Sack this revolting specimen

[Flosshilde]

I was a bit loathe to carry on with this discussion due to obvious sensitivities on the Forum. However ....

I wonder why you joined it? Your faux reasonableness doesn't really fool me. You insist that all you're interested in is 'freedom of speech', which seems to mean that anybody should be allowed to say anything, even to the extent of supporting and inciting violent attacks on other people. But when others exercise that freedom in calling for the sacking of the person in question you object.


Hmm - 30 post so far & nothing about music; I wonder why you joined?

[P. G. Tipps]

I wonder why you joined it? Your faux reasonableness doesn't really fool me. You insist that all you're interested in is 'freedom of speech', which seems to mean that anybody should be allowed to say anything, even to the extent of supporting and inciting violent attacks on other people. But when others exercise that freedom in calling for the sacking of the person in question you object.


Hmm - 30 post so far & nothing about music; I wonder why you joined?

Is it really '30 post', Flosshilde ... ? ... goodness me! ... certainly any ground-breaking record 'round figure' will suffice for the sake of argument, I suppose.

I've never actually counted members' contributions which have absolutely nothing to do with music, tbh.

If you would prefer to discuss Hans Heinrich XIV, Graf Bolko von Hochberg or either of the Humperdincks instead of Homophobia I can assure you I've absolutely no objection, whatsoever!

Are you up for it ... ?

[Flosshilde]

None of them are in my personal pantheon of composers so no, not interested. But I'm sure that there are members who would be only too pleased to participate in a discussion with you, & I would, no doubt, dip into it to learn. That's the delight of the forum - you're bound to find someone interested in the same composers & music, & others who are prepared to listen and learn.

[P. G. Tipps]

I'm sure you are absolutely right, Flosshilde, and here's to meeting-up in a music thread where we can both listen and learn. This Forum indeed contains a wealth of music knowledge and opinion which I value greatly, believe me. I'm often to be found exploring the various sub-forums contained within, and where I've learned a lot, without advertising my own woeful ignorance at the same time.

However, I understand that this is the Politics & Current Affairs Forum which has been deliberately created in a tiny little corner for those reprobate members who take a keen interest in such things, and feel they might have something to contribute even if it is only a rather vain attempt to give a balanced opinion on matters like the outrageous case of the Georgian Opera Singer, which has a clear music connection too!

In that spirit, forgive me if I now wish to return to the topic of this thread, as it is important that some members are not bullied or de-railed from expressing views that others merely find uncomfortable and inconvenient to their own personal philosophies.

Here's an interesting little link, Flosshilde. The writer seems to feel very much the same way as I do about the matter of the sacked singer.

In fact you will be delighted to learn that, as he has put the alternative case so much better than I and in a much smaller space, I feel now that there is absolutely no point in myself continuing to post on this particular thread.

Best Wishes

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/smh...623-zsisd.html

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm sure you are absolutely right, Flosshilde, and here's to meeting-up in a music thread where we can both listen and learn. This Forum indeed contains a wealth of music knowledge and opinion which I value greatly, believe me. I'm often to be found exploring the various sub-forums contained within, and where I've learned a lot, without advertising my own woeful ignorance at the same time.

However, I understand that this is the Politics & Current Affairs Forum which has been deliberately created in a tiny little corner for those reprobate members who take a keen interest in such things, and feel they might have something to contribute even if it is only a rather vain attempt to give a balanced opinion on matters like the outrageous case of the Georgian Opera Singer, which has a clear music connection too!

In that spirit, forgive me if I now wish to return to the topic of this thread, as it is important that some members are not bullied or de-railed from expressing views that others merely find uncomfortable and inconvenient to their own personal philosophies.

Here's an interesting little link, Flosshilde. The writer seems to feel very much the same way as I do about the matter of the sacked singer.

In fact you will be delighted to learn that, as he has put the alternative case so much better than I and in a much smaller space, I feel now that there is absolutely no point in myself continuing to post on this particular thread.

Best Wishes

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/smh...623-zsisd.html

It's hard to tell what David Houghton is arguing in that link, as the two ends of what he says don't tie up. Unless he's saying that in thinking Tamara Ivera is not some kind of threat to him as a gay he is undermining his parents' convictions? Nio, that doesn't seem to add up to a reply to whatever he is disagreeing with either. Shurely Shome Mishtake?

[Dave2002]

I approach this subject with trepidation. I am glad that the LGBT community have gained significant freedom and tolerance by others over the last fifty years. It would now be a shame if members and supporters of that community themselves behave in intolerant ways. The singer is entitled to her beliefs, if indeed they are hers, and in a society where freedom of speech is permitted, she could indeed also express them, though it is unlikely that she would gain much sympathy in several countries, such as the UK. Incitement to violence and hatred is, however, another thing, and should not be encouraged or tolerated, and if that is what she has done, then she would so far appear to me to have been treated fairly reasonably. However, advocating severe punitive measures and vengeance against the singer does not seem a constructive way forward to me.

I am assuming she will not stick her head out above the parapet again, and that eventually the matter will be forgotten, possibly and hopefully with lessons learnt on all sides.

[visualnickmos]

I am assuming she will not stick her head out above the parapet again, and that eventually the matter will be forgotten, possibly and hopefully with lessons learnt on all sides.

One can make a phrase containing the words 'oneself' 'shot' 'foot' and 'in'

[jean]

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/smh...623-zsisd.html

My antivirus is warning me against this link - anyone know why?

[Flosshilde]

Incitement to violence and hatred is, however, another thing, and should not be encouraged or tolerated, and if that is what she has done,

I wouldn't have thought there was any 'if' about it - what's advocating or justifying 'breaking jaws' if it's not incitement to violence?

[french frank]

I wouldn't have thought there was any 'if' about it - what's advocating or justifying 'breaking jaws' if it's not incitement to violence?

Could be. An interesting point is that it was only posted for a short time before it was removed: would those who republished it (thus enabling a huge and disparate global audience to read it) also be guilty of advocating or inciting violence? Is the argument, 'We only published it so show her up for what she is' any less likely to incite violence by those who agree with what she was saying?

[Flosshilde]

On the same line as those re-publishing a libel are also guilty of libel? (I think they are, anyway - there's never a lawyer around when you need one)

But thinking about it again, no, it's not the same - in the example of the outspoken singer, it's the intention that matters. If her comments are re-published with the intention of disaproving of them, then it wouldn't be incitement to violence, as you would be saying in effect that people shouldn't be attacked.

But - if you re-published a libel with the intention of disagreeing with it, would that be libel, as you would be saying that the person concderned wasn't a thief, or murderer etc.

[french frank]

On the same line as those re-publishing a libel are also guilty of libel? (I think they are, anyway - there's never a lawyer around when you need one)

But thinking about it again, no, it's not the same - in the example of the outspoken singer, it's the intention that matters. If her comments are re-published with the intention of disaproving of them, then it wouldn't be incitement to violence, as you would be saying in effect that people shouldn't be attacked.

But - if you re-published a libel with the intention of disagreeing with it, would that be libel, as you would be saying that the person concderned wasn't a thief, or murderer etc.

My feeling is that it would be 'an offence'; or you would have to prove that the original intention was to incite violence, rather than that it might do. How do you prove that, as a result of those words, violence was caused? If you say, it wasn't actually caused, but it might have been that would apply equally to the republishing.

Yes, to republish a libel is an offence. There is no defence in saying that you were only republishing it to say it was wrong because you are still spreading the libel (it is claimed X was a thief/murderer but he's not): people who didn't know about it now do because you published it. As McNae says:

"Suppose a journalist in writing defamatory allegations makes it clear that they are only rumours, or goes further and says he [sic] does not believe them. That is no defence. It is the act of publishing the allegations which is assumed to do the damage."

But that's about defamation - the law may well be different in respect of 'hate speech' or incitement to violence, but I don't see why it should be.

[Dave2002]

I wouldn't have thought there was any 'if' about it - what's advocating or justifying 'breaking jaws' if it's not incitement to violence?

I think there may be issues, but I've not checked. What jurisidiction was she in when the posting was made? If, as she now claims, she did not put the article up, then things get muddier still. Finally, I don't know what language was used for the post? If it was Russian or a related/similar language I would be unable to understand it, and I would not necessarily rely on accurate translation by others.

Re the idiom, there can also be issues in any language. My gran was often saying that "I'll kill you if you do that", or "I'll murder you for that." I loved her to bits, and she wouldn't have hurt anyone. Nowadays she might have had to be more careful. My point related to that is that one has to take the words in an appropriate context.

In the case of the words posted on/for the singer, the cultural context and even the audience could be uncertain. I'm not condoning the original expression or sentiments expressed at all.

[amateur51]

http://hethate.tumblr.com/post/59442...y-heterophobic

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/331180

Happy now ...?

I doubt it!

I'm thrilled that this hard-sought twosome apparently constitutes 'plenty' in Tipp-world.

Bits of your style are fascinatingly familiar.

I wonder ...

[ahinton]

I'm thrilled that this hard-sought twosome apparently constitutes 'plenty' in Tipp-world.

Bits of your style are fascinatingly familiar.

I wonder ...

And while you do so, perhaps it's time for some tea - or, better still, some Tipp - ex...