The Student Room Group

Topless protesters disrupt Muslim conference, Paris

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Errm336
I believe the courts term it "provocation". Two sides of the same coin...

A defence of "provocation" no longer exists in English law.
Original post by Illiberal Liberal
A defence of "provocation" no longer exists in English law.


Loss of control was what they largely replaced it with, I believe. But correct me if I am wrong. :smile:
Original post by Errm336
Loss of control was what they largely replaced it with, I believe. But correct me if I am wrong. :smile:

You are correct, but to use the defence you have to show that "a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D" (s.54(1)(c)).
Original post by Fango_Jett
Again, you are still spouting the same fallacy. Precaution is not the same this as expectation. Do you really think that if they were seriously expecting attacks of terror, they would have had just one single guard in a booth somewhere while being minimally armed. Get real.


There was a 24/7 guard with one of the editors of the magazine.

Wait, are you just speculating? Do you not know thee backstory or the events leading up to the attack?

Satire: "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices"

^
This is an example of satire from Charlie. ("100 lashes if you don't die from laughter":wink: It's an excellent cover that pokes fun of the barbaric practice of lashings in the ME while jokingly emphasizing their content.


Why not use this fuller and more relevant definition?

Financial gains or motivations are irrelevant. They do not need to offer an explanation for their humour, nor should they have to offer a justification for their content. They should not have to fear violence and persecution for making a statement protected by free speech.


Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Do you not realise that if they thought that there would be riots and murders (just not their own), they would be able to sell more issues by branding it a Freedom of Speech exercise instead of an endless money grabbing exercise that it really was?

It's sad that they lost 14 lives for material wealth.

Ah, but this is the issue. There should not have been any violent chain reaction to begin with. There should not have been any kind of physical attack as a result of their statements, at least not here in Europe. We have free speech for a reason, and that is to be able to express ourselves. Free speech laws protect you from censorship. There is no excuse for murder and it is unacceptable to blame victims for being within the bounds of the law.


Freedom of Speech is not absolute.

You are using typical victim blaming tactics to try and shift the blame. It is no different than the people who try and justify the murders of say journalists for trying to expose corrupt politicians. "Oh well they should have thought about it before they published it". Rubbish. This is Europe and we do not pander to any religion out of fear of persecution. If you do not appreciate these freedoms, this is the wrong continent for you.


You are conflating accountability with justification...
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Illiberal Liberal
You are correct, but to use the defence you have to show that "a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D" (s.54(1)(c)).


The man on the Clapham omnibus would presumably react in the same manner, if we were to take all of the D's characteristics on-board...
Original post by Errm336
The man on the Clapham omnibus would presumably react in the same manner, if we were to take all of the D's characteristics on-board...

S.54(1)(c) is a partially objective requirement too; meaning that not "all of the D's characteristics" are taken into consideration.
Original post by Illiberal Liberal
S.54(1)(c) is a partially objective requirement too; meaning that not "all of the D's characteristics" are taken into consideration.


Well. that is arbitrary so it becomes meaningless...
Original post by Errm336
Well. that is arbitrary so it becomes meaningless...

How is it arbitrary to not impute all of D's characteristics and instead compare D's actions to a person with a "normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint... in the circumstances of D"? This is what we have juries and case-law for.
Original post by Illiberal Liberal
How is it arbitrary to not impute all of D's characteristics and instead compare D's actions to a person with a "normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint... in the circumstances of D"? This is what we have juries and case-law for.


Define normal. No, actually, give me the characteristics of this "normal" person...
Original post by Errm336
Define normal. No, actually, give me the characteristics of this "normal" person...

Well, things like this are intrinsically subjective.

The point is not what the law should say (or a critique of what it says), but what it does say, which, to some extent, conflicts with what you said above (hence my pointing it out).
Original post by Illiberal Liberal
Well, things like this are intrinsically subjective.

The point is not what the law should say (or a critique of what it says), but what it does say, which, to some extent, conflicts with what you said above (hence my pointing it out).


Go on. Define the characteristics of this "normal" person. I'm sure we are all very eager to find out...
Original post by Errm336
Go on. Define the characteristics of this "normal" person. I'm sure we are all very eager to find out...

That's a red herring. I have already made my point.
Original post by Errm336
Loss of control was what they largely replaced it with, I believe. But correct me if I am wrong. :smile:


You can't use it for a 'considered desire for revenge', which the Charlie killers were clearly acting under.
Original post by Errm336
How so? By simply stating something? The encouragement of violence and the simple uttering of a state are two distinct positions. Perhaps you would care to brief yourself of the difference.


Can you elaborate on this distinction? What do you mean by the 'uttering of a state'?
Original post by Errm336
There was a 24/7 guard with one of the editors of the magazine.

Wait, are you just speculating? Do you not know thee backstory or the events leading up to the attack?



Why not use this fuller and more relevant definition?



Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Do you not realise that if they thought that there would be riots and murders (just not their own), they would be able to sell more issues by branding it a Freedom of Speech exercise instead of an endless money grabbing exercise that it really was?

It's sad that they lost 14 lives for material wealth.



Freedom of Speech is not absolute.



You are conflating accountability with justification...


That's true. Freedom of speech is not absolute. But it definitely covers the right to satire and to be free from violent consequences.

Your pathetic ego being hurt is not an acceptable reason to react violently. People's feelings get hurt all the time.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm pro free speech, but I'd have more of an interest in defending their right to hold this 'debate' if it was possible for a group of women to discuss the contrary in Saudi Arabia.
Original post by Blue_Mason
What was the purpose of going topless?
I can never understand feminism, I mean why?


You're right. They wouldn't have been kicked and dragged off if they'd gone in dresses made from bacon a la Lady Gaga :oink:
Original post by sorafdfs
You're right. They wouldn't have been kicked and dragged off if they'd gone in dresses made from bacon a la Lady Gaga :oink:


They would have been shot which i fully support :smile:
I would have decapitated the pair of them for being topless. Feminist are incredibly naive and hypocritical.
Original post by Synchyst
I would have decapitated the pair of them for being topless. Feminist are incredibly naive and hypocritical.


Is that the religion of peace speaking...:top:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you