Stirring things up

Sir Niall of Essex-sire · Sun 3rd Jan 2010 09:15 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wilt ... 437658.stm

Should they be allowed to march, does free speech have boundaries? Interesting questions...

Balou · Post by **Balou** » Sun 3rd Jan 2010 09:36 pm

I think everyone has a right to free speech but this is just asinine! I watched a short documentary on Wootton Bassett just the other day. It is nice to see that people still care about the soldiers.

Peace,
Balou

cantona7 · Post by **cantona7** » Sun 3rd Jan 2010 10:48 pm

so they have links to extremists terrorist cells? if so i guess they shouldn't be able to speak. if they really are dangerous shouldn't they be arrested? didn't get to read the whole article.

Pauli Wallnuts · Post by **Pauli Wallnuts** » Sun 3rd Jan 2010 11:51 pm

imo they should be allowed, its very dangerous once you start limiting who can & cant have a right to free speech + they do have a point, alot of innocent civilians have been killed in air raids over iraq & afghanistan, as long as they dont protest like they did in luton that time when they turned up just to cause anger in the community, if they do it when no other marches/funeral corteges are taking place, then i don't see the problem + correct me if im wrong but didnt the peace movement in 1960's america protest against the troops when they arrived back from vietnam, & they were right to do so because they turned the public opinion against the war, which made the regime pull out

cantona7 · Post by **cantona7** » Mon 4th Jan 2010 01:02 am

Pauli Wallnuts wrote:imo they should be allowed, its very dangerous once you start limiting who can & cant have a right to free speech + they do have a point, alot of innocent civilians have been killed in air raids over iraq & afghanistan, as long as they dont protest like they did in luton that time when they turned up just to cause anger in the community, if they do it when no other marches/funeral corteges are taking place, then i don't see the problem + correct me if im wrong but didnt the peace movement in 1960's america protest against the troops when they arrived back from vietnam, & they were right to do so because they turned the public opinion against the war, which made the regime pull out

what about the safety of the protesters though. hope no one gets injured on either side.

i agree about the vietnam protests it was a war that shouldn't be fought. but the way the vets were treated when they came back(not like alot of them had a choice with the draft) was dispicable and sad. alot of people were spat at. I think my dad mentioned he was treated pretty badly and spat at. I dont support the war in iraq. never will. but i know it sounds a tad cliche' but I'll always support the troops over there in the middle east/ asia. weather they be american, caandian, british, ajpanese, korean, etc i will give them my support and respect/props for being there for whatever reason. not saying people on here arent supporting anyone. just throwin in my 2 cents/p/euro cents.

Pauli Wallnuts · Post by **Pauli Wallnuts** » Mon 4th Jan 2010 02:25 am

cantona7 wrote:i agree about the vietnam protests it was a war that shouldn't be fought. but the way the vets were treated when they came back(not like alot of them had a choice with the draft) was dispicable and sad. alot of people were spat at. I think my dad mentioned he was treated pretty badly and spat at.

yeah that is bad & completely unjust, its the politicians & warmongers who should be spat at not the people forced into fighting their wars

cantona7 · Post by **cantona7** » Mon 4th Jan 2010 04:39 am

Pauli Wallnuts wrote:
cantona7 wrote:i agree about the vietnam protests it was a war that shouldn't be fought. but the way the vets were treated when they came back(not like alot of them had a choice with the draft) was dispicable and sad. alot of people were spat at. I think my dad mentioned he was treated pretty badly and spat at.
yeah that is bad & completely unjust, its the politicians & warmongers who should be spat at not the people forced into fighting their wars

agreed. and the companies making huge profits from the wars. munition companies. whoever makes the bombs and such. even the fighter planes.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire · Mon 4th Jan 2010 08:53 am

Pauli Wallnuts wrote:imo they should be allowed, its very dangerous once you start limiting who can & cant have a right to free speech + they do have a point, alot of innocent civilians have been killed in air raids over iraq & afghanistan, as long as they dont protest like they did in luton that time when they turned up just to cause anger in the community, if they do it when no other marches/funeral corteges are taking place, then i don't see the problem + correct me if im wrong but didnt the peace movement in 1960's america protest against the troops when they arrived back from vietnam, & they were right to do so because they turned the public opinion against the war, which made the regime pull out

Agree 100%, if we as a country can maintain the one thing imo that keeps us civialised in this current political climate, freedom of expression, then we have a bright future. The minute we sacrifice this is the minute we start to detoriate as a country. Theres alot of nationalism associated with this, but imo its misplaced. This is not saying we agree with what they say, this is us as a country saying that in our country we allow you to speak your mind without fear of retribution.

RR · Post by RR » Mon 4th Jan 2010 10:15 am

The whole world needs to go to Amsterdam, chill the fuck out and hug afterwards.

seriously i hate this poiltics bullshit, i realise it runs our everyday world but...

Pauli Wallnuts · Post by **Pauli Wallnuts** » Mon 4th Jan 2010 07:10 pm

RR wrote:The whole world needs to go to Amsterdam, chill the fuck out and hug afterwards.

seriously i hate this poiltics bullshit, i realise it runs our everyday world but...

so your not into legalising marijuana? because thats a political belief, & the situation in amsterdam only came about through politics

Boner · Post by **Boner** » Mon 4th Jan 2010 07:30 pm

Pauli Wallnuts wrote:& the situation in amsterdam only came about through politics

I thought that the original coffeeshops (or tea houses) were thanks to some hippies and nothing to do with politics.

Willjay · Post by **Willjay** » Mon 4th Jan 2010 08:15 pm

I have said it before, change comes from the bottom up.
When the people lead the leaders will follow, old bumper sticker from the 60's.

The coffee shops started as a way of seperateing the "Soft Drugs" from Hard Drugs. A policy that Jimmy Carter supported, he was defeted by Ronald Reagen who was supported by the prohibitionist.

Politics is what allowed the hippies to do there thing back in the early 70's.

Tolerance is more a dutch way of life, which has allowed the coffee shops to open. I know of no outher goverment that will alow a crime to turn into a buisness plan with out an act of congress. The Dutch have done this before with the catholic church, Go visit the Church in the Attic.

Pauli Wallnuts · Post by **Pauli Wallnuts** » Mon 4th Jan 2010 08:26 pm

Boner wrote:
Pauli Wallnuts wrote:& the situation in amsterdam only came about through politics
I thought that the original coffeeshops (or tea houses) were thanks to some hippies and nothing to do with politics.

&they were only allowed to remain open & even more recently be licensed through legislation