Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I kind of think exposing the idiocy of many of their views by taking a truly liberal attitude towards freedom of speech and association is probably the best way forward..


I'm not sure that firing people from jobs on their political opinions unless you can prove that this in actuality effected their performance feels right to me?


On a sort of realted note - Did the muslim pc who refused to guard the Israeli embassy get fired or the lady magistrate who refused to marry the gay couple? I genuinely don't know if they did but Both of those seem like political/moral stances that contradict their contract of employment and their 'duty'.

Well that's the crux quids. Being a policeman involves the assumption that all are equal in the eyes of the law.


Piersy talked about 'repatriation' as a BNP strategy (not strictly correct, as 'send them home' for the majority of UK coloured people involves them staying in the UK). What the BNP discuss is resettlement of people of ethnic origin. That means skin colour.


That entails discrimination against people based on the colour of their skin, and isn't compatible with either equality or policing.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On a sort of realted note - Did the muslim pc who

> refused to guard the Israeli embassy get fired or

> the lady magistrate who refused to marry the gay

> couple? I genuinely don't know if they did but

> Both of those seem like political/moral stances

> that contradict their contract of employment and

> their 'duty'.


I would say that in both these cases, their bias means that they are not capable of serving the public, therefore they should not be in that job. Just my opinion...

Agree with Jeremy and what quids is getting at


But would add that isn't it strange how these stories hit our conciousness, tickle our prejudices and outrage neurons and then feck off back to the ether. Quids quoting two cases and then "genuinely not knowing" the outcome is all too common - I tried looking up the cases (albeit briefly) and couldn't find a conclusion either.

The registrar won her case and was allowed to refuse to carry out same-sex marriages/single partnerships.


In the case of the PC, he had not been ordered to guard the Israeli embassy but had simply requested not to be assigned there in the future. He feared that his family in Lebanon might become the targets of violence from those opposed to the Israel's foreign policies if his posting became known. His superiors agreed to his request.

Apparently it's stipulated in the contract of employment that all police officers sign.

Whether it's right to stipulate limitations of political association in the contract is another matter, but it does make contesting dismissal rather weaker as they are in breach.

People just can't see the wood for the trees sometimes as far as the police and countering the BNP is concerned.

Utilize old videos of 'Love Thy Neighbour' as a training resource.

Ensure that all police patrol in pairs. One black, one white.

The black officer deals with the 'nig-nogs', the white one with the 'honkies'.

If they happen to live next door to each other, and the white officer's views about black people are constantly being challenged by the sight of his colleague's wife in a bikini, then so much the better.

Come on, think outside the box. Snowflake.

No Quids, you've just argued yourself into a logical cul-de-sac, that's all.


The liberal aesthetic doesn't respond well to extremist positions, preferring freedom of speech to incitement of violence.


When faced with members of our community who want to legislate against people based on their skin colour, you don't give them a platform with social authority. They can still be typists, or just general losers. Whichever. Do typists still exist?


Physics has the same problem as liberalism, with universal laws getting chucked at the window at quantum level. ;-) They don't call me a pseud for nothing.

I do think it is wrong that this list was published for the many good reasons outlined by others already, but I have to say my desire for us to be in a country where free speech is allowed is tempered by my lack of sympathy for those who are genuine members of the BNP. My general principle of tolerance for others regardless of belief is really challenged when their main belief seems to be intolerance for others!


Slightly off topic observation, but I can't help thinking sometimes that freedom is one of those things we can have too much of. Isn't part of the reason we have this banking crisis because the banks had a bit too much freedom?

What I found amusing was the BNP leader saying he is going to use the Human Rights Act to enforce his right to privacy - but he would abolish it and pull out of Europe if he got into power. He actually got a bit confused about the European Convention on Human Rights though, thinking it was somthing to do with the European Community - but as we all learn in our first year at law school - they are totally seperate and unlike decisions passed down by the ECJ, the decisions of the ECtHR are pursuasive but not binding here in the UK.


Just kind of thought a leader of a political party really aught to know that!


My twopence on the whole BNP freedon of speech thing is that yes they should be allowed to practice free speech unless incitment to some kind of crime is part of that speech, but so should everyone else. If they can get up and say obnoxious things, we should all be allowed to get up and say obnoxious things - as long as there is no incitement to commit crime. The banned muslim organisations should be unbanned and we could all tell them that their ideas are wank too.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No Quids, you've just argued yourself into a

> logical cul-de-sac, that's all.

>

> The liberal aesthetic doesn't respond well to

> extremist positions, preferring freedom of speech

> to incitement of violence.

>

> When faced with members of our community who want

> to legislate against people based on their skin

> colour, you don't give them a platform with social

> authority. They can still be typists, or just

> general losers. Whichever. Do typists still

> exist?

>

> Physics has the same problem as liberalism, with

> universal laws getting chucked at the window at

> quantum level. ;-) They don't call me a pseud for

> nothing.


I'm sure they charge handsomely for the privilege, H.

But please keep it up, I enjoy reading things that I only quarter understand. I'll always take something from them.

I have after all read Finnegan's Wake. Or should that be bought Finnegan's Wake?

Now I think of it, perhaps bought.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...