This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Looks like our politicians and academia are only interested if you are French and a cartoonist.
Any hope of home grown discussion has been thwarted.
https://www.change.org/p/the-university-of-southampton-uphold-free-speech-a...
Why are people so blinkered and frightened to discuss this issue?
And what hope for peace if we just ignore it?
If you care please sign the petition.
Any hope of home grown discussion has been thwarted.
https://www.change.org/p/the-university-of-southampton-uphold-free-speech-a...
Why are people so blinkered and frightened to discuss this issue?
And what hope for peace if we just ignore it?
If you care please sign the petition.
1
In reply to krikoman:
Drawing back from this specific case, the petition says that the University has a legal obligation to allow free speech. In what sense?
Drawing back from this specific case, the petition says that the University has a legal obligation to allow free speech. In what sense?
1
In reply to The New NickB:
It reads like it was written by the student's union, quite surprised to see someone claiming to be a professor would put their name to it ( the bit about the university being private property, for example ).
> Drawing back from this specific case, the petition says that the University has a legal obligation to allow free speech. In what sense?
It reads like it was written by the student's union, quite surprised to see someone claiming to be a professor would put their name to it ( the bit about the university being private property, for example ).
In reply to tony:
Delegitimising Israel's right to exist and various 9/11 truthers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk
In response to Falk's comments regarding the Boston Marathon bombings, the British mission to the United Nations stated that “[this is] the third time we have had cause to express our concerns about Mr. Falk’s anti-Semitic remarks. It is important to the U.K. that special rapporteurs uphold the highest standards in their work and we have twice previously made clear that remarks by Mr. Falk were unacceptable.”
> What was the conference about and who was speaking at it?
Delegitimising Israel's right to exist and various 9/11 truthers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk
In response to Falk's comments regarding the Boston Marathon bombings, the British mission to the United Nations stated that “[this is] the third time we have had cause to express our concerns about Mr. Falk’s anti-Semitic remarks. It is important to the U.K. that special rapporteurs uphold the highest standards in their work and we have twice previously made clear that remarks by Mr. Falk were unacceptable.”
2
1
In reply to winhill:
I think the link would have been written by the person who set up the petition.
More on the issue here
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/31/southampton-university-cance...
Where did you get Falk from? There's no mention of him anywhere on the web link site?
> It reads like it was written by the student's union, quite surprised to see someone claiming to be a professor would put their name to it ( the bit about the university being private property, for example ).
I think the link would have been written by the person who set up the petition.
More on the issue here
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/31/southampton-university-cance...
Where did you get Falk from? There's no mention of him anywhere on the web link site?
Post edited at 13:03
1
In reply to The New NickB:
I don't know in what sense, maybe the moral one.
Edit " Or this ^^"
I does seem strange though that this was scheduled and then cancelled after a petition against it, especially as Netanyahu is a staunch proponent for free speech, as can be witnessed by his travelling to France in support of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.
But maybe I'm being too cynical.
> Drawing back from this specific case, the petition says that the University has a legal obligation to allow free speech. In what sense?
I don't know in what sense, maybe the moral one.
Edit " Or this ^^"
I does seem strange though that this was scheduled and then cancelled after a petition against it, especially as Netanyahu is a staunch proponent for free speech, as can be witnessed by his travelling to France in support of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists.
But maybe I'm being too cynical.
Post edited at 13:11
1
In reply to krikoman:
Classic stuff, this from the gruaniad link you just posted:
Others due to appear at the conference included Richard Falk, the Jewish American academic and former UN special rapporteur who once compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to the Nazis’ treatment of Jews.
Noakes (sic) expressed concern about the presence of Falk and said the university could “bring itself into disrepute by hosting such an apparently one-sided event”.
> More on the issue here
> Where did you get Falk from? There's no mention of him anywhere on the web link site?
Classic stuff, this from the gruaniad link you just posted:
Others due to appear at the conference included Richard Falk, the Jewish American academic and former UN special rapporteur who once compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to the Nazis’ treatment of Jews.
Noakes (sic) expressed concern about the presence of Falk and said the university could “bring itself into disrepute by hosting such an apparently one-sided event”.
2
In reply to winhill:
Cheers, I hadn't read the Guardian article before the OP
> Classic stuff, this from the gruaniad link you just posted:
Cheers, I hadn't read the Guardian article before the OP
1
In reply to krikoman:
Looks like the university was left stuck between a rock and hard place when no pro-Israeli voices could be found to attend. What would be the point of such a one-sided "debate"? It would be be guaranteed to end up reflecting very badly on the university. On the other hand they could cancel... Without knowing the details, I suspect much of the fault here lies with the organisers.
Looks like the university was left stuck between a rock and hard place when no pro-Israeli voices could be found to attend. What would be the point of such a one-sided "debate"? It would be be guaranteed to end up reflecting very badly on the university. On the other hand they could cancel... Without knowing the details, I suspect much of the fault here lies with the organisers.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
It would be be guaranteed to end up reflecting very badly on the university.
How? The university wouldn't be endorsing the views expressed at all. At worst it would reflect badly on the organisers. Cancelling it, particularly in this mealy-mouthed way, definitely does reflect very badly on the university however.
It would be be guaranteed to end up reflecting very badly on the university.
How? The university wouldn't be endorsing the views expressed at all. At worst it would reflect badly on the organisers. Cancelling it, particularly in this mealy-mouthed way, definitely does reflect very badly on the university however.
In reply to MG:
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Seems slightly odd in the context our legal framework, which sets very specific limits on freedom of speech.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Seems slightly odd in the context our legal framework, which sets very specific limits on freedom of speech.
1
In reply to krikoman:
It's like the BNP organising a conference on 'The Bell Curve and International Law ( Sending the Buggers Home ) in the 21st Century' and then being surprised when they can't get a west indian to attend.
It's like the BNP organising a conference on 'The Bell Curve and International Law ( Sending the Buggers Home ) in the 21st Century' and then being surprised when they can't get a west indian to attend.
2
1
In reply to krikoman:
Without getting in to that particular topic, I'm not in favour of totally unregulated free speech. We don't have free speech. If you are unsure about this, try the following thought experiment. Find a black police officer and shout "Oi, you f@#£ing n@#ger you are a total c#nt, you can't lock me up cause its free speech innit tho bruv yeah.".
What do you think would result?
Don't try this at home boys and girls....
Without getting in to that particular topic, I'm not in favour of totally unregulated free speech. We don't have free speech. If you are unsure about this, try the following thought experiment. Find a black police officer and shout "Oi, you f@#£ing n@#ger you are a total c#nt, you can't lock me up cause its free speech innit tho bruv yeah.".
What do you think would result?
Don't try this at home boys and girls....
1
In reply to marsbar:
Yes but no one claims absolutely unregulated freedom of expression is desirable - that's not what the term means. Even the US, the free-est of free-speech countries, doesn't allow everything. The reason for defending free speech is to ensure that ideas (even unpopular, apparently vile ones) can be examined, criticised and either adopted or abandoned. This should be robustly defended and not salami-sliced away.
> Without getting in to that particular topic, I'm not in favour of totally unregulated free speech. We don't have free speech.
Yes but no one claims absolutely unregulated freedom of expression is desirable - that's not what the term means. Even the US, the free-est of free-speech countries, doesn't allow everything. The reason for defending free speech is to ensure that ideas (even unpopular, apparently vile ones) can be examined, criticised and either adopted or abandoned. This should be robustly defended and not salami-sliced away.
In reply to MG:
I'm not sure the readers of the newspapers would necessarily see it that way.
Yes, this is probably the worst option they could have chosen.
> The university wouldn't be endorsing the views expressed at all. At worst it would reflect badly on the organisers.
I'm not sure the readers of the newspapers would necessarily see it that way.
> Cancelling it, particularly in this mealy-mouthed way, definitely does reflect very badly on the university however.
Yes, this is probably the worst option they could have chosen.
1
In reply to marsbar:
You don't even have to go that far. I remember a Lib Dem MP getting slaughtered from all quarters a few years ago for daring to say:
"Palestinian children growing up in the occupied territories face a bleak future".
There is no such thing as "Freedom of Speech" in this modern Western world. It's a myth. The concept of "Freedom of Speech" is just an excuse for allowing the racist abuse of people with people with brown skin in general and Muslims in particular. "Freedom of Speech" most certainly does not allow any kind of criticism whatsoever of barbaric war criminals in the Middle East who are staunch allies of the United States.
> Without getting in to that particular topic, I'm not in favour of totally unregulated free speech. We don't have free speech. If you are unsure about this, try the following thought experiment. Find a black police officer and shout "Oi, you f@#£ing n@#ger you are a total c#nt, you can't lock me up cause its free speech innit tho bruv yeah.".
You don't even have to go that far. I remember a Lib Dem MP getting slaughtered from all quarters a few years ago for daring to say:
"Palestinian children growing up in the occupied territories face a bleak future".
There is no such thing as "Freedom of Speech" in this modern Western world. It's a myth. The concept of "Freedom of Speech" is just an excuse for allowing the racist abuse of people with people with brown skin in general and Muslims in particular. "Freedom of Speech" most certainly does not allow any kind of criticism whatsoever of barbaric war criminals in the Middle East who are staunch allies of the United States.
1
1
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Well, actually, yes it does. If you want to criticise Israel then go ahead.
The issue of whether someone gives you a platform is a somewhat different one.
> "Freedom of Speech" most certainly does not allow any kind of criticism whatsoever of barbaric war criminals in the Middle East who are staunch allies of the United States.
Well, actually, yes it does. If you want to criticise Israel then go ahead.
The issue of whether someone gives you a platform is a somewhat different one.
3
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
You just criticised them. I take it a death squad is now being despatched to kill you?
I somehow doubt it.
> You don't even have to go that far. I remember a Lib Dem MP getting slaughtered from all quarters a few years ago for daring to say:
> "Palestinian children growing up in the occupied territories face a bleak future".
> There is no such thing as "Freedom of Speech" in this modern Western world. It's a myth. The concept of "Freedom of Speech" is just an excuse for allowing the racist abuse of people with people with brown skin in general and Muslims in particular. "Freedom of Speech" most certainly does not allow any kind of criticism whatsoever of barbaric war criminals in the Middle East who are staunch allies of the United States.
You just criticised them. I take it a death squad is now being despatched to kill you?
I somehow doubt it.
2
In reply to
i cant understand why isreal and its people are so protected against criticism. do they think they need special measures because what happened 80 years ago?
i cant understand why isreal and its people are so protected against criticism. do they think they need special measures because what happened 80 years ago?
1
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
You do realise Obama and the Israeli Administration have had quite a war of words.
Obama has been very critical, and refused to meet with Natanyahu last month when he was in the States. Their stances on how the future should look are quite different.
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20150327_SEPTA_agrees_...
this is an example of US free speech.. SEPTA hate the ads but have to run them.
You do realise Obama and the Israeli Administration have had quite a war of words.
Obama has been very critical, and refused to meet with Natanyahu last month when he was in the States. Their stances on how the future should look are quite different.
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20150327_SEPTA_agrees_...
this is an example of US free speech.. SEPTA hate the ads but have to run them.
1
And the implication, that Israel exists only because of what happened 80 years ago (you mean the Holocaust?) is just not historically based. The reasons for its existance are far far more complex and multi-faceted than that.
1
In reply to krikoman:
This is not a free speech issue. The event can still take place.
As I see it, Southampton Uni has realised that the event, as set up, is not an academic one. Rather it is polemical. So the organisers have moved themselves out of the academic domain
I imagine that if it had been more general. Like 'What were the legal bases for establishing countries in the 20th century?' And the speakers represent a range of views, rather than one. And a range of countries were to be discussed (Jordan, Australia, Singapore.......) Then it would have been endorsed by the university
This is not a free speech issue. The event can still take place.
As I see it, Southampton Uni has realised that the event, as set up, is not an academic one. Rather it is polemical. So the organisers have moved themselves out of the academic domain
I imagine that if it had been more general. Like 'What were the legal bases for establishing countries in the 20th century?' And the speakers represent a range of views, rather than one. And a range of countries were to be discussed (Jordan, Australia, Singapore.......) Then it would have been endorsed by the university
Post edited at 19:39
1
In reply to mark s:
That's definitely not how they see it! It's pretty amazing how far apart perspectives on whether the UK media is pro- or anti-Israel can be... I think there's a pretty reasonable mix tbh, with plenty of sickening right-wing lies from Murdoch if that's your bag (but if it is, please, please kill yourself) and the biased anti-Israel Channel 4 News on the other with the well-debated topic of BBC coverage between these extremes; but it's impossible to tell who's nearest the balance without being omniscient!
> i cant understand why isreal and its people are so protected against criticism
That's definitely not how they see it! It's pretty amazing how far apart perspectives on whether the UK media is pro- or anti-Israel can be... I think there's a pretty reasonable mix tbh, with plenty of sickening right-wing lies from Murdoch if that's your bag (but if it is, please, please kill yourself) and the biased anti-Israel Channel 4 News on the other with the well-debated topic of BBC coverage between these extremes; but it's impossible to tell who's nearest the balance without being omniscient!
1
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
You seem to be making this up, there's zero record of it on the web.
You are definitely making this up.
The racial hatred laws in the UK were redrafted to allow Muslims to continue to be racist people.
In 2007 one poll found that 31% of British muslims supported the death penalty for converting from Islam, in Pakistan in 2013 Pew found it was 62%, in Egypt they found it was 88% (!)
13 countries have the death penalty for apostasy, curiously all muslim.
This is before you get onto the endemic and eschatological Jew hatred.
> You don't even have to go that far. I remember a Lib Dem MP getting slaughtered from all quarters a few years ago for daring to say:
> "Palestinian children growing up in the occupied territories face a bleak future".
You seem to be making this up, there's zero record of it on the web.
> There is no such thing as "Freedom of Speech" in this modern Western world. It's a myth. The concept of "Freedom of Speech" is just an excuse for allowing the racist abuse of people with people with brown skin in general and Muslims in particular.
You are definitely making this up.
The racial hatred laws in the UK were redrafted to allow Muslims to continue to be racist people.
In 2007 one poll found that 31% of British muslims supported the death penalty for converting from Islam, in Pakistan in 2013 Pew found it was 62%, in Egypt they found it was 88% (!)
13 countries have the death penalty for apostasy, curiously all muslim.
This is before you get onto the endemic and eschatological Jew hatred.
3
In reply to winhill:
Interesting - how so? Bit of a tone to that though, and an open invitation to accusations of hypocrisy...
I think you missed 16-24yr olds out of that; still quite shocking though.
> The racial hatred laws in the UK were redrafted to allow Muslims to continue to be racist people.
Interesting - how so? Bit of a tone to that though, and an open invitation to accusations of hypocrisy...
> In 2007 one poll found that 31% of British muslims supported the death penalty for converting from Islam
I think you missed 16-24yr olds out of that; still quite shocking though.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Nope, they were 36%, 25-34 were 37% so it wasn't even just the youth. 31% was the average across all ages.
> I think you missed 16-24yr olds out of that; still quite shocking though.
Nope, they were 36%, 25-34 were 37% so it wasn't even just the youth. 31% was the average across all ages.
1
In reply to winhill:
Not much point in arguing the toss over this, but here's the article I was looking at.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion
Still interested in this redrafting the law thing - what were you referring to?
Not much point in arguing the toss over this, but here's the article I was looking at.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion
Still interested in this redrafting the law thing - what were you referring to?
1
In reply to MikeTS:
Then why not say this rather than use Health and Safety?
Regarding no valid opposition, what was going to happen if Cameron hadn't turned up for the TV debate?
They were going to have it without him, granted it's slightly different to this situation, but you get my point. If nobody every turned up then what's your option?. Whether this turns out to be a polemic or not, it still gets people talking, interested and hopefully more engaged rather than just sitting on their arses.
In the light of the big protests about freedom of speech, especially since most of European leaders were in France "showing support", Bibi included (though this might have been more of a recruiting drive for Israel than any deep held belief about freedom of speech), it seems a little incongruous that this event gets cancelled.
It good in a away because all it's done is publicise the problem,more than if they'd just held the debate.
> This is not a free speech issue. The event can still take place.
> As I see it, Southampton Uni has realised that the event, as set up, is not an academic one. Rather it is polemical. So the organisers have moved themselves out of the academic domain
Then why not say this rather than use Health and Safety?
Regarding no valid opposition, what was going to happen if Cameron hadn't turned up for the TV debate?
They were going to have it without him, granted it's slightly different to this situation, but you get my point. If nobody every turned up then what's your option?. Whether this turns out to be a polemic or not, it still gets people talking, interested and hopefully more engaged rather than just sitting on their arses.
In the light of the big protests about freedom of speech, especially since most of European leaders were in France "showing support", Bibi included (though this might have been more of a recruiting drive for Israel than any deep held belief about freedom of speech), it seems a little incongruous that this event gets cancelled.
It good in a away because all it's done is publicise the problem,more than if they'd just held the debate.
In reply to winhill:
dont forget islam is the religion of peace,ask the parents of those in kenya killed yesterday
i hate all religion but islam needs f**king off more than any other.
a seriously backward thinking oppressive pile of bollocks
dont forget islam is the religion of peace,ask the parents of those in kenya killed yesterday
i hate all religion but islam needs f**king off more than any other.
a seriously backward thinking oppressive pile of bollocks
1
2
In reply to mark s:
Your post is a seriously backward thinking pile of bollocks.
Your post is a seriously backward thinking pile of bollocks.
Post edited at 11:17
2
2
In reply to The New NickB:
That is exactly the case. Anti-extremism legislation is now mandating universities have a requirement to prevent radicalisation, but are also required (based on some test case that I can't remember) to safeguard free speech. Wish I could find the article where I read about it recently. But essentially it means a speaker can come and talk about anything...but if they get in to the realm of politically uncorrect discussions (i.e. Israel/terrorism) they can be barred.
> Drawing back from this specific case, the petition says that the University has a legal obligation to allow free speech. In what sense?
That is exactly the case. Anti-extremism legislation is now mandating universities have a requirement to prevent radicalisation, but are also required (based on some test case that I can't remember) to safeguard free speech. Wish I could find the article where I read about it recently. But essentially it means a speaker can come and talk about anything...but if they get in to the realm of politically uncorrect discussions (i.e. Israel/terrorism) they can be barred.
1
In reply to Falung:
the question is where is the boundary line? And who decides?
I can't see that this could be described as politicly uncorrect.
> That is exactly the case. Anti-extremism legislation is now mandating universities have a requirement to prevent radicalisation, but are also required (based on some test case that I can't remember) to safeguard free speech. Wish I could find the article where I read about it recently. But essentially it means a speaker can come and talk about anything...but if they get in to the realm of politically uncorrect discussions (i.e. Israel/terrorism) they can be barred.
the question is where is the boundary line? And who decides?
I can't see that this could be described as politicly uncorrect.
1
1
In reply to mark s:
somewhere the might an equally backward thinking member of an other cultural/religious/racial group saying the same, (insert group they choose to hate) needs f**king off more than any other. a seriously backward thinking oppressive pile of bollocks "
somewhere the might an equally backward thinking member of an other cultural/religious/racial group saying the same, (insert group they choose to hate) needs f**king off more than any other. a seriously backward thinking oppressive pile of bollocks "
Post edited at 13:12
1
In reply to gd303uk:
you have ticked the P.C boxes now you can carry on with your day,knowing how smug you feel.
during the time it took you to type that,i wonder how many people died in the name of islam,people daring to disagree with their version of sky fairies .
you have ticked the P.C boxes now you can carry on with your day,knowing how smug you feel.
during the time it took you to type that,i wonder how many people died in the name of islam,people daring to disagree with their version of sky fairies .
1
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...