https://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1891386102474260820 It's a 2 minute video.
British police and a psychologist showed up in a man's home because he had written on social media "Christians must stand up" after Islamist attack.
Is this satire or is this really happening?
Is that all he wrote?
shareI'm not sure. I didnt watch the video.
shareIt is always best to see things in context.
sharehttps://x.com/LifeNewsHQ/status/1891857168858742910
You mean like this?
"Police in Scotland today stopped a woman from praying and standing silently outside an abortion facility. "
Love the way she thinks she can get away with it by hold a sign saying 'coercion is a crime'. But the police aren't buying LOL
In Scotland, "Safe Access Zones" around abortion clinics, established by the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act 2024, came into effect on September 24, 2024, prohibiting activities that could influence, obstruct, or harass those accessing or providing abortion care within 150 meters of a clinic. They also exist in the US. If there is a legal exclusion zone around an abortion clinic and the women is deliberately inside it intimidating others by her actions, then she can expect consequences. If she wants to pray, why can she not do it further away or when the clinic is closed? Because her intent is to have a negative effect in those seeking abortion help, not to only address her God. In the same way, if I broke into your house and preached scripture at you, would I be arrested 'for reading the Bible' ... or for trespass? This is just right-wing Christian propaganda which never seems to grow old.
Standing on a street corner = breaking into one's home.
Nice logic.
Standing illegally in an exclusion zone and appearing in your home illegally. Same principle
shareApart from the fact that one is public property and the other is private property, they're exactly the same.
Nice logic.
Thank you for agreeing with me. The point is that both the Christian and the trespasser (my example) are not being sanctioned for reading the Bible per se, but for breaking a specific law.
shareThe police, in their own words, tell the man they've showed up because they've "been told there are a few things that are bothering you at the moment," and that "people have raised concerns." Excuse me? Do they exist to enforce laws or are they the "concern" police? There are "concerns about beliefs being expressed." Again, are there laws against holding beliefs? Are British subjects forbidden even their freedom of conscience now?
What law exists in the U.K. that outlines exactly which beliefs are beyond the pale? We know that no law exists, nor will it ever exist, because this would deprive our globalist betters from the foundation of their two-tiered policing.
As I say, without knowing what he said, at greater length, as opposed to what he believes, there is no context. Also to my ears it just sounds as if the police are being polite.
shareAh yes, the "polite tyrants" excuse. I remember at Nuremberg when they gave Dieter and Uwe a pass because of the polite manner in which they treated their inmates. "Entschuldigung, Moeshe, would you mind ever so much entering these showers for a spell? Vielen dank!"
shareWould you prefer that they went in hard and aggressive instead? Then there might be reason for condemn heavy handedness or overreaction. I imagine that there has been a formal complaint about what the guy said on social media. The police have a duty to investigate. We don't know exactly what was said so it is hard to make judgement. It is simple as that.
shareI would prefer, as would most every inheritor of the 1000 year old Anglo-Saxon system of laws, that the police told the accuser(s), "this man hasn't broken any laws, therefore there's nothing to investigate. Stop wasting our time."
shareThe police can quite easily do that. In this case, how do we know they did not end up saying this very thing? But it is to be repeated that this appears on X and without any context.
shareSo they might have done this after they've brought a psychologist to his house and questioned him? How nice. But I can't help thinking how much better it would it be if they simply didn't do it in the first place.
But then I don't reflexively excuse every impingement in free speech.
So they might have done this after they've brought a psychologist to his house and questioned him?
But I can't help thinking how much better it would it be if they simply didn't do it in the first place.
Flimflam running the Skavau textbook.
Just remember what this evil fuck did to his daughter.
He will defend the cult against all reason, no matter what.
maixiu our country is finished. These people who show up to lecture and patronise people, are just the bottom of the barrel.
I fear you're correct. What a sad conclusion for a people who made such an outsized contribution to the world.
shareI feel genuinely sad for the U.K. You were once a great nation. When I was a kid in the ’90s, it was a common trope in movies and TV shows — young Americans dreaming of visiting Paris or London, setting off on that quintessential European trip. These cities had an almost mythical quality — places everyone should experience at least once, the kind of journey that could change your life for the better.
And now, look at them. London and Paris have been reduced to crime-ridden ghettos overrun by disgusting third-world foreigners. Who in their right mind would want to visit them now? It’s honestly tragic. If there’s any hope left, it rests with you — the real English people. You need a revolution. It’s now or never, chaps. No guns? No problem. You can 3D print guns. Just a pro tip.
We've got nothing bro, look at those idiots coming into the house of people who dared to write something. You can't make a horrible force of evil like that go away
This isn't a movie unfortunately.
Why the fuck does it matter? It shouldn't. That's the point that you never seem to get.
shareDon't forget the steps he and others take.
Step 1. Gaslight.
Step 2. Deny it happens.
Step 3. Acknowledged it happened, declare it extremely rare.
Step 4. Why it’s a good thing.
Step 5. The people pointing it out are the real problem.
Bingo! I don't know why we'd expect more from flimflam.
shareAnd I don't know why I would expect less from those who make these spurious claims bewailing the 'death of free speech' or freedom of religion etc when, even in the supposed bastion of such things, the US, there are clear restrictions on speech in some circumstances. Also, while freedom of religion is recognised and The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, it is still so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest.
shareWhere, in this instance, has anyone been gaslighted?
shareWhy the fuck does it matter? It shouldn't.
Even the US has limits on freedom of speech.
I am sure you would want to take action in a case of slander
Only when the Libs and Dems try to enforce it.
And yet, when libs and dems are guilty of any of those, 99% of the time, they don't get punished for it. Thanks for pointing out the double standards and hypocrisy of the left.
shareThanks for pointing out the double standards and hypocrisy of the left.
I should point out that the bar for restricting speech is extremely high — arguably the highest in the world — except perhaps in cases of child pornography. Proving defamation is notoriously difficult; in practice, you can say almost anything about someone without legal consequences. The same applies to threats, violent speech, and incitement. You might assume that statements like 'All Jews should be killed' or 'I'm going to kill you' would automatically be illegal, but the law requires that a threat be both imminent and credible. In reality, prosecutions for such speech are rare. Even if a local group or lobby attempts to make an example of you, conviction is unlikely. And if a judge does convict, an appeals court will likely overturn it. If, against all odds, the conviction still stands, the Supreme Court will almost certainly strike it down. Free speech in the U.S. is as close to absolute as it gets — or at least, that has been the long-standing interpretation of the courts. It’s only this new, retarded woke generation — particularly women more than men — that suddenly thinks speech should be curtailed.
To illustrate how free speech has been upheld, consider the 1977 case of the Nazis attempting to march through Skokie, Illinois—a neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors. When Nazis march, they openly call for the extermination of Jews and praise the Holocaust. Naturally, Skokie officials blocked the march, and a judge ruled in their favor. But when the case reached the Supreme Court, it was Jewish lawyers and the ACLU who defended the Nazis’ right to protest. The Court ruled in favor of the Nazis, affirming that even the most hateful and violent speech must be protected. That’s how deeply committed Americans were to free speech—even Jews who had lost family in the Holocaust defended the principle. This should be the global standard.
Maybe we Americans should invade the U.K. and teach you Brits how it’s done. You’re in desperate need of a lesson in free speech.
Maybe we Americans should invade the U.K. and teach you Brits how it’s done. You’re in desperate need of a lesson in free speech.
Yes, free speech has its downsides, but I think those downsides are a small price to pay. I’d rather X be a cesspit of hateful Nazis than the censored, politically correct hellhole it was under its previous leadership. As for dictatorship, the kind I’m referring to — at least in the context of the U.S. — is more about power than speech. Who holds ultimate authority? Is it Congress — the many — or the president or monarch — the one? In a proper monarchy, you could say whatever you want, but you wouldn’t be able to do whatever you want.
Even in my ideal National Socialist state, I would still base the system on free speech, much like the U.S. First Amendment. You could say whatever you wanted, no exceptions. Now, as a proper National Socialist, I would obviously seek to purge degeneracy from my society, for example feminists and LGBTQ activists would be oppressed — but not through speech laws. Instead, laws would target actions or inherent characteristics, much like how communists were blacklisted in the ’50s. It wouldn’t be about banning speech but rather restricting what certain groups can do or what rights they have.
Even as a right-wing dictator, I would not want to directly curtail free speech laws but would use other means. The populace would be encouraged to treat undesirables with contempt, and authorities would turn a blind eye to those who made their lives miserable. Rather than outlawing degeneracy outright, I’d prefer that society itself impose social consequences, making these people pariahs. For example, instead of criminalizing homosexuality, I’d rather it be universally scorned, ensuring those who engage in it are ostracized and pushed to the margins.
I’d rather X be a cesspit of hateful Nazis than the censored, politically correct hellhole it was under its previous leadership
Even as a right-wing dictator, I would not want to directly curtail free speech laws but would use other means. The populace would be encouraged to treat undesirables with contempt, and authorities would turn a blind eye to those who made their lives miserable. Rather than outlawing degeneracy outright, I’d prefer that society itself impose social consequences, making these people pariahs.
Libel and slander are civil issues.
Sorry but it's not freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't cause anxiety or distress.
This is why I call you subjects. You literally have no understanding of liberty.
Libel and slander are civil issues.
it's not freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't cause anxiety or distress.
Gee, and here I thought the country being too expensive to live in and them being too liberal were the only reasons I chose to cross it off my list of countries to possibly move to.
shareI bet thered be no objections and crying about which rights have been broken if the same thing happened at a muslims house for the identical reason - suspected radicalisation.
When Christians begin moving to Muslim lands and repaying their hosts by driving cars through open air markets, blowing up subway stops, blowing up concerts, organizing massive rape rings of the local girls, etc., we can worry about the alleged double standard. As it is, the actual double standard is that British police are constantly told to stand down when it comes to matters involving their new Muslim overlords while no restraint is shown toward indigenous Brits.
sharecrying
Free speech only applies to the US. There is no law from the UK that guarantees that. No one really wants American values as it's too entertaining enough watching them kill each other off on the constant. Free speech just proves when given to under a low IQ population what it can do to a nation.
shareIn the United Kingdom, freedom of expression is protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, share ideas, and express oneself in a variety of ways. Speech that amounts to unlawful harassment or unlawful discrimination does not constitute free speech within the law and is not protected.
shareSo, speech isn't free in any meaningful sense, then.
shareJust as your 'murican freedom isnt " free in any meaningful sense"
ie you are not free to cut your neighbours head off.
There has to be limits.
In the United Kingdom, free speech stops at people encouraging others to murder or other wise persecute innocent people. (or even guilty ones)