BNP wins seats

[LeazesMag 0]

Nah I am in the clique, we don't get banned.

 

we already know those who run the board know fuck all about the club and set the tone for the majority of the rest.

[Gejon 2]

Stop whinging about being banned then

[LeazesMag 0]

Stop whinging about being banned then

 

see mine and Stevie's posts.

 

I think it is more a sad reflection on you. You should take a look at the more adult approach of here. There are far more postable threads as a result.

[Gejon 2]

Stop whinging about being banned then

 

see mine and Stevie's posts.

 

I think it is more a sad reflection on you. You should take a look at the more adult approach of here. There are far more postable threads as a result.

 

I think both forums are canny but now only one of them has some old man banging on about the Halls and Shepherd every other post

[manc-mag 1]

Leazes, why are you so utterly obsessive?

 

N-O, Shepherd, Renton, Gejon etc etc?

 

Serious question btw, have you ever stopped to think about it?

[Park Life 71]

This has got to be one of the maddest threads on the internet and believe me I visit some pretty locco forums.

 

Peace.

[Guest Barrack Road]

This has got to be one of the maddest threads on the internet and believe me I visit some pretty locco forums.

 

Peace.

 

If you had the PC on and you were stoned reading this thread (which I have no doubt you have been on occasion Parky), this thread could do you some serious damage.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, why are you so utterly obsessive?

 

N-O, Shepherd, Renton, Gejon etc etc?

 

Serious question btw, have you ever stopped to think about it?

 

 

have you ever stopped to think why you are such a prick ?

 

See your attempts to have a go at Stevie in the other thread

 

And why you are so sensitive to those awful mancs laughing at you and hurting your little feelings when we were playing regularly in europe

[LeazesMag 0]

Stop whinging about being banned then

 

see mine and Stevie's posts.

 

I think it is more a sad reflection on you. You should take a look at the more adult approach of here. There are far more postable threads as a result.

 

I think both forums are canny but now only one of them has some old man banging on about the Halls and Shepherd every other post

 

Well, you can go ahead and bang on about how Mike Ashley has brought financial stability to the football club every other post. Shame we were relegated to do it and will never match what his predecessors did while he has a hole in his arse. But there you go. Thats the mentality of people like you that are clueless cunts.

[Guest Barrack Road]

Leazes, why are you so utterly obsessive?

 

N-O, Shepherd, Renton, Gejon etc etc?

 

Serious question btw, have you ever stopped to think about it?

 

 

have you ever stopped to think why you are such a prick ?

See your attempts to have a go at Stevie in the other thread

 

And why you are so sensitive to those awful mancs laughing at you and hurting your little feelings when we were playing regularly in europe

The word feeble needs inserting in to that sentence Leazes.

 

He might be a prick like, he's shite at banter anyway, but by all accounts he's a decent footballer.

[Gejon 2]

Stop whinging about being banned then

 

see mine and Stevie's posts.

 

I think it is more a sad reflection on you. You should take a look at the more adult approach of here. There are far more postable threads as a result.

 

I think both forums are canny but now only one of them has some old man banging on about the Halls and Shepherd every other post

 

Well, you can go ahead and bang on about how Mike Ashley has brought financial stability to the football club every other post. Shame we were relegated to do it and will never match what his predecessors did while he has a hole in his arse. But there you go. Thats the mentality of people like you that are clueless cunts.

 

That's the thing, no-one does apart from the people in your tiny mind

 

Name me one person who goes on about "Ashley bringing financial stability in every other post"? Like say a thread in general chat that has nothing to do with football?

[Happy Face 29]

tooner........how somebody thinks they know about NUFC never mind the BNP

 

 

hit a nerve did I?

 

haha not in the slightest. You may think you know all about the UK,which you don't, but I can state quite categorically your knowledge of NUFC is zilch in comparison to me..........

 

 

full agreement with you there LM, however that is not the topic and nor has it ever been my opinion that I know more about NUFC than you or anyone else on this board.......your rampant xenophobia is exceeded only by your level of douche-baggery

 

hit a nerve did I

 

 

not at all, but your attempt to draw attention away from your own prejudices and your knee jerk reactions to a percieved threat from immigrants, by pointing out that you know more about NUFC than I do makes you look like a even more of a complete twat

 

indeed. As does your insistence that you know more about the UK than someone who lives in it

 

So far as I am concerned, with an attitude like yours, the UK is better off without you and you can take all the scumbag terrorists and intolerants you defend with you if you have so much time for them.

 

 

no where do i imply i know more about the UK.

 

I don't need to be from the UK to spot racism intolerance and ingnorance.....good try though.

 

intolerants...that would be you wouldn't it?

 

all i have defended is the right of people to protest and say what they believe, i haven't said anywhere that I agree with what they are saying or protesting for........there is a distinct difference

 

the two things i have defended are exactly what make countries like Britain and Canada and the US great, because we can't be persecuted for speaking our minds......so i say if you don't like those freedoms and laws then perhaps it is you who should go to a country where they don't exist.....i hear North Korea is nice this time of year

 

this is going back to the thread about those shitbags in Wootton Basset, Luton etc. You can't go around life with no discipline, this is totally different to having free speech. You have to accept certain responsibilities and you should respect the flag of the country you live in or fuck off to somewhere where you do.

 

You still know nothing about me, you would have to tell me about North Korea if it appeals to you

 

 

i know enough

you still know nothing about freedom of speech.....quite obviously from your above post. if freedom of speech only protects the ideas which are popular or that you agree with it is known as propaganda.

 

you know absolutely nothing about me, and you aren't going to either. Believe me, I know all about free speech and understand like most things, it has boundaries, which is what you and the other blinkered idiots don't understand.

 

 

absolutely.....

here they are......

 

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".

 

 

Hate speech is speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group,[1] such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.

 

so you don't believe in absolute free speech then ? [but you said you did, or just when it suits you]

 

Back to where we started. If you can't respect the flag of the country you live in, fuck off to where you do. If you want to heckle those who represent that flag and protect its boundaries and interests, fuck off and fight them with a uniform and represent what you believe in.

 

This has nothing to do with free speech, nothing. It is about observing discipline in life and respecting other values and not imposing your own where they are not wanted.

 

You can think about the economic problem of rising immigration and a rising population in your own time, it has been asked 4 or 5 times now by myself and others.

 

 

are you really that dumb?

 

you said there were boundries for freedom of speech, i agreed and listed them as set out by the government......please note none of the boundries as set out by you have made the list.

 

so no i don't believe in freedom of speech as laid out by you.

 

 

 

 

I've written many times before about the evils of "hate speech" laws that are prevalent in Canada and Europe -- people being fined, prosecuted and hauled before official tribunals for expressing political opinions which the State has prohibited and criminalized. I won't rehash those arguments here, but I do want to note a particularly creepy illustration of how these laws manifest. The far-right hatemonger Ann Coulter was invited by a campus conservative group to speak at the University of Ottawa, and the Vice Provost of that college sent Coulter a letter warning her that she may be subject to criminal prosecution if the views she expresses fall into the realm of prohibited viewpoints:

 

Dear Ms. Coulter,

 

I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. . . .

 

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

 

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. . . .

 

Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

 

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

 

Sincerely,

 

Francois Houle,

 

Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa

 

Personally, I think threatening someone with criminal prosecution for the political views they might express is quite "hateful." So, too, is anointing oneself the arbiter of what is and is not sufficiently "civilized discussion" to the point of using the force of criminal law to enforce it. If I were administering Canada's intrinsically subjective "hate speech" laws (and I never would), I'd consider prosecuting Provost Houle for this letter. The hubris required to believe that you can declare certain views so objectively hateful that they should be criminalized is astronomical; in so many eras, views that were most scorned by majorities ended up emerging as truth.

 

For as long as I'll live, I'll never understand how people want to vest in the Government the power to criminalize particular viewpoints it dislikes, will never understand the view that it's better to try to suppress adverse beliefs than to air them, and will especially never understand people's failure to realize that endorsing this power will, one day, very likely result in their own views being criminalized when their political enemies (rather than allies) are empowered. Who would ever want to empower officious technocrats to issue warnings along the lines of: be forewarned: if you express certain political views, you may be committing a crime; guide and restrict yourself accordingly? I obviously devote a substantial amount of my time and energy to critiquing the actions of the U.S. Government, but the robust free speech protection guaranteed by the First Amendment and largely protected by American courts continues to be one of the best features of American political culture.

 

 

 

UPDATE: When Noam Chomsky (yes, I'm quoting him twice in one day) is asked whether he thinks America is irrevocably broken and/or whether its political process has any extremely positive features, he typically says -- as he did in this 2005 interview: "In other dimensions, the U.S. is very free. For example, freedom of speech is protected in the United States to an extent that is unique in the world." That's the critical point: as long as the State is absolutely barred from criminalizing political views, then any change remains possible because citizens are free to communicate with and persuade one another and express their political opinions without being threatened by the Government with criminal sanctions of the kind Provost Houle conveyed here and which are not infrequently issued by numerous other Canadian and European functionaries.

 

UPDATE II: Just to underscore the point: last year, Canada banned the vehemently anti-war, left-wing British MP George Galloway from entering their country, on extremely dubious "national security" grounds. Galloway is a vociferous critic of Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan as well a defender of Hamas, which were clearly the bases for his exclusion. Though that was under a different law than the one with which Coulter is threatened, that's always the result of this mindset: those defending these sorts of speech restrictions always foolishly think that the restrictions will be confined to those views which they dislike, and then are astonished and outraged when these censorship powers are turned against views with which they agree (the Bush administration sought to exclude Muslim scholars from the U.S. who were critical of its wars based on the same rationale).

 

To see how a genuinely principled individual thinks about such things, see this comment from a right-wing Canadian decrying the exclusion of Galloway despite the fact that he finds Galloway's left-wing views noxious in the extreme. In 2006, Newt Gingrich advocated that free speech rights should be restricted for "radical Muslims" because they were preaching dangerous "hatred," speech which Gingrich wanted criminalized. Those who defend "hate speech" laws like the ones in Canada and Europe are Gingrich's like-minded comrades, even if they want to criminalize different views than the ones Gingrich happened to be targeting.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...nada/index.html

[tooner 243]

the guy from salon is way off base.......he is talking about the government limiting ones political viewpoints, as I understand it the canadian and british hate speech laws are not in place to restrict ones political views

 

 

(source wiki)

In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).

 

Personally I think the guy from the UofO was out of line, Anne Coulter should be encouraged to speak her mind. Reminds me of this saying, "It is better to hold your tougue and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

She is the female equivalent of Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh, she says controversial things to sell books and get in the news.

 

btw.....it was her own security that cancelled the talk not the UofO.

[tooner 243]

Okay, so I've been trying to sort through the hyperbole and rhetoric emanating from all sides in the aftermath of last night's Ann Coulter incendiary non-appearance at the University of Ottawa, and as is so often the case with such chaotic events, it's proving a wee bit difficult to separate the truth from the spin -- and again, that applies to both sides here. I'm still in the process of attempting to figure out what, exactly, happened, but I thought I may as well post what I've been able to confirm so far.

 

 

First, contrary to what Coulter seems to suggest in a brief phone interview with Macleans.ca scribe Colby Cosh, it was not the police who "shut it down." I spoke with Ottawa Police Services media relations officer Alain Boucher this morning, and he told me, in no uncertain terms, that it was her security team that made the decision to call off the event. "We gave her options" -- including, he said, to "find a bigger venue" -- but "they opted to cancel ... It's not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision."

 

 

Boucher's statements are seemingly at odds with the account provided via twitter by Ezra Levant, who was supposed to appear on stage alongside Coulter. Several hours after the event had been called off, he tweeted that "Cops advised that proceeding with Coulter event in face of protesters would be dangerous to her and crowd," and quoted a Sgt. Dan Beauchamp as saying that shutting down the event was "a public safety issue," as well as an unnamed "police officer" who allegedly said that the OPS "cannot guarantee her safety." He also corrected an early report from Calgary radio host Rob Breakenridge, who tweeted that the speech was kiboshed because of a fire alarm, claiming that "it was the threat of violence, say cops."

 

 

As for Coulter's claim that the police "had been warning my bodyguard all day that they were putting up [messages] on Facebook: 'Bring rocks, bring sticks, you gotta hurt Ann Coulter tonight, don't let her speak,'" Boucher confirmed that the police were monitoring the situation - although how, exactly, he didn't specify - but was unable to provide any example of such a threat, as he did not have that information, although he assured me that if a complaint were lodged, the police would "surely" investigate, but he didn't know whether or not that had occurred. I haven't been able to turn up any of those alleged threats -- not on Facebook, and not on the unspecified "liberal blogs" that she has since cited as the source, so if anyone can point me to an example, please do so in the comments.

 

 

And now, the numbers. While there is pretty much universal agreement that event organizer Ashley Scorpio's initial claim of "2,000 violent protesters" is just plain wrong; she seems to have inadvertently mistaken the total number of people waiting outside, many of whom were there to attend the Coulter event, with the number of protesters, which have been variously estimated between a few dozen to 200.

 

 

In addition to the real-time coverage provided by Colleague Hicks -- whose post-event summary can be found here, and who was tweeting throughout the evening -- here's a rough timeline of how things unfolded, courtesy of someone who was on the scene both outside the venue and inside the room:

 

 

6:30: About 400 people in line, which probably grew to about 600+ by 7:00

7:00: Doors still not open, people getting really antsy given poor logistics (more on this later)

7:10 or so: Started letting people in one by one, checking them off on a list

7:30ish: Fire alarm goes off, organizers stop allowing people in. Auditorium was 1/2 full = 200 people, but entire upper part was empty. 200+ seats open

7:45ish - Fire alarm stops, but still no more people get in

8:08 - Ezra comes out and comments about censorship, etc.

 

 

[Friend] was outside the entire time until they said they weren't letting anyone else in, and said there were about 300-400 people waiting to get in and maybe 20-50 loud protestors.

 

 

Inside - there were maybe 8 anti-Coulter types, and their big impact was to chant 'Ann go home' for about 45 seconds, which inspired two women in front to start yelling back and challenge them to a slap off.

 

 

 

They added: "At no time was there any evidence of physical threat. To the extent that there were safety issues, it was because you had 600 people coming out for a talk and the organizers had absolutely no logistical plan to handle it. People annoyed like they get annoyed waiting to get into a jammed hockey game. But no 'threat' environment.

 

 

Finally, an observation from a CBC reporter who was in the Foyer while Coulter was being interviewed by CTV's Power Play: At approximately 5:15pm, he overheard a member of her security team tell a Conservative MP that her event "may be cancelled," which would suggest that the decision to do so was already being considered before more than half the crowd had assembled outside the venue -- hopeful speech-goers and protesters alike. Coulter herself, meanwhile, told Cosh that she never actually left the Rideau Club -- where she was the guest of honour at a $250 per head private reception -- for the university. Given the travel times involved, and the 7:30 pm start time, she would likely have had to do so by 7pm at the latest in order to make it in time.

 

 

So, what does it all mean? Was the cancellation motivated by genuine concern over "violent protesters" or Facebook threats -- or something else? I can't say I've come to any firm conclusion, but given reports that she plans to file a human rights complaint, it seems like it's worth it to keep digging away at the seemingly contradictory accounts of last night's events. I'll update this post with any additional information. I've also sent an email to both Levant and Scorpio asking for more details.

 

source http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/...last-night.html

 

 

HMMMMMMM.....the plot thickens

Edited March 24, 2010 by tooner

[AgentAxeman 174]

"he is talking about the government limiting ones political viewpoints, as I understand it the canadian and british hate speech laws are not in place to restrict ones political views"

 

get real man, these laws may not restrict ones political views as you say but it sure makes it a criminal offence to express said political views. You may not agree with that and thats your option/choice but at least you have the option/choice to express that. those who have political beliefs which are, shall we say, 'undesirable' do not have that luxury.

[Guest alex]

Do you everyone should be allowed complete freedom of speech then? Or does it only apply to people on the extreme right?

[tooner 243]

"he is talking about the government limiting ones political viewpoints, as I understand it the canadian and british hate speech laws are not in place to restrict ones political views"

 

get real man, these laws may not restrict ones political views as you say but it sure makes it a criminal offence to express said political views. You may not agree with that and thats your option/choice but at least you have the option/choice to express that. those who have political beliefs which are, shall we say, 'undesirable' do not have that luxury.

 

 

no it doesn't

[AgentAxeman 174]

Do you think everyone should be allowed complete freedom of speech then? Or does it only apply to people on the extreme right?

 

 

FYP

 

no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen.

 

naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum

[tooner 243]

Do you think everyone should be allowed complete freedom of speech then? Or does it only apply to people on the extreme right?

 

 

FYP

 

no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen.

 

naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum

 

 

so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell their sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country?

 

this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views

Edited March 24, 2010 by tooner

[AgentAxeman 174]

no it doesn't

 

 

Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas?

[Guest alex]

Do you think everyone should be allowed complete freedom of speech then? Or does it only apply to people on the extreme right?

 

 

FYP

 

no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen.

 

naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum

 

 

so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell there sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country?

 

this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views

Quite surprised to see him making such a staunch defence of the likes of Abu Hamza. Perhaps he hasn't thought this one through.

[AgentAxeman 174]

Do you think everyone should be allowed complete freedom of speech then? Or does it only apply to people on the extreme right?

 

 

FYP

 

no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen.

 

naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum

 

 

so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell there sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country?

 

this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views

 

what? so the people who were urging this 'cleansing of the cockroaches' weren't doing it for political aims? is that what you are saying? sure sounds like a political motive to me.

 

this may have well been the initial intention of these laws but the side effect (conveniently some would say) is that all spoken opposition to the 'status quo' (cue the jokes) is quashed.

[AgentAxeman 174]

Quite surprised to see him making such a staunch defence of the likes of Abu Hamza. Perhaps he hasn't thought this one through.

 

I may not agree with his views Alex (in fact, i detest him and his views) but he should be allowed to express them.

[PaddockLad 17153]

no it doesn't

 

 

Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas?

 

With the right to freedom of speech,thought and expression comes the responsibility not to use it in an imflamatory manner.....thats in some UN accord thing which I cant remember the name of but its the framework of a lot of anti-hate laws in existance. In other words, think what you like, but wind others up by expressing those thoughts in an imflamatory manner and, rightly or wrongly, you're nicked.

 

It's deliberately vague laywer speak and creates more problems than it solves if you ask me. How can you measure the extent of "imflamatoryness" for fucks sakes?

[tooner 243]

no it doesn't

 

 

Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas?

 

 

no it doesn't......

 

(source wiki)

In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).

 

freedom of speech protects ones right to percieve the world and comment on it as he/she sees fit unless he/she steps across the line as set out by the government. I can't believe I am going to say this but LM was right when he said free speech has limits (unfortunately for LM the limits set out by the government do not correspond with LM's).

 

I would defend anyones right to say "All muslims are terrorists -Ann Coulter", but not "All muslims are terrorists and should be killed, lets go and kill some muslims". There is a difference.