• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MP stripped of his Parliamentary seat by court

"Yes, and as history has shown, laws designed to address the extreme fringes have never been used against anyone else."



I don't think libel should be a crime, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

So if someone was publically stating you were a child molester which caused you actual harm you should not be able to sue them or have them punished in any way shape or form?
 
So if someone was publically stating you were a child molester which caused you actual harm you should not be able to sue them or have them punished in any way shape or form?

...where are you getting this from?

Libel is a civil offense that is remedied with monetary damages. That's how it should work. That does not mean it is a crime.
 
"Yes, and as history has shown, laws designed to address the extreme fringes have never been used against anyone else."

That's a nice platitude. Now, can you demonstrate how the law that was used against the politician has been used in the past in a despotic fashion?

Not to mention, the decision caused another byelection. For all we know the same party could be elected. The people still have direct input.
 
That's a nice platitude. Now, can you demonstrate how the law that was used against the politician has been used in the past in a despotic fashion?

...did you not read what I just said?

Not to mention, the decision caused another byelection. For all we know the same party could be elected. The people still have direct input.

So you don't have a problem with the courts overturning the results of elections, so long as there's another election. Great.
 
...did you not read what I just said?

I did. You made a vague platitude about history. Can you show how it's true of Britain as it pertains to this law?

So you don't have a problem with the courts overturning the results of elections, so long as there's another election. Great.

It seems like people in Britain generally support this law, given how rarely it is invoked and the evidence required for its justifiable use. I think your chickle little attitude is just that... hyperbole and exaggeration. It's not the rise of fascism.
 
I did. You made a vague platitude about history. Can you show how it's true of Britain as it pertains to this law?

When I say "Yes, and as history has shown, laws designed to address the extreme fringes have never been used against anyone else," I'm referring to the fact that just because it hasn't been misused in the past, it doesn't prove it won't be misused in the future.

Not sure what else you want me to say here.

It seems like people in Britain generally support this law, given how rarely it is invoked and the evidence required for its justifiable use.

Oh, well if the people support it, it must be a good law!

I think your chickle little attitude is just that... hyperbole and exaggeration. It's not the rise of fascism.

lol, you're accusing me of hyperbole and exaggeration?

Where did I say this was the rise of fascism? I said it's a bad law and that I find it disturbing, like much of the UK's approach to speech.
 
Last edited:
So you don't have a problem with the courts overturning the results of elections, so long as there's another election.
I don't have a problem with the courts enforcing the law and punishing those who have been proven to have broken the law beyond reasonable doubt. You got a problem with the judiciary having any role in the maintenance of law and order during the electoral process?
 
I don't have a problem with the courts enforcing the law and punishing those who have been proven to have broken the law beyond reasonable doubt. You got a problem with the judiciary having any role in the maintenance of law and order during the electoral process?

As I've stated over and over again, I have a serious problem with the UK's archaic approach toward speech. The judiciary is not in and of itself to blame for the crappy laws.
 
As I've stated over and over again, I have a serious problem with the UK's archaic approach toward speech. The judiciary is not in and of itself to blame for the crappy laws.

Yes, you've stated that, just never really explained it. I seriously have no idea what you mean unless what you are arguing that blatant lying in order to win an election should be protected behaviour under free speech laws. I can't believe you really believe that.
 
Yes, you've stated that, just never really explained it. I seriously have no idea what you mean unless what you are arguing that blatant lying in order to win an election should be protected behaviour under free speech laws. I can't believe you really believe that.

Yes, I do. I wish I could say I'm flabbergasted that you think it shouldn't be, but it's no surprise. Europe has so much to learn about free speech.

Once again, if you think someone is a liar, there's a simple way to keep them out of office: DON'T ****ING VOTE FOR THEM.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do. I wish I could say I'm flabbergasted that you think it shouldn't be, but it's no surprise. Europe has so much to learn about free speech.

Once again, if you think someone is a liar, there's a simple way to keep them out of office: DON'T ****ING VOTE FOR THEM.

And if it found out he/she is a liar after the election, and the person was voted in generally because of the lie
 
And if it found out he/she is a liar after the election, and the person was voted in generally because of the lie

Then you vote them out next time or have a legislative process established whereby you can have recall elections.
 
If you are running for public office, I truly do think you have to give up some of your personal freedoms. We already restrict people's free expression based having positions of power. We don't allow teachers to flirt with their students, for example. When a public official or a person attempting to become a public official lies, it deludes people's votes and undermines the integrity of democracy. Public officials have a greater level of responsibility on them, and thus are not quite as free. I say, kudos to the UK for not allowing greedy self-interest to harm innocent people.
 
Yes, I do. I wish I could say I'm flabbergasted that you think it shouldn't be, but it's no surprise. Europe has so much to learn about free speech.
Something doesn't become more true the more often you say it. Just saying the UK has a problem with free speech is pretty meaningless if you can't or won't back up your opinion with an argument and some evidence. Some might regard it as a vacuous insult.

Once again, if you think someone is a liar, there's a simple way to keep them out of office: DON'T ****ING VOTE FOR THEM.
Once again, there's no need for assumption, in this case there's hard facts, evidence, proof. The RPA stipulates that you may not wilfully mislead the public during an election campaign. He did, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. to a higher standrad of proof than would be needed to find against him in a civil libel action) and he was punished.

Your argument is seriously illogical. I guess Bernie Madoff shouldn't have gone to jail. After all, if you think someone's a liar, there's a simple way to keep them from defrauding you: DON'T F***ING INVEST WITH THEM.
 
Free speech is free speech. You have to take the bitter with the sweet.

Besides, his opponent is a public figure and should expect to be tarred and feathered.
 
Something doesn't become more true the more often you say it. Just saying the UK has a problem with free speech is pretty meaningless if you can't or won't back up your opinion with an argument and some evidence. Some might regard it as a vacuous insult.

Given that you're participating in a thread about speech laws in the UK, I assumed that you were familiar with the UK's notorious policies on these issues. I guess not.

Here are some basic primers:

Libel tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

English defamation law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cracking the Spine of Libel - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe/11libel.html

UK Libel law threatens science and honesty

UK Libel Law Is Out Of Control. We Know From Experience.

Quick summary: If your country's libel laws are so strict that people from all over the world are coming there in order to sue people and stifle speech, then your laws are trash.

Once again, there's no need for assumption, in this case there's hard facts, evidence, proof. The RPA stipulates that you may not wilfully mislead the public during an election campaign. He did, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. to a higher standrad of proof than would be needed to find against him in a civil libel action) and he was punished.

...and I think that's a ****ty law. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Your argument is seriously illogical. I guess Bernie Madoff shouldn't have gone to jail. After all, if you think someone's a liar, there's a simple way to keep them from defrauding you: DON'T F***ING INVEST WITH THEM.

JFC. Do you honestly not see a difference between actual financial fraud and alleged dishonesty in electioneering?

Is that not what basically is occuring, a byelection is being called?

Yes, except the byelection is being called courtesy of a prosecutor and a judge, rather than by the people who are given the authority to elect people. I see that as a problem. You may not.
 
Is that not what basically is occuring, a byelection is being called?

Yes it is. Which is excellent news in my eyes.

This time the electorate will be able to choose someone who represents them without race fear and lies distorting it.
 
Yes, except the byelection is being called courtesy of a prosecutor and a judge, rather than by the people who are given the authority to elect people. I see that as a problem. You may not.

And 71% of "the people" support this decision.
 
"Oh, well if the people support it, it must be a good law!"

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...arliamentary-seat-court-2.html#post1059100052

That argument didn't get any better in the past 24 hours.

This is a good law

The people, we the electorate cannot recall a MP if they have been found to be lying.
That power is with the court and if there is sufficient evidence. They will be stripped of their seat and the people will have another say.

The constituents deserve a representative who didn't lie and play the race card to win and they will get their say. I have nothing but support for the Judges decision.
 
This is a good law

The people, we the electorate cannot recall a MP if they have been found to be lying.
That power is with the court and if there is sufficient evidence. They will be stripped of their seat and the people will have another say.

The constituents deserve a representative who didn't lie and play the race card to win and they will get their say. I have nothing but support for the Judges decision.

So rather than have a law that gives the people the authority to recall politicians who do bad things, you'd rather give that power to appointed and elected officials.

Hey, to each their own.
 
So rather than have a law that gives the people the authority to recall politicians who do bad things, you'd rather give that power to appointed and elected officials.

Hey, to each their own.

The politicians gave that power to the Judges by passing the law not the people.

:shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom