and clearly innacurate claims that only serve to discredit those of us who are attempting to promote individualism.
Loved that video. Fits most tabloids.
Quote from: LordKAT on May 05, 2010, 02:43:45 PM
Loved that video. Fits most tabloids.
Possibly, though those were actual pages from the Daily Mail.
We have quite a lot of news papers here in the UK. None are particularly highbrow, though a few try to pretend to be.
Quote from: Miniar on May 05, 2010, 09:49:49 AMWe 'value' freedom of speech, we just also value freedom from slander, libel, and verbal attacks.
In Iceland, it's legal to share your beliefs, but it's not legal to state your (generic you, not directed at any specific person) beliefs that all gay people are disease riddled sinners headed for hell as a fact.
In America they pray for those godless homos right on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with loudspeakers...
Religious Right anti gay May Day event an epic fail (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/2/862844/-Religious-Right-anti-gay-May-Day-event-an-epic-fail)
Check out the videos- kind of sounds like hate speech to me. And in the second video- praying to God to forgive Minnesota for electing a Muslim to congress... Where do they find these people?
Chloe, they find us, not the other way around.
Out here in Time Zone Greenwich -8, (Southern California USA), the mere fact that a police officer of any station or rank had been involved in telling some one to get off his ladder and quit blocking traffic would have been classified as a total assault on the persons life, liberty and the happiness of pursuit (err --pursuit of happiness -- nahhh the first was right) by some one of our news sources, and there would have been a good deal of fun and improved family communication at the fast food dinner tables. This would be true if the officer was gay, trans, lesbian, hetero or into small wildlife (on a microscope slide, small mammals are different). Even if the cop could have shown the person to the absolutely best and greatest and well paying (OMG PAYING!!!) theater for the performance of whatever, the cop would not win in any media. One of the best descriptions of this actually came from Great Britain, in the form of Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta, Pirates of Penzance, "A policemans lot is not a happy one...." If we could find the mismatched temperments of Gilbert and Sullivan to put this article into music and libretto, someone could start a real money making show here. Being tone deaf, and unable to keep a beat on my eggs, not to mention being a cynical Southern Californian and not a 'Cumbrian" Brit, I am not qualified for that job, but with my tone deafness, could tolerate being in the audience for a short period of time.
I am in favor of free speech, as long as the person has something to say, which eliminates all street preachers. I know, because there is one on every one of 8 street corners near where I work.
This is a link to the Daily Mail so you can get an idea of the sort of fare it provides.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html)
Always good for a laugh. :D
Quote from: LordKAT on May 05, 2010, 03:12:46 PM
Chloe, they find us, not the other way around.
well once my surgery is done I'm back to Australia where I belong. It's not that they don't have these kind of people there, it's just that the rest of the people pay them even less attention than they do the politicians lol
Quote from: spacial on May 05, 2010, 03:53:51 PM
This is a link to the Daily Mail so you can get an idea of the sort of fare it provides.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html)
Always good for a laugh. :D
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:With the article on the fellow attempting to keep the trucks out of town by repeatedly pushing the CROSS button on the traffic signal, I think I would feel at home there. Unfortunately, if the truck he tried to stop over here had out of state license plates, he could be arrestedf on a Federal Crime of Interfering with Interstate Traffic!! That is not going to respond to "right of free speech" as a defense, I know, I had to read the darn case law on that recently.
Quote from: Miniar on May 05, 2010, 09:49:49 AM
I don't think it's a question of value per say.
In all countries, including the US, where freedom of speech exists, there also exists a set of legislation that protects you from libel.
In many of the Europian countries, these laws don't just protect individuals but whole groups of people.
We 'value' freedom of speech, we just also value freedom from slander, libel, and verbal attacks.
In Iceland, it's legal to share your beliefs, but it's not legal to state your (generic you, not directed at any specific person) beliefs that all gay people are disease riddled sinners headed for hell as a fact.
Yes, this was actually sort of my point. It's not a question of "value,
per se" (by itself), but of
comparative value, the comparison being
within a country, not
between countries. We Americans (the vast majority of us) value freedom of speech more than Europeans do
when compared to our respective value for competing interests. It's a little bit like the theory of comparative advantage in economics, if that helps.
Of course Europeans value freedom of speech, and of course Americans value legal protection against libel and slander (though probably not against verbal attacks). The only meaningful comparison is to see how we deal with situations where those values come into conflict with each other. If a randomly chosen American and a Brit differ on that point regarding a randomly chosen legal conflict, it's a good bet that the American comes down on the side of free speech, and the Brit on protection from libel. Perhaps they agree 99% of the time, but those 1% cases show a distinct pattern, and thus, the relative value. This thread is a perfect example.
The reason I'm belaboring the pointabout relative values is that the way we talk about "values" is a long-standing problem in political discourse that has bothered for me for years. It comes up in America when lazy political pundits talk about "values voters" -- I'm usually in the group that has, by implication, no values. Yeah, Bush did this a lot. It was really annoying.
Spacial, thanks for explaining. I snapped at you there too, and I just cringed a bit seeing my last post. So I'm sorry about that too.
Looking into it more, yeah, the only direct sources seem to be the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. The Telegraph article at least makes more sense (e.g., about the role of the PSCO). But yeah, it does seem fishy that there's nothing else. Still, I'd be surprised if it were invented from whole cloth. Staged political stunt, perhaps -- I wouldn't be surprised. In fact I suspected as much from the start, but I don't think we should arrest people for trolling, either.
But ... yeah, I guess it'll get sorted out in court.
The terms "libel" and "slander" can be stretched as well. Libel and slander are not criminal offenses in the U.S. but generally civil where one can be sued for it. However, these generally refer to publishing "a fact" that is untrue about someone not just stating an opinion. If someone wants to call gays a bunch of names, it would be offensive to gays but it is merely that person's opinion. I continue to strongly disagree with those who think that "hate speech" or "offensive speech" should be illegal. There are already laws against harrassment, threats, disturbing the peace, and violence. Simple speech should not be curtailed. If you can't handle hearing something that offends you or that you disagree with, grow up and learn some better emotional management.
Besides, I don't understand how curtailing such speech is "protecting" anyone. Some preacher or even a group of them saying that gays are evil are not directly doing anything harmful to gays. Those same gays could have the same right to say Christians are evil. The only argument that could be used is that such speech could indirectly encourage violence against the group. However, someone who commits violence is ultimately responsible, not the person who said something that put the thought in their mind. Of course that's another thing different about the UK and the US. In the US, minority and at-risk groups can own and carry weapons and often without a permit whereas in the UK self-defense is illegal even if you are being raped and killed.
Again, it comes down to being a citizen or a subject.
Alyssa.
I treated the matter as a joke. I just wish some others, especially in the News Forums, could lighten up a bit.
Looking at this, and knowing how the Daily Mail works, I'm pretty sure the reality is probably along these lines.
McAlpine made some offensive comments. A woman complained to the PSCO. The PSCO spoke to McAlpine and gave him his business card. (In the UK it is customary for police to give people a card bearing their name and the station they are based at). He then reported the matter to the police who decided to arrest the McAlpine.
Subsequently, a quick Google search showed up the PSCOs web page and McAlpine made the rest up.
I am fairly confident that about this, firstly because no PSCO nor Police officer would ever giver personal details about themselves when working. For obvious reasons.
Secondly, three police officers would not have risked their careers by behaving as reported.
Police in the UK have enormous powers. Most laws are written to be very general. Police use their discression before doing anything. Their job is to keep the peace. The letter of the law comes very second place to the spirit of the law. Police will often turn a blind eye or perhaps have a quiet word to offenses which in other circumstances might result in arrest.
It's all about context.
But Police are ordinary citizens as well. They are as concerned about maintaining civil rights as anyone else.
Sadly, over the last 13 or so years, the Daily Mail and some others have continually reported distorted information in their attempts to imply that our country is being destroyed by these incompetant working class types who run the Labour Party.
There is another British paper called the Sun. It is similar to the Mail but tends to regularly publish pictures of naked women and has less claim to being so highbrow.
It ran a campaign claiming that child abusers were getting off lightly because the government is incompetant and soft on crime,implying that people should take the law into their own hands.
They targeted one man, whom they claimed had raped an under 13 year old girl and only served 4 1/2 months. Typical example of this government being soft on crime. They later claimed he had been accused of sexually assaulting a 3 year old girl, the daughter of a barmaid.
The man, Andrew Cunningham, was firebombed out of his home which he shared with his 13 year old daughter. He then moved to a caravan, but eventually, after more reports from the Sun, a gang attacked him there, cut off his genitals then stabbed him in the skull.
No-one has ever been caught for this.
The truth was that, Cunningham had met a girl in a pub. (18 is the minimum age for being in a pub.).
He began a relationship with her even though he was married. Adultry aside.
After a short time, the girl told him she was 15. He ended the relationship immediatly. The girl went to the police and reported him for rape. He was sentenced to 4 1/2 years.
After 4 months, the girl admitted she had lied and Cunningham was released on a reduced charge of having sex with an under 16 year old girl. (16 is the age of conscent in the UK).
The 3 year old girl and the barmaid have never been traced. No report of any such incident has been made to the police. Cunningham's daughter is devastated.
I make these points to demonstrate that the situation here is considerably more fragile than you might think. I am sorry to bring politics into this but this is an entirely political issue.
We have two principal parties, Tory and Labour. The Torys are utterly corrupt. They are bank rolled by criminals and overseas financiers. They are supported by several news papers which have no compunction in lying. Their most prominant MP is a man called William Hague who, when he was leader of the party, persuaded a bunch of trucking companies and organised what he called The People's Fuel Protest. This action almost brought this contry to its knees. Thousands lost their jobs. There was, for a brief time, anarchy on the highways.
Britain is a wonderful country. But it is saddled with an internationally important banking sector. That banking sector is being governed by regulations from the EU. Sensible regulations, designed for the benefit of the common marketplace. But the financiers want freedom. They want to take England out of the EU and set it up as a sort of banking haven where they can do as they like.
The consequences for the ordinary people here will, of course, be devestating. But the financiers have little concern for that.
The Torys don't, at this time, seem prepared to take Britain out of the EU. But it is likely they will be very hostile to it. There are suspicissions that it intends to cause such friction that they can use this as an excuse to take the UK out.
Interesting times.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on May 05, 2010, 11:33:13 PM
Yes, this was actually sort of my point. It's not a question of "value, per se" (by itself), but of comparative value, the comparison being within a country, not between countries. We Americans (the vast majority of us) value freedom of speech more than Europeans do when compared to our respective value for competing interests. It's a little bit like the theory of comparative advantage in economics, if that helps.
Again, it's not about "value" per say. Not comparative value either.
What we view as the purpose of free speech and thus protected by it differs.
The difference isn't "value" it's more along the lines of "definition".
Quote from: Britney_413 on May 06, 2010, 01:27:22 AMBesides, I don't understand how curtailing such speech is "protecting" anyone. Some preacher or even a group of them saying that gays are evil are not directly doing anything harmful to gays. Those same gays could have the same right to say Christians are evil. The only argument that could be used is that such speech could indirectly encourage violence against the group. However, someone who commits violence is ultimately responsible, not the person who said something that put the thought in their mind. Of course that's another thing different about the UK and the US. In the US, minority and at-risk groups can own and carry weapons and often without a permit whereas in the UK self-defense is illegal even if you are being raped and killed.
Again, it comes down to being a citizen or a subject.
Self defense is not illegal, killing in self defense is another matter.
And I disagree with you. A man is responsible for his words as well as his actions.
Someone preaching hate can sway a naive person, or a person seeking acceptance.
Someone preaching hate can also sway someone who's already having a hard time.
In one instance, the person can find the inspiration to pick up a weapon and hurt someone else, the other can find the inspiration to pick up a weapon and hurt themselves.
Words aren't harmless, nor do they come without some measure of responsibility.
Miniar -- We perhaps have a semantic difference about the term "value" in this context. Obviously, it's a word often used to abuse political opponents, and that colors its meaning, so I understand why people might be touchy about it.
But the notion that different people and different cultures hold different values (which you seem to be suggesting, at least with regard to this issue) seems to me to be not merely uncontroversial, but practically tautological. It's something I've certainly experienced even within the United States.
Spacial -- I see where you're coming from. To an outsider, the connection with the election is not terribly pressing, even if it is obvious once you mention it. Still, there's a difference. I would be wary of giving police officers that much latitude in enforcement. There are far too many instances of prejudice and just plain old abuse. But British police certainly have a different reputation. Still, there was an arrest without clear evidence of a crime (no physical violence, no property damaged or stolen, etc.), so I still see it as troubling, despite all you said, pending more information.
I disagree, Miniar. Free speech doesn't need a "purpose." It simply exists. Words can be disruptive but words themselves do not cause violence. There are already laws against disturbing the peace in the U.S. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you start screaming in a restaurant, they may ask you to leave because the other patrons will be upset. When it comes to actual violence, I support personal responsibility. If someone yells "gays are evil," people have the personal responsibility to choose whether or not they continue to listen to that person as well as how they respond (using their own free speech). If someone agrees with the person and then goes out and starts killing gay people, that is their fault, not the sidewalk preacher that said "gays are evil." The other 1,000 people chose to be responsible and ignore his message and one person chose to become a serial killer. You punish people for their actions, not their opinions.
The other problem with regulating free speech is that you are giving power to the government to decide what is acceptable speech and what is not. I don't feel that the government should have that role other than the "disturbing the peace" or "threat" laws already on the books. Not only would it be time consuming and a waste of tax dollars for government to be deciding which speech should be legal and which shouldn't, but it is fascist in nature because you are allowing an authority to essentially decide what personal opinions people are allowed to have. What started out as making "hate speech" illegal gets to the point where anyone disagreeing with the government is breaking the law.
As to self-defense in the UK, none of what I've read about it sounds good. Despite that guns are illegal in the UK along with virtually every other weapon, London and other cities are full of stabbings, shootings, and other violent crime. Plus, the whole "killing in self-defense" thing you mentioned makes no sense. Say someone breaks into your house and grabs a kitchen knife and tries to stab you with it and you pick up a chair and throw it at them but it just so happens that the chair hit them in the head and killed them. In the UK, you would be arrested and convicted of murder. Great justice system. I read an article where this is basically what did happen.
Self defense is not a government-granted privilege but an inalienable right. When you consider how many rapes happen to women, for instance, I can't understand why any woman especially transwomen would be against the right to self defense including the ability to carry weapons for that purpose. The same applies to racial minorities, transmen, and other groups. Yet I consistently notice that the people most likely to need to defend themselves are the ones most commonly against it. It's pretty ridiculous.
Quote from: Britney_413 on May 10, 2010, 02:37:48 AM
As to self-defense in the UK, none of what I've read about it sounds good. Despite that guns are illegal in the UK along with virtually every other weapon, London and other cities are full of stabbings, shootings, and other violent crime. Plus, the whole "killing in self-defense" thing you mentioned makes no sense. Say someone breaks into your house and grabs a kitchen knife and tries to stab you with it and you pick up a chair and throw it at them but it just so happens that the chair hit them in the head and killed them. In the UK, you would be arrested and convicted of murder. Great justice system. I read an article where this is basically what did happen.
You've been watching the NRA propaganda on Fox.
These claims are completely untrue.
There is a lot of violence on Britain's streets and people being killed, including the use of illegal firearms. But nothing even remotely like the levels of violence or gun violence that happens of US streets.
Most of the violence on the streets is related to drug deals and most of the gun crime is between drug gangs. There are exceptions. These are always highlighted in the press, simply because they are so unusual.
Also, if someone breaks into my home, I can use reasonable force to deter them. I can pick up anything to hand, such as the golf club that just happens to be near to my front door. If they die in the process of my defending myself and my property, I will not be prosecuted.
What I cannot do is chase and attack someone who is running away.
You can also get sued for some one getting hurt breaking into your house or slipping on your sidewalk on the way to break into your house.
Quote from: LordKAT on May 10, 2010, 03:00:05 AM
You can also get sued for some one getting hurt breaking into your house or slipping on your sidewalk on the way to break into your house.
Nope. Another piece of nonsense.
Not nonsense, happened. Not myth, at least the slip on the way to breaking in one is.
Quote from: LordKAT on May 10, 2010, 05:07:21 AM
Not nonsense, happened. Not myth, at least the slip on the way to breaking in one is.
No, sorry. Didn't happen and never will.
If you set a trap on your property, anyone injured in that trap can sue, simply because it is illegal to set man traps.
If you put something in a dangerous position, which someone could reasonably be harmed by, that is also illegal under the Duty of Care.
But someone slipping on your path or injuring themselves in any way when they shouldn't be there has no claim at all.
Then you can pay the fine that I had to.
Quote from: LordKAT on May 10, 2010, 05:15:58 AM
Then you can pay the fine that I had to.
Not in England you didn't.
We have a duty of care to anyone who is reasonably on our property. We cannot set man traps. But those that act recklessly, which includes attempting to break the law are responsible for the results.
never said I was in England
Nice one Kat.
I had a feeling you were lining up for that.
This entire thread has centred around a discussion on the relative freedoms in England.
Your #38 makes no sense in this context.
I realise you are feeling a bit agressive today kat. I do understand and would give you a big hug if I could.
Stop presuming to know what I feel. Aggressive is definitely not it. You aren't understanding much in that sense.
I did forget about it being a basically UK thread.
I will try to avoid all threads that mention UK from now on.
Thank you Kat.
I will withdraw my sympathy until you feel a bit better.
Though I'm sure your input into any thread is equally welcome.
After reading the story and viewing the video footage it would seem that the PSCO had an agenda of which to humiliate the street preacher.
Just my thought.
Stardust
Quote from: spacial on May 05, 2010, 03:06:21 AM
Americans toss words like freedom, democracy and liberty around like salt. But I have yet to meet an American who know what any of these means.
One can only conclude the number of Americans you have met is quite small
For balance, in case anyone thinks that this is either some leftist conspiracy to silence the right, or some right-wing conspiracy to smear the left:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/11/david-cameron-poster-police (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/11/david-cameron-poster-police)
Of course, we've had this kind of stuff happen in the U.S. notably, during the 2004 election, mostly to anti-Bush protesters at public events where Bush appeared, also to protesters at the Democratic convention both then and in 2008. The difference is that there's no Public Order Act to hide behind. If there were such a law, courts would almost certainly strike it down as being in violation of the First Amendment.
Quote from: Laura Hope on May 17, 2010, 07:48:13 PM
One can only conclude the number of Americans you have met is quite small
I apologise if you took that comment personally. It was made within a context of national generalisations and was meant to be no more than that. Actually, I was trying to be slightly tongue in cheek, as I was when quoting the statement, Liberating the Freedom Loving people of Kuwait.
But here in the UK, we have a lot of newspapers and press outlets. Each tries to grab attention, generally by distorting information.
The facts remain. A PSCO does't have the authority to arrest in these circumstances. No member of the police will ever identify themselves to the point of saying they are gay or otherwise. Action will always be taken on the basis of public order, never personal feelings.
If this PSCO acted in the way that has been reported, then he was behaving entirely unprofessionally. That, sadly happens in any organisation anywhere in the world. It is certainly not representive of the police in general, here or anywhere else.
But public order in this country has always been maintained on the basis of local needs rather than the letter of the law.
What this story boils down to is some guy who's behaviour has landed him is some bother with the police, claiming it was all a fit up. Oi did't do nuffin. Wroight!
The really sad aspect of this is that 99% of people in prison did't do nuffin. They are misunderstood, had a bad childhood, didn't know it wasn't right, thought no-one wanted it, needed it more than they did, she asked for it, she looked 16, honest, .........
Post Merge: May 18, 2010, 05:39:20 AM
Quote from: Alyssa M. on May 17, 2010, 08:52:29 PM
The difference is that there's no Public Order Act to hide behind. If there were such a law, courts would almost certainly strike it down as being in violation of the First Amendment.
As I've attempted to demonstrate already, our legal system isn't the same as yours.
In America, it seems, the letter of the law is paramount. I read the second Ammendment for example and it doesn't say to me that anyone can wander around with a gun. But for you, or some of you at least, it does. That's your way.
Here, it is the spirit of the law. The principal that is more important. Drugs, for example, are universally banned and illegal. Yet in many areas and instances, the police will ignore clear examples. I recall, when I lived in Edinburgh in the 70s, people smoked canabis quite openly, in adult cafes and such. Yet in other circumstances, possession will lead to a long period of impirsonment.
The job of the police here is to maintain public order. They do it very well.
There were numerous scullerous posters of Cameron circulating before the election. Accusing him of wanting to kill kittens to racism, class hatred and lining the pockets of his friends. None resulted in any action.
I can't comment on this example except to say that the context is everything.
And I appreciate you prefer to live in your country than ours. Please believe me when I say, I do too. :)
Getting back to the original topic, has there been a court appearance after all this?
Quote from: justmeinoz on May 18, 2010, 06:53:47 AM
Getting back to the original topic, has there been a court appearance after all this?
No, the charges have been dropped.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8687395.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8687395.stm)
Originally I thought it must have been a case of obstruction etc, but now it sounds like someone who just can't help themselves when they put on their uniform.
I would think that all those reading this thread, who have been in the Police, would remember working with members who couldn't avoid doing things like this. The usually end up with nicknames like "Combat Wombat", or "FIGJAM".
From the BBC article:
QuoteVeteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell condemned the arrest and urged the home secretary to issue new guidelines to the police.
He said: "Although I disagree with Dale Mcalpine and support protests against his homophobic views, he should not have been arrested and charged. Criminalisation is a step too far."
That's all I'm saying. I don't see why this is so hard. As I said, this kind of BS happens over here too, and we try to deal with it.
As to this:
Quote from: spacial on May 18, 2010, 05:28:35 AMAnd I appreciate you prefer to live in your country than ours. Please believe me when I say, I do too. :)
Well, that's neither here nor there. If you believe that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, then it's an outrage wherever and whenever it's suppressed, whether in some miniscule way as with Mr. McAlpine, or in much more serious ways, as in countless places around the world.
Alyssa.
I'm sure everyone supports free speech. But the point I was making and continue to make is that the only version we have of the events are from the accused man, repeated by sections of the press.
Four police officers saw fit to arrest this man. That the charges have been dropped is nothing significant, certainly in the context of this country. If the man, after his arrest, gave an undertaking not to repeat his offense, then the charges would normally be dropped.
Peter Tatchell is one of our more persistant agitators. In the 70s he was being attacked by the press as part of some conspiracy to hand the country over to Russia. In the 80s he was called the Thinking Man's Fool.
He joined the Green Party and I recently read a piece in some Tory journal claiming he is the finest thing to happen to Britian since the arrival of St George.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/04/in-praise-of-peter-tatchell.html (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/04/in-praise-of-peter-tatchell.html)
Yet his information, on this matter, is no more than anyone elses.
We either trust the police to do their job, or we don't. If we choose the latter, then we all lose.
No, I don't trust the police to do their job. Nor do I trust the military or corporations or politicians or any other group that holds power. We have various checks -- civilian control of military, government oversight, checks and balances within government, elections -- to keep the powerful from misbehaving. The news media serve as an important check on police power, whether through trashy tabloids, local evening news, establishment news papers, independent bloggers, or any other source.
I understand your point perfectly well; the point I was making and continue to make is that a number of people thought he should have been arrested even if his account was perfectly accurate. So the (exceedingly doubtful) reliability of his account is simply not germane. Consider his story as a hypothetical scenario. Tatchell simply echoed my opinion rather succinctly.
You mentioned how the context of your national political scene colors your opinion. Please understand the relevance in the American responses of our own political context: There is a great deal of legislation regarding transgender rights being debated right now in America (notably the Employment Non-Discrimination Act), and the fear of restrictions on speech is one of the main tools our opponents use. That applies to gay rights issues as well. So I feel obliged to make it clear that in no way does my support for gay rights and trans rights diminish my support for freedom of speech.