Margaret Thatcher

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I just have strong doubts over whether free speech covers the right to demand the deaths of innocents.

Of course it does. It is a political position (for example supporting Hamas... or HELL, Communists calling for the deaths of capitalist 'oppressors') and as long as you don't act on it or it doesn't immediately cause people to go out and beat up or kill others.

How large are the elements of expectation and intent tied into that stance.

If after the protests in London a journalist who wrote an article that was unfavourable to Islam was killed by a person attending the protest, would all the protesters be liable for incitement by demanding the deaths of people such as that journalist? Is it within the expectation of the protesters to expect such a reaction? Was it the intention of the protesters to invoke such a reaction?

How about if a revered community and religious leader said every hour of every day that his followers should blow themselves up and kill commuters, but no-one acted upon it, does that mean that no crime has been commited? Despite the leader having high expectation and strong intention for such actions to occur?

If you have better examples please put them in leiu of the above. I'm trying to get a feel, from your legal and personal perspective, on how reasonable expectation and criminal intent factor in.

If there were no police presence there would have been a fight

If there was no police presence there would be a whole Hell of a lot more physical fights, anywhere you'd turn.

You're removing context there. If you murder someone in front of a police officer or not, its still murder. If you steal in front of a police officer or not, its still theft. If you attempt to incite someone in front of a police officer, its not incitement, but if there is no police officer then it is incitement? You may be able to change my mind, but my gut reaction is that's not right.

I just believe a case can be made that there is incitement to cause conflict.

Yeah... I don't.

A healthy difference of opinion.

[Solly]

Originally posted by reds4ever


Bang on the money!

Not at all. Like most socialists, he fails to realise the hugely beneficial impact the incentive of profit has on the quality of service provided.

[Provost Harrison]

Profit is made by all means possible mate...you seem to forget this...

[reds4ever]

I have better water coming to my house now? She privatised a monopoly for Gods sake!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dauphin
How large are the elements of expectation and intent tied into that stance.

If after the protests in London a journalist who wrote an article that was unfavourable to Islam was killed by a person attending the protest, would all the protesters be liable for incitement by demanding the deaths of people such as that journalist? Is it within the expectation of the protesters to expect such a reaction? Was it the intention of the protesters to invoke such a reaction?

How about if a revered community and religious leader said every hour of every day that his followers should blow themselves up and kill commuters, but no-one acted upon it, does that mean that no crime has been commited? Despite the leader having high expectation and strong intention for such actions to occur?

If you have better examples please put them in leiu of the above. I'm trying to get a feel, from your legal and personal perspective, on how reasonable expectation and criminal intent factor in.

Intent is very important. After all, all crimes require a mens rea (guilty mind) and actus rea (guilty act). I think in order to have the proper mens rea, you must intend to cause the harm. If someone takes your words in a protest that were merely exaggeration of your actual intent (ie, Kill X) and acts upon them, I don't think you have the mental guilt required. Expectation ties into intent.

I believe there should be a subjective and objective test. First, did the actual person intend for the harm to occur. Secondly, would it reasonably incite the average person to an immediate breach of the peace (doing it a few days later doesn't count, in my view... incitement is like voluntary manslaughter, in that you are just in rage with no time to think on it).

The first example I think is clear that it shouldn't be incitement. The second one depends on circumstances. If he is on his radio show, I don't think an average person would be reasonably incited to violence. Now if the guy is standing right next to you and saying & preaching kill commuters, and points out a train station where you should do it, I think you have a different situation.

[Dauphin]

The UK parliament passed a law today, which on paper bans the use of placards such as those seen during the protests. It falls under the banning of 'the glorification of terrorism'. Whether people agree with such a law or not (and whether it will be enforced or even be enforcable) is debatable, but it shows that in the UK at least the freedom of speech on this issue is not seen as a right. In terms of what we are discussing, it effectively removes the need for an expected or actual consequence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it shows that in the UK at least the freedom of speech on this issue is not seen as a right.

That's ok. It shows me that in the UK freedom of speech at all isn't seen as a right .

[Krill]

I'm finishing my edumacation, and getting the **** out of this country.

nye, what is Canada like this time of the year?

[notyoueither]

Cold at the moment, and some of those signs would have been illegal here most likely.

[Krill]

Hopefully they would be. The law that as just apssed is damned weak, because of the wording...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Not at all. Like most socialists, he fails to realise the hugely beneficial impact the incentive of profit has on the quality of service provided.

Notice you conveniently sidestepped my main argument about North Sea Oil PA, getting chicken**** in your old age?

I noticed our balance of payments just took a spike in the wrong direction just recently. Reason: we just became a net importer of oil again, since - you guessed it, 1979!

As for the privatisations: Yeah, real clever - let's privatise a bunch of monopolies (British Rail, British Gas, British Telecom, the Water Utilities)...

What ****ing planet are you on!? British Rail? Quality of service!!?

You pay about twice as much as the equivalent plane fare FFS! And the quality? Late, ****, dozens and dozens of dead passengers since privatisation! Why, because the owners are intent on wringing every ounce of profit out of their 'transport' system at the expense of safety, service (loads of stations closed down etc), etc. Our rail system is a shambolic mess that will probably never recover from the effects of the b1tch's raiding of public assets!

The same is true if not worse with the water utilities - we're probably on course for a severe drought this summer and where does all our water go that we pay through the nose for, through the huge leaks in the system that the water companies can't be arsed paying to fix cos it'll eat into their precious profits lining the fat-cat salaries of the bosses!

At least gas, electricity and telecoms have been deregulated - but for years before that we had to pay huge bills inflating well above the rate of inflation year on year!

Worst of all is the criminally low prices we got for each of these privatisations - everything was undersold, there was a blatant theft of public assets sold at bargain prices to those that could afford to buy them (i.e. the rich!).

You don't have a bloody clue do you!?

And I'm not a socialist, you tw@t - but I'd rather be one of those that one of the greedy moneygrabbing gobsh*tes that you appear to have turned into...

[Solly]

Left-wing economics died in the 1980s. Catch up.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


Left-wing economics died in the 1980s. Catch up.

Park Avenue cowardly waves the white flag of submission cos he hasn't got an answer for any of my points!

And it's not 'left-wing politics' to point to North Sea Oil being the real reason for the b1tch's so-called successful economic policies - talk about clutching at straws!

Or for that matter the reasons why I was against the way the privatisations were carried out.

PWNED!

[Solly]

Originally posted by MOBIUS




Park Avenue cowardly waves the white flag of submission cos he hasn't got an answer for any of my points!

No, I just can't be arsed spending my lunch break arguing!

[MOBIUS]

You were happy posting away a couple of days back - I guess the difference is that was before you were on the receiving end of a comprehensive dismantling and general all-round ass-raping of your pitiful attempts to sound like you know anything about the subject at hand...

Otherwise known as:

PWNED!