Finally Some Sense From The Judiciary..........

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 16:08 Thu 10th Jun 2021 | News
70 Answers
Bullied by the TROB hordes, of course but 100% correct from the start. It seems though that these days that's not enough.


61 to 70 of 70rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"A view doesn't need to have any basis in truth at all to deserve at least some level of protection as a matter of law."

What if a "view" were clearly racist?
Yes, corby. I would hope that bullying, harassment, discrimination etc- were already covered by laws.
In that case it wouldn't get the protection, hence the "at least some".

Also, yes, I am a scientist, but this is a matter of law, where the principles are somewhat different. In particular, the principle that the Tribunal was defending is that it is not for the State to decide what is "true", and to use this as a means to determine what deserves legal protection.

Also, stop being rude. You can express your point without descending into that. That's twice in this thread now.
//Gender is always mutable, for everybody.//

And as such it’s largely a redundant term or concept. I can really think of no use for it.
Who is being rude?
What I'm saying, is that something provably factual, should be immune from law. I realise feelings and facts can be different. But- that should not come into law.
Harassment,violence, prejudice etc... are already illegal. For any individual.
There is no use for it, nj. Privately, if people want to- fine.
Put another way, the specific statement that the truth shouldn't be illegal I have no problem with. Your error is in asserting that this has anything whatsoever to do with this judgement, especially because it explicitly refutes that point. A belief, whether truthful or not, shouldn't in itself be unlawful, or be not subject to the protection of law, unless it meets certain very specific and extreme criteria.
Surely "some protection" cannot be no protection?
Well yes... obviously, Jim. But this was fact, not a view. In any case, that wasn't about this judgment, but posts from it.
I hope you didn't mean I was being rude (or please let me know). But in my view, the rudest thing is people pretending they can be a woman, by just thinking so. So, all a matter of opinion there.
Hmm. It may be that I should have worded the sentence better, although what I meant was that being true isn't a necessary condition to deserve legal protections. It doesn't follow that there are *no* necessary conditions.

61 to 70 of 70rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Do you know the answer?

Finally Some Sense From The Judiciary..........

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.