blandy Posted September 27, 2023 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2023 14 minutes ago, El Segundo said: there are rights against discrimination that protect some pretty horrendous world views Such as? I assume you are talking about some religious views? not religion itself, but the interpretation within some sects or strains of some religions that hold a particular "view" on the morality or whatever of (say) being gay. If someone (say) a right winger from GB news, or a Muslim or a Christian from (say) parts of Africa espouses anti gay discrimination they can be prosecuted in the UK for that. Banks or whoever can decline their custom because of that - but it's not for their atheism or Christian or Muslim religious status it's for their words or actions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 7 minutes ago, blandy said: You're not really asking that are you? You're validating my point. People who didn't have rights wanted to be granted those absent (to that point) right(s). They did not have the right to [vote, or whatever]. You're initial point was, more or less, as I read it, was rights are only rights if they are legal rights. On that basis Asylum Seekers don't currently enjoy certain universal, human rights, because they are not included in UK Law. Your take implies that Women never had the right to equality, or Homosexuals the right to love freely, until it was passed into Law. I disagree, I think that fundamental Human Right was always there - it just hadn't been passed into Law. Maybe it's just a different way of looking at it. 9 minutes ago, blandy said: because authorities sometimes do not apply legal rights in the way they should Well exactly - which is why I'd say Farage might have a case for arguing his situation comes under discrimination laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 27, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted September 27, 2023 25 minutes ago, El Segundo said: For example, it is apparently a right in the UK to freely express religious views that might include the killing of all non-believers, the subjugation of women, or the execution or damnation of homosexuals. No it isn't. All religions are interpreted in wildly differing ways by their followers. There is a difference between broadly espousing a religion, and endorsing specific views which are in breach of hate speech laws. The Christian/Jewish old testament contains all sorts of hateful nonsense, but standing on a soapbox and saying: "I am a Christian, and I believe in the Bible" is not the same thing as standing on said soapbox and saying: "All homosexuals should be stoned to death". One is a legal offence, the other is not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 12 minutes ago, blandy said: Such as? I assume you are talking about some religious views? not religion itself, but the interpretation within some sects or strains of some religions that hold a particular "view" on the morality or whatever of (say) being gay. If someone (say) a right winger from GB news, or a Muslim or a Christian from (say) parts of Africa espouses anti gay discrimination they can be prosecuted in the UK for that. Banks or whoever can decline their custom because of that - but it's not for their atheism or Christian or Muslim religious status it's for their words or actions. There are certain religions or sub-sects of religions that espouse things like death to non-believers and homosexuals, stoning of adulterous women, general subjugation of women. Are people free to publicly criticise them for such views, or ban followers of said religions? Or would they fall victim to discrimination laws if they did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 27, 2023 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2023 7 minutes ago, El Segundo said: On that basis Asylum Seekers don't currently enjoy certain universal, human rights, because they are not included in UK Law. UK law isn’t the only law that applies in the UK. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 (edited) 36 minutes ago, El Segundo said: What I'm suggesting is, since there are rights against discrimination that protect some pretty horrendous world views, then there is a case for saying he is being discriminated against because of his beliefs. Given that the FCA have judged that there is no evidence of accounts being closed as a result of someone's political beliefs, it's probably not a very good case. Edited September 27, 2023 by ml1dch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 27, 2023 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2023 14 minutes ago, El Segundo said: Are people free to publicly criticise them for such views, or ban followers of said religions? Or would they fall victim to discrimination laws if they did? We’re probably better moving discussion of religion to the religion thread. In terms of the rights of GB News or UKIP or whoever having the right to criticise such views. Absolutely they/ we do and we do. Same goes for criticising some bonkers sect or Wahabism for example. Stone Age and vile. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 8 minutes ago, mjmooney said: No it isn't. All religions are interpreted in wildly differing ways by their followers. There is a difference between broadly espousing a religion, and endorsing specific views which are in breach of hate speech laws. The Christian/Jewish old testament contains all sorts of hateful nonsense, but standing on a soapbox and saying: "I am a Christian, and I believe in the Bible" is not the same thing as standing on said soapbox and saying: "All homosexuals should be stoned to death". One is a legal offence, the other is not. You could say the same about all ideologies. But it seems to me some "broad espousers" of ideologies are fair game to be cancelled, condemned or even legally charged, but others aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 27, 2023 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2023 4 minutes ago, bickster said: UK law isn’t the only law that applies in the UK. It kind of is. We’ve signed up to various rights that were drawn up internationally, by incorporating their provisions into UK law, haven’t we? Like with that Brexit they did, there’s loads of EU law still on the books and binning it (as the throbbers wanted to do) is and was completely impractical. It would have removed all kinds of rights and safeguards and standards if we’d done it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 11 minutes ago, blandy said: We’re probably better moving discussion of religion to the religion thread. In terms of the rights of GB News or UKIP or whoever having the right to criticise such views. Absolutely they/ we do and we do. Same goes for criticising some bikers sect or Wahabism for example. Stone Age and vile. Fair enough - I think your points are well argued and well made and are food for thought. However, (and I think you said it yourself earlier) it's the slippery slope/thin end of the wedge element I am wary of. Where do you draw the line in saying someone is fair game for cancellation for having a certain world view and where do you draw the line on saying whether it's discrimination or not. I doubt there are simple answers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 17 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Given that the FCA have judged that that is no evidence of accounts being closed as a result of someone's political beliefs, it's probably not a very good case. OK - I thought the Bank had said it was because of his views and associated reputational damage. If so I stand corrected. Did they give an alternative reason for closing his accounts then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 27, 2023 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2023 13 minutes ago, blandy said: It kind of is. We’ve signed up to various rights that were drawn up internationally, by incorporating their provisions into UK law, haven’t we? Like with that Brexit they did, there’s loads of EU law still on the books and binning it (as the throbbers wanted to do) is and was completely impractical. It would have removed all kinds of rights and safeguards and standards if we’d done it Well yes, there are various treaties we're signed up to that comprise International Law, including the Council of Europe etc (For the much talked about ECHR) and the ultimate court in those laws isn't in the UK, so yes we've adopted those laws but the ultimate arbiter of decisions based on those laws is not in the UK, so whilt they may be UK law as well, they aren't ours and we don't have final say on them, so I'd say, ultimately they weren't ours as such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 27, 2023 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2023 4 minutes ago, El Segundo said: Did they give an alternative reason for closing his accounts then? They closed his accounts initially because he fell under their wealth threshold and they weren't prepared to make a special case for him because of his politics. They've now made a special case of him and he still has his accounts with them. So its not quite as you paint it. They closed them early because he paid off his mortgage earlier and immediately fell below the threshold The grifter is getting special treatment because of his rabble rousing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 27, 2023 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2023 8 minutes ago, El Segundo said: Did they give an alternative reason for closing his accounts then? Yes - he no longer qualified for their services, because he didn't have sufficient funds in the account, or his loan was paid off or whatever thing he had going - a quick yahoogle should suffice. He then under FOI asked to see what correspondence they had internally on him, and one e mail said something about reputitional damage to the bank due to him being a bell end (I paraphrase) and so he kicked off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 27, 2023 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2023 16 minutes ago, El Segundo said: Where do you draw the line in saying someone is fair game for cancellation for having a certain world view Yeah, totally. Interestingly, these right wing news channels that have popped up recently - they're (I'm told, I don't watch them) full of the types of UKIPy, Reformy, folk propagating these views over the airwaves while simultaneously complaining that they are cancelled - they're not. Claiming "You can't say that anymore" while saying exactly whatever "that" is, on the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 2 minutes ago, blandy said: Yeah, totally. Interestingly, these right wing news channels that have popped up recently - they're (I'm told, I don't watch them) full of the types of UKIPy, Reformy, folk propagating these views over the airwaves while simultaneously complaining that they are cancelled - they're not. Claiming "You can't say that anymore" while saying exactly whatever "that" is, on the telly. It’s **** everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 Tice moved from one right wing channel to another and actually had his political party logo on the screen. I am sure Ofcom will be toothless over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 It's worth everyone remembering that private businesses don't have a legal obligation to serve anybody. Businesses have the right to refuse service. You can be asked to leave, refused service and you don't have any right to be told why. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 27, 2023 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2023 22 minutes ago, bobzy said: It’s **** everywhere. Is it, I dunno? Obviously it's on Barmpot TV and on Twitter or Z or whatever it's called these days - but I sacked that off a year ago. Never been on Facepage. So maybe I'm sheltered, but I don't really come across all this alt: right gibberish, other than hearing or reading other people talk about it. And though I occasionally join in (like today) I mostly don't. Just ignoring it, or clicking "unsubscribe" is my policy and so somehow "everywhere" doesn't include where I go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 1 hour ago, blandy said: Is it, I dunno? Obviously it's on Barmpot TV and on Twitter or Z or whatever it's called these days - but I sacked that off a year ago. Never been on Facepage. So maybe I'm sheltered, but I don't really come across all this alt: right gibberish, other than hearing or reading other people talk about it. And though I occasionally join in (like today) I mostly don't. Just ignoring it, or clicking "unsubscribe" is my policy and so somehow "everywhere" doesn't include where I go. I don’t use any social media (browse Facebook occasionally because I’m old now), but it’s definitely noticeable on X links etc and also just in society. The whole “I’m just going to say I identify as a tree”, “You can’t say anything these days” et al I hear a lot (comparatively) now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts