Hey Paul1405,
Nobody on this site will ever completely agree with everything another forum member says.
We're all own own people.

I don't really like the idea of being part of a gang or of being defined that way.
Gang mentality means you'll be defined by what the 'gang' does and you'll be compelled to act as a team, speaking and acting as the team does, and expected to tow the line.
You see examples of this kind of behaviour with politicians, feminists and many other groups.

I prefer to deal with the pro's and cons of each and every issue on its own merits.
I'm just too much of my own person in my beliefs that nobody would likely ever agree with everything I say, and why should they?

It doesn't hurt to have like minded people holding similar beliefs.
I suppose it could be said that if like minded people don't hang together,
They all hang seperately.

//Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, known by the pseudonym Tommy Robinson, and previously as Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris,is a far-right activist, who co-founded and served as spokesman and leader of the English Defence League.//

Who was found guilty and accordingly sentenced for contempt of court. Banged up fair and square, like the common criminal he is.

Funny, where were all these outraged activists standing up for Moutia Elzahed's freedom of expression when she was found guilty of contempt?

Bloody hypocrites.

For what's it worth, I think they're both twats who deserved their contempt charges. Contempt rules are there for a good reason, and watering them down for the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (or Moutia Elzahed) is a BAD idea.

Of course, if one was to take the views that the contempt rules are bad laws, and that forcing people to show display respect for the Courts when they may not actually respect them is a clear example of coerced speech; then I might have a bit more respect for their stance being based on some sort of principle, even if I don't disagree with it.

But when they're whining that some deadbeats and not others should have special privileges to disrespect the Courts, that's just hypocrisy. And trying to dress it up as a case of 'political correctness gone mad' is just pathetic.

I'll leave you all with the favourite comment of I've heard so far on this subject, from Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle:

"This week Tommy Robinson was sent to jail for 13 months, where he's currently trying to form the Anal Defence League - against strong opposition."

Tommy Robinson was doing nothing different to the Media as they chased Rolf Harris or George Pell on their way to Court. Just he was not presenting it on Left Wing TV, but rather to his facebook fans. Because he is a critic of Islam he is harassed as extreme. His right of freedom of speech has been denied. He has expressed what most English are concerned about, child brides and sex slaves of kafir girls are sanctioned in the Koran and Hadiths.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/women_slaves.ht

Foxy, taking into account how words make someone feel works both ways. The person making the comment may well feel that their beliefs are being denigrated and disrespected.
Calling someone a racist, sexist or homophobe or god botherer May make that person feel bad just because they have certain personal beliefs.
Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. To deny that is mind control.
Saying that you don’t believe in abortion or euthanasia or homosexuality or casual sex etc. is not hate speech, it’s simply a declaration of someone’s beliefs and to be honest, who is to say they are wrong anyway?
In 100 years time society may well have flipped in the opposite direction and changed its stance on any or all of these things.
The PC. brigade don’t give a damn about anyone’s feelings if they don’t agree with them.

Dear Big Nana,

Free Speech works both ways.

People have a right to voice their beliefs and others
have a right to criticize those beliefs. Its only
when the comments on either side are disparaging and
do harm or promote violence or hatred - that problems
arise and we should have the right to limit that
speech to reduce its negative impacts on others.

For example - in a US school a student was wearing
a t-shirt with the following message -

"Be Ashamed. Our school embraced what God has condemned.
Homosexuality is SHAMEFUL!"

The plainly impinged on the rights of other students and
the student was given the choice of taking off the t-shirt,
or covering the message. He refused and spent the day in
the Principal's office.

The Principal explained that the t-shirt's message also
went against the school's policies and values of inclusion.
Therefore although the student was entitled to his beliefs.
The school was entitled not to hear them.

Dear Foxy,

"Therefore although the student was entitled to his beliefs, the school was entitled not to hear them."

Do you want to re-phrase that ? Are you aware of what you actually wrote - that an institution can stop anybody from expressing their opinions if they vary from its own ? Isn't that a sort of textbook definition of censorship ? Of institutional repression ?

Surely that's precisely NOT the way to go ? Surely people have fought against that sort of power for centuries, at least in the West ? And been burnt at the stake, etc., for it ?

I would even support the right of Islamist students to express their views, to give people the opportunity to criticise those opinions and engage in robust debate. Or Christian students for that matter. It's an important way to expose a rubbish argument to polite ridicule.

Somebody expressing support for the Brisbane Lions ? I don't know, you have to draw the line somewhere. What happened to Riewolt will long be remembered.

Love,

Joe