Mike Tequeli Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 LINK Yeah well the topic describes it all, a 15 year old UK teen was at a Scientology protest when the police instructed him to remove a sign that called Scientology a cult. He refused citing freedom of speech and now risks being prosecuted by London Police. Just another step towards totalitarianism in Britain, I'm not being dramatic, this is one of many restrictions placed on UK citizens that you wouldn't see in America (I do commend the American respect of the First Amendment) that I am quite concerned about. I really like the UK but honestly prosecuting someone for using the wrong word is going too far and it'll only get worse. So what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Tony Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I've just been searching around and I found an article which confirms the boy will not get charged. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7416425.stm Free speech FTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ass reamer Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I clicked on that link and it now says the boy won't be charged. Thank god. Isn't there a right to assemble in Britain? How could a protest possibly be in violence of a public ordinance? edit: Mad Tony beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lloydo Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Under the UK consititution wouldnt 'Scientology' be labled not a 'cult', but a religious philosophy, therefore, the 15 year old boy was going against the constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhus Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 People have the right to express their hatred of religion/cults/sects however they damn well please. It's our right. The police should be attending more important matters. Such as finding some way to lower the gun and knife crime problems we're experiencing. That's why we pay our taxes right? You and I work hard, pay our bills and expect the cops to do their jobs. In truth it is not the actual policemen. It's more of a system failure. Protecting the public from hurt feeings. Get real and grow up. By al means go nuts on petty crime, that's where the problem lies. But don't treat people like common crooks for expressing how they feel. They're within their rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tequeli Posted May 23, 2008 Author Share Posted May 23, 2008 Under the UK consititution wouldnt 'Scientology' be labled not a 'cult', but a religious philosophy, therefore, the 15 year old boy was going against the constitution? I'm assuming the UK constitution has something in it regarding the ability to say whatever the hell you want to say. I'm glad he didn't get charged but he never should have been picked up in the first place. I couldn't agree with Typhus more, policing isn't about protecting people from hurt feelings but from real problems like crime. All these notions that minorities or religious groups are too weak to live in a free society and must have things altered to fit them is madness, which is why I'd be pissed if somebody got charged for calling Islam a cult, because hate speech laws are bullsh*t. But this is Scientology, who are we going to offend, the incredibly narrow band of people who really are in a cult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reimer. Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 This is the kind of thing that really pisses me off about the world today. I'm watching the foundation of the United States crumble before my eyes and I feel like there isn't much I can do about it. People are trading in their civil rights for a "safer environment", and the politicians know that everyone wants to be safe, so they use it, and the people simply play into their hands. I suppose this really isn't directly related to freedom of speech but I don't see why we shouldn't discuss the entire spectrum of our rights Hell, anyone who plays Grand Theft Auto can relate. Our federal government which is supposed to have a minimal amount of power devotes our tax money to entire commissions that control just what we can see on broadcast television. Well, hey, thanks for relieving me of my responsibility to pay attention to what my kids are doing in exchange for taking away my right to send a message that might offend someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stretch. Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 The right to assemble, covers religion, as scientology is classed as a religion, at one of their rallies they are entitled to be treated fairly So in essence he was breaking the law... I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reimer. Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Telling someone you think their religion is a cult isn't unfair treatment. It's telling them what you think, and that's what freedom of speech is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stretch. Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 It's a human right to be able to live a religion without prejudice. Calling it a cult is generally classed as prejudice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhus Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 It's a human right to be able to live a religion without prejudice. Calling it a cult is generally classed as prejudice. We live in a world of science and logic. To believe in God is to step beyond all that and live on faith and hope and prayer. You must expect some level of ridicule. it's only natural. Hatred is as much a part of the soul as compassion or love. It's just something we have to deal with. And most people can laugh it off or let it roll off their back. Because freedom is a give-and-take kind of thing. It's not a one way street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reimer. Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 (edited) It's a human right to be able to live a religion without prejudice. Calling it a cult is generally classed as prejudice. It's a human right to practice relgiion without persecution. From that article, I basically gathered that people in Europe have laws that protect people from things that might make them sad for piss them off... This I disagree with wholeheartedly and I'm thankful that I live in a country where it isn't (yet) considered illegal to call someone a "god damn dirty scientologist f*ck." I'm only using that as an example, and it in no way reflects my views on Scientology (which probably aren't much different, to be honest). Buck up and stop being a wuss... They have a RIGHT to their opinion, and a RIGHT to express it without any sort of retaliation from the powers that be. Edited May 23, 2008 by Reimer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawg1990 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 what happened to freedom of speech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin2006rhs Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 what happened to freedom of speech It's still there. Didnt you read? The kid isn't being charged with a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stretch. Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I'm not saying what he said is wrong, merely in the eyes of the law illegal. saying that about christians in a bible bashing area would get you shot in america. It's all well and good in every day conversation, but why bother going to a rally just to say that? There are different ways to make your voices heard. Think of it this way, you're all going, well freedom of speech. the KKK utilises their freedom of speech but most people do agree they're in the wrong. In the eyes of the law he was in the wrong and that's the bottom line. Had there not been a scientology rally there he'dve been in the clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingyThePothead Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 totalitarianism i vote this word of the day what goods fredom of speech if you cant even say the bloody words MWAHAHAHAHAHA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reimer. Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I'm not saying what he said is wrong, merely in the eyes of the law illegal. saying that about christians in a bible bashing area would get you shot in america. It's all well and good in every day conversation, but why bother going to a rally just to say that? There are different ways to make your voices heard. Think of it this way, you're all going, well freedom of speech. the KKK utilises their freedom of speech but most people do agree they're in the wrong. In the eyes of the law he was in the wrong and that's the bottom line. Had there not been a scientology rally there he'dve been in the clear. The law isn't always right, and that's what I'm getting at. New laws are getting passed that blatantly ignore the constitutions they're based on. I believe the KKK has every right to do whatever they want to do. The government should only step in if they are causing actual harm to the people they're speaking out against. It's tough but you have to let people say what they want to say, when they want to say it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icarus Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 I'm wondering if the reason he may have been charged (I know he's not being charged now) has something to do with what is written in your Charter of Rights (or whatever the hell it's called in the United Kingdom). Here in Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives you the power of free speech, but it has to stand up to the Reasonable Limits clause under Section 1 (i.e. in the US, if you burn a flag, it's legal because of the First Amendment; in Canada, it violates Reasonable Limits, so you can be charged). Since Canada adopts much of its legal system from the British idea, I'm guessing maybe the UK has something similar to the Reasonable Limits clause we have here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyGrenadeFrenzy Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Scientology is famous for lawsuits though, to sue others and gaining control over others in multitudes of ways is directly part of the belief system. A religion you are forced to buy your way up in.........interesting is all I have to say about it. I have studied it yet I find it not suited for myself in certain ways.......I guess I must just be too invalid of a human being for them. Money makes the world go round yet is just a symbol for so many of the things people get from any form of covenant they make according to Anthropology joing a religion is another form of marriage and marriage is primarily for three reasons. The three Ps Power Property Prestige Seems like Scientology demonstrates this very thing. My own marriage to religion is not abouy that,t then again, that goes into the world of Paradigms, Faith, Ditiction vs Abstraction and much else. I would like to see the teen win.....but if there is a way to "pay" for the verdict then he will not and I say this only because of the Wealth available to that particular Church and regarding their methods. There is nothing wrong with manipulating people with money unless there is something wrong with manipulating people in general. I am sure many here have heard of "Cruz Control" and his example of how religion can poor into life and ones job. He is not the only one and if that is the Paradigm tenant..........then arguing with it is futile. Agreeing with it is another matter entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryuclan Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 (edited) The right to assemble, covers religion, as scientology is classed as a religion, at one of their rallies they are entitled to be treated fairly So in essence he was breaking the law... I think No, people have the right to assemble at any function, given they are on public property and aren't causing trouble. In short you can protest anywhere as long as it's not private property and you don't cause trouble (example: force people not to go in, get violent). @Reimer. : Yes, for the most part you are right. The KKK do have a right to assemble and speak and rally and all that sh*t they do as long as it's within reason, and not harming anyone else. There was a KKK rally here a few years ago, it seems they cause more harm to themselves then anyone else seeing how the police have to stop people from kicking their asses. Edited May 24, 2008 by ryuclan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Struff Bunstridge Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 This is a disgrace, and I'm glad the kid isn't being charged. I'd seek proceedings against the CPS for the court summons, if I were him. The police overstepped the line on this one. Nothing he did was illegal; as far as I'm aware, there's no equivalent here to the Reasonable Limits Icarus. mentioned, and in fact his right to free speech should have been more upheld than stifled by the authorities in this instance. It's not illegal to be anti-Scientology, and to speak up about it, any more than it's illegal to be racist, sexist, a Nazi sympathiser or homophobic. Such things are generally frowned upon, particularly if openly declared, but they're not against any British law as far as I'm aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie280 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Under the UK consititution wouldnt 'Scientology' be labled not a 'cult', but a religious philosophy, therefore, the 15 year old boy was going against the constitution? I'm assuming the UK constitution has something in it regarding the ability to say whatever the hell you want to say. See, thats the thing. We as a Nation don't have a constitution. We have a system of laws based on precedent. This means we take our laws from previous cases sighiting previous rulings by judges. Therefore we are said to have an unwritten constitution. Anyway, I do think that political correctness has gone too far in Britain. It is such a sensitive issue for the government because of the huge number of immigrant which enter the UK every year and because recent studies have shown that 60% of British people believe that risng immigration will lead to violence between native British and immigrants, not necasserily race related though as the vast majority of immigrants are Poles. In any case, I believe that the government is still shaken by Enoch Powell's 'River of Blood' Speech in 1968. In it he predicted a war between British Nationals and immigrants, proclaiming 'there will be rivers of blood.' The government is keen to enforce such ridiculous political correctness because it wants to try and stamp out any Nationalistic Extremeism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tequeli Posted May 24, 2008 Author Share Posted May 24, 2008 I'm wondering if the reason he may have been charged (I know he's not being charged now) has something to do with what is written in your Charter of Rights (or whatever the hell it's called in the United Kingdom). Here in Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives you the power of free speech, but it has to stand up to the Reasonable Limits clause under Section 1 (i.e. in the US, if you burn a flag, it's legal because of the First Amendment; in Canada, it violates Reasonable Limits, so you can be charged). Since Canada adopts much of its legal system from the British idea, I'm guessing maybe the UK has something similar to the Reasonable Limits clause we have here. I hate it too. Of all the laws that piss me off in Canada (possibly more then marijuana prohibition) reasonable limits is one of them. What do they decide as a 'reasonable limit', could be anything. This is one thing moment where I think Canada should stick with America, and not let any of these European sissy hate speech laws catch on (they already have though). I mean look at Germany, its a f*cking nightmare. When everybody is free its going to piss somebody else off but you have to realize that they might be dicks but it is there right to say what they want. Its just an example of how liberals really can go too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayfair Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 People have the right to express their hatred of religion/cults/sects however they damn well please. It's our right. The police should be attending more important matters. Such as finding some way to lower the gun and knife crime problems we're experiencing. That's why we pay our taxes right? You and I work hard, pay our bills and expect the cops to do their jobs. In truth it is not the actual policemen. It's more of a system failure. Protecting the public from hurt feeings. Get real and grow up. By al means go nuts on petty crime, that's where the problem lies. But don't treat people like common crooks for expressing how they feel. They're within their rights. Except Islam, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creed Bratton Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 This world is crazy. Thats all I can say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icarus Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 I'm wondering if the reason he may have been charged (I know he's not being charged now) has something to do with what is written in your Charter of Rights (or whatever the hell it's called in the United Kingdom). Here in Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives you the power of free speech, but it has to stand up to the Reasonable Limits clause under Section 1 (i.e. in the US, if you burn a flag, it's legal because of the First Amendment; in Canada, it violates Reasonable Limits, so you can be charged). Since Canada adopts much of its legal system from the British idea, I'm guessing maybe the UK has something similar to the Reasonable Limits clause we have here. I hate it too. Of all the laws that piss me off in Canada (possibly more then marijuana prohibition) reasonable limits is one of them. What do they decide as a 'reasonable limit', could be anything. I don't necessarily hate the Reasonable Limits clause, as it certainly does have its advantages, such as quashing hate speech and of course, it does have disadvantages, as the government can limit your individual rights under Section 1. As for how they determine reasonable limits, it has to pass the Oakes Test, which came about from R. v. Oakes [1986]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Effy in Chains Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 The government is keen to enforce such ridiculous political correctness because it wants to try and stamp out any Nationalistic Extremism. If the government wants to stamp out Nationalistic Extremism, then why have they not made the BNP illegal? Nationalistic Extremism will continue to rise as long as there is an official Nazi party that the people are allowed to vote for. The BNP are no different from the National Socialist Party and Nick Griffin is their Hitler who can freely stand for Prime Minister. Until a BNP member hangs from every lampost in Britain Nationalistic Extremism will continue on as a grotesque uncontrollable beast. The Government just want you to think they are trying to stamp out Nationalistic Extremism. When really they support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tequeli Posted May 24, 2008 Author Share Posted May 24, 2008 I'm wondering if the reason he may have been charged (I know he's not being charged now) has something to do with what is written in your Charter of Rights (or whatever the hell it's called in the United Kingdom). Here in Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives you the power of free speech, but it has to stand up to the Reasonable Limits clause under Section 1 (i.e. in the US, if you burn a flag, it's legal because of the First Amendment; in Canada, it violates Reasonable Limits, so you can be charged). Since Canada adopts much of its legal system from the British idea, I'm guessing maybe the UK has something similar to the Reasonable Limits clause we have here. I hate it too. Of all the laws that piss me off in Canada (possibly more then marijuana prohibition) reasonable limits is one of them. What do they decide as a 'reasonable limit', could be anything. I don't necessarily hate the Reasonable Limits clause, as it certainly does have its advantages, such as quashing hate speech and of course, it does have disadvantages, as the government can limit your individual rights under Section 1. As for how they determine reasonable limits, it has to pass the Oakes Test, which came about from R. v. Oakes [1986]. People really have to grow a pair though, hate speech won't kill you, to attempt to destroy prejudice through laws simply won't work and may even have an opposite effect. Any form of restriction on speech should not be allowed, there are other ways to keep freaks like the Westburo Baptist Church out of Canada that don't involve restrictions on our rights. I'm not racist but I want to be able to say whatever I want about anything, because even minor restrictions on speech can lead to much greater oppression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhus Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Sometimes free speech can be the best weapon against political/reigious extremism. Like the Westboro example you just used. We led that pig Phelps talk as much as he wants and all it does is alienate more people from his cause. And David Irving. "I am the Son of God!" and then... "I saw it! The Royal Family! Evil space reptiles who change their forms!" People can be their own worst enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venom Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Kid's own fault. He insulted, what is basically, a religion.. ..and if he had watched that Channel 4 documentary, he'd know that the short guy with shades will hunt him down!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now