The Guardian‘s Owen Jones asked the following question on Twitter:
How quickly should anti-LGBTQ rail tycoon and SNP donor Brian Souter’s assets be nationalised by a Labour Government?
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
The mask slipsNatalie Solent (Essex) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · Economics, Business & Globalization · Transport · UK affairs October 4th, 2017 |
 14 comments to The mask slips |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Would that be the same Owen Jones who objects to criticism of Venezuela?
Well, the good side of this is that I find myself defending the free speech rights and property rights of a Scottish Nationalist Party donor, and that is certainly evidence of disinterested support for these causes on my part. 🙂
The man-boy pundit thinks the personal wealth of those whose opinions differ from his should be seized by the State. I think there’s a name for that form of tyranny. Can’t quite remember what it’s called though…
Scratching my head here. So Mr Jones is so upset at someone for having certain beliefs that he is encouraging others to deprive him of his property.
Now, the UK’s head of Stasi thought-crime persecutions has written in the Guardian that:
“Hate crime of any form is not only damaging for individuals but also for society as a whole, where it sows seeds of division and intolerance. Left unchallenged, even low-level offending can subsequently fuel the kind of dangerous hostility that has been plastered across our media in recent days. That is why countering it is vital for society and a priority for the CPS.”
Mr Jones is motivated by hate. He is justifying theft. And his comments were published online.
Actually it’s probably not that confusing. People who read or write for the Guardian are protected. Everyone else needs to watch themselves.
It is a closed question as it presumes a range of answers, but no ‘Never’ option, and by referring to Mr Souter as an ‘SNP donor’ it is inextricably linked to Scottish national origin and seems to imply hatred as defined by the PTB. I think that I should refer it to Police Scotland, how can I resist my inner Sauron?
I hate the image of Mr Jones snivelling in an Edinburgh police station cell.
Not well-schooled in British press roles at all, but doesn’t Jones have a long hard slog ahead of him trying to make the left-left stop hating him for sympathizing with the attempted ouster of Corbyn a year or so ago?
His comment above seems like something someone would say if they were trying to win back communist love.
Why not use his own repression mechanisms against him?
If we all report him for hate crime he’ll be investigated.
Jon
The great libertarian dilemma. “Do (not) unto others that which you would not wish be done unto yourself.”
or is it getting the enemy to take out one of its own?
Mr Ed – the latter.
Their system doesn’t work that way.
Hate is only “Hate!” if it is directed at someone specifically on account of some immutable status of theirs that is listed in their roster of Unhateable Statuses.
He’s not calling for the confiscation of someone’s wealth because that person is of some specific race, or gender, or neogender, or sexual preference.
It’s okay to hate anything that’s not on their protected list.
They’ve developed a very tight system of definitions, and they’re not going to be gamed easily.
bobby b:
But he did refer to his target as an SNP donor, and that is not inevitably but perhaps inextricably linked to Mr Souter being Scottish, and therefore it is hatred on the ground of political affiliation and perhaps national origin, i.e. he is calling on Labour to go after their enemies in Scotland and make an example out of a person who happens to be Scottish, but not to do so in the rest of the UK.
Is it worth a test case to see how far liberty has fallen?
And there is a separate offence of harassment or making a grossly offensive electronic communication, but most socialists do that, it’s just that the law hasn’t caught up with them yet.
I see – a person should be punished, for their political opinions, by having their property taken. Thank you Mr Owen Jones and “Guardian” newspaper – for making your position so clear.
Oh, I don’t know. They forbid ‘hate’ of religious beliefs.
Definition of religion: “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.”
If someone believes in the supreme importance of the free market, surely it’s a form of hate to punish them for their beliefs.
Unless you’re only protected if you profess belief in fairytale allahs rather than stuff that actually exists. Punish realists and reward fantasists.
I looked at the online hate crime reporting website. I think given the UK definition of hate crime, you’d have to hang your hat on Souter’s religious beliefs. Given that I personally find Souter significantly more repellant than Jones this will be tough, but my answer to Mr Ed’s question is ‘the latter’ too.
Right after the Guardian’s tax free status is removed?