Thought policing in UK

nyarlothothep

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25361297-7583,00.html

There you go, censorship of free speech and satanist paraphernalia. I forsee the coming of the dark lord.

I do think that some people are clearly very silly in taking it upon themselves to censor free expression just because they don't like it. Freedom of speech is so fundamental and tbh while the intentions may be good (though I doubt its just that) the outcome is terrible. Its a total violation of everyones natural right to free expression. The whole point of civilization is to get along with others and put aside differences, not attack each other whether that be through racism or draconian public policies.

Diogenes

nyarlothothep wrote: »

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25361297-7583,00.html

There you go, censorship of free speech and satanist paraphernalia.

I'm sorry where exactly is the "satanist paraphernalia"


Oh wait, towards the end.

So to be clear, you think that this instances where people's free speech are being "oppressed" are outrageous but you are similarly offended by freedom of religious expression.

I forsee the coming of the dark lord.

And that needs a smilie?

I do think that some people are clearly very silly in taking it upon themselves to censor free expression just because they don't like it. Freedom of speech is so fundamental and tbh while the intentions may be good (though I doubt its just that) the outcome is terrible. Its a total violation of everyones natural right to free expression. The whole point of civilization is to get along with others and put aside differences, not attack each other whether that be through racism or draconian public policies.

Firstly in every example in your piece, the charges were dropped, and in every instance the general reaction of the judicary is to express amazement that these cases were brought this far in the first place.

Thats hardly a "thought police state".

Secondly just to re-iterate you and the author seem outraged that certain freedoms seem to be "eroding" but at the same time equally outraged that people seem to have more freedoms. It seems that both you and the author seem to want to be the absolute moral adjudicators of what is acceptable in modern society.

nyarlothothep

Actually I have no problem with religious expression whether that be Satanists, Christians, Muslims etc.

I'm not outraged, whatever gave you that impression.

Nah the article is a bit circumspect. But it does highlight how things can be taken too far.

espinolman

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Actually I have no problem with religious expression whether that be Satanists, Christians, Muslims etc.

Will then could you explain why you put 'satanist paraphernalia' in the OP .

nyarlothothep wrote: »

There you go, censorship of free speech and satanist paraphernalia

Diogenes

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Actually I have no problem with religious expression whether that be Satanists, Christians, Muslims etc.

But in two specific instances they give the author is outraged by the fact that he feels Muslims and Satanists get rights he feels that they don't deserve.

I'm not outraged, whatever gave you that impression.

Because you specifically highlighted that bit.

Nah the article is a bit circumspect. But it does highlight how things can be taken too far.

Actually in doesn't in every instance when the case is taken as far as court the case is thrown out, in several instances the charges are dropped (speaking personally I think the countryside alliance member was just in shock, if I listed off all the anarcho, pinko, liberal, vegan, lesbian anti war protesters that I know that have been lifted at demos, charged and then had the charges dropped we'd be here all night). As to the people dismissed for things like praying etc, I think all their cases have been highlighted by wrongful dismissal tribunals, where the defendants have been succesful.

I notice the author didn't bother to mention that the most high profile and serious cases of wrongful dismissal or workplace harassment have been taken and won by women in the banking sector, complaining of the glass ceiling, workplace sexual harassment, or discrimination due to pregnancy.

Many of these women have gone on to win record sums.

So to conclude, over PC or under PC employers engage in workplace discrimination based on religion/sex/sexuality, and get slapped down by the state.

And, overzealous Police/Social Workers/Civil Servants, engage in heavy handed behaviour and are slapped down by the judiciary.

My god. :eek::cool::pac::eek::cool::D:pac: The SYSTEM! IT KINDA WORKS!

Mahatma coat

I've asked this question a few times,

what is teh diference betwen an Police state and a Nanny State??

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I've asked this question a few times,

what is teh diference betwen an Police state and a Nanny State??

Given that neither (I believe) is properly or formally defined, I guess the answer is that it would depend on how you define those.

DubTony

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I've asked this question a few times,

what is teh diference betwen an Police state and a Nanny State??

Simple

Nanny State will stop you doing what you want on the basis that it's not good for you.
Police state will stop you doing what you want to do on the basis that it's not good for them.

ilivetolearn

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I've asked this question a few times,

what is teh diference betwen an Police state and a Nanny State??

According to Wikipedia:

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

WIKIPEDIA | Police State | LINK

Nanny state is a term that refers to state protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies (of economic, social or other nature), and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice. Opponents of such policies use the term in their advocacy against what they consider as uninvited and damaging state meddling. It has been referred to as a form of political correctness.

WIKIPEDIA | Nanny State | LINK

They are both interesting concepts. I'm wasn't familiar with the term 'Nanny State'.

DubTony

Diogenes wrote: »

I'm sorry where exactly is the "satanist paraphernalia"


Oh wait, towards the end.

So to be clear, you think that this instances where people's free speech are being "oppressed" are outrageous but you are similarly offended by freedom of religious expression.

Interesting. I'd be of the opinion that the author of the piece is highlighting how the normal and generally mundane is effectively being outlawed, while the unusual and bizarre seems to be supported. In general, what's happening with Britain is that in it's efforts to be politically correct, the state is actually criminalising behaviour that has traditionally been protected by the notion of what we deem to be free speech. By offering certain "rights" to minorities, the state is alienating the majority.

Firstly in every example in your piece, the charges were dropped, and in every instance the general reaction of the judicary is to express amazement that these cases were brought this far in the first place.

Thats hardly a "thought police state".

And do you believe that it's ok that many of those charges should have been brought in the first place?

Secondly just to re-iterate you and the author seem outraged that certain freedoms seem to be "eroding" but at the same time equally outraged that people seem to have more freedoms. It seems that both you and the author seem to want to be the absolute moral adjudicators of what is acceptable in modern society.

And he's right to be outraged (as you seem to think he is). In a "free" state everyone has (or is expected to have) the same rights. The erosion of a set of accepted rights for one group e.g. free speech and freedom to express, so as not to offend or alienate another group, while at the same time allowing other groups to break some minor laws will not lead to Labours all-accepting, all loving state, it will lead to disharmony and splits in communities. It's as if it's one rule for them and a different one for the others.

My uncle lives in Oldham and was stopped by police about 3 years ago for jaywalking, He's been in England for 50 years but his Dublin accent sometimes still comes through. The cop noticed and asked him if he was Irish. When my uncle said he was the cop asked if we had cars in Ireland when he left. My uncle told him that 3 or 4 cars a day would pass by his house when he was a kid and the cop replied "Well, in that case, we'll let it go. You need to be careful on these streets. They can get very busy."

This is comparable to an African immigrant being allowed walk the streets of London naked because he came from a jungle and that's what they do there. Based on the reasons that these "crimes" are allowed to go "unpunished" while a native Englishman wouldn't have gotten away with either, we can see the possibility of the emergence of an even more divided society.

The example of the little girl being arrested for asking to be moved away from a group because she couldn't understand them is the ultimate extreme. I have no doubt that if a foreign, non English speaking child had been in the same situation the teacher would have bent over backward to accommodate her. Again, in this instance, divisions are being created.

Such divisions create excesses of policy and lead to support for fringe politicians and parties (BNP anyone?). With a lot of the legislation that is now in place in the UK, an extreme nationalist party or an extreme socialist party would find itself with the ground work already done to move Britain from the nanny state toward the police state.

nyarlothothep

Diogenes wrote: »

But in two specific instances they give the author is outraged by the fact that he feels Muslims and Satanists get rights he feels that they don't deserve.



Because you specifically highlighted that bit.



Actually in doesn't in every instance when the case is taken as far as court the case is thrown out, in several instances the charges are dropped (speaking personally I think the countryside alliance member was just in shock, if I listed off all the anarcho, pinko, liberal, vegan, lesbian anti war protesters that I know that have been lifted at demos, charged and then had the charges dropped we'd be here all night). As to the people dismissed for things like praying etc, I think all their cases have been highlighted by wrongful dismissal tribunals, where the defendants have been succesful.

I notice the author didn't bother to mention that the most high profile and serious cases of wrongful dismissal or workplace harassment have been taken and won by women in the banking sector, complaining of the glass ceiling, workplace sexual harassment, or discrimination due to pregnancy.

Many of these women have gone on to win record sums.

So to conclude, over PC or under PC employers engage in workplace discrimination based on religion/sex/sexuality, and get slapped down by the state.

And, overzealous Police/Social Workers/Civil Servants, engage in heavy handed behaviour and are slapped down by the judiciary.

My god. :eek::cool::pac::eek::cool::D:pac: The SYSTEM! IT KINDA WORKS!

Yes you found me out, I am totally outraged.

When men care not for morals and family values Gods Brother will return. Soon.

Undergod

The list was covered already in another thread I think.

Mahatma coat

DubTony wrote: »

Simple

Nanny State will stop you doing what you want on the basis that it's not good for you.
Police state will stop you doing what you want to do on the basis that it's not good for them.

thats a good start Tony, thats what I was lookin for, although I think thats a bit oversimplified, but yeah, both tell you what to do

one is for 'your Own Good' (as decided by someone else)
one is for the 'Greater Good' ( also decided by someone else)