tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16518767.post8896935625008027552..comments2024-03-10T17:40:19.660+00:00Comments on Part Five: Some Disturbing DevelopmentsSteph/venhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04426600866018393167noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16518767.post-20373235632809250022011-04-25T11:51:55.326+01:002011-04-25T11:51:55.326+01:00Hmmm.
I can't type what I want to because I ...Hmmm. <br />I can't type what I want to because I am one-handed due to a sleeping baby in my left arm but I have enjoyed reading this discussion :) (I'm not aure a smiley face is entirely appropriate here...)Amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07763244659857877786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16518767.post-66460351075364252072011-04-14T10:20:34.422+01:002011-04-14T10:20:34.422+01:00I don't have a huge problem with us picking si...I don't have a huge problem with us picking sides. As I see it, our choices are threefold: (a) remove Gaddafi from power, either directly or by significantly helping the rebels, (b) do nothing, and allow Gaddafi to exterminate the rebels, or (c) step in just enough to prolong the conflict indefinitately, to the great suffering of the innocent people in the middle.<br /><br />We seem to have chosen (c), which I submit is the worst of all possible choices.<br /><br />As for the "sectarian statutory breach of the peace" - I fail to see any meaningful distinction between the fans singing "we hate the other team" (which is allowed) and "we hate the Pope/the Queen" (which is not). It's not the <i>singing</i> that the police are acting on, it is the <i>content</i> of the singing. Which is wrong.<br /><br />(I'm also at a loss to explain how it's "breach of the peace" when there basically isn't any peace to be had in the ground in the first place. Everyone who is there will have <i>chosen</i> to be there, the two sets of support are carefully segregated, and their actions don't directly affect anyone outside the ground.)<br /><br />I'm sure that the powers-that-be mean well when doing this. As I said, sectarianism is deplorable, and genuinely does bring shame to Scotland. But stamping out sectarianism is less important than maintaining freedom of speech.<br /><br />Consider: what happens if the powers-that-be decide that anti-cuts protests are equally offensive, and choose to categorise political demonstrations as hate speech? Or, indeed, they decide that the best way to stamp out sectarianism is to ban <i>any</i> public expression of religious belief?<br /><br />Very few people deliberately set out to impose tyranny. More commonly, freedom is lost a degree at a time. And banning any form of speech makes for a really dangerous precedent; it opens the door for banning <i>any</i> form of speech.Steph/venhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04426600866018393167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16518767.post-59293872104383300892011-04-14T09:43:30.531+01:002011-04-14T09:43:30.531+01:00It's 35 police infiltrating a crowd of 50,000....It's 35 police infiltrating a crowd of 50,000. Even leaving aside the question of the legality of it, it's crazy to think that it will have any practical effect. Unless it's a PR stunt, but I don't really think the police should be engaged in those.<br /><br />The law covering the police action is that the offence is a sectarian statutory breach of the peace. I think I can maybe see that...<br /><br />As for Libya, I take the viewpoint that it's not so much arming an unknown that's dangerous, but that by arming the rebels (giving them body armour counts) we have picked sides in the conflict. It's not our place to decide who should govern Libya or to force regime change.Captain Richttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09187861974667581158noreply@blogger.com