Love, hate and the threat to internet free speech

Richard Carvath is standing as an independent candidate for Salford and Eccles in the upcoming general election, and he has upset a few people by sharing his views on homosexuality. On Monday, he wrote a blog entry called, “Tories select homosexual pervert for Salford and Eccles.”

Woof! No messing. He continues,

The Conservative Party has just selected homosexual Matthew Sephton as their candidate for Salford and Eccles.

As a rival [and pro-heterosexual!] candidate I welcome Matthew to the contest for Salford and Eccles.

Matthew’s own blog is heavy with pro homosexual pervert content: see here, here and here….

I very much doubt that the vast majority of the Salford and Eccles electorate will want to be represented by a prominent homosexual activist – and one who neither lives nor works in the constituency.

The following day, he received a letter from the local constabulary,

“Richard Carvath

We have received a complaint today regarding concerns over the content of your blog article dated Monday 7th December 2009.

A reader of your article has made a complaint that the content is offensive and feels strongly enough to report this matter to the police. He wishes for you to be advised over the potential alarm and distress caused by your article. Whilst not taking this at face value and understanding the meaning of language and how it can be misinterpreted, it could be argued that the context of the comments made could be construed to be borderline criminal.

At this stage I feel it would be advisable for you to remove this from your blog thereby preventing misinterpretation.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. …

Regards

PC2401 Jacky Thompson.”

So, the police are now ‘advising’ people to take down blog posts if someone doesn’t like them. Thankfully, Mr. Carvath told them a few home truths.

“Dear PC Thompson,

Thank you for your email.

There is nothing criminal about my blog article and so I have no intention of removing it for the foreseeable future.

Well exactly, but in a dictatorship, truth gets censored.

Homosexuality is a perversion: that is both moral truth and medical fact. Therefore it is quite reasonable for me to refer to a person in whom the perversion of homosexuality is manifest as a homosexual pervert. Let me make it clear that I do not use the term ‘homosexual pervert’ as a pejorative term – derogation is not my motive in using the term; I use the term simply to convey the true nature of what homosexuality is because I believe that the truth matters.

He explains a very important distinction here, and one which seems to escape many people.

I’m aware that you are employed by an organisation [GMP] which is politically in favour of homosexual perversion. I’m aware that GMP celebrates its association with the militant perverts’ organisation Stonewall. I’m aware of the secular humanist socio-political orthodoxy of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ which GMP panders to.

Can’t argue with any of that.

My advice to you is to stop being a social engineer trying to suppress free speech and get on with genuine police work.

Hear, hear!

It is not a crime to criticise homosexuality and nor is it a crime to refer to a public gay political activist as a homosexual pervert.

Even if it were a crime I’m a British evangelical Christian so nothing and nobody is going to tell me what I can and can’t say in my own country. As a Christian I speak and act out of love – not hate – so my motive for referring to homosexuality as a perversion is love.

My advice to you is to get on with dealing with real crime like robbery, rape and murder and stop trying to suppress free speech.

Never has there been clearer proof of the vital importance of the Waddington free speech safeguard!

Absolutely.

Most of the replies left on his blog seem to be from angry heterosexuals. Perhaps Mr Carvath’s strength and honesty of language has made folks’ brains go into meltdown. I left this comment myself,

These comments from heterosexuals go to show how well they have been trained by the media.

How has this been achieved? Read the blueprint from the USA.

“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights.”

“Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible. The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”

“Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seem as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression.”

Homosexuals don’t want their lifestyle criticised. Fair enough, I suppose. None of us likes being disagreed with, especially while we are entrenched in sin, but nobody is infallible and beyond criticism. Furthermore, everyone has the right to call a spade a spade. Just like the messages left on Mr Carvath’s blog and the Pink News website, where personal criticism of him and his faith are rife.

But then, over the past few years we have come to expect some people to believe they are more equal than others.

Someone called Jeff Duncan even reported Mr Carvath to the police again via a police website and urged others to follow, saying,

Hiss [sic] vile homophobic hate remarks have STILL not been removed.

What these people should realise, and be very thankful for, is that we live in a society that does tolerate differences of opinion. Those who claimed to be persecuted are now the persecutors. They have become that strong and prideful tribe.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Love, hate and the threat to internet free speech

  1. indigomyth says:

    English Viking,

    //People who buy alcohol pay taxes and yet you object to their using the services they have paid for and then try to shift your argument to being one of a disagreement with your taxes being spent on the NHS or anyone but yourself. There IS a contradiction.//

    No, I admitted I had made a mistake previously. I had thought that Stewart had not contributed to the NHS, by not paying taxes. It was that understanding that he was using other peoples money, which had been extracted by force, that I was criticising. However, if he has paid for the services through taxation, then he is entitled to use the service. There is not a contradiction between the idea that someone who does not pay tax, like I believed Stewart did not, should not be supported by the state, and the idea that if someone has been forced to pay, they should be served. I was mistaken in the first instance by believing that Stewart had not paid taxes, and therefore was not contributing to the NHS.

    //you object to their using the services they have paid for// – I was under the impression he had not paid for those services, because I made the grave error of assuming he had not paid taxes. It was a serious oversight on my part. I was imagining some benefit scrounging, council estate yob, who had never done a days work. That was a very terrible assumption to make, and I apologise to Stewart unreservedly for that assumption. However, it does not mean that my essential argument is contradictory, in that people who do not contribute, should not be treated, and that it is wrong for the state to extract money under threat of violence.

    Now I confess I did not consider the taxes gained by the selling of alcohol, but would argue that it is also wrong for the state to extract money from the sale of alcohol, even if that money then when to be spent on the treatment of alcoholics, because it would mean that people who bought alcohol, and did not become alcoholics, would be paying more for the failures of others. And, direct taxation to fund the NHS is immoral because it is the extraction of money by threat of violence. It also means that people cannot choose how their money is spent.

    But, out of curiosity, would Stewart not have been equally better off not being taxed by the state, and having extra money in the bank to pay for private care?

    //Indeed, it is positively selfish of you to expect me to give you money if you fall off the wagon. Not just that, but you want to the state to force me to give up money (taxation) in order to support feckless idiots.//

    This is still true – it is selfish to expect me to give him money to support him. Now, in the case of if he has contributed to the NHS, then it would be right that he be treated. However, this would mean that he was not coming to me for money, but merely using his own money. However, in the case of someone that has not paid taxes, my point still applies – it would be wrong for the money taken by the state, to be used to treat those people that had not contributed.

    //Then why do you think that the state should save you from your own bad choices?//

    My own question. One could answer “because I have paid taxes, and therefore have purchased the services of the NHS’. Or, more simply “because I have paid for the state to do so”. Hmmm, that is an interesting point that I shall have to think about.

    //BTW, what happens (in your world) if a person does not earn a lot of money but requires many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of medical treatment? Do we just let them die because they never managed to become millionaires? Please don’t point to insurance or the US model, which does exactly as I have suggested to those who cannot get insurance or who cannot afford to pay.//

    The sensational stories in the British tabloids about the US healthcare system are not all true, and there are many other models of non-socialised healthcare around the world. However, ruling these out for the moment, I would argue that charities would be used to support people who needed that sort of treatment. To use the example of the RNLI, which is entirely funded by donations, that is a service which helps only a few people, but many recognise the need to help those in danger on the sea, so they contribute. Things like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army all help people in one way or the other. It is not too hard to imagine charities taking over the provision of healthcare for the sick. Local communities and organisations could raise funds to support their own. Churches could provide their own funds to treat people.

    I do not think that it is right to take money from people, using the threat of violence, even if it is to save someone’s life. But, more importantly, I do not believe it is necessary to do so, in a society that is free from the scourge of socialised healthcare.

    //One more thing, why did I pay taxes so that you could be educated, innoculated, entertained and trained, amongst other things, during your time at school? I have never met you, yet I have part funded your journey through the education system. If you can swim, you should thank me. If you have a grasp of Maths or Physics, thank Dr Baxter. You like Literature? Thank Stewart. We paid for things that you have received, at a loss to ourselves, in the hope that you stumble across something that would better our society, a medical breakthrough or a scientific one, perhaps. It was done in the hope that, should no breakthroughs come from yourself, they may come from others, and that those who did not contribute to the betterment of society through medicine or science would recognise that they were taking far more than they returned, and would be willing to make a financial contribution themselves for the continuance of this system, so that they and others could prosper. Can I have my money back please?//

    I agree, it was wrong for the state to take your money to support me. However, you must also remember, my parents paid taxes, and therefore are entitled to have use of the systems that you describe. Also, I now pay taxes, and am contributing back into society through that mechanism. You are getting your money back from me, via taxation of me. That does not make taxation correct, though, were it not in place, I would still want to pay the money back to society, or, even better, the people that have contributed individually.

    And, even if you have given money towards my education, it cannot entail an obligation upon me. I did not consent to your money, I was too young to commit to that transfer of money.

    ‘//Yes, however it is an opinion based on absolutely no evidence.’ – So is that statement.//

    No it is not. I have the evidence of what I have written here, and I have said no such thing as “make illegal the things Carvath and Cowan are saying”, or “freedom of speech is not absolute”, I can easily say that I have at no time said that I wanted to impose restrictions on what can be said.

    You said
    //Obviously there are conditions to the ‘freedom’ you so falsely espouse//

    And I repeat, I have not said anything about the state imposing conditions on what can be said. Do you agree with that? If not, show me where I have said that the speech of Stewart or Carvath should be restricted.

    I cannot be accused of falsely espousing freedom, because I have advocated no limitations on the freedoms of Cowan and Carvath. I am espousing freedom for all, including them.

    So, I have submitted my evidence (the comments I have written here, none of which call for the restriction of speech). You submit your evidence that I want conditions on speech to be imposed.

  2. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘I do not think that it is right to take money from people, using the threat of violence, even if it is to save someone’s life.’

    I don’t trust the state any more than Stewart or English do, but without a state someone like you with his head in the clouds (that’s putting it politely) would lose his ‘freedoms’, his money, and probably his life in pretty short order – you’d be eaten alive (not by me; I’m choosy that way).

  3. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,

    //I don’t trust the state any more than Stewart or English do, but without a state someone like you with his head in the clouds (that’s putting it politely) would lose his ‘freedoms’, his money, and probably his life in pretty short order – you’d be eaten alive (not by me; I’m choosy that way).//

    I have not said the state should not exist, merely that it should only protect peoples freedom by punishing those that aggress against other people.

    If Stewart got his way, I would instantly loose my right to free speech and the right to do what I do and do not want to do with my body. I would prefer the uncertainty of being murdered by a stranger, to the certainty of the state smashing in my door for saying something that Stewart did not like.

  4. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    My understanding of your version of freedom of speech is that it is not just the physical ability to utter the words; I would be able to cry ‘FREEDOM’, a la William Wallace, just before the axe fell, but I would not be free, would I? I think that the absolute freedom of speech which you seem to espouse (which I do not) involves a recognition that a person is entitled to a contrary point of view without being subjected to abuse, mockery, villification, intimidation, etc. A person is not free if they cannot say what they like for fear of verbal assault. Your reactions to other people’s contrary points of view are, sometimes, rude and/or abusive, this is my evidence that you place conditions on freedom of speech and are being disingenuous when you say that you do not.

    It would be pointless to accuse me of being against the absolute freedom of speech because I openly admit that I am, I most certainly do think that there are limits to what can and cannot be spoken publicly.

    I am still waiting for a display of gratitude from yourself for your aquatic abilities.

  5. indigomyth says:

    English Viking,

    //A person is not free if they cannot say what they like for fear of verbal assault. Your reactions to other people’s contrary points of view are, sometimes, rude and/or abusive, this is my evidence that you place conditions on freedom of speech and are being disingenuous when you say that you do not.//

    I never said that people could not be severely criticised for what they say, did I? I merely said that there should be no laws stopping them, therefore I have placed no conditions on speech. Like my example with racist speech – I reserve the right to my freedom of speech to criticise what they say, but that does not mean that I have issued conditions on what speech the state can and cannot permit.

    //I think that the absolute freedom of speech which you seem to espouse (which I do not) involves a recognition that a person is entitled to a contrary point of view without being subjected to abuse, mockery, villification, intimidation, etc.//

    Well, you are wrong in your assumption of what I mean about free speech. No-one can commit physical violence against anyone, merely because they have said something, and the state should not place any restrictions on what can be said. Mockery is perfectly permissible. Indeed, it is necessary that people be able to mock and vilify those that say repugnant things (like white supremacists), and this is one reason why there is no such thing as the right not to be offended.

    I have repeatedly remarked that free speech is non-restricted speech; speech that is not limited by laws. Read my comments to Stewart for evidence of this. Those are the only criteria I have discussed in the context of free speech, aren’t they? So, there is nothing in any of my comments to suggests that I place conditions on speech, because I do not advocate state laws regulating or restricting speech.

    //A person is not free if they cannot say what they like for fear of verbal assault. //

    Yes they are free. Because the state has not interfered to use violence against them to take away their freedom if they something, and no one else has the authority to use violence against them to stop them saying those things.

    So, your supposed “evidence” is merely a fabrication.

    //It would be pointless to accuse me of being against the absolute freedom of speech because I openly admit that I am, I most certainly do think that there are limits to what can and cannot be spoken publicly.//

    I think you are utterly wrong in this, but your honesty and candour is refreshing. If Stewart would be as honest as you then I would not be as frustrated as I am. Yet he continues to perpetuate the falsehood that he is a defender of Free Speech, even when I try and explain the non-restricted speech cannot equal restricted speech. It is very irritating him playing the part of the defender of free speech, when he advocates restricted speech. As a result, I have far more respect for your position than his, because you have the guts to stand up and say “I do not believe in free speech”.

    //I am still waiting for a display of gratitude from yourself for your aquatic abilities.//

    I did not learn to swim at school. My parents paid for me to go to private lessons. So your money did not pay for my swimming lessons.

  6. indigomyth says:

    Correction

    //Indeed, it is necessary that people be able to mock and vilify those that say repugnant things (like white supremacists), and this is one reason why there is no such thing as the right not to be offended.//

    I should say that it is necessary and good for people to be able to mock and vilify anyone, regardless if I view it as repugnant. Were I to limit speech critical of people, and their beliefs, then I would be limiting speech, wouldn’t I?

  7. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘No-one can commit physical violence against anyone, merely because they have said something.’

    They can you know. And they do. It happens all the time.

  8. indigomyth says:

    //They can you know. And they do. It happens all the time.//

    Alright alright, I know that they are physically capable of it, however I was being lazy and “can” is shorter than “ought to”, or even “ought to be permitted to”.

  9. Jim Baxter says:

    They’re not permitted, although sometimes extreme verbal provocation can count in mitigation. But with your desired removal of all forms of restraint on behaviour which doesn’t ‘harm’ others I think we’d see a whole lot more of it. You still haven’t defined harm by the way, not that I’ve noticed anyway.

    There’s no such word as ‘alright’.

  10. indigomyth says:

    JIm Baxter,

    //There’s no such word as ‘alright’.//

    I beg to differ
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alright
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alright
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ALRIGHT

    //You still haven’t defined harm by the way, not that I’ve noticed anyway.//

    Harm, as a principle of law, are those things which takes away someone’s freedom, something that violates someone’s negative rights. So, getting beaten up is a violation of your self-ownership, enslavement is a violation of your right to free action, theft is a violation of your property.

    Of course, one can be harmed in a sense that is not relevant to the law. Stewart “harms” me by writing the things he writes, the scary, authoritarian ideology he espouses, however that is not a subject for law, because none of my rights have been infringed – none of my negative rights have been infringed on. Or the BNP saying racist things “harms”, or in Stewart’s words “affects”, me, because I have an emotional response of revulsion to that. So there is a difference between what we mean colloquially when we say “harm”, and what harm people should be protected from by the state. Even this shower of shite of a government recognise the difference between “harm” in the sense used in everyday speech, and “harm” in the sense used by the law. Not that has stopped them enacting Hate Speech legislation.

    That is what the libertarian principle of law is all about – the use of violence against violence. Not the use of violence against people that are unpleasant, or to make people work together, or to make people decent, or to stop nasty things being said, or to stop children being educated with lies. Only to punish violence and people are violent towards other people. Note; “violence” is physical damage, or threat of imminent damage, contrary to express will – so a boxing match is violent, but it consenting, and therefore is not a breach of negative rights. Or, to use Stewart’s particular obsession, sodomy may be damaging to the fundament, however it is damage performed consentingly, and therefore is no business of the law.

    //They’re not permitted, although sometimes extreme verbal provocation can count in mitigation. //

    Yes, but Stewart wants the state to brutalise people for saying things. He wants to take away peoples freedom because they have said something he finds unpleasant. And I apply the same restrictions to the state as I do to individuals – that it should not aggress against people who have not aggressed against anyone else. Stewart wants to permit the state to use violence against people innocent of having done any violence to any other person.

    //But with your desired removal of all forms of restraint on behaviour which doesn’t ‘harm’ others I think we’d see a whole lot more of it.//

    I do not think so. I may really really want to smack someone in the face, but I do not because it is wrong, not because it is illegal. For those who a principle of morality is not convincing enough, the state should impose very harsh punishments for breach of the law. That is why I have hesitant support for the Death Penalty.

    If people said things that others found offensive (Homosexuality is alright, Mohammed is burning in hell, Jesus was a lunatic, Yahweh doesn’t exist, Black people are inferior to white people, etc, etc), and reacted violently, they would be punished by the state. Robust criticism of that speech would be perfectly legitimate – as would mocking and vilification.

    And, you still haven’t explained how your legal system based on “the right not to be offended”, would operate in reality.

  11. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    ‘I did not learn to swim at school. My parents paid for me to go to private lessons. So your money did not pay for my swimming lessons.’ – At a Municipal Baths? Did your father drive you there, on a public road? Maybe you caught a bus and paid half-fare, because (you thought) you were a child but (in reality) the fare was subsidised by the local Council. Were there street lights and road markings, speed limits and road regulations, along with persons who enforce those limits and regulations? Your parents must have paid an astronomical amount of tax to cover the expense of these things, or earned an even greater amount of cash to fund them privately. If you feel like countering by saying that my contributions, and those of my parents would not cover my expenses, you would correct and that is exactly my point. Far more can be achieved together, with the common good in mind, than alone, with nothing but self in mind.

    We had a system of charity funded healthcare until 1948. St john’s, The Red Cross, local philanthropic societies, etc. They didn’t work, that’s why the great need for a better system was answered in the NHS. The idea behind the system and the shambles we have today is not a fault in the idea, rather the implementation of that idea. We still have (shamefully) charity based health care in the Hospice system. It is chronically underfunded, understaffed and they are too few in number to cope with the demand. Their charitable donations would plummet if the money that people have was needed to pay for education, healthcare, roads, Police, etc, etc. The £130,000,000 required by the RNLI annually pales into insignificance when compared to the £102,000,000,000 required to (under)fund the NHS this year.

    We have largely abandoned our old people to fend for themselves. If they have money, they can have residential care (for around £800.00 per week). If not, they could be euthanised (murdered) or left to sit in their own faeces until they die of MRSA. We could always deprive them of their house, and therefore their children of their inheritance, but once the money had gone, and it wouldn’t last long at £800.00 a week, they would be back to square one. People are not queuing up to make charitable donations to the people who built a better nation for them now, so why expect them to do so in the future, particularly people like yourself who exhibit a spiteful selfishness that is most disconcerting.

  12. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘a spiteful selfishness that is most disconcerting.’

    And none the less so for being all too familiar.

    The theory though is fascinating, if you find pathological thinking fascinating (I don’t). Let’s try to summarise: in this new order we shall all be infused with full rights to free speech and will be free to approach all manner of strangers with our frank opinions of them; we shall be free to display our sexuality (it’s OURS!) to children in the park who wish only to make daisy chains, all the while safe in the knowledge that the recipients of our opinions and outraged parents are not allowed to hit us/kick our foul heads in, etc.

    And people say that Stewart is deluded…

    Ha ha ha.

  13. indigomyth says:

    English Viking,
    //if you feel like countering by saying that my contributions, and those of my parents would not cover my expenses, you would correct and that is exactly my point. Far more can be achieved together, with the common good in mind, than alone, with nothing but self in mind.//

    Yes, it is perfectly true that more can be achieved together, but that does not mean that people should be forced to pay for things, that they may not want to use, or do not agree with. So, the council should not pay for things like public baths, bus services and the like, these should all be the sole province of private business. I would even advocate the privatisation of the road networks – I doubt that they could do a worse job than the government.

    I never asked you to pay for those things, so do not see why I should thank you – the money was extracted by threat of force. If you think it was a good expenditure, and did it gladly, than I thank you for the consideration, however, you did choose to do it voluntarily, and since I was too young to enter into an agreement with you, you ought not to hold an obligation on to me. It is rather like holding a debt over onto the offspring of the debter. It is not the childs fault that such debt has been incurred. As it is now, I drive, and pay road tax for the privilege of driving on the roads.

    The essential ethical point is the same – why is it right for you to be forced to pay for something that you do not support? Be it a swimming bath, a church, a road, a power line, or an equality workshop?

    The system of charity did work – it provided care for many many people.

    //It is chronically underfunded, understaffed and they are too few in number to cope with the demand. Their charitable donations would plummet if the money that people have was needed to pay for education, healthcare, roads, Police, etc,//

    But their money is already used to pay for all those things – it is just taken through taxation. And, if there was market competition for those services, the price would go down.

    //The £130,000,000 required by the RNLI annually pales into insignificance when compared to the £102,000,000,000 required to (under)fund the NHS this year.//

    And how much of that 102 billion is admin, hoop jumping, bureaucracy, over paid managers? How much is the expensive drug trials, that forbid people from voluntarily choosing to risk taking experimental drugs?

    //We have largely abandoned our old people to fend for themselves. If they have money, they can have residential care (for around £800.00 per week).//

    And, if they had not been taxed so much during their lives, allowed to make the choices about what they pay for, how much healthcare cover they want, they would probably not be in that situation. If they had jobs that pay pensions, or provide health care, they would not be those situations. If the government had not infected people with leftist tendencies, the chronic government centralising of private affairs, there would still be communities, to whom people voluntarily contributed, that could care for their own members. If the government had not offered money to those that wish to separate from their partners, and merely left well alone, than their would be stronger family ties, stronger family units, more inclined to care for their elderly.

    And this has all happened while we have been taxed into the ground. And your answer is to continue taxing people? Give people their money, and they will spend it how they need, or want. How many elderly people are left in the dark, in the cold, because they, or their children, do not have the money to spend on care, because their money has been taken by the state to spend elsewhere? If they had that money, taken from them, would they not be able to spend it on paying for care?

    The apparatus of the state is clumsy and ineffective. So to give the state money in expectation that they will care for you, seems absurd.

    //People are not queuing up to make charitable donations to the people who built a better nation for them now, so why expect them to do so in the future, particularly people like yourself who exhibit a spiteful selfishness that is most disconcerting.//

    I expect them to do so in the future, precisely because they will be taxed less, have more money to spend on what they want, or need, and will suffer the consequences if they fail.

    I am being slefish, in that I want to use the money I earn, the way I want, and resent the state taking it to spend on what it thinks is needed. However, that does not mean that I would not choose to donate money, were I to have more of it, which I would have, were I not taxed so much.

    //We could always deprive them of their house, and therefore their children of their inheritance, but once the money had gone, and it wouldn’t last long at £800.00 a week, they would be back to square one//

    And tell me, where are the children? Are they grown up? Why have they not moved grandma in to live with them? Let us refocus this on the children. It is, presumably, their responsibility to look after their elderly parents? Why is she all alone, when she has children? Could they not look after her in their own home? Perhaps you will argue that she does not want to leave her home to live with them? In that case, she has made a choice – the choice to be cold and alone, rather than live with her children.

    You say “WE have largely abandoned OUR old people to fend for themselves//. It is thoughts like that that have contributed to the current situation. It allows people to pass the buck on to someone else. If we instead said my mother, my father, my brother, is old and needs care, what can I do, then there would be a far more personal and pressing impulse to do something for them. Which would mean that strangers would not have to support them, because the family would do it themselves. It would mean that state not getting involved, which would reduce taxation.

  14. indigomyth says:

    Jim Baxter,

    //in this new order we shall all be infused with full rights to free speech and will be free to approach all manner of strangers with our frank opinions of them//

    Sounds pretty good to me.

    // we shall be free to display our sexuality (it’s OURS!) to children in the park who wish only to make daisy chains//

    One major reason to advocate private parks.

    //all the while safe in the knowledge that the recipients of our opinions and outraged parents are not allowed to hit us/kick our foul heads in, etc.//

    Pretty much. Of course, the recipients and parents could retaliate with verbal abuse and hateful speech.

    However, I have to remark that you have a very pessimistic view of humanity. Do you really think people would do these things, if they were not illegal?

  15. indigomyth says:

    English Viking,

    Aren’t food and water more important than healthcare? Does that mean that you want the state to take money and use to to provide food and water to people? That is getting towards Communism.

  16. lionheart says:

    Its been very interesting reading your blog Stuart and I was wondering whats your opinion on arranged marriages?

    Personally I think that someone that thinks that (insert deity of choice) has decreed that someone that barely knows the other person despite them not being interested is in need of serious psychiatric treatment.

    Also if the courts decide that someone need sectioning for insisting that (insert deity of choice) is in direct contact and is telling them to ignore the laws of the land and they then run for public office still maintaining that (insert deity of choice) is telling them what to do should that be disclosed to the voting public in your view?

    Regards Lionheart

  17. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hi Lionheart,

    I don’t agree with arranged marriages. I don’t know if the majority of Muslims are in need of serious psychiatric treatment. Accepting the gospel would heal them.

    As for Richard Carvath, the people of Salford and Eccles know what he stands for. Sadly the courts decide all sorts of mad things these days. The government (of any colour) has abandoned the pursuit of justice in favour of social engineering, so there is a genuine argument for people of good conscience to ignore certain new anti-British and generally spiteful legislation.

  18. lionheart says:

    Sorry Stuart you misunderstood me I wasn’t referring to Muslims but to so a called Christian who would harass and stalk a girl because god had told him that she was destined to be his bride and then claimed that the courts of the land had no power over him as he was only subjected to god’s law and not the law of the land despite police and court warnings and said much the same when the men in white coats where dragging him away for a few months hiatus in a nice warm padded cell.

    Of course all of this is hypothetical but would you agree that such behaviour should be drawn to the public’s attention in the case of someone that stands for public office? I’m not sure what your view is but someone who really thinks god is talking to him on a daily basis and that he’s being told to ignore the normal channels of getting to know a girl before deciding that she should marry him and writing hundred of letters telling her and her family that they should bow to divine will and force her to marry him or risk eternal damnation isn’t really suited to preach to others on morality?

    Lionheart

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>