1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
However, Forster is not completely off the hook. Gerrard said that Dr Forster would be spoken to by officers, who would would tell him that if they could have, they would have charged him.
Arent you glad you dont live in a country where they send thugs to your house to tell you to watch what you say?

Must be rough living in a police state where you cant be armed and you have to watch what you think and say. If this kind of state isnt justification for armed revolution I dont know what is. What exactly are we doing "Allied" with a country like this again?
;)

And what are we doing blindly marching in the same direction?

STORY

Anti-Gay Bishop Won't Face Hate Crime Charges
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff.

Originally published: 10 November 2003.

(London) An Anglican bishop who said gays should get cured will not be charged under Britain's hate crimes law, police said late Monday.

The Rt Rev Dr Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester, said in an interview with a newspaper: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves."

He added: "I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject, that's in the area of psychiatric health," he told the Chester Chronicle.

Acting on a complaint police began a formal hate crimes investigation, and consulted with prosecutors.

Monday night, Police said they were powerless to charge bishop Forster.

"Current public order legislation does not provide specific offences based on sexuality," a police spokesperson said.

"The Crown Prosecution Service has been consulted at length, and the Cheshire Constabulary is satisfied that no criminal offences have been committed," said Assistant Chief Constable Graeme Gerrard.

However, Forster is not completely off the hook. Gerrard said that Dr Forster would be spoken to by officers, who would would tell him that if they could have, they would have charged him.

Forster refused to comment.

He is part of the Church's Evanglical wing, the name given to traditionalists. Forster has been highly critical of the election of Gene Robinson as Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, in the US, and was one of the leaders of a move which forced another gay priest, Cannon Jeffrey John, to withdraw his nomination as Bishop of Oxford.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Nobody has anything to say about it in 60+ views? This is a big deal folks you can go to jail in England for expressing an opinion. The police felt "powerless" that they couldnt arrest this guy!

Im kinda curious what kinds of people are specifically protected from negative expressions of opinion. Is it a misdemeanor or a felony? How much time can you get for thought crimes in merry ole England?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
Ahhhhh...good ol hate crimes legislation.

Because killing someone who isn't like you is so much worse than killing someone who is.

No, he didn't kill anybody, but you get the idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,204 Posts
Mus, YOU can go to jail here for expressing an opinion too. People have been arrested and found guilty for using racial slurs, making it a hate crime. Or for voicing unpopular opinions regarding people's sexual preferences or for opposing abortion by picketing clinics.

It ain't just in Jolly Olde England.

You see, we can't offend anyone in any manner since we'll lower their feelings of worth. It doesn't matter that unpopular opinions and words are protected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
I wonder if the UK is currently going through "Sentence Inversion".

For real crimes against others, the punishment is near nonexistant. "Life" in prison means 20 years or less (heck, MAX is 15 years in Germany).

Of course, while for violence you get a slap on the wrist, the politicians ARE getting tough on crime. "We need to get tough on these people who didn't hand in weapons, minumum 5 years" (never mind that's more than you'd realisticially get for shooting someone and not killing them). Likewise, they're going to start throwing the book at guys like this professor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
BTW - the first amendment is really about as neutered as the 2nd. It really only protects porn.

You may not like "big evil special interest group donors"; but the campaign finance laws ARE restricting speech.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
Jim V said:
Mus, YOU can go to jail here for expressing an opinion too. People have been arrested and found guilty for using racial slurs, making it a hate crime. Or for voicing unpopular opinions regarding people's sexual preferences or for opposing abortion by picketing clinics.
I dont know about that. Im sure some people have been arrested for harrassing people, but I dont think we are at the point where people are arrested for merely expressing an opinion.

Battler said:
BTW - the first amendment is really about as neutered as the 2nd. It really only protects porn.

You may not like "big evil special interest group donors"; but the campaign finance laws ARE restricting speech.
I agree there. It is neutered, but it isnt meaningless. We arent trying to put people in jail in this country for reading their bibles aloud the way they are in Canada.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
The UK does not have a constitution with a Bill of Rights as such. Consequently, they have many more restrictions on personal liberties than we. A good example is that it is possible to "ban" books that the government has decided are dangerousl for the public to read.

Our country isn't perfect, but it's way out in front of whoever is in second place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
God given rights vs one's given by the Goverrment/Monarch.

Why we revolted against them in the first place, ever wonder why the freedom of speech was the 1st ammendment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
north said:
God given rights vs one's given by the Goverrment/Monarch.

Why we revolted against them in the first place, ever wonder why the freedom of speech was the 1st ammendment.
While I recognize that it looks as though England might have been better off if they had just stuck with a King rather than the impotent figurehead they have today.

I remember after one of those massacres before the gun ban in England one of the royals, I forget who, saying something like, "If you ban guns people will just kill each other with knives and cricket bats." He was ridiculed in the press, and he was right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
Same kind of English law, coming to a place near you.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10833



Leaders from both parties -- Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and Democrat Ted Kennedy -- have vowed to push through a new, wide-reaching federal "hate crimes" bill before the end of the current session. A "hate crimes" law would make crimes motivated by enmity toward blacks, gays or other protected groups into a special federal offense. The ostensible purpose of such a law is to protect minorities from persecution. The result, however, would be the exact opposite. Targeting those with "politically incorrect" motives undermines the principle of objective law which undergirds our legal system's protection of rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
Mus said:
While I recognize that it looks as though England might have been better off if they had just stuck with a King rather than the impotent figurehead they have today.

I remember after one of those massacres before the gun ban in England one of the royals, I forget who, saying something like, "If you ban guns people will just kill each other with knives and cricket bats." He was ridiculed in the press, and he was right.
Having kings etc. sux; but it's probably not as bad as socialism, particularly a socialism run at the whims of fairies.

The royals seem less offensive to use mainly because the Queen is significantly less feminized than most British men.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
BTW - I suspect that the decline in liberties being 10-20 years behind such countries is the absence of mandatory voting in the US (and the election system in generaly), not the constitution or BOR.

I mean, it's not like the constitution is ever actually recognized for anything - the word "Constitution" is merely invoked as consolidation for some socialist gain that isn't even in there (e.g. "ending medicare would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!")

In the US, the real gibbering idiots are disproportionately represented at the polls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Jim V said:
Mus, YOU can go to jail here for expressing an opinion too. People have been arrested and found guilty for using racial slurs, making it a hate crime.
I haven't researched that, so I can't necessarily refute it. But in a way, you are right. If you are convivted of a hate crime, extra time is tacked on to your sentence (time that wouldn't be added if it was not deemed as such). So, technically, your are formally prosecuted for a hate crime. Of course, that's a slap in the face of the 1st because they are punishing somebody for what they may have been thinking at the time of the offense.

One thing is for sure, many people have been persecuted, fined, fired, and otherwise had their lives ruined, for expressing a non-pc viewpoint (marge schott, Jimmy the greek, El Rushbo,etc)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)
Battler said:
Having kings etc. sux; but it's probably not as bad as socialism, particularly a socialism run at the whims of fairies.

The royals seem less offensive to use mainly because the Queen is significantly less feminized than most British men.
Battler said:
In the US, the real gibbering idiots are disproportionately represented at the polls.
Yep. Thats what I meant. I would rather have one tyrant with a classic books education instead of having my opinion overruled by many tyrants at the polls who are ignorant socialist fools any day.

PS: Utah Forumites. Why dont you keep that Orrin Hatch fool on a leash? Im tired of seeing that RINOs name on all these leftist bills!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Mus said:
PS: Utah Forumites. Why dont you keep that Orrin Hatch fool on a leash? Im tired of seeing that RINOs name on all these leftist bills!
...Or pitch in and buy him a spine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Hmmm ... funny; George Bush's White House press secretary Scott McClellan says that subjects of the United Kingdom exercise their rights.

Why, concerning George Bush's visit in the face of mass "protests" by the subjects, McClellen has been paraphrased as stating ...

"Democracy is a wonderful thing .... Freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble are the very foundation of our democracy."

"People, obviously, have the right to express their views. That's the strength of a democratic system. And it's certainly their right to assemble and express their views in a peaceful way."

And Komrade Blair actually referred to a "right"; ... "Protest if you will, that is your democratic right .... "

Blair got pretty carried away too on the matter; according to the Associated Press "Blair regards himself as a diplomatic bridge between the United States and continental Europe. He said the two continents would remain "twin pillars" of Britain's foreign policy".

Komrade Blair at the Lord Mayor's banquet at London's city hall in a speech on Britain's foreign policy ran thus .......

"My Lord Mayor, My Late Lord Mayor, Your Grace, My Lord High Chancellor, Your Excellencies, My Lords, Aldermen, Sheriffs, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Tonight I want to re-state the basic tenets of this government's foreign policy. These are that the world today is more interdependent than ever before; that engagement not isolation is therefore essential to further British interests; and that this should be on the basis of a broad agenda pursued with our key allies that seeks both to combat the 21st century security threat of terrorism and unstable states and to bring social justice to the world's poor and oppressed. In particular, I want to re-affirm the twin pillars on which rest Britain's place in the world today: our alliance with America; our membership of the EU. Both are necessary. Both complement each other....."

Further along he is equally enlightening ....

".... This should astonish no-one. Europe and America share the same values; are bound inextricably by history and culture; and now more than ever, are into each others ribs in business, trade and commerce ...... "


......... How good of Komrade Blair to set the record straight on all counts.

Read the whole speech at:

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page4803.asp

And incidently you can read many of his others at:

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page5.asp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
Forstr said:
LAK, not sure where your going with that. What's your point?
The point might be that Tony Blair is a liar and a communist and we should not be so closely allied with England when their government doesnt recognize certain human rights like *actual* freedom of speech (including saying hurtful things), the right to bear arms, etc. To do so is a bad influence on our country. You become who you hang out with as a person. Nations are not much different.

Blair was right when he said our nations shared many values. Unfortunately his country started departing from those values about 100 years ago, whereas we only started departing about 70 years ago, and the conversion has been less successful and slower moving in this country compared to his.

We cannot afford to keep walking down this path.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
I see...that does make sense, but I still have to commend them for being willing to call a spade a spade, and help us out in the war on terror.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top