Man convicted of hate crime because his dog did a Nazi salute?

ohnonotgmail · 21-03-2018 01:35PM

mloc123 wrote: »

An interesting trend recently is that the left now appear to be more concerned with blocking free speech (that offends them). It is a strange role reversal on 30-40 years ago. The 'liberal' left are becoming more conservative.

you mean grossly offensive, nay hate, speech? Free speech is not unlimited.

FCIM · 21-03-2018 01:41PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, but on a discussion forum I feel that I am allowed ask what you meant. That's kind of how they work. Unless you want to take your conversation to PM, then I'll continue to question your ramblings

And when you quote somebody in your reply, is it not indicative of who you're talking to? Continue to question my "ramblings" as you wish, I'll just ignore your redundant quizzing. That should work out just fine.

mloc123 · 21-03-2018 01:43PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean grossly offensive, nay hate, speech? Free speech is not unlimited.

No.. not grossly offensive, not taking this example on its own.

There has been a trend in the last number of years of the far left looking to shut down speech of people they do not agree with, the Jordan Peterson stuff from a few months back is another example. Anything that does not fit into their agenda should be banned of censored, this is what the far right were doing decades ago.

It is a strange role reversal IMO. But as ever... it is from the extremes.

ohnonotgmail · 21-03-2018 01:46PM

mloc123 wrote: »

No.. not grossly offensive, not taking this example on its own.

There has been a trend in the last number of years of the far left looking to shut down speech of people they do not agree with, the Jordan Peterson stuff from a few months back is another example. Anything that does not fit into their agenda should be banned of censored, this is what the far right were doing decades ago.

It is a strange role reversal IMO. But as ever... it is from the extremes.

you will have to explain what you mean by shutting down Peterson. Didnt he get a 30 minute spot on channel 4?

Pepefrogok · 21-03-2018 01:47PM

mloc123 wrote: »

No.. not grossly offensive, not taking this example on its own.

There has been a trend in the last number of years of the far left looking to shut down speech of people they do not agree with, the Jordan Peterson stuff from a few months back is another example. Anything that does not fit into their agenda should be banned of censored, this is what the far right were doing decades ago.

It is a strange role reversal IMO. But as ever... it is from the extremes.

Look at the hope not hate, the posterchild for the left's Twitter account actually calling for books to be banned! They are getting slaughterd by all right minded individuals but it shows the modern left's mindset, worth a look for a laugh.

Maxpfizer · 21-03-2018 01:47PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's interesting. I wonder if I could find any recent examples of right wingers restricting free speech.

You could. Easily.

Once we are talking about extremists or authoritarians then the distinction between left and right pretty much goes out the window.

I am pro-choice, pro same sex marriage, think transgender people should have their treatments covered by the HSE (and also covered if they are on private healthcare plans), in favor of immigration think that everyone should be equal under the law and I have some serious issues with capitalism (while I do acknowledge it is the best current system) and I am told that all of these make me a "Leftie". All of these things seem like common sense to me.

Yet, here I am defending some guy who taught his pug to do a Nazi salute and who said some offensive things on a video. So actually lads it turns out I am far right and always was.

Maybe nothing bad will happen because of this. Maybe the guy will get a fine and he'll vanish into obscurity and claim jobseeker's allowance for the rest of his days and that will be the end of it.

However, I think there are dangerous risks when a man can be convicted for what essentially amounts to a prank he played on his SO.

I don't understand people defending it and I don't understand people (not you) making snide passive aggressive remarks implying that if you defend this guy you must be some kind of right wing nutter.

Authoritarians are bad. Extremists are bad. Left or Right it doesn't matter.

Nermal · 21-03-2018 01:51PM

dav3 wrote: »

Does wanting to gas people count as murder or is that top bantz?

Do you really think he, or his pug, want to gas people?

Is there a risk that people will be gassed as a result of his comments?

That's the hurdle that a prosecution should require.

Not just that you are 'tired of wading through absolute ****e on social media'.

mloc123 · 21-03-2018 01:53PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you will have to explain what you mean by shutting down Peterson. Didnt he get a 30 minute spot on channel 4?

I said they are looking to shut down the speech of people they do not agree with... I didn't say they have suceeded. Protesting his events, campaigns to have him banned from TV etc... these are all attempts to block speech they do not agree with, right?

And as ever I will quantify that with "extreme" left.

ohnonotgmail · 21-03-2018 02:00PM

mloc123 wrote: »

I said they are looking to shut down the speech of people they do not agree with... I didn't say they have suceeded. Protesting his events, campaigns to have him banned from TV etc... these are all attempts to block speech they do not agree with, right?

And as ever I will quantify that with "extreme" left.

these are all attempts to block speech they do not agree with, right?

Protesting his events, campaigns to have him banned from TV

the first definitely isnt. Are people not allowed to protest? The second really isnt either. He is free to say what he likes. He is not entitled to a platform to air them. If a tv company decide not to show him because people dont want to hear him then why is that an issue?

dav3 · 21-03-2018 02:12PM

Nermal wrote: »

Do you really think he, or his pug, want to gas people?

Is there a risk that people will be gassed as a result of his comments?

That's the hurdle that a prosecution should require.

Not just that you are 'tired of wading through absolute ****e on social media'.

Who knows, only time will tell. He had his opportunity to put his case across. He f*cked up. The judge didn't believe that it was a joke.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

But Sheriff Derek O'Carroll found him guilty of a charge under the Communications Act that he posted a video on social media and YouTube which was grossly offensive because it was "anti-semitic and racist in nature" and was aggravated by religious prejudice.

Sheriff O'Carroll told the court he did not believe Meechan had made the video only to annoy his girlfriend and ruled it was anti-Semitic.

He also said he believed Meechan - who was supported at court by Tommy Robinson, former leader of far-right group the English Defence League (EDL) - left the video on YouTube to drive traffic to other material he had on there.

He added: "In my view it is a reasonable conclusion that the video is grossly offensive

"The description of the video as humorous is no magic wand.

"This court has taken the freedom of expression into consideration.

"But the right to freedom of expression also comes with responsibility."

Even though it's a conservative government propped up by the nutters in the dup. It is definitely the lefts fault. Definitely.

Dankula the martyr. #prayfordankula

Franz Von Peppercorn · 21-03-2018 02:29PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Of course it's not too surprising that, of the 1,200 convictions a year under Section 127, it's the Nazi dude that the usual suspects spring to defend.

I'm sure they'll be doing the same thing the next time some Muslim lad is prosecuted for saying British soldiers should be killed.

Bring up a thread about that. We can’t respond to what we don’t know.

In fact unless they are planning an attack a Muslim who tweets that should definitely not go to trial.

The Legend Of Kira · 21-03-2018 02:46PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

mloc123 wrote: »

I said they are looking to shut down the speech of people they do not agree with... I didn't say they have suceeded. Protesting his events, campaigns to have him banned from TV etc... these are all attempts to block speech they do not agree with, right?

And as ever I will quantify that with "extreme" left.

these are all attempts to block speech they do not agree with, right?

Protesting his events, campaigns to have him banned from TV

the first definitely isnt. Are people not allowed to protest? The second really isnt either. He is free to say what he likes. He is not entitled to a platform to air them. If a tv company decide not to show him because people dont want to hear him then why is that an issue?

"" If a tv company decide not to show him because people dont want to hear him then why is that an issue? ""

The thing is when you say "" people dont want to hear him "" how many people are you talking about exactly ? a minority ? a majority ? how many exactly ? as such a thing can be hard to determine the only way to find out for sure is let the tv show allow him speak & let the tv ratings reflect on how many people wanted to hear him speak.

In late 2016 some people may recall when Katie Hopkins was invited onto the Rtes late late show there was complaints + a social media campaign to have her no platformed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rt%C3%A9-receives-1-300-complaints-over-katie-hopkins-interview-1.2864436?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Frt%25C3%25A9-receives-1-300-complaints-over-katie-hopkins-interview-1.2864436

In the end her appearance that night got higher tv ratings for the late late show then usual thus proving a good per % actually wanted to hear her speak- so when people want to hear someone speak on tv, why should a far left minority be allowed dictate to everyone else who we can & or can,t watch on tv ?

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/katie-hopkins-controversial-appearance-late-9261518

Nermal · 21-03-2018 02:50PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean grossly offensive, nay hate, speech? Free speech is not unlimited.

Offensive speech and 'hate speech' should not in itself be illegal, only speech that is intended to incite violence and has a real and immediate chance of doing so.

We have made a serious mistake in not adopting an equivalent of the first amendment, all across Europe.

FCIM · 21-03-2018 02:52PM

Maxpfizer wrote: »

You could. Easily.

Once we are talking about extremists or authoritarians then the distinction between left and right pretty much goes out the window.

I am pro-choice, pro same sex marriage, think transgender people should have their treatments covered by the HSE (and also covered if they are on private healthcare plans), in favor of immigration think that everyone should be equal under the law and I have some serious issues with capitalism (while I do acknowledge it is the best current system) and I am told that all of these make me a "Leftie". All of these things seem like common sense to me.

Yet, here I am defending some guy who taught his pug to do a Nazi salute and who said some offensive things on a video. So actually lads it turns out I am far right and always was.

Maybe nothing bad will happen because of this. Maybe the guy will get a fine and he'll vanish into obscurity and claim jobseeker's allowance for the rest of his days and that will be the end of it.

However, I think there are dangerous risks when a man can be convicted for what essentially amounts to a prank he played on his SO.

I don't understand people defending it and I don't understand people (not you) making snide passive aggressive remarks implying that if you defend this guy you must be some kind of right wing nutter.

Authoritarians are bad. Extremists are bad. Left or Right it doesn't matter.

I don't think defending this clown automatically makes you far right. Defending him AND Tommy Robinson in another thread is sinister though. That doesn't apply in your case, which is why I said I wasn't talking about you in the first place.

The Legend Of Kira · 21-03-2018 02:53PM

I looked at the video of the joke with his dog- some may find it funny & some won,t find it funny,, but I don,t think it should of been an offence .

The Legend Of Kira · 21-03-2018 02:56PM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I remember that episode of ( Father Ted ) one has to question & wonder if that episode was wrote produced & shown on tv today- would the writers of the show be called to court for " incitement " or what some call " hate crime " ?

ohnonotgmail · 21-03-2018 02:59PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I remember that episode of ( Father Ted ) one has to question & wonder if that episode was wrote produced & shown on tv today- would the writers of the show be called to court for " incitement " or what some call " hate crime " ?

No.

ceadaoin. · 21-03-2018 03:12PM

dav3 wrote: »

What's important to remember is that he was arrested, charged and convicted for using the term 'gas the jews' 23 times during a 2 minute video. He also blurts out 'jews' a couple of times for no reason. The video is almost the entirely made up of him saying 'gas the jews' over and over. At no stage does the dog give a nazi salute to the command 'gas the jews'. There are however a couple of instances where he says 'sieg heil' and the dog lifts his paw. That's it.

He stated during the trial that he likes offensive comedy. The first 3 words on his youtube channel are 'Offensive social commentary'. When you go out of your way to deliberately offend people you cannot then feign ignorance when people become offended. He clearly has the mind of a child, for that reason I don't believe he should have been tried as an adult.

No complaints were received and before all the publicity, the video had something like 7 views. No one was offended, the police went after him purely to exercise their reach. But the abuse of thousands of girls is just left to happen despite there being tons of complaints and evidence. The UK has gone to ****.

masculinist · 21-03-2018 03:29PM

The only Nazis in that court room were those who put and kept him there.

Some of our TDs want us to follow the British model and they should be called out as authoritarian fascists. Merkel and Sweden are already far worse. We must resist this type of thing. Its the downside of this multiculturalism lark that it hasnt been done properly elsewhere and Ireland tends to copy the mistakes of other countries without learning a damn thing and the sjws refuse to acknowledge how authoritarian and fascist it really is.
I grew up with John Cleese goose stepping across Fawlty Towers and Manuel the waiter using terrible english. All of that would be banned now which is a terrible shame. At no point did any of us schoolkkids see it as a green light to bully the Spanish. We had our arms around them in the European cup finals. Its just art and TV and so on. We watched the life of Brian on bootleg copies under the yoke of censors we threw off. Only religion and blasphemy type laws blur reality and fantasy. The rest of us know the difference.

FCIM · 21-03-2018 03:38PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I remember that episode of ( Father Ted ) one has to question & wonder if that episode was wrote produced & shown on tv today- would the writers of the show be called to court for " incitement " or what some call " hate crime " ?

I absolutely agree. I love politically incorrect humour and find both Alf Garnett and Bernard Manning hilarious. I just think "gas the Jews" crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. For me, it's the fact that it's making little of human deaths. It might not have been his intention, in fact, I doubt it was, but I do think certain things should be off limits.

21-03-2018 03:41PM

masculinist wrote: »

The only Nazis in that court room were those who put and kept him there.

Some of our TDs want us to follow the British model and they should be called out as authoritarian fascists. Merkel and Sweden are already far worse. We must resist this type of thing. Its the downside of this multiculturalism lark that it hasnt been done properly elsewhere and Ireland tends to copy the mistakes of other countries without learning a damn thing and the sjws refuse to acknowledge how authoritarian and fascist it really is.
I grew up with John Cleese goose stepping across Fawlty Towers and Manuel the waiter using terrible english. All of that would be banned now which is a terrible shame. At no point did any of us schoolkkids see it as a green light to bully the Spanish. We had our arms around them in the European cup finals. Its just art and TV and so on. We watched the life of Brian on bootleg copies under the yoke of censors we threw off. Only religion and blasphemy type laws blur reality and fantasy. The rest of us know the difference.

Funny enough I was watching Impractical Jokers and it does me in when they (usually Sal) puts on an accent and speaks gibberish. It's only just "OK" because a nationality isn't specified. It won't be long til something like that won't be OK.

masculinist · 21-03-2018 03:42PM

FCIM wrote: »

For me, it's the fact that it's making little of human deaths. It might not have been his intention, in fact, I doubt it was, but I do think certain things should be off limits

well ... Tony Blair introduced that ''hate crime legislation'' in the 90s. He also is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in the Middle East. A government which imprisons someone for a joke yet leaves Blair with blood on his hands and an influential profile in public life is twisted.

21-03-2018 03:43PM

FCIM wrote: »

I absolutely agree. I love politically incorrect humour and find both Alf Garnett and Bernard Manning hilarious. I just think "gas the Jews" crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. For me, it's the fact that it's making little of human deaths. It might not have been his intention, in fact, I doubt it was, but I do think certain things should be off limits.

I find your sig making light of corruption distasteful. I think some things should be off-limits.

FCIM · 21-03-2018 03:55PM

masculinist wrote: »

well ... Tony Blair introduced that ''hate crime legislation'' in the 90s. He also is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in the Middle East. A government which imprisons someone for a joke yet leaves Blair with blood on his hands and an influential profile in public life is twisted.

I'm both a Welsh Republican and an Irish Republican, I know all too well how twisted the UK government is. And I would bang Blair and Dubya up and throw away the key. Murdering scum the pair of them.

FCIM · 21-03-2018 03:56PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find your sig making light of corruption distasteful. I think some things should be off-limits.

Um... it's the line of a football song and isn't making light of corruption but pointing out that we aren't corrupt whilst others are. Do at least try to know what you're talking about.

21-03-2018 03:56PM

FCIM wrote: »

I doubt it was, but I do think certain things should be off limits.

There's the problem. Who gets to decide that? Is it ok to make Titanic jokes? 9/11 jokes? Madeline McCann jokes? Rape jokes?

You might find some (or all) of them distasteful, but where exactly do you draw this imaginary line that separates bad taste and criminal?

jimgoose · 21-03-2018 03:58PM

Someone said something upthread about the police testing their reach. I think there might be something in that, i.e. an astute government taking advantage of all this "triggered" bullhockey to have a go at convicting someone for simply saying "The Wrong Thing(TM)". It might yet come in very handy...

21-03-2018 04:01PM

FCIM wrote: »

Um... it's the line of a football song and isn't making light of corruption but pointing out that we aren't corrupt whilst others are. Do at least try to know what you're talking about.

It's using corruption involving high-ranking officials who also have links to businesses, government officials as well as of course organised crime. It's using that whole sorry episode in a way to make fun of some people who were innocent and had nothing to do with it while the fans singing it feel better about themselves.

It's easy to extend things out.

FCIM · 21-03-2018 04:01PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There's the problem. Who gets to decide that? Is it ok to make Titanic jokes? 9/11 jokes? Madeline McCann jokes? Rape jokes?

You might find some (or all) of them distasteful, but where exactly do you draw this imaginary line that separates bad taste and criminal?

So you think everything should be OK? What about that @rsehole with the Hillsborough rentokill T-shirt? I'm sure he'd say he meant it as a joke.

FCIM · 21-03-2018 04:04PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's using corruption involving high-ranking officials who also have links to businesses, government officials as well as of course organised crime. It's using that whole sorry episode in a way to make fun of some people who were innocent and had nothing to do with it while the fans singing it feel better about themselves.

It's easy to extend things out.

Lmfao! Have you been smoking something You're deliberately being silly, aren't you? What is your real understanding of the line and try not to be facetious?

And who would the "innocent" victims here be?

Man convicted of hate crime because his dog did a Nazi salute?

Comments