Well that's convenient. Quote something from an official, then can't find the source.
What does this have to do with EU?
It was introduced by a Home Secretary to deal with terrorist suspects.
When considering in or out:
- Thread starter Nozzle
- Start date
- Status
It was introduced by a Home Secretary to deal with terrorist suspects.
Sponsored Links
You've already done this one. Repetition is what you're resorting to now:
And you've already done the blasphemy accusation before:
You're going round and round in circles. Repetition, repetition, repetition!
What do you normally do when you disagree with your elected representatives?
Unfortunately PBC does have form for throwing in false scare stories
All part of the Project Fear of Foreigners which the Outists have been instructed to use in the last few weeks, now that their economic claims have been roundly defeated.
All part of the Project Fear of Foreigners which the Outists have been instructed to use in the last few weeks, now that their economic claims have been roundly defeated.
Sponsored Links
Interesting to see that PBC is agreeing with the sentiments of a paedophile:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...es-vladimir-bukovsky-denies-charges-cambridge
Oops, sorry innocent until proved guilty and all that!
Obviously his, is a valuable opinion.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...es-vladimir-bukovsky-denies-charges-cambridge
Oops, sorry innocent until proved guilty and all that!
Obviously his, is a valuable opinion.
I think you're the one scraping the bottom of the barrel by trying to turn anything the anti-EU side says into the idea that it's just fear of foreigners.
First, I just stumbled upon that one while trying (unsuccessfully) to find a reference to the other issue and felt it was anoher very poignant demonstration of the mentality of some high-up officials in the EU.
Second, what does it matter if it was 16 days ago or 16 years ago? As time progresses the overall attitude of the EU to taking more and more control is only getting stronger.
Third, I couldn't care less if it had been Joe Bloggs from London in that legal position who gave that opinion, it would still be the same opinion expressing the same dangerous sentiment.
That doesn't alter the fact that an EU official in such a high position holds the opinion stated. It shows the mentality of some of these people that they can even believe that criticism of the EU or any of its institutions could be legally suppressed without violating the right to freedom of speech.
And while dismissing the specific issue of criticism of the EU being akin to blasphemy, did you not read the part which was in the ruling, as follows?
The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to “protect the rights of others” and punish individuals who “damaged the institution’s image and reputation”.
JohnD said:
Yes, of course I know that. What's your point?
And the U.K. government interned many perfectly innocent Italians during the war, which was just as wrong. I assume you do not agree with that either. Again, what's your point?
My point is that if you rake back years and years, and look for one person whose opinion was subsequently withdrawn, and was not supported by the court, you can find all sorts of things. I remember somebody once stood up in court and said that Geoffrey Archer was not a crook, a liar and a perjurer. You are obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel if you have to resort to such nonsense and attempt to suggest that it is of any relevance today.
You appear to be trying to suggest that the question is about imprisoning citizens who question the treaties. Rather than the dismissal of an employee who published attacks on his employer, sixteen years ago.
You appear to be trying to suggest that the question is about imprisoning citizens who question the treaties. Rather than the dismissal of an employee who published attacks on his employer, sixteen years ago.
The specific argument about criticism of the EU being akin to blasphemy was dismissed but I refer you to the part I quoted above and which you, yourself, included in your quote:
The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to “protect the rights of others” and punish individuals who “damaged the institution’s image and reputation”.
Do you not see the implications of such a decision? Neither does it alter the fact that a high official in the ECJ came up with a legal opinion that criticism of the EU could be considered blasphemy and be restricted without violating the right to freedom of speech. Do you not think it very worrying that such an official in what is supposed to be the EU's "justice" system could hold such a view?
Prompted by JohnD's comment above, if any official in the EU publicly stated an opinion that it would be perfectly acceptable and legal to reintroduce slavery, I'm sure you'd be criticizing him pretty quickly, regardless of whether his opinion might ever make it through the ECJ or not.
However, I would not be pretending that it was part of any law (unless it was).
If a legal adviser to, say, the Department of Education offered the opinion that learning to read and write was a sin and against god's law, and that the British education systems were wrong to teach it; or if the Secretary of State for Health advocated Homeopathy and wasted taxpayers' money on it, I would consider him unsuited to his job, and reasonable for him to be dismissed. I look forward to that happening. Perhaps it will not take much longer. His name is Jeremy Hunt.
If a legal adviser to, say, the Department of Education offered the opinion that learning to read and write was a sin and against god's law, and that the British education systems were wrong to teach it; or if the Secretary of State for Health advocated Homeopathy and wasted taxpayers' money on it, I would consider him unsuited to his job, and reasonable for him to be dismissed. I look forward to that happening. Perhaps it will not take much longer. His name is Jeremy Hunt.
Last edited:
Do we know that he subsequently changed his opinion?
The fact that it started as an employee being dismissed doesn't alter the other facts.
Have you not read the source of your Europhobe story?
It does however mean that you are wrong to pretend that there is some kind of treaty or law restricting the rights of the citizen to criticise the EU.
Can we expect a continuing stream of would-be frightening nonsense from the anti-EU campaigners as their desperation increases over the next few weeks? What else will you do to try to engender Fear of Foreigners?
try this for a start
http://europa.eu/scadplus/constitution/objectives_en.htm
I must say I'm a bit surprised you've never tried to look for yourself.
http://europa.eu/scadplus/constitution/objectives_en.htm
I must say I'm a bit surprised you've never tried to look for yourself.
There are some high-up officials in all walks of life demonstrating all sorts of mentalities. It doesn't mean there's a general consensus of opinion with their views. As John said, dragging up an opinion from many years ago, from one person hardly demonstrates the direction assumed by you in the following assumption:
HRH D of E thinks he can make racists jokes, it doesn't make the royal family racists.
The "institution" being the employer, can limit the public opinion of their employees, if they dissent from that opinion of their employer!
Stop exploiting situations and comments out of context!
D
durhamplumber
Im 53 year old self employed male in north east uk.tried to listen to all sides of arguments.in truth no one knows what happens if we exit.what i do know is it will become worse and worse if we stay in.governed more and more by germany.even without the immigration issue....lets get out whilst germany still allows it!!!!
- Status
Sponsored Links
