Anti-Zionist beliefs ‘worthy of respect’, UK tribunal finds

[Tommy Tainant]

Anti-Zionist beliefs ‘worthy of respect’, UK tribunal finds

Judges say unfairly dismissed academic David Miller’s views on Israel should be protected by antidiscrimination laws

www.theguardian.com

In February the tribunal ruled that Prof David Miller was unfairly discriminated against when he was dismissed by the University of Bristol over allegations of making antisemitic remarks, in a decision the Union of Jewish Students said set a dangerous precedent.

The tribunal has now published its 120-page judgment setting out why Miller’s beliefs warranted protection under antidiscrimination laws.

This is a welcome victory for common sense. Too many of these zionists try to crush debate by screaming anti semite.They do the wider Jewish community a diservice.
Israel is not above criticism. The same as any other country.

Anti semitism is a grevious slur. Its an accusation that should not be used lightly. Otherwise it loses any power.

 

[Donald H]

Anti-Zionist beliefs ‘worthy of respect’, UK tribunal finds

Judges say unfairly dismissed academic David Miller’s views on Israel should be protected by antidiscrimination laws

www.theguardian.com

In February the tribunal ruled that Prof David Miller was unfairly discriminated against when he was dismissed by the University of Bristol over allegations of making antisemitic remarks, in a decision the Union of Jewish Students said set a dangerous precedent.

The tribunal has now published its 120-page judgment setting out why Miller’s beliefs warranted protection under antidiscrimination laws.

This is a welcome victory for common sense. Too many of these zionists try to crush debate by screaming anti semite.They do the wider Jewish community a diservice.
Israel is not above criticism. The same as any other country.

Anti semitism is a grevious slur. Its an accusation that should not be used lightly. Otherwise it loses any power.

And so the acceptance of Zionism, as opposed to tarring all Jews with the same brush, is now accepted by the UK government!

 

[shockedcanadian]

Anti-Zionist beliefs ‘worthy of respect’, UK tribunal finds

Judges say unfairly dismissed academic David Miller’s views on Israel should be protected by antidiscrimination laws

www.theguardian.com

In February the tribunal ruled that Prof David Miller was unfairly discriminated against when he was dismissed by the University of Bristol over allegations of making antisemitic remarks, in a decision the Union of Jewish Students said set a dangerous precedent.

The tribunal has now published its 120-page judgment setting out why Miller’s beliefs warranted protection under antidiscrimination laws.

This is a welcome victory for common sense. Too many of these zionists try to crush debate by screaming anti semite.They do the wider Jewish community a diservice.
Israel is not above criticism. The same as any other country.

Anti semitism is a grevious slur. Its an accusation that should not be used lightly. Otherwise it loses any power.

How about free speech for all regardless of who it offends? I bet you that your ilk wouldn't accept that as you have agendas that you support without questioning.

THose like myself who greatly value open discussion and debate would prefer limitless free speech (as long as it doesnt encourage violence or abuse against the vulnerable) to the opposite extreme.

I didnt read the article but if he is suggesting it is "worthy of respect" to be anti-semetic, would he also suggest the same of an open racist? How about if he were Islamophobic?

Now, I've always believed that speech allows for education for those who are wrong regardless of how much I disagree with the speech so people should freely express themselves. Zionism shouldnt be a controversial word, it simply means a home for Jews back to their homeland, Israel. If this professor or any other person doesnt agree with zionism than they are saying that Israel should not exist. That is worse than racism as it suggests the genocide of the nation of citizens. Horrible.

Would they say that of any other country? Canada and America were once dominated by native Americans. China was once a number of smaller warlord states. You could go on and on.

 

[Donald H]

How about free speech for all regardless of who it offends? I bet you that your ilk wouldn't accept that as you have agendas that you support without questioning.

THose like myself who greatly value open discussion and debate would prefer limitless free speech (as long as it doesnt encourage violence or abuse against the vulnerable) to the opposite extreme.

I didnt read the article but if he is suggesting it is "worthy of respect" to be anti-semetic, would he also suggest the same of an open racist? How about if he were Islamophobic?

Now, I've always believed that speech allows for education for those who are wrong regardless of how much I disagree with the speech so people should freely express themselves. Zionism shouldnt be a controversial word, it simply means a home for Jews back to their homeland, Israel. If this professor or any other person doesnt agree with zionism than they are saying that Israel should not exist. That is worse than racism as it suggests the genocide of the nation of citizens. Horrible.

Would they say that of any other country? Canada and America were once dominated by native Americans. China was once a number of smaller warlord states. You could go on and on.

We can at least now say with comfort that the lot of the fkrs should be driven into the sea and drowned! Zionists that is!

 

[jotathought]

How about free speech for all regardless of who it offends? I bet you that your ilk wouldn't accept that as you have agendas that you support without questioning.

THose like myself who greatly value open discussion and debate would prefer limitless free speech (as long as it doesnt encourage violence or abuse against the vulnerable) to the opposite extreme.

I didnt read the article but if he is suggesting it is "worthy of respect" to be anti-semetic, would he also suggest the same of an open racist? How about if he were Islamophobic?

Now, I've always believed that speech allows for education for those who are wrong regardless of how much I disagree with the speech so people should freely express themselves. Zionism shouldnt be a controversial word, it simply means a home for Jews back to their homeland, Israel. If this professor or any other person doesnt agree with zionism than they are saying that Israel should not exist. That is worse than racism as it suggests the genocide of the nation of citizens. Horrible.

Would they say that of any other country? Canada and America were once dominated by native Americans. China was once a number of smaller warlord states. You could go on and on.

The United Kingdom doesn't have the concept of free speech, and individuals are actively being locked up for speaking 'offensive' language on social media -- especially about the surge of 'pro-palestinian' groups.

 

[Deadstick]

How about free speech for all regardless of who it offends? I bet you that your ilk wouldn't accept that as you have agendas that you support without questioning.

THose like myself who greatly value open discussion and debate would prefer limitless free speech (as long as it doesnt encourage violence or abuse against the vulnerable) to the opposite extreme.

I didnt read the article but if he is suggesting it is "worthy of respect" to be anti-semetic, would he also suggest the same of an open racist? How about if he were Islamophobic?

Now, I've always believed that speech allows for education for those who are wrong regardless of how much I disagree with the speech so people should freely express themselves. Zionism shouldnt be a controversial word, it simply means a home for Jews back to their homeland, Israel. If this professor or any other person doesnt agree with zionism than they are saying that Israel should not exist. That is worse than racism as it suggests the genocide of the nation of citizens. Horrible.

Would they say that of any other country? Canada and America were once dominated by native Americans. China was once a number of smaller warlord states. You could go on and on.

Any Jewish person from London or New York Warsaw etc has a homeland, the Country they were born in, not the middle East.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The United Kingdom doesn't have the concept of free speech, and individuals are actively being locked up for speaking 'offensive' language on social media -- especially about the surge of 'pro-palestinian' groups.

None of that is actually true.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Any Jewish person from London or New York Warsaw etc has a homeland, the Country they were born in, not the middle East.

They need to integrate like those evil muslims.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

How about free speech for all regardless of who it offends? I bet you that your ilk wouldn't accept that as you have agendas that you support without questioning.

THose like myself who greatly value open discussion and debate would prefer limitless free speech (as long as it doesnt encourage violence or abuse against the vulnerable) to the opposite extreme.

I didnt read the article but if he is suggesting it is "worthy of respect" to be anti-semetic, would he also suggest the same of an open racist? How about if he were Islamophobic?

Now, I've always believed that speech allows for education for those who are wrong regardless of how much I disagree with the speech so people should freely express themselves. Zionism shouldnt be a controversial word, it simply means a home for Jews back to their homeland, Israel. If this professor or any other person doesnt agree with zionism than they are saying that Israel should not exist. That is worse than racism as it suggests the genocide of the nation of citizens. Horrible.

Would they say that of any other country? Canada and America were once dominated by native Americans. China was once a number of smaller warlord states. You could go on and on.

Its a judgement that supports free speech. Maybe you should read it.?

 

[daveman]

Anti-Zionist beliefs ‘worthy of respect’, UK tribunal finds

Judges say unfairly dismissed academic David Miller’s views on Israel should be protected by antidiscrimination laws

www.theguardian.com

In February the tribunal ruled that Prof David Miller was unfairly discriminated against when he was dismissed by the University of Bristol over allegations of making antisemitic remarks, in a decision the Union of Jewish Students said set a dangerous precedent.

The tribunal has now published its 120-page judgment setting out why Miller’s beliefs warranted protection under antidiscrimination laws.

This is a welcome victory for common sense. Too many of these zionists try to crush debate by screaming anti semite.They do the wider Jewish community a diservice.
Israel is not above criticism. The same as any other country.

Anti semitism is a grevious slur. Its an accusation that should not be used lightly. Otherwise it loses any power.

...says the government that puts people in jail for criticizing barbarians raping their children on social media.

 

[daveman]

We can at least now say with comfort that the lot of the fkrs should be driven into the sea and drowned! Zionists that is!

The Fourth Reich can't be far off now, Herr Donald!

 

[Tommy Tainant]

...says the government that puts people in jail for criticizing barbarians raping their children on social media.

Not true tho is it ?

 

[shockedcanadian]

Its a judgement that supports free speech. Maybe you should read it.?

Yes, but YOU don't support free speech so I'm confused as to your motive.

Have you altered opinion about suppression of speech nowadays or is it just, as I suggested, a case by case basis, in other words "speech I agree with is ok, that which I do not must be silenced!?"

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Anti-Zionist beliefs ‘worthy of respect’, UK tribunal finds

Judges say unfairly dismissed academic David Miller’s views on Israel should be protected by antidiscrimination laws

www.theguardian.com

In February the tribunal ruled that Prof David Miller was unfairly discriminated against when he was dismissed by the University of Bristol over allegations of making antisemitic remarks, in a decision the Union of Jewish Students said set a dangerous precedent.

The tribunal has now published its 120-page judgment setting out why Miller’s beliefs warranted protection under antidiscrimination laws.

This is a welcome victory for common sense. Too many of these zionists try to crush debate by screaming anti semite.They do the wider Jewish community a diservice.
Israel is not above criticism. The same as any other country.

Anti semitism is a grevious slur. Its an accusation that should not be used lightly. Otherwise it loses any power.

Israel Has Been Taking a Bullet for Us the Past 100 Years

If you believe that the thrill-killing Nazislami savages have the same right as Jews, that's anti-semitic by false comparison.

It's like saying that criminals have the same right to a fair fight as policemen do.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yes, but YOU don't support free speech so I'm confused as to your motive.

Have you altered opinion about suppression of speech nowadays or is it just, as I suggested, a case by case basis, in other words "speech I agree with is ok, that which I do not must be silenced!?"

I support free speech with exceptions for hate peech and bearing false witness.
The issue wth this is that anti semites might think its ok to rerun their holocaust denial. But a distinction needs to be drawn.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Israel Has Been Taking a Bullet for Us the Past 100 Years

If you believe that the thrill-killing Nazislami savages have the same right as Jews, that's anti-semitic by false comparison.

It's like saying that criminals have the same right to a fair fight as policemen do.

Oh dear.

 

[jotathought]

None of that is actually true.

It most certainly is, and here are a few examples:

• A recent X post from the Crown Prosecution Service discussing online content may get you arrested for inciting violence (makes sense) or hate (which is bullshit and goes against the concept of free speech). Who defines what 'hate' is?

• A YouTube video of a man being arrested for making 'offensive posts' on social media

A man recorded his own arrest at home on "suspicion of improper use of an electronic communications network under Section 127 of the Communications Act." The arrest allegedly stemmed from offensive and obscene comments he allegedly made on a Facebook page, which prompted complaints from the public. The video shows the man being detained by police officers, capturing the tense moment as he protests his arrest. This incident highlights the ongoing issues related to online speech, social media regulations, and the enforcement of laws governing electronic communications.

• This is from a 2017 "Ask the Mayor" public session where an individual asked about those charged and convicted for posts deemed 'offensive' on social media -- Seven Years Ago:

Crimes on Social Media

Question​

Crimes on Social Media​

To ask the Mayor how many people in London have so far been arrested, charged and convicted for offensive tweets, postings on Facebook and other social media?

Answer​

Date: Monday 17 July 2017
MPS data for the calendar years 2008 to 2017 indicate that in total 5332 people have been arrested and charged for a range of offences under the Communications Act 2003.
These include the offences of:
 causing to be sent or sending false messages by public electronic communication network to cause annoyance/inconvenience /anxiety;
 sending by public communication network an offensive / indecent / obscene / menacing message or matter; and
 persistently making use of public communication network to cause annoyance / inconvenience / anxiety.
The MPS does not hold data on convictions. The table below provides the data broken down by calendar year.

 

[irosie91]

I support free speech with exceptions for hate peech and bearing false witness.
The issue wth this is that anti semites might think its ok to rerun their holocaust denial. But a distinction needs to be drawn.

the issues are beyond you ken. I just read an article from the medical literature detailing
the very significant, real and ongoing
problem of infectious disease transmission
during the HADJ. A case can be made for the
Quarantining of all persons who engage in that activity or even criminalizing it

 

[Tommy Tainant]

It most certainly is, and here are a few examples:

• A recent X post from the Crown Prosecution Service discussing online content may get you arrested for inciting violence (makes sense) or hate (which is bullshit and goes against the concept of free speech). Who defines what 'hate' is?

• A YouTube video of a man being arrested for making 'offensive posts' on social media

• This is from a 2017 "Ask the Mayor" public session where an individual asked about those charged and convicted for posts deemed 'offensive' on social media -- Seven Years Ago:

Crimes on Social Media

What did they say ?

 

[irosie91]

some time ago I was banned from a message
board for posting up the texts of Khutbah
Jumaat 'sermons'