October 19, 2012

Free Speech?

Yes.

I'll have some of that.

Disagree?

Then get fucked.



Intolerance is intolerable.

CR.

9 comments:

Dioclese said...

Quite right. And I'll shoot any bastard that disagrees...

Jim Fryar said...

Damn good find.

I sometimes think that Gillard, Roxon, and Conroy should be given the Clockwork Orange treatment with replays of their own violent attacks on free speech replayed to them until they develop an aversion, although in reality this would probably reinforce their belief that the public cannot be trusted not to cause offence.

They should though be exposed to Atkinson until they remember this one word for word.

Anonymous said...

Top man.

Bill Sticker said...

For free speech to flourish we must tolerate intolerance, and not simply have people arrested for expressing their prejudices.

Assholes can be dealt with informally using sarcasm and ridicule.

Anonymous said...

If 62% of MPs think it is a bad law, how the fuck did it get past the Commons vote?!!!!

Radical Rodent

Anonymous said...

Governments do NOT make laws, they make legislation.

there is a vast difference between LAWFUL, AND LEGAL

if you don't know the difference it is in your interest to find out !
http://parker-joseph.com/pjcjournal/common-law-vs-statutes/

http://www.yourstrawman.com/

Anonymous said...

Okay, other Anon, let me rephrase: if 62% of MPs think it is bad legislation, how the fuck did it get past the Commons vote?!!!!

(Or am I now mistaken by the impression that these statutes have to be discussed and approved by MPs debating and voting in Parliament, and rubber-stamped by Lords?)

Radical Rodent

Anonymous said...

Assuming this is the correct division, only 45% of MPs voted YAY on the Public Order Bill back in '86.

Due to the number that didn't turn up, this 45% became 59% of those taking part, and thus it passed.

292 yes, 201 no; out of 650 MPs in the 1983-87 parliament this means 157 weren't there.

(There may have been another reading, as it didn't get signed off until late in the year.)

This sort of thing happens with most corporate policy cockwaffle that floats its way through the House of Commons, so was in no way a rare or isolated occurrence.

One of the more notable examples would be Mandelscum's Digital Economy Bill - forced through in wash-up at quarter past eleven at night following a "debate" attended by a scant few MPs, where (supposedly) most of rest that voted on it were those who happened to be in the Commons bar at the time. 189 ayes to 47 noes, thus 410 "absent".

Brenda signed it the next day.

Regards

TSL

Anonymous said...

Okay. Slapped down again. And so much for our much-vaunted democracy; and further evidence that so many MPs could be considered a waste of space. However, I am sure I read (or heard) somewhere that no government is beholden to legislature passed by previous governments, or something along those lines. Could that argument be of use in this instance?

Radical Rodent