No Voters - what say you?

[RussellAnderson]

Freedom of speech means tolerance to permit views you can't abide. We are completely intolerant of intolerance but the definition of what is "intolerant" is subjective.

Yesterday's blasphemy has become privatised blasphemy where to question any sort of "truth" as defined by an identity group sees people demonised or criminalised- we've already seen on here how people who disagree with abortion, same sex marriage etc are classed as extremists.

What is an tolerable "ism" today may be intolerable tomorrow- do you still oppose freedom of speech if the majority decide that socialism or nationalism are backward looking and need to be outlawed?

When that speech is being made by politicians who are likely to act on their discrimination it causes a problem.
Likewise when someone in the public eye uses their platform to say discriminatory things. That incites action in the general public which can be dangerous.

[Crùbag]

10 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

I must hasten to add, that unlike Chlamydia I do not think Scotland is unique in its punitive measures against free speech.

Indeed much of it has emigrated from down South and the racially aggravated addition to laws passed as a result of incompetencies in London in the 90's. This specificallly led to the Macpherson report, which has shaped hate crime reporting in the uk for the last 2 decades.

What is this repression of 'free speech'?

Is it the Goon Brigade and Sevconians singing their songs of hate? That's a different issue. If the Green Brigade, for example, want to hold a demo in favour of Palestine (cool by me btw) or for a united Ireland (ditto) then they can. They can produce and disseminate literature and stand for election. Ditto, the Rangers loyal. Some of what they say - anti-Popery for example -  can be heard in almost any Wee Free pulpit on any given Sunday. If they wish to protect the Union of Scotland and England then they can do. Doing it in the heated atmosphere of a football match is not the place for it though. And, why do they need a large crowd for it?

There is a difference between free-speech and inflammatory behaviour in certain contexts.

Ironically, I wonder where Theresa May's snoopers charter fits into all this? Cause for a yes-vote perhaps in Indyref2?

Edited March 16, 2017 by Crùbag

[Paco]

3 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

Ironically, I wonder where Theresa May's snoopers charter fits into all this? Cause for a yes-vote perhaps in Indyref2?

I don't really disagree with your post, but that's not a good example. The SNP were so opposed to that draconian and unprecedented infringement of civil liberties they abstained. 

[git-intae-thum]

14 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

What is this repression of 'free speech'?

Is it the Goon Brigade and Sevconians singing their songs of hate? That's a different issue. If the Green Brigade, for example, want to hold a demo in favour of Palestine (cool by me btw) or for a united Ireland (ditto) then they can. They can produce and disseminate literature and stand for election. Ditto, the Rangers loyal. Some of what they say - anti-Popery for example -  can be heard in almost any Wee Free pulpit on any given Sunday. If they wish to protect the Union of Scotland and England then they can do. Doing it in the heated atmosphere of a football match is not the place for it though. And, why do they need a large crowd for it?

There is a difference between free-speech and inflammatory behaviour in certain contexts.

Ironically, I wonder where Theresa May's snoopers charter fits into all this? Cause for a yes-vote perhaps in Indyref2?

As I said, I don't think Scotland is alone or a leader in this dangerous creep erosion of free speech. It is very much a problem in all Western democracies.

As I stated in my orginal post, a lot of the issues in Scotland come from our wholesale adoption of the principles of the McPherson report. This was first implmented by the UK govt. The issue with McPherson is that it enshrined the principle that where there may have been no intent to offend, but where any person was offended, that could constitute a crime. 

As it stands, the law almost invites certain groups to take offence. 

I can't claim any indepth knowledge of the anti sectarian bill, but I think Gerry Hassan made some decent points in this post, where he talks about "illiberal liberalism" being a growing trend.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/gerry-hassan/war-on-free-speech-and-free-thinking-in-scotland-and-uk

 

[NotThePars]

My social conscience doesn't end at Gretna.

It does end at Dover though and within the borders if the faces aren't white.

[RussellAnderson]

It's up to us to counter their opinions and show that if whatever they say is wrong, why it is wrong. Not just ban them from saying it. Good ideas evolve from challenge and being tested at every step of the way.

I'll drop it for now as the threads been derailed a little. This is another fundamental difference in our views that I don't think will be reconciled here. Fair play for arguing your corner.

[NotThePars]

Within the borders if they aren't white? What is your evidence for this nonsensical claim?

All you do is moan about immigration, people challenging the right of fascists to say whatever they wish with an audience and sympathise with the far right. You were asked before about what left wing beliefs you had and it sounded like the BNP's economic policy which had a deliberate intent to exclude immigrants, migrants and refugees. Just all round suspect.

[Gaz FFC]

Would the really really bitter no voters move if we were to vote independent?

I've seen some right Union Jack lovers giving it the big 1 about despising Sturgeon and the SNP for daring to suggest we break up their glorious union.

Hard to believe they would stay here but they are in the main gas bags who have very little substance to their rants.

Anyone believe we would see a decent size population shift in the event of going solo?

[Fide]

20 minutes ago, Gaz FFC said:

Would the really really bitter no voters move if we were to vote independent?

I've seen some right Union Jack lovers giving it the big 1 about despising Sturgeon and the SNP for daring to suggest we break up their glorious union.

Hard to believe they would stay here but they are in the main gas bags who have very little substance to their rants.

Anyone believe we would see a decent size population shift in the event of going solo?

We can but hope.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, Fide said:

We can but hope.

And yet, the only two people in this thread to say they would leave if the result doesn't go their way were Yes voters.

[gavin_3110]

1 hour ago, Fide said:

We can but hope.

You've done more to help the "no" cause than most pro-union campaigners.

[Ross.]

2 hours ago, Gaz FFC said:

Would the really really bitter no voters move if we were to vote independent?

I've seen some right Union Jack lovers giving it the big 1 about despising Sturgeon and the SNP for daring to suggest we break up their glorious union.

Hard to believe they would stay here but they are in the main gas bags who have very little substance to their rants.

Anyone believe we would see a decent size population shift in the event of going solo?

It would be just as interesting to see how many rUK based EU citizens moved north.

[DrewDon]

By far the worst thing about the last referendum campaign was the amount of insufferably middle-class 'No' voters trotting out the 'If we vote Yes, I'm moving to England/Spain/France/Italy/America (delete as appropriate)' line. 

It should go without saying that this very obviously doesn't even come close to applying to every 'No' voter (I was one in 2014), but it really was horrendous patter.

[Fide]

2 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

And yet, the only two people in this thread to say they would leave if the result doesn't go their way were Yes voters.

That's more than convincing then, eh?

[badgerbhoy]

1 hour ago, DrewDon said:

By far the worst thing about the last referendum campaign was the amount of insufferably middle-class 'No' voters trotting out the 'If we vote Yes, I'm moving to England/Spain/France/Italy/America (delete as appropriate)' line. 

It should go without saying that this very obviously doesn't even come close to applying to every 'No' voter (I was one in 2014), but it really was horrendous patter.

Thats going to be difficult with a hard brexit

[Granny Danger]

Maybe I am biased but I can understand the logic of wanting to move from a country if you think that you are being denied the opportunity to govern yourself.  I don't see the logic of wanting to move from a country because the people in that country have won the right to govern themselves.

[Skyline Drifter]

15 minutes ago, Fide said:

That's more than convincing then, eh?

Civil conversation is something beyond you isn't it? Not content with corrupting quotes to try to imply I said something I didn't earlier in the thread and adopting VT patter you're posting one eye emoticons needlessly now.

I'm not sure what you think that achieves but it's not helping you.

[Fide]

2 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Civil conversation is something beyond you isn't it? Not content with corrupting quotes to try to imply I said something I didn't earlier in the thread and adopting VT patter you're posting one eye emoticons needlessly now.

I'm not sure what you think that achieves but it's not helping you.

Bit touchy, aren't you?

[Miguel Sanchez]

17 minutes ago, Fide said:

Bit touchy, aren't you?

Just so you know, you trotting out this pish, you flouncing off the forum after no won the last time, it isn't impressive. It isn't honourable, it isn't noble, it's tragic. You make yourself look pathetic and in the case of this thread you damage the cause you so childishly purport to think the only reasonable course of action. Wind your neck in and your fucking age, you clown.

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: people leaving the country -