This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  25 Dec 22 11.38am |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Just because you believe in any cause does not give you the right to interfere with those who disagree. If Extinction Rebellion decided to pray in the middle of the M1, thus stopping motorists from going about their legal business, do you think they should be ignored, or removed? If anyone changes someone’s mind about anything then good for them but they must do it in a way which is lawful and wanted. Not unlawful and unwanted. If this woman had been there stopping people from getting to work then your analogy would make a bit of sense. I wouldn't have supported her in a situation where that happened. However, she wasn't. As it is, it's the typical hyperbolic nonsense from your keyboard. Extinction Rebellion stop people from getting to work. Extinction Rebellion damage private property. Extinction Rebellion often...especially in the first case, don't get arrested and in the second have been released in looney Bristol with no consequences for damage. So you are comparing apples and oranges. Protesters don't have a right to damage the public economically however I will defend a person's right to peaceful protest as a matter of conscience. Even if I don't agree with them.....you on the other hand are an authoritarian. You wanted to restrict the unvaccinated's liberties based upon misinformation about transmission. Misinformation, I might add, that no one in the state you trust so much did anything to correct.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 25 Dec 22 11.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If this woman had been there stopping people from getting to work then your analogy would make a bit of sense. I wouldn't have supported her in a situation where that happened. However, she wasn't. As it is, it's the typical hyperbolic nonsense from your keyboard. Extinction Rebellion stop people from getting to work. Extinction Rebellion damage private property. Extinction Rebellion often...especially in the first case, don't get arrested and in the second have been released in looney Bristol with no consequences for damage. So you are comparing apples and oranges. Protesters don't have a right to damage the public economically however I will defend a person's right to peaceful protest as a matter of conscience. Even if I don't agree with them.....you on the other hand are an authoritarian. You wanted to restrict the unvaccinated's liberties based upon misinformation about transmission. Misinformation, I might add, that no one in the state you trust so much did anything to correct.
Absolutely spot on. Some people are very selective.
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| footythoughts Beckenham 25 Dec 22 12.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
Yes it's madness, but just to point out that the police were enforcing an order made by Birmingham City Council, which has nothing to do with any government. Fair point, as I didn't know that. The main point being though that these things come from a position of power, and where protest is demonised it makes it easier to carry out actions such as this.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 georgenorman 25 Dec 22 1.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
You are not allowed to protest or approach others going about their lawful business. You can protest elsewhere and campaign as much as you like but no one has an unfettered right to protest anything just because they feel passionate about it. She was just standing there and silently praying. We live in a repressive state if you can't stand in a street and silently pray.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  25 Dec 22 1.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
She was just standing there and silently praying. We live in a repressive state if you can't stand in a street and silently pray.
So if she'd said she was trying to remember where she'd left her keys there wouldn't have been a case to answer.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Dec 22 2.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If this woman had been there stopping people from getting to work then your analogy would make a bit of sense. I wouldn't have supported her in a situation where that happened. However, she wasn't. As it is, it's the typical hyperbolic nonsense from your keyboard. Extinction Rebellion stop people from getting to work. Extinction Rebellion damage private property. Extinction Rebellion often...especially in the first case, don't get arrested and in the second have been released in looney Bristol with no consequences for damage. So you are comparing apples and oranges. Protesters don't have a right to damage the public economically however I will defend a person's right to peaceful protest as a matter of conscience. Even if I don't agree with them.....you on the other hand are an authoritarian. You wanted to restrict the unvaccinated's liberties based upon misinformation about transmission. Misinformation, I might add, that no one in the state you trust so much did anything to correct.
More bs! You are doing what this woman was doing. You are trying to impose your beliefs on others. In your case this is that people driving to work is more important than people trying to access abortion services. This is not a discussion about whether abortion ought to be legal. It is. This is not a discussion about whether protest ought to be legal. It is. Nor is it a discussion about whether the relevant authorities ought to be able to order an exclusion zone for protests around abortion centres. They can. Nor is it a discussion about what Extinction Rebellion do is always desirable. Opinion on that is divided. Nor is it a discussion about how the unvaccinated should be treated. It's still a diversion, even when you mischaracterise what was actually done. This is solely a discussion about whether this lady was arrested for praying. She wasn't. It just doesn't matter that either she, or you, believe that abortion is a heinous act. Others don't, and they have every bit as much right to their belief as you do to yours. Extinction Rebellion also have strong beliefs. In their case not just about one life. Their belief is about all life. They, too, believe that their actions are justified by those beliefs. Both are wrong. Peaceful protest is fine. Breaking the law is not.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Dec 22 2.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
She was just standing there and silently praying. We live in a repressive state if you can't stand in a street and silently pray.
She might believe that. You might agree with her. Neither matters. The law says she can pray about the issue but not where she decided to do it. The law has decided to protect the rights of others from being intimidated. That she and you don't believe that such behaviour is intimidating is irrelevant. It is how such behaviour is perceived which is. Her rights are not being in any way repressed. The rights of others are being protected.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 25 Dec 22 3.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
She might believe that. You might agree with her. Neither matters. The law says she can pray about the issue but not where she decided to do it. The law has decided to protect the rights of others from being intimidated. That she and you don't believe that such behaviour is intimidating is irrelevant. It is how such behaviour is perceived which is. Her rights are not being in any way repressed. The rights of others are being protected. I can't see harm that I think the law must require.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 25 Dec 22 4.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
She might believe that. You might agree with her. Neither matters. The law says she can pray about the issue but not where she decided to do it. The law has decided to protect the rights of others from being intimidated. That she and you don't believe that such behaviour is intimidating is irrelevant. It is how such behaviour is perceived which is. Her rights are not being in any way repressed. The rights of others are being protected. No sensible, reasonable, person would perceive her actions in any way objectionable or think her actions were intimidatory. Edited by georgenorman (25 Dec 2022 4.13pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Dec 22 4.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
More bs! You are doing what this woman was doing. You are trying to impose your beliefs on others. In your case this is that people driving to work is more important than people trying to access abortion services. This is not a discussion about whether abortion ought to be legal. It is. This is not a discussion about whether protest ought to be legal. It is. Nor is it a discussion about whether the relevant authorities ought to be able to order an exclusion zone for protests around abortion centres. They can. Nor is it a discussion about what Extinction Rebellion do is always desirable. Opinion on that is divided. Nor is it a discussion about how the unvaccinated should be treated. It's still a diversion, even when you mischaracterise what was actually done. This is solely a discussion about whether this lady was arrested for praying. She wasn't. It just doesn't matter that either she, or you, believe that abortion is a heinous act. Others don't, and they have every bit as much right to their belief as you do to yours. Extinction Rebellion also have strong beliefs. In their case not just about one life. Their belief is about all life. They, too, believe that their actions are justified by those beliefs. Both are wrong. Peaceful protest is fine. Breaking the law is not. I honestly can't be bothered responding to the fantasy strawman framings you create. It's the old man shouting at clouds meme. Like the Hol having its very own Biden impersonator.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Dec 22 6.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
No sensible, reasonable, person would perceive her actions in any way objectionable or think her actions were intimidatory. Edited by georgenorman (25 Dec 2022 4.13pm) Therein lies the problem. You are imposing your opinion of what is sensible and responsible upon others, when you aren't them. It doesn't matter whether you think their objections are intimidatory. What matters is that they do, or might do. People in a vulnerable state of mind need protection. There was nothing stopping the lady praying about this in her own home or a million other places. Just not there. So to so there was a deliberate act designed to elicit a reaction.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 25 Dec 22 7.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Therein lies the problem. You are imposing your opinion of what is sensible and responsible upon others, when you aren't them. It doesn't matter whether you think their objections are intimidatory. What matters is that they do, or might do. People in a vulnerable state of mind need protection. There was nothing stopping the lady praying about this in her own home or a million other places. Just not there. So to so there was a deliberate act designed to elicit a reaction. I'm merely pointing out what is in front of our noses. A woman standing still in a street, silently praying so no one would be aware that she was praying, is neither objectionable nor intimidating. It is unreasonable and nonsensicle to suggest it is.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.