I honestly think Yasmin- Alibhai Brown is mentally unstable.. Possible border line personality disorder. Scary that a person like this is given such platforms to continually dispense such emotionally charged and reactive statements. It's plain to see her victimhood mentality.
I was at the talk with Alibhai-Brown. The video doesn't contain any of the Q&A. One of the questions put to the audience was (If I recall correctly), along the lines of "Who thinks it is ever ok to use the 'N' word". Naturally, few people dared raise their hands, but one gentleman did. And he was black. And I would like to shake that gentleman's hand.
Nothing. She was a speaker at a conference attended largely by intellectuals and the middle class, but still felt the need to behave as if defending herself from a witch hunt. That's her schtick and it pays very well.
Don't you just love it when high profile,privileged,entitled,wealthy individuals with a massive platform to influence. AKA Yasmin Alibhai Brown. Play the victim. Impossible to be more nauseating!
Here is my question, If I am responsible for your feelings, is anyone else responsible for my feelings. I am responsible for my feelings, others are responsible for their feelings.
If these are really 'leading thinkers', then the world is clearly in trouble. It is also an insult to viewers and the audience to include YAB, who brings nothing but insults and professional victimhood to any debate.
I am offended by religious priests claiming they alone have the 'truth' , but would not stop them saying it. Could Yasmin not vent her feelings towards Muslim 'honour killing' FGM, and arranged marriages of girls to older men rather than towards her personal insults recieved on Twitter.
From your Bill of Rights, 1689: That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament Seeing a lot of judges not only question free speech, but also impeach (convict) people for exercising it.
Interesting point Dražen, you might find these talks interesting too: There's No Such Thing As Free Speech | Stanley Fish - iai.tv/video/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-speech Cyberbullying, Trolling and Free Speech - iai.tv/.../do-we-need-internet-censorship-cyberbullying-trolling-free- speech-surveillance Poisonous Speech: Should We Ban Hate Speech | Rae Langton - iai.tv/video/poisonous-speech The Right To Be Offended - iai.tv/video/the-right-to-be-offended-free-speech
Dražen Keković freedom of speech synonymous with anarchy? nice strawman there. You neither understand freedom of speech nor support it. Barely above the thugs I’m sure you believe you’re superior to.
@@NickLawrie The strawman is yours. I said "freedom is not synonymous with anarchy." Which is true. With re: to speech, it is not absolutely unencumbered. Certain speech will get you thrown in jail. Don't believe me? Make open threats on the President's life on the public square. Tell me how that works out for you.
It's disappointing, albeit relatable to see that Peter Hitchens has thrown in the towel. Man has the brain the size of a small planet, and he has given up. If you think education is a problem, use both your wealth of knowledge, money available and time more importantly to set up the Peter Hitchens foundation; and usher in a generation of critical thinkers to the world! :P
Independent thought and free speech is always good but we always need to be respectful to one another. But freedom of speech is essential for democracy
I think Victor Frankel would have argued that the point of his book was you have overall control over how you react or respond to situations. And therefore the worst example you could cite, in defence of closing down FreeSpeech.
The C word is also an offensive and unpleasant word but it's not banned. Social etiquette polices it's use to a high degree. We don't use it because it's a nasty word - but occasionally it is appropriate and/or necessary.
You think there was free speech in Rwanda and ex-communist semidictatorship like Yugoslavia (Bosnia was a part of it)? Yasmin really needs to learn history better, as a Bosniak myself, I can say that there most certainly was no free speech in Slobodan Milosevic`s tyranny, anyone who opposed him and his maniacal nationalist propaganda was killed, imprisoned and dismissed. And the same goes for Rwanda. In both cases, only the aggressors and their loyal servants were able to express themselves, not anyone who opposed their views. Hutus even massacred other Hutus who opposed them. What on Earth are you talking about?
The issue of education eluded to here only relates, as he quite rightly says, to modern education, however, traditional education which provided Mr Hitchens with the tools to navigate his way through life is still fundamentally flawed in that its primary function wasn't to educate but to train. In order to appreciate this point, one needs to understand the qualitative functional difference between training and education.
When the internet first took off all people could talk about was how awful it was that you couldn't slap people or kick them around for what they said online. People wouldn't talk like that if there were direct violent consequences. The traditional conservative rules of society would break down without instant violent consequence for wrong speech, and so on. Now it seems that the very same people have grown so used to this same sort of freedom to be offensive or obnoxious that it is free speech. There is nothing else that counts as free speech. Traditional conservative values are to be as rude to strangers as possible with no care about how it makes them feel, with absolutely no personal consequence or responsibility. Contradictions this show how "conventional wisdom" can be used to argue for anything.
You can call me a Paddy or a Mick until the cows come home. I won't like it, mostly because it's boring and dull, but I will defend an idiot's right to say it to me. Offense is taken, not necessarily given. And even when it is offered, you don't have to take it. You can laugh at it, you can mock it right back, you can be unreasonable in response, you can walk away, you can stamp your foot but don't expect me to accept your "long suffering" argument, because it's more than a little pathetic. Grow a spine, fill your boots, man or woman up for crying out loud.
8:00 habeas corpus, English Common Law, Court of Chancery, Law of Trusts etc didn’t just fall out of the sky. These things are the product of a rather specific national experience (also consider Tom Holland’s recent book Dominion, about the pervasive influence of Christianity). The rights that arise from that cannot possibly be universally granted by idealistic fiat; indeed I doubt that very few but the most misguided zealot would think otherwise. Pretence to the contrary is but a very common leftist/Globalist form of cynical political manipulation. Bernard-Henri Levi, recently debating Steve Bannon, claimed to have felt sorry for Bannon when Trump made a “cruel” tweet about him. Come on 🙄 anyone who believes that would believe almost anything. He was merely pretending to a higher moral plane, that’s what leftists do, as a matter of course. Don’t anyone be surprised when Donald Trump’s desire to enforce the rule of law and observe basic principles of Border, Economic and Cultural security improves the lot of people around the globe when they also insist on leaders who do likewise. Citizenship, however imperfect, is the vital legal status that guarantees certain rights. Mass immigration is emphatically a terrible way of extending basic human rights. To quote Sir Roger Scruton (Where We Are): “I commented in Chapter Two on the effect of the ‘freedom of movement’ provisions, as creatively interpreted by the European Court of Justice following the Maastricht Treaty. These provisions have inevitably resulted in British people in working-class communities competing with foreigners for housing, jobs and healthcare, and sending their children to schools where English is the second language. The important fact is not whether they are right or wrong to resent this, but whether -if they do resent it -the law can take account of what they feel. The treaties cannot be changed, and the Common Law can provide no remedy against them. To people who have lived by the principle that the law is your friend, which brings the sovereign to your side in any conflict, the idea of an unchangeable edict dictated from some point beyond the borders of the kingdom is deeply unacceptable. Ordinary British citizens may not have the philosophy that justifies their feeling this way. But feel it they do. And their feeling it is a result of their legal inheritance, which has made law into an asset of the people rather than a means for controlling them. Popular sovereignty is acknowledged not only in the procedures followed by our courts, but also in an unspoken assumption of civil life, which is that everything is permitted unless explicitly forbidden. This principle has been a driving force behind reform of the criminal law throughout modern times.”
Indeed, even as I write Caroline Lucas is in the House of Commons making grotesquely disingenuous claims to ‘higher moral plane’ (yes, of course, accuse me of the same if you must) by appeals to ‘workers rights’ Take for example a recent tweet by Nicola Sturgeon: “Johnson has broken virtually every past promise he has made on Brexit. How anyone could believe promises he makes now on workers’ rights or anything else is beyond me. ‘Caveat emptor’ should be the words ringing in ears of any Labour MP thinking of backing this deal.“ “Workers’ rights” “Owen's greatest success was his support of youth education and early childcare. As a pioneer of infant care in Britain, especially Scotland, Owen provided an alternative to the "normal authoritarian approach to child education."[24] The manners of the children brought up under his system were beautifully graceful, genial and unconstrained; health, plenty, and contentment prevailed; drunkenness was almost unknown; and illegitimacy extremely rare. Owen's relationship with the workers remained excellent, and all the operations of the mill proceeded with smoothness and regularity. Furthermore, the business was a commercial success.”[19][12] Wikipedia “The core labor standards are: Freedom of association:[8] workers are able to join trade unions that are independent of government and employer influence; The right to collective bargaining:[9] workers may negotiate with employers collectively, as opposed to individually; The prohibition of all forms of forced labor:[10] includes security from prison labor and slavery, and prevents workers from being forced to work under duress;[11] Elimination of the worst forms of child labor:[12] implementing a minimum working age and certain working condition requirements for children; Non-discrimination in employment : equal pay for equal work.” Wikipedia Now, I’m rather sceptical of ‘rights’ (particularly ‘positive rights’ which are smuggled in under the banner of ‘negative rights’) And I know Robert Owen had some failed utopian experiments but is this the legacy to which Sturgeon, and Lucas, claim to be noble heirs? Yes. Should these basic rights, for the most part be conserved? Yes, Surely. However, I believe Sturgeon, Lucas, along with virtually all politician Remainers, are leftist Globalists. Speaking of China; more specifically what I call the GCB (Globalist Communist Bubble). When Andrew Marr did his Megacities series in 2011 he was in Shanghai, he said there are seven thousand billionaires in Shanghai, he interviewed the richest (allegedly). And how did he make his money? Some kind of ‘innovation’, probably a spurious variation, on karaoke 🙄 I mean please!! I’d hazard a guess most of the music is The Beatles, Michael Jackson, ABBA etc. Gee I wonder why Trump isn’t happy about forced technology transfers etc, had patents and Intellectual property rights been properly observed I’d imagine our ‘karaoke’ friend might be lucky to be on thirty thousand US a year. Steve Bannon calling BS 16:40, 21:00, 26:20 “The world absolutely sees this!” th-cam.com/video/qH5QzuzD01A/w-d-xo.html “Oh you’ve gotta do free trade! Oh you’ve gotta do free trade!” The Remainers, people like Sturgeon, Hammond, Grieve, Adonis etc etc etc, I contend, are Globalists, ‘Bottom liners’, th-cam.com/video/ElR9gHXraKw/w-d-xo.html they are deeply complicit with the GCB that circumvents the hard won workers rights, the Rule of Law, that they claim to be the champions of. It’s a travesty of breathtaking scale!
Hitchens' arguments are flawed. Free speech must be unconditional or it is not "free." Here is a possibly valid definition: Speech whose originator faces no violent response, threat of such, or threatening verbal responses from others, or governments' representatives. Arguments supportive of free speech are as follows: Speech is verbalisation and vocalisation of thinking. To prohibit speech, then, is to foreclose thinking. To muzzle any speech s is to forbid expression of the thought. But may I think what you forbid when you are not present? Notice governments recording of every single phone call. Where will the surveillance end? In handcuffs, torture, and death, Opponents of free speech seek to eviscerate certain thoughts once and for all eternity. Hitchens' reference to not being allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater lacks persuasiveness. Could the person shouting fire in a crowded theater have actually noticed smoke? Should theater-owners not have proper fire-safety procedures in place--hydrants, regular fire-drills, systems to inform occupants what to do, and staff to assist them? The threat of prosecution could silence a person who actually notices smoke. Hitchens endorses governments’ forbidding incitement to violence. Therefore, if a person is being violently assaulted by a person or persons, Hitchens would favour prosecuting anyone who “incites” observers to intervene and restrain the perpetrator(s). Hopefully, Hitchens would not be the person being assaulted.
If it was treated as a privilege then those in power (govt) would censor anyone who expressed a disagreeable opinion. That's what is happening now. And of course, once you deny people the right to express themselves non-violently, which is what free speech permits, then violence is all that remains to them. In other words, denying the right to free speech leads to civil unrest, and ultimately mass violence. That's why censorship is ultimately self-defeating, because it ends up causing the very thing-violence-its adherents claim they're seeking to prevent.
@@ragnardanneskjold7259 I did say specifically say "free Speach" and not "free expression" which is an entirely separate discussion. Of what intrinsic value does free-speech have if it is not supported by intelligent discourse and how can one even begin to entertain intelligent discourse without (in this case) the scientific principle which underpins it and without which no sense is derivable?
@@MrAndrew535 No it's not separate, and it's dishonest to suggest it is. I already explained why free speech, and expression, must be protected, even when it means that some will misuse it: to protect our society from collapsing into chaos and violence.
Andrew Tarjanyi. You would need to define the difference between expression and speech. As far as I can see they're two words which mean much the same thing, although expression would cover a wider remit, like dance, mime, clothes etc. Generally pro-free speech campaigners include all forms of expression under the umbrella term free speech in that we don't want any of them banned/censored by the state or subject to intimidation by individuals or groups not allied to the state. The problem with intelligent discourse is who defines intelligence? I saw little sign of intelligence in what Brown or Teller said but I would support their right to spout nonsense with my dying breath. Science is a poor measure of intelligent speech as scientific knowledge is so limited and morals/ethics or political debate can hardly be measured scientifically. Where would you begin? I cannot scientifically prove you are a fool and what you say is foolish any more than you can for me.
@@ragnardanneskjold7259 Firstly, there is neither a natural imperative nor moral obligation for one Homosapien to extend free speech to another and throughout the entire history of the human saga every society breaks down and descends into violence. In fact, the common denominator for the history of social upheaval is the very freedom of speech which is (ironically enough) being discussed here. Additionally, if freedom of thought is structurally impeded then of what intrinsic value does free speech present? I have been accused of many things in my life but dishonesty is not one of them as I am a natural pedant who actively seeks out intelligent criticism. That said, freedom of expression can be simply described as the means by which one chooses to mediate one's free speech, therefore, in that respect it is not only a separate issue but a rather minor one particularlly in this context.
Something that might help on the Internet would be that you can't comment online unless you use your real name and your account is verified and linked to a bank account and an address. That might help. It's anonymity which makes people rude and obnoxious.
@@jameselliott8203 Yes it was my suggestion. For the future. Possibly. The fact I use an alias I've had for years and years doesn't mean it is not a bad idea or that would not make the change myself. Your original comment suggests I am a hypocrite. I am not.
You cannot "racialise Islam", as one male contributor told us. Islam is not a 'race'. I also notice that all those advocating AGAINST freedom-of-speech are Muslim, or 'ex-Muslim' (owing to Taqiyya, one cannot believe such a claim). Why might it be that the suppression of freedom-of-speech is valuable to Islam? Even Peter Hitchens is incorrect; because his own knowledge of Islam is deficient. He should realise that Islam = Koran + Mohammed. And it REQUIRES all Muslims to read their scriptures (Koran and Sunna) as 'religious fundamentalists'. We curbed the power of these people over the past century: now our Political Class has imported a far worse, more extreme, version, in the followers of Islam.
You won't get a shot at free speech if you're in the same room as Yasmin Brown
I never thought I would live to see Westerners ask this question. The age of darkness looms.
Can you believe it?
I honestly think Yasmin- Alibhai Brown is mentally unstable.. Possible border line personality disorder. Scary that a person like this is given such platforms to continually dispense such emotionally charged and reactive statements. It's plain to see her victimhood mentality.
Whatever YAB says about freedom of speech - do the opposite. Disco.
she is an hysterical mess
@@booth2710 Everyone's free speech must be restricted except hers.
Alibhai Brown has to be one of the vilest women in the UK.
No wonder she got kicked out of Uganda...maybe we should follow Idi's example?
This woman is insufferable.
Which woman, Teller or Brown? Or both?
I was at the talk with Alibhai-Brown. The video doesn't contain any of the Q&A. One of the questions put to the audience was (If I recall correctly), along the lines of "Who thinks it is ever ok to use the 'N' word". Naturally, few people dared raise their hands, but one gentleman did.
And he was black. And I would like to shake that gentleman's hand.
Hi, you can watch the full debate this clip of Yasmin is taken from here: iai.tv/video/the-right-to-be-offended-free-speech
Brown a leading thinker really!
Love Peter Hitchens' dry sense of humour - and he always speaks with wisdom & insight !
Yasmin Alibhai Brown a leading thinker? Yes and pigs fly in the sky.
The world's leading thinkers?
Yasmin?
😂😁🤣😁😂🤣😂🤣😁😂😝
Yasmin has gone from, what the point of free speak is, straight to general insults. They're different!
Worlds leading thinkers? We really are in trouble if Yasmin is one of the worlds leading thinkers..
Its official we are in trouble !!!
@@jameselliott8203 I’m afraid you are right
What has Alibhai-Brown's rant got to do with the points which were put to her?
Nothing. She was a speaker at a conference attended largely by intellectuals and the middle class, but still felt the need to behave as if defending herself from a witch hunt. That's her schtick and it pays very well.
I'm still trying to work out why YAB would be classed as a "World-leading intellectual"...
I don't get it...
Don't you just love it when high profile,privileged,entitled,wealthy individuals with a massive platform to influence. AKA Yasmin Alibhai Brown. Play the victim. Impossible to be more nauseating!
“World’s Leading Thinkers” ... right...
It would be rather nice for the real English to have their country back.
I'm offended by people, who do not want to offend me at all. Slurs, curses and insults convey so much about the person uttering them...
Hitchens is the only reason to view this although I disagree with him about Hebdo.
Here is my question, If I am responsible for your feelings, is anyone else responsible for my feelings. I am responsible for my feelings, others are responsible for their feelings.
Peter Hitchens: the voice of reason
The Worlds leading thinkers? I beg to differ.
Yasmin- Alibhai Brown is a horrible person, And really not that smart either
Thinker* - Hitchens is there.
Worlds leading thinkers?? Yasmin alibababa a leading thinker 😂 yep and I'm the reincarnation of Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton rolled into one 🤦♂️
Tried to skip most of it bc of yasmin and I stopped on 7:41 where she says the n word. Why?? What was the need?!
If these are really 'leading thinkers', then the world is clearly in trouble. It is also an insult to viewers and the audience to include YAB, who brings nothing but insults and professional victimhood to any debate.
I am offended by religious priests claiming they alone have the 'truth' , but would not stop them saying it.
Could Yasmin not vent her feelings towards Muslim 'honour killing' FGM, and arranged marriages of girls to older men rather than towards her personal insults recieved on Twitter.
YAB the racist said she would leave the Uk.........still waiting🥴
I wouldn’t have regarded the Brown person as a particularly incisive thinker. She’s just got a big gob and a sense of entitlement.
Needs marching in to the sea.
Hitchens is a man apart.
From your Bill of Rights, 1689:
That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament
Seeing a lot of judges not only question free speech, but also impeach (convict) people for exercising it.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from all consequences of that action.
Interesting point Dražen, you might find these talks interesting too:
There's No Such Thing As Free Speech | Stanley Fish - iai.tv/video/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-speech
Cyberbullying, Trolling and Free Speech - iai.tv/.../do-we-need-internet-censorship-cyberbullying-trolling-free- speech-surveillance
Poisonous Speech: Should We Ban Hate Speech | Rae Langton - iai.tv/video/poisonous-speech
The Right To Be Offended - iai.tv/video/the-right-to-be-offended-free-speech
Dražen Keković an implicit threat on your part. You obv don’t believe in freedom of speech.
@@NickLawrie Yes I do. I just understand that freedom is not synonymous with anarchy. You obviously don't.
Dražen Keković freedom of speech synonymous with anarchy? nice strawman there. You neither understand freedom of speech nor support it. Barely above the thugs I’m sure you believe you’re superior to.
@@NickLawrie The strawman is yours. I said "freedom is not synonymous with anarchy." Which is true. With re: to speech, it is not absolutely unencumbered. Certain speech will get you thrown in jail. Don't believe me? Make open threats on the President's life on the public square. Tell me how that works out for you.
It's disappointing, albeit relatable to see that Peter Hitchens has thrown in the towel.
Man has the brain the size of a small planet, and he has given up.
If you think education is a problem, use both your wealth of knowledge, money available and time more importantly to set up the Peter Hitchens foundation; and usher in a generation of critical thinkers to the world!
:P
He tried, and tried, and tried, and has realised he cannot make a difference. I think he sees the inevitable as the inevitable is already happening.
FREE speech is the opposite of multi religion n culture
Whose looking after the till in Ali Abbas shop,?? 😂😂😂
Independent thought and free speech is always good but we always need to be respectful to one another. But freedom of speech is essential for democracy
Lowkey making sense as usual.
I think Victor Frankel would have argued that the point of his book was you have overall control over how you react or respond to situations. And therefore the worst example you could cite, in defence of closing down FreeSpeech.
The C word is also an offensive and unpleasant word but it's not banned. Social etiquette polices it's use to a high degree. We don't use it because it's a nasty word - but occasionally it is appropriate and/or necessary.
I switched off after Peter stopped speaking
You think there was free speech in Rwanda and ex-communist semidictatorship like Yugoslavia (Bosnia was a part of it)?
Yasmin really needs to learn history better, as a Bosniak myself, I can say that there most certainly was no free speech in Slobodan Milosevic`s tyranny, anyone who opposed him and his maniacal nationalist propaganda was killed, imprisoned and dismissed. And the same goes for Rwanda. In both cases, only the aggressors and their loyal servants were able to express themselves, not anyone who opposed their views. Hutus even massacred other Hutus who opposed them.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Good argument over schools.
The worlds leading thinkers, alibhai brown??? I don't think so.
The issue of education eluded to here only relates, as he quite rightly says, to modern education, however, traditional education which provided Mr Hitchens with the tools to navigate his way through life is still fundamentally flawed in that its primary function wasn't to educate but to train. In order to appreciate this point, one needs to understand the qualitative functional difference between training and education.
Ask her is she loyal GB or Pakistan, if you ask any Bangladeshi Pakistani live in our country guess what NO
When the internet first took off all people could talk about was how awful it was that you couldn't slap people or kick them around for what they said online. People wouldn't talk like that if there were direct violent consequences. The traditional conservative rules of society would break down without instant violent consequence for wrong speech, and so on. Now it seems that the very same people have grown so used to this same sort of freedom to be offensive or obnoxious that it is free speech. There is nothing else that counts as free speech. Traditional conservative values are to be as rude to strangers as possible with no care about how it makes them feel, with absolutely no personal consequence or responsibility. Contradictions this show how "conventional wisdom" can be used to argue for anything.
You can call me a Paddy or a Mick until the cows come home. I won't like it, mostly because it's boring and dull, but I will defend an idiot's right to say it to me. Offense is taken, not necessarily given. And even when it is offered, you don't have to take it. You can laugh at it, you can mock it right back, you can be unreasonable in response, you can walk away, you can stamp your foot but don't expect me to accept your "long suffering" argument, because it's more than a little pathetic. Grow a spine, fill your boots, man or woman up for crying out loud.
Well put. If being called a name is the worst thing to happen to a person, I'd say that he/she isn't doing too badly!
8:00 habeas corpus, English Common Law, Court of Chancery, Law of Trusts etc didn’t just fall out of the sky. These things are the product of a rather specific national experience (also consider Tom Holland’s recent book Dominion, about the pervasive influence of Christianity). The rights that arise from that cannot possibly be universally granted by idealistic fiat; indeed I doubt that very few but the most misguided zealot would think otherwise. Pretence to the contrary is but a very common leftist/Globalist form of cynical political manipulation. Bernard-Henri Levi, recently debating Steve Bannon, claimed to have felt sorry for Bannon when Trump made a “cruel” tweet about him. Come on 🙄 anyone who believes that would believe almost anything. He was merely pretending to a higher moral plane, that’s what leftists do, as a matter of course.
Don’t anyone be surprised when Donald Trump’s desire to enforce the rule of law and observe basic principles of Border, Economic and Cultural security improves the lot of people around the globe when they also insist on leaders who do likewise.
Citizenship, however imperfect, is the vital legal status that guarantees certain rights. Mass immigration is emphatically a terrible way of extending basic human rights.
To quote Sir Roger Scruton (Where We Are):
“I commented in Chapter Two on the effect of the ‘freedom of movement’ provisions, as creatively interpreted by the European Court of Justice following the Maastricht Treaty. These provisions have inevitably resulted in British people in working-class communities competing with foreigners for housing, jobs and healthcare, and sending their children to schools where English is the second language.
The important fact is not whether they are right or wrong to resent this, but whether -if they do resent it -the law can take account of what they feel. The treaties cannot be changed, and the Common Law can provide no remedy against them. To people who have lived by the principle that the law is your friend, which brings the sovereign to your side in any conflict, the idea of an unchangeable edict dictated from some point beyond the borders of the kingdom is deeply unacceptable.
Ordinary British citizens may not have the philosophy that justifies their feeling this way. But feel it they do. And their feeling it is a result of their legal inheritance, which has made law into an asset of the people rather than a means for controlling them. Popular sovereignty is acknowledged not only in the procedures followed by our courts, but also in an unspoken assumption of civil life, which is that everything is permitted unless explicitly forbidden. This principle has been a driving force behind reform of the criminal law throughout modern times.”
Indeed, even as I write Caroline Lucas is in the House of Commons making grotesquely disingenuous claims to ‘higher moral plane’ (yes, of course, accuse me of the same if you must) by appeals to ‘workers rights’
Take for example a recent tweet by Nicola Sturgeon:
“Johnson has broken virtually every past promise he has made on Brexit. How anyone could believe promises he makes now on workers’ rights or anything else is beyond me. ‘Caveat emptor’ should be the words ringing in ears of any Labour MP thinking of backing this deal.“
“Workers’ rights”
“Owen's greatest success was his support of youth education and early childcare. As a pioneer of infant care in Britain, especially Scotland, Owen provided an alternative to the "normal authoritarian approach to child education."[24] The manners of the children brought up under his system were beautifully graceful, genial and unconstrained; health, plenty, and contentment prevailed; drunkenness was almost unknown; and illegitimacy extremely rare. Owen's relationship with the workers remained excellent, and all the operations of the mill proceeded with smoothness and regularity. Furthermore, the business was a commercial success.”[19][12]
Wikipedia
“The core labor standards are:
Freedom of association:[8] workers are able to join trade unions that are independent of government and employer influence;
The right to collective bargaining:[9] workers may negotiate with employers collectively, as opposed to individually;
The prohibition of all forms of forced labor:[10] includes security from prison labor and slavery, and prevents workers from being forced to work under duress;[11]
Elimination of the worst forms of child labor:[12] implementing a minimum working age and certain working condition requirements for children;
Non-discrimination in employment : equal pay for equal work.”
Wikipedia
Now, I’m rather sceptical of ‘rights’ (particularly ‘positive rights’ which are smuggled in under the banner of ‘negative rights’)
And I know Robert Owen had some failed utopian experiments but is this the legacy to which Sturgeon, and Lucas, claim to be noble heirs? Yes. Should these basic rights, for the most part be conserved? Yes, Surely.
However, I believe Sturgeon, Lucas, along with virtually all politician Remainers, are leftist Globalists.
Speaking of China; more specifically what I call the GCB (Globalist Communist Bubble).
When Andrew Marr did his Megacities series in 2011 he was in Shanghai, he said there are seven thousand billionaires in Shanghai, he interviewed the richest (allegedly). And how did he make his money? Some kind of ‘innovation’, probably a spurious variation, on karaoke 🙄 I mean please!! I’d hazard a guess most of the music is The Beatles, Michael Jackson, ABBA etc. Gee I wonder why Trump isn’t happy about forced technology transfers etc, had patents and Intellectual property rights been properly observed I’d imagine our ‘karaoke’ friend might be lucky to be on thirty thousand US a year.
Steve Bannon calling BS 16:40, 21:00, 26:20 “The world absolutely sees this!”
th-cam.com/video/qH5QzuzD01A/w-d-xo.html
“Oh you’ve gotta do free trade! Oh you’ve gotta do free trade!”
The Remainers, people like Sturgeon, Hammond, Grieve, Adonis etc etc etc, I contend, are Globalists, ‘Bottom liners’,
th-cam.com/video/ElR9gHXraKw/w-d-xo.html
they are deeply complicit with the GCB that circumvents the hard won workers rights, the Rule of Law, that they claim to be the champions of.
It’s a travesty of breathtaking scale!
Hitchens' arguments are flawed. Free speech must be unconditional or it is not "free." Here is a possibly valid definition: Speech whose originator faces no violent response, threat of such, or threatening verbal responses from others, or governments' representatives. Arguments supportive of free speech are as follows: Speech is verbalisation and vocalisation of thinking. To prohibit speech, then, is to foreclose thinking. To muzzle any speech s is to forbid expression of the thought. But may I think what you forbid when you are not present? Notice governments recording of every single phone call. Where will the surveillance end? In handcuffs, torture, and death, Opponents of free speech seek to eviscerate certain thoughts once and for all eternity. Hitchens' reference to not being allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater lacks persuasiveness. Could the person shouting fire in a crowded theater have actually noticed smoke? Should theater-owners not have proper fire-safety procedures in place--hydrants, regular fire-drills, systems to inform occupants what to do, and staff to assist them? The threat of prosecution could silence a person who actually notices smoke. Hitchens endorses governments’ forbidding incitement to violence. Therefore, if a person is being violently assaulted by a person or persons, Hitchens would favour prosecuting anyone who “incites” observers to intervene and restrain the perpetrator(s). Hopefully, Hitchens would not be the person being assaulted.
Janne Teller has no concept of what anarchy is
If freedom of speech was extended as a privilege and not a right then perhaps it would be valued and used with a degree of intelligence.
If it was treated as a privilege then those in power (govt) would censor anyone who expressed a disagreeable opinion. That's what is happening now.
And of course, once you deny people the right to express themselves non-violently, which is what free speech permits, then violence is all that remains to them. In other words, denying the right to free speech leads to civil unrest, and ultimately mass violence.
That's why censorship is ultimately self-defeating, because it ends up causing the very thing-violence-its adherents claim they're seeking to prevent.
@@ragnardanneskjold7259 I did say specifically say "free Speach" and not "free expression" which is an entirely separate discussion. Of what intrinsic value does free-speech have if it is not supported by intelligent discourse and how can one even begin to entertain intelligent discourse without (in this case) the scientific principle which underpins it and without which no sense is derivable?
@@MrAndrew535 No it's not separate, and it's dishonest to suggest it is. I already explained why free speech, and expression, must be protected, even when it means that some will misuse it: to protect our society from collapsing into chaos and violence.
Andrew Tarjanyi. You would need to define the difference between expression and speech. As far as I can see they're two words which mean much the same thing, although expression would cover a wider remit, like dance, mime, clothes etc. Generally pro-free speech campaigners include all forms of expression under the umbrella term free speech in that we don't want any of them banned/censored by the state or subject to intimidation by individuals or groups not allied to the state.
The problem with intelligent discourse is who defines intelligence? I saw little sign of intelligence in what Brown or Teller said but I would support their right to spout nonsense with my dying breath. Science is a poor measure of intelligent speech as scientific knowledge is so limited and morals/ethics or political debate can hardly be measured scientifically. Where would you begin? I cannot scientifically prove you are a fool and what you say is foolish any more than you can for me.
@@ragnardanneskjold7259 Firstly, there is neither a natural imperative nor moral obligation for one Homosapien to extend free speech to another and throughout the entire history of the human saga every society breaks down and descends into violence. In fact, the common denominator for the history of social upheaval is the very freedom of speech which is (ironically enough) being discussed here. Additionally, if freedom of thought is structurally impeded then of what intrinsic value does free speech present?
I have been accused of many things in my life but dishonesty is not one of them as I am a natural pedant who actively seeks out intelligent criticism. That said, freedom of expression can be simply described as the means by which one chooses to mediate one's free speech, therefore, in that respect it is not only a separate issue but a rather minor one particularlly in this context.
Something that might help on the Internet would be that you can't comment online unless you use your real name and your account is verified and linked to a bank account and an address. That might help. It's anonymity which makes people rude and obnoxious.
Yes good one mogznwaz ?
@@jameselliott8203 Hey, I have had this username for 10 years and would give it up if I had to. I'm not the one abusing people online.
@@mogznwaz Hey it was your suggestion but thanks for the reply
@@jameselliott8203 Yes it was my suggestion. For the future. Possibly. The fact I use an alias I've had for years and years doesn't mean it is not a bad idea or that would not make the change myself. Your original comment suggests I am a hypocrite. I am not.
@@mogznwaz I know its ok after all its not for me to judge is it.
Political government anarchy to God's natural order
Poor Middlesex.
You cannot "racialise Islam", as one male contributor told us. Islam is not a 'race'. I also notice that all those advocating AGAINST freedom-of-speech are Muslim, or 'ex-Muslim' (owing to Taqiyya, one cannot believe such a claim). Why might it be that the suppression of freedom-of-speech is valuable to Islam? Even Peter Hitchens is incorrect; because his own knowledge of Islam is deficient. He should realise that Islam = Koran + Mohammed. And it REQUIRES all Muslims to read their scriptures (Koran and Sunna) as 'religious fundamentalists'. We curbed the power of these people over the past century: now our Political Class has imported a far worse, more extreme, version, in the followers of Islam.