I'm hardly a Tory, butit's worth looking at the rest of his speech. A few senteces later he says 'That means actively promoting certain values. Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality. We must say to our citizens: this is what defines us as a society.'
So perhaps not as bad when you hear it in context.
(,
Wed 13 May 2015, 15:05,
archived)
So perhaps not as bad when you hear it in context.
I'm not sure that is additional context though.The statement "For too long, we have [said] to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" seems pretty well-contained, and to imply that they won't leave you alone even if you aren't doing anything wrong is terrifying to me...
(
Hol[]y - WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR,
Wed 13 May 2015, 15:24,
archived)
It's clearly open to interpretationI read it as meaning 'previously we only asked you to obey the law, now we're asking you to uphold certain values as well, one of which is freedom of speech'.
(,
Wed 13 May 2015, 16:19,
archived)
But, to take your example, freedom of speech is incorporated into UK lawvia the Human Rights Act - oh wait...
None of the things in his list are values: they're fundamental human rights (assuming the rule of law is something like the right to a fair trial).
There is a basic assumption in, presumably, most societies that people will respect certain values (like not being an arsehole to everyone by default). It's not a requirement though. There are arseholes, people disagree, people upset each other. The government can *ask* all they want for people to uphold values, but if they start trying to *make* people "obey" them then they've crossed a line.
(None of the things in his list are values: they're fundamental human rights (assuming the rule of law is something like the right to a fair trial).
There is a basic assumption in, presumably, most societies that people will respect certain values (like not being an arsehole to everyone by default). It's not a requirement though. There are arseholes, people disagree, people upset each other. The government can *ask* all they want for people to uphold values, but if they start trying to *make* people "obey" them then they've crossed a line.
Hol[]y - WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR,
Wed 13 May 2015, 16:51,
archived)
Arguing against tolerance in defence of tolerance?That's what he's done. That's what the context tells us. And in that, he wants to go further than the law in policing and curtailing free speech in the name of protecting such values as free speech. If Orwell was alive today, he'd be turning in his grave.
One of those traditional British values is supposed to be something called Rule of Law. What he said is fundamentally incompatible with it. Absurdly, given what he said about democracy and other such values, that arguably puts him on the wrong side of what he's calling for, by calling for it - what a pillock!
I look forward to the principled Tory backbench rebellion against this.
(,
Wed 13 May 2015, 22:49,
archived)
One of those traditional British values is supposed to be something called Rule of Law. What he said is fundamentally incompatible with it. Absurdly, given what he said about democracy and other such values, that arguably puts him on the wrong side of what he's calling for, by calling for it - what a pillock!
I look forward to the principled Tory backbench rebellion against this.
Even with that, it soundslike a boss forcing the staff to be team players by sacking anyone who won't sing the company anthem at the start of the day.
edit: "Section 28" would have been a great heckle when he started on about gay rights.
(edit: "Section 28" would have been a great heckle when he started on about gay rights.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Wed 13 May 2015, 15:32,
archived)
