«12. . .3,5553,5563,5573,5583,5593,5603,561. . .3,6073,608»
The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it. Its ultimate purpose at home is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain - free, democratic, efficient, progressive, public-spirited, its material resources organised in the service of the British people.
But Socialism cannot come overnight, as the product of a week-end revolution. The members of the Labour Party, like the British people, are practical-minded men and women.
So how come then hard left Sweden and Denmark have yet to achieve socialism? Certainly many of their policies are center or left of modern day Labour. France especially, has elected socialist Hollande but the workers are only in so much control of the public institutions that exist.
I was quoting the 1945 Labour Party manifesto. lol
still waiting for that socialism, labour
I think that whole goal ended with Tony Blair
Deputy Sheriff said to me
Tell me what you come here for, boy.
You better get your bags and flee.
You're in trouble boy,
And you're heading into more.
It's the same old story,
Everywhere I go,
I get slandered, libeled,
I hear words I never heard in the Bible
And I'm one step ahead of the shoe shine
Two steps away from the county line
Just trying to keep my customers satisfied,
Satisfied
Clause Four of the Labour Party Constitution used to commit them to full socialism - but it was changed (yes in the Blair years - but the move to change it started in the late 1950s under Hugh G.).
All the major political parties in Britain are wild spenders - including the Conservatives. And none are in favour of Freedom of Speech - they all support banning various forms of "hate speech", as the left do in the United States.
At least the modern left are open about opposing Civil Liberties - at least most of the modern left, with their attacks on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association (which must logically include the freedom NOT to associate).
Yes, because that's why the Tories are pursuing an austerity program that will reduce public spending below 35% of GDP, which will be the lowest ever since the first world war...
And what about human dignity and the idea of social harm? There's a difference between freedom of expression and purposely inciting hatred and violence.
Only if you believe there is.
The only reason rights must be protected is because they have the potential to do harm. If there was no such potential, there would be little reason to protect them, as no one would have reason to attempt to suppress said rights.
The things which are considered "harmful speech" change with the times anyway. Attempting to control language and the flow of information is a disgusting endeavor, and is generally a red-flag for a state, too.
Plus there's argument to be made that if such ignorant speech is inciting violence, perhaps the violence was there lurking to begin with. . .
Hello
While by nature I despise anyone who insults any of the Prophets of Islam, what I like the least is the fact that they have the right to do such acts, while I do not have the right to scream 'Jihaad' or proclaim support to terrorist organizations. Technically I'm not hurting anyone by doing these things, but police arrest these people based on 'preemption', which is completely non-compliant to freedom of speech.
That's not nature. That's indoctrination.
We cannot let incitement to hatred and violence undermine the principle of a socially inclusive, diverse, and multicultural society, where everyone (especially vulnerable minority groups) should feel safe from public hatred and violence. No one should feel excluded from society because of their sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, national origin, or disability, as this can lead to social and psychological harm, and possibly physical harm.
Whatever you call it, my point still stands.
If we are truly inclusive and diverse, then do we not need to recognize and include those who hate others as well? By excluding them, are we not leading "to social and psychological harm, and possibly physical harm."?
In other words, can we hate haters without being haters ourselves?
You can't help what your ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or gender identity is and most people would agree that everyone is equal regardless of those characteristics. Nothing forces someone to scream "DEATH TO THE GAYS!!!" in public.
However, there is a difference between expressing an unfavorable opinion and publicly inciting hatred or violence. People should have freedom of opinion and belief - but when those beliefs are used to publicly incite hatred or violence against a protected class is when it becomes an issue.
(I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't tolerate intolerance, but that's for another post...)
Feels are subjective. I feel excluded from some parts of the society I'm in for my religious beliefs. I'm not crying. And one man's social "harm" is another man's social good. I also don't see how exclusion necessarily translates to actual physical aggression.
I don't see any reason people should be forced by government edict to associate with and accommodate people they don't want to associate with. Maybe my empathy gland is two sizes too small.
Well, politics and democracy are subjective.
No one is forcing anyone to "associate with and accommodate people" - it's just saying that it should be a crime to publicly incite hatred or violence, which are socially and psychologically harmful.
Violence, yes, if the threat is credible.
Hatred, no it should not be a crime to hate and encourage others to hate.
Why is physical harm more important than social or psychological harm?
The line between violence and hatred is thin. I could say 'I want to kill all Jews', but that could constitute either hatred, in that I don't plan to act on it but want it to happen, or it could be a credible threat.
Well, protecting people from psychological "harm," other than stopping blatant abuses like harassment, opens the door for all sorts of infringements on freedom of expression. Could provocative artwork or political tracts cause psychological harm to particularly sensitive individuals? Not to mention, it's a lot harder to prove psychological harm than it is physical harm.
And honestly, my own personal morals don't rank psychological harm on the same "level" in awfulness as physical harm.
Social harm is, like I said, pretty subjective. What I think supposedly hurts society, you may think helps society. I don't see how that may be measured.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/02/bakery-same-sex-oregon-fined-wedding-cake/22771685/
Because physical harm is measurable and absolute, social/psychological harm is perceptual and relative. It is not a matter of importance but of provability, I can go into court and show my broken arm, but I have only my own opinion on my hurt feelings.
What constitutes publicly inciting hatred or violence against a protected class becomes the issue, and violates what I feel is one of the most important features of a legitimate law - one should be able to know if one's actions are in violation.
For example, if I state that Black males are more likely to commit violent crimes than white males at a statisticians convention, the only result will likely be a questions or two on my research methods. I make the same statement at an Aryan Nations meeting and I may get a different response, while at a Freddy Gray rally I may get killed. Is that statement protected speech or not?
«12. . .3,5553,5563,5573,5583,5593,5603,561. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
