It’s not about politics

A

Anonymous

Guest
What the f*** are you talking about, retard?
You don't know a perfect score of 100, genius? :confused: 😵 :crazy:

proxy-image


You forgot your thinking cap!

proxy-image


:LOL:
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret

In September, however, Yousaf brought amendments to the bill that would make it necessary to prove there was “intention” to stir up hatred with threatening or abusive behaviour.

The SNP backed down under pressure, but it's still a draconian law.

Intention to stir up hatred & possession of inflammatory material is too open to interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
On Freedom of Speech - I can't work out why Anne Marie thinks she's only criticising a religious ideology when she also thinks the Koran has one interpretation, that all believers have to agree with that one interpretation, that ideology is inherited from your ancestors as inescapably as your eye-colour, that they'll migrate to Europe, outbreed us & impose that one interpretation, that all muslim-majority countries are the same, that the entire religion is uniquely & irredeemably violent & sexist making anyone muslim (even the unborn) uniquely violent & sexist...

She also seems to think that we fought & died for the right to publish insulting cartoons, when our governments have always taken a dim view of insulting the great & the good unless it's war propaganda. And she doesn't know that some Europeans ARE muslim. And have been for centuries.
And I didn't see her manning the barricades when Behzti caused a storm of protest


Or for Queen of Heaven


Or for Homegrown (in fact, I think she lied & said muslims protested)


Nor did I see her supporting the dialogue around

Cuttin It


or The Funeral Director


Or the great work that Tamasha does


She's currently urging people to buy French products as if France is going to be brought to its knees by Erdogan being a prat & a few protests in Pakistan. :crazy:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13746679

 

Fake C

Active Member
The SNP backed down under pressure, but it's still a draconian law.

Intention to stir up hatred & possession of inflammatory material is too open to interpretation.
I am not endorsing anything. It's a clarification to what was posted.
I think we all have the ability to know the difference between free speech and hate speech but defining this concept well enough to make a law about it might be impossible. This is assuming that hate speech is a thing. There are already laws against threatening and verbally terrorizing people so it's debatable whether the words used to threaten can then become a further shade of illegal because their content refers to some specific element of the victim's identity.
 
Top Bottom