|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 21 Oct 13:59
I was going to post this on the other thread, but I decided it was not appropriate in the circumstances.
It seems that incidents of threatening behaviour towards our elected representatives are not that uncommon, although few (so far) have erupted into actual violence.
In general it seems to me society as a whole has become less tolerant.
At the same time, certain forms of abuse have become unacceptable. Does this mean that other forms have therefore become more acceptable? It seems to be that there are double-standards at play here.
Furthermore, if there is a blurring in what is and what is not acceptable, it shouldn`t be a surprise if some people find themselves on the wrong side of the line. This seems particularly relevant in politics and in football.
So my question is - what abuse is acceptable, and why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 21 Oct 14:54
No abuse is acceptable. I think people have blurred the lines between criticism and abuse.
Feeding back that someone's performance isn't good is fair enough, but not if you're not explaining what you'd like them to do. You see it on social media all the time with people moaning about something but not indicating what they think a better solution or approach would be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 21 Oct 20:52
``In general it seems to me society as a whole has become less tolerant.``
Yet the myth that we have become more tolerant as a nation is bandied around freely whenever the state of modern Britain is being discussed.
Tolerance is like liberty: we are all great believers in it when it chimes with our own set of values but not when it threatens them. Those who cling to the orthodoxies of their time are never keen on tolerance. Fifty years ago anyone making the case for equality for women, black people or homosexuals would have received short shrift. Today anyone questioning that equality would receive an equally hostile response.
So no, we are not more tolerant; just more tolerant about some things and less tolerant of others. When I supported the Pars as a teenager I would have been breaking at least 7 rules and regulations which apply today inside a stadium, for back then the crowd was not see as the threat that it is now, so policing was very relaxed by today’s standards.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 23 Oct 13:56
I`m not so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance.
Is that bad of me?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG741
Date: Mon 15 Nov 06:07
Here in Australia, there was a court case a few years ago involving our Prime Minister of the time, Tony Abbott.
A person carried a placard in the public which called Abbott a liar, heartless, and cruel, but the bit that got him into strife was the part that read “Peace Smile, People can Change, Tony You Can’t”, but in a tricksy trickster move, the ‘a’ in the final word was flipped upside down, which made it read as if he was calling Abbott a, well, you can work it out.
The person was taken to court and fined $500
Under appeal, the fine was overturned and the ruling judge stated in part "While the conduct was inappropriate and in poor taste, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt it was offensive. The front of the sandwich board was capable of being construed as being clever or light hearted while also capable of being read as the word ‘can’t’. The language used was clearly a play on words...This is an essential and accepted part of any democracy. That criticism can often extend to personal denigration or perhaps even ridicule, but still maintain its essential character as political comment. There is no reason to conclude that the prime minister, as the leader of the federal government, should be treated any differently to any other person who holds or seeks political office."
There was also something about the inferred word being less offensive in Australia than in some other countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 15 Nov 20:02
That sounded like a wise judgment from the Australian court.
The political class who have overseen a massive redistribution of wealth from rich to poor- and been pretty well rewarded for their efforts - want to extend the fairly recent notion of ‘Hate Crime’ to anyone carrying a placard that says ‘Down with the Government.’
I saw two young men arrested in Edinburgh on an anti-Iraq war demonstration about 20 years ago for carrying a poster of Blair/Bush underneath a swastika. The usual platitudes about disrespecting the Holocaust were dredged up to support the decision to arrest them but nobody really believed that. A crowd of 400 protesters gathered outside St. Leonard’s Police Station and the authorities realised they had overstepped the mark, so the two ‘culprits’ were released early the next morning when only a token protest remained. I think the lads were charged but that was the last I heard about it. I don’t think ‘Hate Crime’ had been invented then so they were presumably arrested under some Public Order Act dating from the 1930s.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 24 Nov 11:34
Jeremy Corbyn has been on the receiving end of more abuse than most public figures over the years. This week he has accepted damages from a Tory councillor who had the bright wheeze of photo-shopping Corbyn laying a wreath at the scene of the burning car involved in the explosion at a Liverpool hospital. In keeping with his actions in other similar cases, Corbyn intends to donate the money to various charities.
The BBC, whose flagship political programme ‘Newsnight’ photo-shopped Corbyn in a Bolshevik cap against the red background of the Kremlin a few years back, managed to report the story with a straight face. The MSM media, usually very quick to use words like ‘outrage’ and ‘fury,’ has reported the story more in sorrow than in anger. For them, it’s a sad tale of a decent Tory councillor who overstepped the mark. There but for the grace of God go you and I, pretty much sums up the tone.
Corbyn occupies a strange place in UK political life. Like Cassandra from Greek legend he is a man who seems to accurately warn of the future but is cursed never be believed at the time. He opposed apartheid South Africa, he welcomed IRA leaders into the political arena and he opposed the use of UK troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not many who denounced him for these positions would dare do so today. Instead he is now accused of anti-semitism for supporting Palestinians within the occupied territories.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
