Christian Hoteliers charged

[dustinzgirl]

Um...you guys are kind of arguing the same point with different phrase usage.

Calm down. Sometimes it helps to rub your ears and hum.

[TheEndIsNigh]

Sparrow: et al :-

Now don't get me wrong here. Hitler fan I am not - nasty piece of work, stringing up would have been too good for him and the rest

Yes I once saw one of Hitlers most agitated speeches on a history program (Open University I think). I'd seen it before shown as an example of how he could rant and rave. Not speaking German (like most of us in the UK) I assumed it was the same old same old; death to everyone, the third Reich will live forever. We must crush the rest of the world type speech. You had the obligatory Zeeke's and the like thrown in. All classic German propaganda type film.


This program however, gave a translation. Turns out he was telling the assembled faithful that something needed to be done about the price of bread and potatoes (or something of the kind). In other words it was a standard political speech to gain support from the faithful - much like a labour/liberal/conservative conference today. (OK perhaps a little more passionate but you get my drift.

Yet this film, and others like it, has been used many times by those that know it's real content (I would hope) to show him as a bigoted evil bas*ard. (which of course he was)

It's just annoying that they use relatively mild speeches to put their case.

Did AH make any public films of his true self where he said 'I have a solution this is what we will do' - I doubt it but am prepared to be wrong.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

Calm down. Sometimes it helps to rub your ears and hum.

...but there's no need to do the last part if you know you arguments won't wash....

[j. d. worthington]

First, let's keep it civil. Debating a person's arguments is fine. Personal attacks will get the thread closed, muy pronto. This is the only warning.

TEiN: Hitler wasn't the one who came up with the Final Solution, if that is what you are referring to. That appears to have been the creation of Heinrich Himmler and/or Reinhard Heydrich :

IB Holocaust Project: Reinhard Heydrich

Yes, Hitler was a very nasty piece of work; the problem was that the lower classes saw in him a patriot and war veteran who represented a solution to so many of the problems plaguing the country, while the upper classes viewed him largely as a clown. Much of the rest of the world took a view which was a mixture of these two. We'd have all been much better off had he practiced the genuine (though somewhat limited) talent he had for art as an illustrator, rather than ever going near politics.

But, again, it is the suppression of freedom of speech which allows such things to spread so quickly; not the opposite. This, after all, is the very basis of gaining any other sort of liberty we may have; without that basic freedom, all the others quickly become moot.

[Sparrow]

J.D., the point I've been making is that we place way too much emphasis on the liars and the depraved politicians, and not nearly enough responsibility on those who believe the lies and act on morally corrupt marching orders.

Let's step back from Nazi era Germany and examine events a little closer to home; just what happen during the run up to invading Iraq. Outrageous lies were told by both our governments, in America some 3/4 of the population believed those lies. We invaded a country bases on faulty intelligence and patriotic bombast, and moreover, on elected leaders giving us what they knew to be unsubstantiated and incomplete information. So when we think, "it could never happen here", well, yes it can.

So when some call for a curbing of our essential freedoms, that too much freedom is dangerous-- I can only wonder at the consequences.

[Lobolover]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

First, let's keep it civil. Debating a person's arguments is fine. Personal attacks will get the thread closed, muy pronto. This is the only warning.

TEiN: Hitler wasn't the one who came up with the Final Solution, if that is what you are referring to. That appears to have been the creation of Heinrich Himmler and/or Reinhard Heydrich :

IB Holocaust Project: Reinhard Heydrich

Yes, Hitler was a very nasty piece of work; the problem was that the lower classes saw in him a patriot and war veteran who represented a solution to so many of the problems plaguing the country, while the upper classes viewed him largely as a clown. Much of the rest of the world took a view which was a mixture of these two. We'd have all been much better off had he practiced the genuine (though somewhat limited) talent he had for art as an illustrator, rather than ever going near politics.

But, again, it is the suppression of freedom of speech which allows such things to spread so quickly; not the opposite. This, after all, is the very basis of gaining any other sort of liberty we may have; without that basic freedom, all the others quickly become moot.

I have a theory which relates to this : amaeturish as it may be, I do believe that, had the germans not abolisdhed their national and local monarchies after WW1, Hitler could come to power either a bit harder or not at all, I doubt emperor Wilhelm would let any man with a moustache crazier then himself take his place . And with the Bavarian royal house, I doubt that Hitler could prove much about "noble aryan blood" compared with genuine roalty .


Which reminds me- Poor King Ludwig .

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

J.D., the point I've been making is that we place way too much emphasis on the liars and the depraved politicians, and not nearly enough responsibility on those who believe the lies and act on morally corrupt marching orders.

Let's step back from Nazi era Germany and examine events a little closer to home; just what happen during the run up to invading Iraq. Outrageous lies were told by both our governments, in America some 3/4 of the population believed those lies. We invaded a country bases on faulty intelligence and patriotic bombast, and moreover, on elected leaders giving us what they knew to be unsubstantiated and incomplete information. So when we think, "it could never happen here", well, yes it can.

So when some call for a curbing of our essential freedoms, that too much freedom is dangerous-- I can only wonder at the consequences.

Sparrow: I've no problem with the general gist of your points -- I tend to agree with them, in fact. It is the manner in which they are delivered, which tends to descend to personalities rather than debating the person's point of view or the points they raise. The latter is fine; it is the former that causes the problem. And the same can be said of that portion of Drachir's response couched in the same tone, even if it was in response to similar passages in your own.

As I said, let's keep it civil. I'd hate for the thread to be shut down, when it is a great opportunity to have a vigorous debate on an extremely important issue. If we avoid personalities, that doesn't have to happen.

As for the point you made in the post above: Well, I think that goes to what I've been arguing since I got on the site (actually, all my life, but you get the idea): the extreme need for people to be taught (and to use!) critical thinking in evaluating what they see, hear, and read. This has always been of great importance, of course; but, as we continue to develop more and more complex societies and more and more powerful weaponry (and I'm not only referring to the physical realm here), it has become absolutely vital if we are to maintain any sort of reasonable survival, let alone retaining any level of personal liberty. With such training and the exercise of such an ability, a person (or a nation) may still make grievous mistakes or wrong choices, but without them, the risk of such rises astronomically, becoming a virtual certainty.

And yet again -- such simply cannot work without open and genuine freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas, as only through learning how to sort the wheat from the chaff can such critical thinking be acquired.

[Peter Graham]

And yet again -- such simply cannot work without open and genuine freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas, as only through learning how to sort the wheat from the chaff can such critical thinking be acquired.

This is fine as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. If we are to allow totally untrammelled freedom of expression, we must allow it for all. It is one thing for intelligent, rational people to discuss ideas and proposals with no fear of interference or hindrance form the State. No-one could complain about that. But unfortunately, not everyone who wishes to avail themselves of free speech has such an enlightened view of social discourse. Lots of rather unpleasant and bigoted people are only too keen to express their ill-thought out, prejudiced and hate-filled views.

Am I saying that freedom of expression should therefore be limited only to the liberal, the intelligent and the courteous? Of course not. But what I cannot see a problem with is the use of "hate laws" (a dreadful expression) to curb those who go beyond the Pale and who seek to use freedom of expression as a means of vilifying or insulting others or as a means of whipping up hatred (and perhaps more direct forms of action) against certain sectors of society.

If free speech is a right, then like every other right, it comes with responsibilities. Those who fail to discharge or respect those responsibilities have to face the consequences. Whether the pendulum has swung too far is, to my mind, a completely different question to the question of whether freedom of speech can, or should be, curtailed at all.

Regards,

Peter

PS: An interesting example of my argument can be seen in this very thread. We have been warned that perosnal attacks on other posters - which is surely no more than freedom of expresion - will result in the thread being closed. This is surely a tacit acceptance of the limits of freedom of expression, at least as it manifests itself on this thread. If it is sauce for the goose, surely it is also sauce for the gander.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

beyond the Pale

*shakes head*


And I'm only thinking of the historical context with its inplication that some of our close neighbours (including some of my ancestors) - were less likely to be civilised than the English (including some of my other ancestors); but if someone wants to be offended for another reason....

[Moonbat]

If free speech is a right, then like every other right, it comes with responsibilities.

But Human rights don't have equal human responsibilities. People who rape and murder are still entitled to food, warmth, free playstations and the like.

[Winters_Sorrow]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

But Human rights don't have equal human responsibilities. People who rape and murder are still entitled to food, warmth, free playstations and the like.

Presume that's a reference to the penal system?
Yes it gets people's danders up as 'unfair' and is somehow seen as rewarding evil behaviour. What is important and has to be remembered is that these people are locked up and deprived their liberty as a result of their actions (with "open prisons" - a wonderful oxymoron - I don't know enough about to defend or accuse) and for the most serious crimes this can be literally life behind bars or at the very least a large chunk of it. Now I don't know about you but the idea of long-term forced captivity with some of the most evil people in the world does not strike me as fun in any shape or form no matter how many free playstations they throw at me.

There is a seperate argument to be made on sentencing and parole and whether we agree with the idea that rapists and murderers can be "reformed" or even if they should be allowed to; is one that doesn't really belong on this thread.

Indeed we seem to have moved very far away from the original topic, which was about whether we think that a paying guest in a public establishment has the right to sue the owners for (presumably) forcefully disagreeing with their religious beliefs and (again presumably) causing mental distress and discomfort. I don't know enough about the case (what exactly was said?) to know whether the police were right to continue to press charges but as someone said earlier, at the very least it's a dumb business decision to insult the people who give you money in return for services (ask Gerald Ratner) and leave yourself open to this sort of action.

In terms of freedom of speech, as people have pointed out numerous times, I think that a person's freedom of speech shouldn't include the right to voice aboherent and questionable statements deliberately designed to offend and inflame people which is why I personally support the idea of a legal situation where this can be challenged and the person brought to book. In individual cases this can be done overzealously but isn't that the point of judges and courts? As the arbiters of the law they should throw out cases which have no merit and if they fail in this task it's a miscarriage of justice and they should be disciplined as having failed in their duty.

And Peter, good point!

p.s. and as for pointing out that this is only "news" or happens when it's a muslim bringing the case, I'd love to see some figures on that. I agree with it being news as some papers love to perpetuate the belief that our country and it's moral values are "under attack!" from alien influences and cultures. They stay quiet on the McDonalds/Starbucks proliferation I notice though.

And if there is more muslim cases after all, I think the negative portrayal of them all as potential terrorists and women abusers probably helps them feel victimised and 'under attack' themselves and more sensitive to challenge people when they feel they are being singled out for abuse. Similar to how the rise of anti-semitic attacks in the past few years in this country has resulted in a more aggressive pursuit of legal challenges in that arena as well.

[Peter Graham]

And I'm only thinking of the historical context with its inplication that some of our close neighbours (including some of my ancestors) - were less likely to be civilised than the English (including some of my other ancestors); but if someone wants to be offended for another reason....

If you are referring specifically to the Dublin Pale, you may be absolutely right. But, in my defence, "the Pale" as a phrase had general usage and could be (and was) applied to other urban hinterlands. And also in my defence, the notion that those of us who live in the countryside are somehow less sophisticated or refined than those poor blighters who have to live in cities can still be seen today. Notably in the Sunday broadsheets, all of which seem to assume that their entire readership is made up of TV producers and artists living in Hampstead.

Regards,

Peter

PS: Incidentally, Mrs Graham told me yesterday that the term "Cockney" is a rare example of a perjorative term which country people had for townies (examples the other way being too numerous to list). It referred to the fact that most townies could be convinced that cockerels laid eggs.

[Peter Graham]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

But Human rights don't have equal human responsibilities. People who rape and murder are still entitled to food, warmth, free playstations and the like.

I don't understand. Are you saying that this means that free spech should be untrammelled because criminals get their dinner each night, or are you saying that if we are to limit free speech, murderers and rapists should be killed, or at least locked up in something resembling the Black Hole of Calcutta?

Is it not the loss of liberty which is the consequence of ignoring one's responsibilities as regards the rights of others? I don't see how that is inconsistent with my argument.

Regards,

Peter

[Ursa major]

Peter, I was merely pointing out (in my usual incomprehensible way) that:

• those seeking to be offended have an easy time of it, given that a lot of phrases "in general usage" have questionable origins and/or connotations;
• if the burden of not offending others is codified, we might as well all stop communicating before we all get criminal records.

I'm not saying that this is happening (or that it would look anything but ridiculous in almost all instances), but there is no point on the line between total freedom and complete censorship that can be defended on purely logical grounds. That means we have a cultural choice to make: allow the "easily offended" to bend (or even determine**) the rules or to reserve this right to our collective selves and suggest that someone who is "easily offended" remember that he or she (as an individual) is not the centre of the universe around which the rest of us must orbit.


** - Which is the effect of any law that says the offended, an individual person, is allowed to determine that there has been a (legally transgressive) offence. I'm not keen on kerbside justice by, for example, the police; I don't see why I should accept being judged by anyone who just happens to hear what I say. (Not that, I hope, I could be accused of being offensive when speaking aloud in public. *fingers crossed*)

[Moonbat]

Winters Sorrow - It was not a reference to the penal system, just an arguement against the assumption that free speech comes with responsibilities.

Peter, I was merely saying that to assume that the 'right' to free speech came with responsibilities is not accurate. As rights do not come responsibilities. As has been shown by the 'rights' of those that offend put ahead of those that are offended.

Maybe I'm talking rubbish, but I have a right to