respect for freedom in jolly old england

[stu]

Quote from whitster:

you are lying, and i don't have "religious prejudice"

Ok you are rattled as you lose an argument but unfounded Insult won't help your position any. and as far as I can tell by what you post, you are doing little else but displaying a self-opinionated religious predjudice and some slightly wacky notions of a political nature.

Quote from whitster:

the ban IS because of their belief system

Quite plainly it is not.. Rotheram council made clear it is not

Quote from whitster:
it's a classic example of stifling of free speech and religious expreission in the name of sensitivity.

Rubbish. It an example of you pleading the old worn out christian perseqution card .

Quote from whitster:

"Rotherham metropolitan borough council explained that its ban applied to all of the religious, political and commercial groups in the district."

QED. It is not a ban on their belief system any more than it is a ban on any belief system a Commercial enterprise or political group may hold.
You are crying wolf.

They have decided not to allow political religious or commercial advertising. Perfectly reasonable and is not a restriction on free speech of politics Commerce or religion or christians. Were it so, it would be a ban on free politics and Commerce speech too.

Where are the Christians complainng about this ??... " We go to other countries to promote democracy and free-thinking yet on our own doorstep we cannot even put up a poster about our Commercial events and our politicians Political messages" ....eh?.

No they don't. It's just them who are beinng victimized .No one else is winging or complaining about a quite reasonable rule..

Certain forms of f adverting have been banned in a libray - not the feckin' Bible

 

[dcraig]

Quote from whitster:

"Far left ? You have got to be joking. And what is a 'quasi socialist' anyway ? Where do you get this stuff from. Blair is hardly any different from some of the neocon nut cases in Washington in terms of foreign policy and has just the same authoritarian inclinations in domestic policy. He differs on global warming, but that's about it."

I suggest you review the British Labour Party platform. I quote it below. IT ADMITS THAT IT IS A SOCIALIST PARTY.

here's a QUOTE from the labour party website (capitalization emphasis mine)...

i'd like an apology from you, since you are clearly wrong about the socialist aspects of the labour party. I will stand by to see if you have the intellectual honesty. Blair is labour party. the below LISTED CLAUSE 4 of the LABOUR PARTY CONSTITUTION STATES THAT IT IS A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY
http://www.labour.org.uk/aboutlabour


"The Labour Party is a democratic SOCIALIST party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.’

(i'll stand by for your apology/admission) - evidence, it's what's for breakfast...

And i realize that it is a constant canard of the left to associate support of the war with being a neocon, but TONS who support the war are not neocons.

for pete's sake, Christopher Hitchens is even farther left than Blair, and he certainly supports it.

Blair is hawkish. He's a hawkish leftist. those are NOT mutually exclusive terms

if you deny this, then we can discuss the Labour Party Platform, but it is clearly quasi-socialist.

That Clause 4 is Blair's New Labour Clause 4, which superceded the old Clause 4 dating from 1918 which called for 'socialising the means of production'. New Labour could at most be called mildly Social Democratic. The current clause 4 is little more than waffle. The word 'socialist' is only there to appease the Labour Party membership. When was the last time Blair made a speech about socialism ? The honorable member for Texas North spends more time attacking socialists such as Chavez in the house than advocating socialism. It is quite ridiculous to catagorise New Labour as far left. Even a bit left is stretching it.

Christopher Hitchens might have been on the left once apon a time, but he surely isn't any more.

 

[whitster]

dcraig, you are simply wrong.

socialism (and democratic socialism) =/= foreign policy, or iraq policy

a leftist and/or socialist can be, and some are, for the war in iraq

and rightwinger can be, and some are, against it.

you fail to understand the distinction between ECONOMIC systems and foreign policy.

some socialist regimes can be, and have been, exceptionally "warmnongering" for lack of a better term. others have been very isolationist. some have been nearly pacifist

if you cannot understand the distinction between and economic system and a foreign policy, then that is why you can't grasp that blair is a democratic socialist

yes, believe it or not - a leftist CAN be for the war in iraq.

hitchens, weisel, ed koch, blair, etc.

and rightwinger can be against it

deal witht the distinction

 

[whitster]

"QED. It is not a ban on their belief system any more than it is a ban on any belief system a Commercial enterprise or political group may hold."

it would be unconstitutional in the usa, it is not in england, because they don't have free speech

theater can be, and often is - political. that's irrelevant

a tenet of free speech (vs. england) is that if a public forum (this would not apply to a private forum) allows advertising by SOME groups of a certain kind of event (theatrical productions, for example), it cannot prohibit others merely because of their viewpoint, and certainly not because it might "offend other religions groups".

again, to paraphrase many a supreme court case, there IS a constitutional right to express opinion, there is not a constitutional right not to be offended.

certainly, tolimit advertisements to non-political, or non-religious theatre would be unconstitutional - but england doesn't HAVE a constitution...

many theatrical productions can be offensive (to some), that is not the point

many find the vagina monologues offensive. i find it a silly play, but not offensive, but that's me. others find Lolita offensive. it's irrelevant

i support freedom of speech for ALL groups - nazis, christians, jews, atheists, muslims, etc.

because that's what freedom is about - the rights of the minority, no matter how unpopular, must be protected.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from StreamlineTrade:

I'd say Blair is worse. He wants to introduce personal ID cards for everyone. Not even Bush would dare demand this.

Imagine it - every Brit having to carry a card with name, address, religion etc on it!

Reminds me of Nazi Germany - JUDA!

====================
Another key is do NOT rubber stamp someone's policy just because he may or may not go to a good church or synagog.

Its humbling but looks like president Bush was wrong to try to let the UAE run our ports;
and dont want an American or English national ID card either , we already have plenty of state drivers license.

Hope this helps