Will the loony left rape your daughters?

[Mich the Tester]

The fact that this objectionable opinion may, as another poster pointed out, have led to the sweeping under the carpet of a lot of abusive behaviour doesn't bother you then?

Sheesh...

No, because it is an opinion. Expressing an opinion on the legality of something does not equate to encouraging people to break the law. If expressing and opinion means someone is complicit in a crime then you or I or anyone could find ourselves being hunted down in the future because of opinions we express now but are judged in 30 years time to be highly objectionable. Perhaps it seems unlikely, but personally I think there's too much surveillance going on; maybe in 30 years time surveillance will be generally accepted and if some crime is committed that was under the radar then I could be accused if being complicit because I stood in the way of the government poking its nose into everything. Likewise, I have opinions on the levels of taxation in western societies, and I even have sympathy for some of those who avoid or even evade punitive rates of tax; that does not mean I am encouraging people to break the law.

What does bother me a lot more is what I think is a real threat to the freedom of expressing opinions from this kind of 'complicit' thinking.

[MicrosoftBob]

yes and for that very reason the whole Bally lot of 'em should be thrown to the wolves.

It is PRECISELY this attitude which has led to paedophile grooming gangs seemingly operating with impunity on the streets of some of our cities.

And some of you lot come on here and wring your hands!!

Grrrrr

They must be closet lefties...

[Gittins Gal]

No, because it is an opinion. Expressing an opinion on the legality of something does not equate to encouraging people to break the law. If expressing and opinion means someone is complicit in a crime then you or I or anyone could find ourselves being hunted down in the future because of opinions we express now but are judged in 30 years time to be highly objectionable. Perhaps it seems unlikely, but personally I think there's too much surveillance going on; maybe in 30 years time surveillance will be generally accepted and if some crime is committed that was under the radar then I could be accused if being complicit because I stood in the way of the government poking its nose into everything. Likewise, I have opinions on the levels of taxation in western societies, and I even have sympathy for some of those who avoid or even evade punitive rates of tax; that does not mean I am encouraging people to break the law.

What does bother me a lot more is what I think is a real threat to the freedom of expressing opinions from this kind of 'complicit' thinking.

She was more than expressing an opinion. She was representing them which suggests, to me at least, that she didn't have a problem with what was being proposed.

And I'm not sure you can really compare paedophilia with tax avoidance.

But fast forward a few years and who knows?

[expat]

No, because it is an opinion. Expressing an opinion on the legality of something does not equate to encouraging people to break the law. If expressing and opinion means someone is complicit in a crime then you or I or anyone could find ourselves being hunted down in the future because of opinions we express now but are judged in 30 years time to be highly objectionable.

Quite so.

And I might add that Harman was a legal officer: it was her job to express in legal terms the opinion that NCCL wanted to propose. That is a world away from the suggestion that she was chair of the NCCL and personally advocated that opinion.

And indeed even if she had advocated that opinion, it would have been just an opinion, and while I would disagree with that opinion, I would defend one's right to express it.

Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.

-- Lord Justice Sedley

[vetran]

If that opinion is patently wrong then yes it does matter especially if that person goes on to a powerful politician. We aren't talking about homosexuality or Apartheid here, we are talking about something that is clearly wrong and clashes with our very notion of justice. Lowering the age of consent to 10 or less is quite obviously unjust.

If we can attack people for going to Private school at their parents expense and orders then we can definitely attack some one qualified in law and hence in their 20s for being involved with a bunch of perverts and doing nothing about it.

I have left employers before because I disagree with their business ethics.

[Mich the Tester]

And I might add that Harman was a legal officer: it was her job to express in legal terms the opinion that NCCL wanted to propose. That is a world away from the suggestion that she was chair of the NCCL and personally advocated that opinion.

Thankyou.

[Gittins Gal]

And indeed even if she had advocated that opinionK, it would have been just an opinion, and while I would disagree with that opinion, I would defend one's right to express it.

Yes, but would you defend the rights of people to make objectionable comments about other issues that tick certain boxes?

Just imagine if this was a Tory minister who had been found out as having links to an organisation that defended members of the National Front in the 1970s.

You'd never hear the last of it.

[Mich the Tester]

Yes, but would you defend the rights of people to make objectionable comments about other issues that tick certain boxes?

Just imagine if this was a Tory minister who had been found out as having links to an organisation that defended members of the National Front in the 1970s.

You'd never hear the last of it.

YES, and in your example, I'd defend his right to express his opinion although I probably wouldn't vote for him personally in an election unless he demonstrated that his current opinions are not similar to those of the National Front.

[Mich the Tester]

And I'm not sure you can really compare paedophilia with tax avoidance.

But fast forward a few years and who knows?

Your last sentence might be intended sarcastically but it actually demonstrates that we don't have a clue what attitudes will be prevalent in 30 years time.

[xoggoth]

I tend to agree with MTT etc. If any view is deemed unacceptable, unworkable or whatever, fine - ignore it, but I don't think we should ever ban any opinion.

Also, if we support an organisation or party with broad aims, does that means we necessarily support every single aspect of its policy? I don't think Harman has anything to apologise for.