4 ms·

I agree that comparing the UK to the PRC is ridiculous, but you seem to have missed that UK policing goes far beyond your example. Hamit Coskun was arrested an

• zimpenfish 1y ago
  > Hamit Coskun was arrested and convicted for burning a Quran Wasn't just for burning a Quran though? He was doing it whilst shouting Islamophobic abuse outside the Turkish embassy. "[Judge McGarva] said that burning a religious book, although offensive to some, was not necessarily disorderly, but that other factors (including Islamophobic comments made in police interviews) made it so on this occasion."[0] > Multiple cases of people being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics. I could only find three - two had their charges dropped[1] and one was charged for not leaving a safe zone after being advised[2] (not silently praying.) > Arrest and conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber for a private Halloween party. Definitely agree that one would have been better as a warning not to be such a twat rather than arrest and conviction. > Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes publicly > Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes between a group on WhatsApp "offensive" is doing a lot of work there given they were, in the first case, "racially aggravated online social media posts linked to national civil unrest" and, in the second case, just plain racist. I'm ok with racist content being policed, personally? [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9v4e0z9r8o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9v4e0z9r8o [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gze361j7xo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gze361j7xo [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo
• Defletter 1y ago
  This tendency to obscure context is unfortunately pretty common within discussions about freedom of speech (or the lack thereof) within the UK. I would just like to point out that if your points were so evident, you wouldn't need to remove context to make them. You may it sound like Coskun threw a Quran into his fireplace and the police kicked his door down and arrested him. You're leaving out that he travelled across the country to burn it outside Turkish consulate in London. The idea that this is "reintroducing blasphemy laws but only for Islam" is you merely repeating punditry. Likewise, people "being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics" is because they're violating the protective zone around abortion clinics. You can pray all you want but just a little bit over there. You have the entire country to pray for the unborn. Your rights are not being unduly abridged because there's a few 150 meter zones where doing so is considered violating the dignity of others, if not harassing them while they're vulnerable. But of course, this context can be stripped to make a point.
  • brigandish 1y ago
    > You're leaving out that he travelled across the country to burn it outside Turkish consulate in London What's the relevance? You can burn a Quran without anyone knowing but if anyone knows then it's forbidden and criminal?
    • Defletter 1y ago
      Not to be glib, but yes, that's what Public Order Offences are. Society and law exists so that we can co-exist, and people going out of their way to be offensive and provocative by, say, setting things on fire in a public space and saying hateful things... yeah, that's eminently antisocial. If you want to frame this as criminality coming from mere knowledge, you can do that, but you're obscuring context... you're literally doing the thing. Cringe.
      • brigandish 1y ago
        Offense is taken, not given. Unless it's harassment or assault (both forms of violence) then the response to speech should always be either speech in return, or to ignore it, not to use violence - either through the state's monopoly, in this case via the police, or through vigilante action. To say using one's freedom of conscience and freedom of expression is beyond the childish "cringe", it's illiberal, dogmatic, and authoritarian.
• ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  You are being incredibly disingenuous and missing out the very important points that ALL of those instances were designed to be provocative and make people feel in fear for their own safety. e.g. the people being arrested for silent praying (wasn't it just two people?) were breaching specific PSPOs that are specifically designed to provide a safe buffer zone around abortion clinics so that people can receive their health services (i.e. abortion and related services) without fear of being harassed. By stating "silent praying", you make it look as thought they weren't being deliberately provocative in order to make a protest - the exact type of thing that the PSPO is designed to protect against.
  • Duwensatzaj 1y ago
    >provocative So what? >make people feel in fear for their own safety. Private chats and bad taste Halloween costumes are designed to make people fear for their own safety? At least you're honest about your censorship and oppression of anything anyone dislikes.
    • ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
      Well the point is that we don't want people forcing religious views on a mainly secular society. If people have strong views on abortion, then they should abide by those views themselves, but we don't want them harassing people using legal health services. It's fine to protest about abortion etc, but not in a specific buffer zone which has been set up (via a PSPO) to protect vulnerable people visiting the clinic. I don't know what you're on about with Halloween costumes - I can't see the relevance. Are there PSPOs designed to prevent scary costumes and has anyone been prosecuted for deliberately flouting the PSPO?
• andybak 1y ago
  You're either misinformed or being deliberately disingenuous in how you've framed all of these. Which is it?