Free Speech What Do Grans Think?

That's a point of view

HousePlantQueen

Skydancer

I think most of us have known a better time. A time when there were fewer people, when there was more respect, when people had better manners .... things have gone downhill in recent years in almost every aspect of life.

A better time when people "knew their place"?. When men were blackmailed/outed/beaten up for being "queers"?.. You stay in your fantasy of the good old days, I prefer where I am now, thank you.

This says it for me.

I’d add, where women ‘knew their place’, which was in the home accepting all manner of domestic abuse silently. Having said that, it’s my belief misogyny is growing.

But haven’t we merely exchanged one sort of oppression for another. In the past people could lose their jobs because of their sexual orientation. Now they can loose their jobs for what they say. Wouldn’t it be lovely to live in a time when everyone’s views were respected.

And the suggestion that this councillor couldn’t represent gay people is simply not a given. Politicians have to represent a lot of people they don’t agree with. Generally they do it very well.

As a Christian he seems to be just following biblical instructions and principles as in the Bible but you are not allowed to do that anymore. We have had the same issue here with people losing their jobs because of ‘hate speech’. Moslems as well as Christians have been judged harshly for following their beliefs as set down in their bibles/korans. There is no free speech, it doesn’t exist. Religious people have been persecuted forever and so it continues.

He did explain exactly what he meant:

Cllr Lawal tweeted: “Just to clear something up.

“In no way am I suggesting that LGBT people should be persecuted or should not live freely in which or whatever way they want.”All I did, which my right to do, is point out that both Pride & Homosexuality is Sin, which it is.”He added: “I believe in Christ and I will not be silenced.

I think logically, even though he says he is a councillor for all people, if I was part of the LGBT+ community in his area I would not be voting for him .

I think he needs to separate his role as preacher from his role as councillor. Representing people in a councillor role has nothing to do with ’sin’, unless and until someone breaks the law. Even then councillors have no special enforcement powers or dispensation to act outside of the law.

If a constituent were rude to his mother, was having an affair, or had a Buddha on a necklace a preacher might feel that they were breaking Christian commandments. If they were members of his congregation he might see it as appropriate to admonish them, but as a councillor it is none of his business.

He does have a right to his views, and to express them in his church, but the problem arises when he expresses them outside of that context. Even in church there are lines to be drawn through. What about an imam preaching jihad, for instance? Or someone urging followers to burn heretics at the stake or to stone adulterers?

It’s tricky, as it is true that some views are tolerated over others, and that can clash with the principle of allowing freedom of religion (or expression of that religion), but not all views are compatible with a peaceful and tolerant society, or even the law of the land, and the law has to take precedence.

Can it be possible to reconcile a belief in ‘sin’ in the sense that he seems to see it - something against the word of God that should not be tolerated - with a desire to represent all constituents fairly? If an adulterous liar who is both disrespectful to his (or her) parents and jealous of the neighbours asks to rent the Town Hall to screen The Life Of Brian or hold a Halloween party, what does he do? Is it possible to be true to both his congregation and his constituents?

Maybe he could argue for hating the sins but loving the sinner; but that approach doesn’t sit well with public tweets about Pride, and he does seem to be deliberately and disingenuously conflating Pride the carnival with pride the sin. He doesn’t seem to be wrestling with his conscience here, which is fine as a preacher (so long as he isn’t advocating discrimination) but it is not fine for a representative of a political party in his role as councillor.

Of course people with religious views can make excellent politicians, and many if not most of our laws are based on religious principles, but when these principles part company with the law the law has to prevail I think.

I am much more frightened of those who want to control speech than someone I consider homophobic. I have never met anyone who I would wish to be put in control of what is acceptable speech.

But doesn’t there have to be limits on what is acceptable speech? What if a speech advocated stoning adulterers or homosexuals?

Who will decide what is acceptable.
We have recently had Truss and Johnson running the country, are they good people to decide? Elon Musk is running Twitter, and actually like his predecessor is trying to control speech (just in a different way) is he an acceptable person to be given that power?

Inciting violence is against the law.

We decide at the ballot box I suppose.

I don’t think it is acceptable to advocate stoning people, or burning witches, (to use extreme examples). It is ok - if odd - for people to believe that others deserve such treatment, but incitement to violence is (and should remain) against the law IMO.

That doesnt answer the question though. Elon musk is currently putting controls on what is said on Twitter, with enormous reach, is that ok.

People think it will always be what they see as the good guys who have that power, it if course isnt.

Of course. Had no coffee yet.

Galaxy

That doesnt answer the question though. Elon musk is currently putting controls on what is said on Twitter, with enormous reach, is that ok.

People will vote with both their feet and cash. His advertising revenue has plummeted by at least 59%.

I don't know enough about the details of this specific case to be able to comment, but the challenge to promote and protect freedom of speech is always a balancing act. Unrestricted freedom risks the promulgation of extreme, anti-social views, or the radical promotion of hatred and violence. This presents a real threat to both the safety and the civil rights of others, so it simply isn’t true to suggest that any restriction on freedom of speech is a threat to democracy, as quite the opposite applies.
Nevertheless, the right to fearlessly say what others may not want to hear remains at the heart of our democracy, and it is essential that we all continue to have the freedom to campaign for a better world, in which equality and justice can prosper. We should also jealously guard the right to speak out against all that we see as divisive, discriminatory, and unjust.
Finally, in any exchange of views, we should always be mindful of the wisdom of the person who first said : “I may strongly disagree with your views, but nevertheless, I will die in a ditch defending your right to continue to express them”.

With respect, I don’t think you are answering my question, Galaxy. Is it ok to advocate stoning adulterers and/or homosexuals? Should those doing so be stopped?

That could take some time WW and in the meantime he is in charge. It is always minorities who suffer when speech is controlled. At one point it would have been seen as hurtful and offensive to say gay men should be able to marry, minorities rely on speech to campaign for their rights, we should be wary of any restrictions we place on speech.

No you are right I probably didnt doodledog. My view is that it is very difficult to control speech without it spiralling into restrictions which impact the minorities that people are trying to protect. I still remember listening to the Jewish man who advocated for the freedom of those who were anti semitic to express their view as the alternative for Jewish people would be much worse.
As for the balance it's incredibly complex and as I am scared of those who say with confidence what the 'balance' is, I just dont know.

Making a case (eg for acceptance of minorities) is one thing, but calling people sinful is different, surely? Not in church, necessarily, but how far should ’sin’ be relevant in civil (or secular) society?

I am beginning to wonder why the councillor needs as a Christian to sit in moral and theological judgment on a group of people who may or may not be Christian. The bottom line is that the councillor needs to work out his own behaviour and moral principles . He can’t then demand that other groups especially if non Christian follow the same rules.
As a local councillor his remit is quite narrow and he could do some very good practical work - pavements being my topic of the month. Perhaps the councillor could do a course in theology if that’s where his main interests lie. He seems a bit confused.

Cross post. I agree that it is difficult, and that one freedom can erode another, but that’s why we have laws. We should have the right to debate the changing of those laws, but not, IMO to incite violence against others.

The law

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects a right that's fundamental to our democracy – our freedom of expression is fundamental to our democracy. It means we're free to hold opinions and ideas and to share them with others without the State interfering.

So the cleric is perfectly entitled to hold and express his views as I am mine which means that I disagree with him.

Now whether the Tories actions were sensible, intelligent or acceptable is the real debate.

Germanshepherdsmum

Yes we have Skydancer. A time when we as heterosexual people born and bred here were in the majority, a time when we didn’t have to kowtow to those who were not, and to people whose sexual preferences are in the minority.

Wow. Well that confirms things.

There’s a difference between “kowtowing” and accepting and celebrating difference and diversity. Goodness knows, if you opened your mind a bit you might learn something.

We can share ideas, but the State will interfere if those ideas incite civil unrest. It’s one thing to write a letter to the paper (or tweet a point of view) but another to rabble-rouse on a street corner.

Even on here, whilst we can express different opinions on all sorts of things, if someone oversteps the mark their posts are pulled, and whole threads go when speech is not considered acceptable. The alternative in some cases would be that GN could be closed down for breaking libel laws, and in others that the tone of the site would change from the one preferred by those providing it. We can’t just say what we like, however much we may think we are right.