Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Cancel Culture


aRdja
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

As part of todays Queens Speech legislation was brought forward that if you are 'cancelled' when a speaking engagement/debate/stood on a bar stool at a university has been arranged/booked you can now claim compensation for it.

 

Tory gonna Tory.

Flip it on its head though, if it was more the right wing that were doing the cancelling of those with left wing views would you not want the left protected by the law. I would.

 

I’ve no issue with it, I’d much rather have the debate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Geoff Woade said:

Flip it on its head though, if it was more the right wing that were doing the cancelling of those with left wing views would you not want the left protected by the law. I would.

 

I’ve no issue with it, I’d much rather have the debate.

 

 

That in theory is fine, but the bill itself, like much of the complaints about BBC impartiality is about presenting 'opposing views' for balance and we know where ends up.

 

Universities have always had free speech policies, but these are about stoking the culture wars flames, nothing else, and inadvertently narrowing debate through fear of censure and fines.

 

The first line 'That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on universities to promote freedom of speech; to make provision for fining universities that do not comply with that duty; and for connected purposes.'

 

They have always promoted freedom of speech, they have never had to included radical/objectionable/fringe/dangerous views by law.

 

The larger point is who decides what views count as needing protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

That in theory is fine, but the bill itself, like much of the complaints about BBC impartiality is about presenting 'opposing views' for balance and we know where ends up.

 

Universities have always had free speech policies, but these are about stoking the culture wars flames, nothing else, and inadvertently narrowing debate through fear of censure and fines.

 

The first line 'That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on universities to promote freedom of speech; to make provision for fining universities that do not comply with that duty; and for connected purposes.'

 

They have always promoted freedom of speech, they have never had to included radical/objectionable/fringe/dangerous views by law.

 

The larger point is who decides what views count as needing protection.

This from a government that doesn't allow "anti-capitalist" teachings in schools.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Pretty sure Daud Abdullah has spoken at many universities without obstruction, and been employed by a few too.

Not sure about that , but I'm sure he was the subject of a Labour governmen cutting any links with the Council of Muslims to try to force him off their board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/05/2021 at 14:05, Scooby Dudek said:

This from a government that doesn't allow "anti-capitalist" teachings in schools.

They're also bringing in laws to criminalise protest, to restrict the right to vote, to allow soldiers, spies and undercover police to commit crimes with impunity and to allow themselves to circumvent parliamentary accountability. 

 

I'm not convinced of the integrity of their commitment to free speech. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Who is he?


Just a random bloke who is, quite rightly, annoyed that the popular beat combo Rage Against the Machine can’t keep their political beliefs to themselves.

 

It really puts him off his hangin’ with his bros, drinking Bud Lite, beating nerds and date raping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bruce Spanner said:


Just a random bloke who is, quite rightly, annoyed that the popular beat combo Rage Against the Machine can’t keep their political beliefs to themselves.

 

It really puts him off his hangin’ with his bro’s, drinking Bud Lite, beating nerds and date raping.

Must have been thrown off by the fella in flames on the first record and the first track:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...