For the Attention of The National Autistic Society

Interesting question. We should not tolerate violence and hatred or those who seek to use misinformation, demagoguery, threats and intimidation for personal and political ends. We should not tolerate attempts to curtail the rights and freedoms of others.

We should tolerate different opinions, values and lifestyles, up to the point where they conflict with the legitimate rights of others. We should not only tolerate difference, we should recognise, respect and promote it, within the limits prescribed by law and decency.

We should normally tolerate the sexual preferences of consenting adults, providing they "do "it" in private and do not involve children or small fluffy animals.  If your particular sexual preferences are "normal and natural" you don't need to march through the streets waving flags to tell everybody. I won't ask, and I would prefer you not to tell.

We should tolerate and respect individuals' rights to believe in and worship a Supreme Being of their choice, or decide not to do so - to the point where it impacts on the freedoms of others. We should not tolerate attempts to impose religious rules on others - and if your religion means that you are offended by people eating haggis and drinking whisky, maybe moving to Scotland was not a good move. Don't try to ban Burns Night.

Intentional rudeness and bad manners are not acceptable in society, but tolerance and respect do not mean an absolute right not to be offended. Just play nicely.

A silly example, but say the Church of the Purple Penguin decrees that anyone who does not wear a baseball cap in public will go to hell. They are perfectly entitled to wear baseball caps at most times and in most places, maybe not when going through passport control. We should tolerate this "eccentricity".  However, if the Purple Penguins insist that everyone in England must wear baseball caps and the Penguin Hat Police go around the shopping centre harassing hatless citizens, their tolerable eccentricity becomes a breach of others' civil liberties and a public order offence.

You may believe that your form of Penguinism is the only true belief. You may wish to share your views with others so that they too may join you in eternal bliss in the great penguin pond in the sky once you shuffle off this mortal coil. If you respectfully promote your views and don't try to indoctrinate vulnerable individuals, then I am all for tolerance.  But ... if you want to use violence to overthrow the legitimate government of the country and enforce a global Rule of the King Penguin, that is intolerable. If you think everyone in the Church of Green Penguins are heretics and should be stoned to death in Trafalgar Square every Tuesday, you are entitled to your opinion. However, if you actually threaten a Green Penguin and cause them to fear harm, that is a criminal offence

Dis- information and being Radicalised are two differen't things.

No.

What is this disinformation?

Is it what Rowam Atkinson is speaking of here?

old.bitchute.com/.../

Thankyou Eunice.  I'm sure you understand that there is a lot going on in the country at the moment and that I would not want anyone to be radicalised into joining a riot by reading posts here.  An Autistic person could end up in prison or worse.  That is the context in which I made this thread.

Warm Regards,

Mellowjian

I have never encountered any shade of opinion in the Labour movement that has favoured that policy.

I do hope this remains the case and the membership of ECHR is sustained.

Once Labour have had a significant time to handle the pressures of dealing with the immigration situation then their perspective may be revisited I think - it is an immensly difficult situation to deal with and a significant burdon on the budget, plus has stirred up a lot of civil unrest.

With the more welcoming attitude in place then I would expect the immigration flow to increase as candidates see the country as a more desirable destination once more. This will add to the pressures.

While the country remains in the ECHR then their options are limited if how they can restrict the flow so I imagine the conversation will turn this way at some point out of desperation.

I cannot suggest a solution one way or another and I will be watching with interest to see how the party line changes with exposure to reality.

I think the term is that they are between a rock and a hard place.

I think we'll have to respectfully disagree on the prospect of this government withdrawing from the ECHR. I can tell you that I have never encountered any shade of opinion in the Labour movement that has favoured that policy.

Ian said:

Brexit has nothing to do with the EHCR

The reason I linked the potential withdrawal from the ECHR to Brexis was that the government had gained confidence in its ability to withdraw from the organisations that it thought would hinder it.

This government will not be withdrawing from the ECHR.

It was being considered by the previous government and I'm pretty sure the new government will give it at least consideration at it allows it to bypass lots of the rights that are preventing it from clamping down on dissent. The issue with the previous government is discussed by the BBC here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cl55n29v2ppo

I don't want this to descend into an arguement about what Labour would do and what the Conservatives would do - history has taught us that politicians do what is in their own interests and a ECHR withdrawal would allow them more power to silence dissent - and that Pandoras box has already been opened with the ground work done by the last government.

I don't believe for a moment that the politicians are interested in our rights - only in being in power and will say what they want us to believe to get there.

This has happened time and again in the last 50 years and I don't see it changing.

Yes.  I did not realise I was spelling his name wrong.  My mistake.

Former Member

My point is that comments were made about me rather than Iain (the person with a double "i" in his name.)

I quote:  "are you Ian, enforcing the community rules? Are you deciding them? " 

I think that both Iain and I are aware of our own identities, even if others are confused, and it is rude to suggest otherwise.

Indeed.  This government will not be withdrawing from the ECHR.  Human rights are important and must be protected.  Without our human rights legislation the population of Britain would be completely beholden to the state and could be dominated by a potential authoritarian government and/ or politician

Brexit has nothing to do with the EHCR.  The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty to which the UK is a signatory. Indeed, the UK was instrumental in setting up the treaty, which took effect in 1953.  THe EEC (later the EU) was not established until 1957, and the UK joined in 1973.

The convention is now incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998. So we have (a) an Act of the UK parliament, and (b) an international treaty, to which the UK is a signory. I am not a lawyer, but my best guess is that Parliament would need to both repudiate the ECHR treaty and repeal the Human Rights Act 1983 to "get out of the ECHR".

Because of the  volunteer moderation this forum is basically a free for all where anything goes. 

Although I think the moderation team are finally getting in more involved and issuing restrictions on some posters.

BUT it's taken years of people like Deborah and I complaining and riots in the streets for them to take any action.

I don't know if you are implying that I have a restricted world view or not

No implications were made or intended.

I've just been through the community rules and there is no guarantee of absolute free speech here.  Not in the rules. In fact many things here are supposed to be prohibited.

It is actually a truth that there is no enshrined free speech at all in the UK, only freedom of expression:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

While there is no general right to free speech in the UK, British citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law, and since 1998, freedom of expression is guaranteed according to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied in British law through the Human Rights Act.

With us being out of the EU now then the government are within their rights to remove this law should they choose.

In fact many things here are supposed to be prohibited.  Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, and Sexism for example.

There are laws covering hate speech around these so while the rules may not be specific about them, there are laws preventing them and NAS should act in accordance with these to remove them.

Debbie said:

Unless Iain is having an identity crisis he will know he isn't you

Now I'm having an identity crisis? Who am I really?

Noted.

I don't know if you are implying that I have a restricted world view or not but I will choose to ignore it.

I've just been through the community rules and there is no guarantee of absolute free speech here.  Not in the rules. In fact many things here are supposed to be prohibited.  Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, and Sexism for example.. All of these forms of expression can and do lead to violent attacks on our streets.

As has been stated the moderators are volunteers and can't police the forum day in day out.

I'm certainly not going to be policing the forum day in and day out and it's not your job either.

But the community rules are clear and are there for everyone to read..

Ian said:

Please note that I am not Iain - if you look carefully you will see that my name is spelt with only one "I". Thank you.

Unless Iain is having an identity crisis he will know he isn't you

Please note that I am not Iain - if you look carefully you will see that my name is spelt with only one "I". Thank you.