No ideology should be protected from criticism, I thought that we all agreed on that at least those cultures that are based on a greco roman foundation
Very interesting download; thank you for this; attempts have been made over many years by various British legislature processes to make religious identity a kind of race-based grouping with a legal status and lawful protection as such and all that it involves; I am no lawyer to deeply understand such matters. Race by religion?
This is a troubling development legally, for friends of free speech, no matter how well intentioned. The British Isles seem to lead the English-speaking world with these laws but here in the U.S. things are also heating up with the debate. Incidentally, I remember something about the Monty Python debate.
@@michaeljames4904 name calling and anti-lockdown? let me guess, you are also anti-vaccination (although you won't call it as such), you believe that brexit is working whilst simultaneously believing that brexit would work if only a 'true brexit was implemented, you believe that white men are the most oppressed group in society despite all the evidence to the contrary, You believe that immigrants are overrunning the country and are perplexed that your children look away when you express those views. How close did I get?
Simply put no. The most important distinction between section 29 and the old blasphemy laws is that section 29 deals with incitement of hatred towards PERSON(S) whereas the old blasphemy laws dealt with the disrespect of a Christian deity. The two laws don't really compare. Also all this about section 29 being some sort trojan horse for further supposed infringements of free speech is fear-mongering of the worst sort.
@@zaphodtoasty9208 Not unless you co-authored, along with Eric Weinstein, the acknowledged international reference work on legal speech codes, their strictures and ramifications: _Extreme Speech and Democracy_ (2009) OUP; are a legal fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; or have been the recognised authority on Free Speech law, throughout the four Inns of Court, for decades. “...fear-mongering of the worst sort.” What utterly tiresome hackneyed drivel you do spout.
Indeed the ultimate blasphemy is for a laymen to demonise ones unconvicted countryman , and therefore one's country , for gain ; as originated by Judas's activities long ago
When the law of the land is not in line with the KING JAMES Holy bible or the older manuscripts it's translated from, those laws must be shunned as a matter of duty.
Do you think most lectures are made up on the fly? Of course it's prewritten (at least in part, some people prefer more detail in their script than others)
No ideology should be protected from criticism, I thought that we all agreed on that at least those cultures that are based on a greco roman foundation
Sure. But things like gender, sexuality, race ect aren't ideologies.
@@Albinojackrussel yeh i agree with that
So much at Stake.....a really burning issue !
always brings me back to the Aloe Blacc song - ticking bomb.
Very interesting download; thank you for this; attempts have been made over many years by various British legislature processes to make religious identity a kind of race-based grouping with a legal status and lawful protection as such and all that it involves; I am no lawyer to deeply understand such matters. Race by religion?
Here he is on the side that has 32:02 concerns about issues in the legislation that could affect freedom of speech.
This is a troubling development legally, for friends of free speech, no matter how well intentioned. The British Isles seem to lead the English-speaking world with these laws but here in the U.S. things are also heating up with the debate. Incidentally, I remember something about the Monty Python debate.
We will still be subject to the ehrc
@@julianshepherd2038 and how precisely has the EHRC protected your Freedom of Assembly this past year, dingus?
@@michaeljames4904 name calling and anti-lockdown? let me guess, you are also anti-vaccination (although you won't call it as such),
you believe that brexit is working whilst simultaneously believing that brexit would work if only a 'true brexit was implemented,
you believe that white men are the most oppressed group in society despite all the evidence to the contrary,
You believe that immigrants are overrunning the country and are perplexed that your children look away when you express those views.
How close did I get?
@@zaphodtoasty9208 Not remotely: to answering the simple question posed. Not very bright, are you?
@@michaeljames4904 hitting too close to home?
May there be a law commission report on this matter
Simply put no.
The most important distinction between section 29 and the old blasphemy laws is that section 29 deals with incitement of hatred towards PERSON(S) whereas the old blasphemy laws dealt with the disrespect of a Christian deity. The two laws don't really compare.
Also all this about section 29 being some sort trojan horse for further supposed infringements of free speech is fear-mongering of the worst sort.
Delusional, you are quite delusional.
There's an election in Scotland on Thursday
@@michaeljames4904 anything to add to that?
@@zaphodtoasty9208 Not unless you co-authored, along with Eric Weinstein, the acknowledged international reference work on legal speech codes, their strictures and ramifications: _Extreme Speech and Democracy_ (2009) OUP; are a legal fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; or have been the recognised authority on Free Speech law, throughout the four Inns of Court, for decades.
“...fear-mongering of the worst sort.” What utterly tiresome hackneyed drivel you do spout.
@@michaeljames4904 You may not like the distinction but it would win a public vote.
No the definition of blasphemy goes back to the Greek meaning not the Church of England's perceived state of meaning of the word.
Indeed the ultimate blasphemy is for a laymen to demonise ones unconvicted countryman , and therefore one's country , for gain ; as originated by Judas's activities long ago
When the law of the land is not in line with the KING JAMES Holy bible or the older manuscripts it's translated from, those laws must be shunned as a matter of duty.
Could I assume you are a christian?
Give up trying to own a SIMPLE Greek and Hebrew concept layed out millenia before the UK's relatively recent definition and history of the word.
Does it really matter, when you can be put i jail for 7 years for criticizing something that needs to be ripped apart and abolished.
This speech is a huge linguistic mess, with a posh intelligent sounding accent reading a pre written script.
Do you think most lectures are made up on the fly? Of course it's prewritten (at least in part, some people prefer more detail in their script than others)
Also Hate is defined in the KJV not by you lot.
The version with the unicorns 😂
@@julianshepherd2038 Yes some Rhinoceroses are unicorns, but you would need to be just a little bit scientific to understand that.