FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Preacher sentenced for homophobic comments in Ecuador!
Preacher sentenced for homophobic comments in Ecuador!
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
He wasn't jailed.
"The former Ecuadorean presidential candidate Nelson Zavala has had his political rights suspended for a year and been fined for homophobic comments."
He stated, during the recent presidential election campaign, that gays were "immoral" and suffered from "severe deviation of conduct". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He wasn't jailed.
"The former Ecuadorean presidential candidate Nelson Zavala has had his political rights suspended for a year and been fined for homophobic comments."
He stated, during the recent presidential election campaign, that gays were "immoral" and suffered from "severe deviation of conduct". "
Im happy with that description, lol. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iewMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Angus & Findhorn |
"He wasn't jailed.
"The former Ecuadorean presidential candidate Nelson Zavala has had his political rights suspended for a year and been fined for homophobic comments."
He stated, during the recent presidential election campaign, that gays were "immoral" and suffered from "severe deviation of conduct". "
Cheers  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
People are free to say what they want. that doesn't mean people will agree with it. or that its legal to say it. it's usually at this point that they start whinging about freedom of speech.when they've dropped a bollock |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"depends on the context and any intent to incite hatred in my opinion.
Hatred is bad real bad but jail for words?
Not sure what he said to be honest "
His comments are unpleasant but not to the level I would class as worthy of a conviction. What is more of a concern is he was Ecuadorean presidential candidate. He said gays were "immoral" and suffered from "severe deviation of conduct" and he did it during the February election campaign. He also says he can "cure" gay people which is farcical to say the least and maybe that’s why came last out of eight candidates with 1.23% of the votes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"People are free to say what they want. that doesn't mean people will agree with it. or that its legal to say it. it's usually at this point that they start whinging about freedom of speech.when they've dropped a bollock"
But you cannot have true freedom of speech if it is against the law to exercise that right.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"People are free to say what they want. that doesn't mean people will agree with it. or that its legal to say it. it's usually at this point that they start whinging about freedom of speech.when they've dropped a bollock
But you cannot have true freedom of speech if it is against the law to exercise that right.
"
I know, as you said it doesn't exist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Its an interesting dichotomy, the concept of 'free speech'
One the one hand, you want to believe in a world where the individual has the right to express a thought, concept or opinion freely and without fear of recrimination.
What you actually have is the illusion of free speech - carefully selected words within an ever tightening framework of laws and regulation designed to stop the utter anarchy which would result from allowing anyone to practice that particular freedom. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"People are free to say what they want. that doesn't mean people will agree with it. or that its legal to say it. it's usually at this point that they start whinging about freedom of speech.when they've dropped a bollock
But you cannot have true freedom of speech if it is against the law to exercise that right.
"
That's correct however maybe that's not a bad thing for the majority. Freedom to comment but not to be abusive of others is more what we have. It is a very interesting area as not everyone will be happy with what is and isn't allowed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You have freedom to express your _iews as long as they are not deemed to encourage or incite others to cause harm or severe discrimination against others for unsubstantiated reasons.
For example, i could say "david cameron is a cunt". In some countries that wiuld have you in jail. However i csn't suggest that i would like harm to come to him. In the pub/office/park i could say it, but not publicly. In europe, particularly germany, holocaust denial is a crime due to the fact it condones and supports the notion of duscrimination |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You are allowed to discriminate against colour or race on here (in terms of your profile/meet preferences, as ling as you fon't give a _iew about why, as the reason would be a sweeping statement and therefore 'racist' and prejudiced |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You have freedom to express your _iews as long as they are not deemed to encourage or incite others to cause harm or severe discrimination against others for unsubstantiated reasons.
For example, i could say "david cameron is a cunt". In some countries that wiuld have you in jail. However i csn't suggest that i would like harm to come to him. In the pub/office/park i could say it, but not publicly. In europe, particularly germany, holocaust denial is a crime due to the fact it condones and supports the notion of duscrimination"
If you said that David Cameron was a cxxt in a public place I believe you would be committing a crime under the Public Order Act.
Free speech is a myth and in my opinion overated in some respects, I personally prefer to argue for open responsible speech. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
If you said that David Cameron was a cxxt in a public place I believe you would be committing a crime under the Public Order Act.
Free speech is a myth and in my opinion overated in some respects, I personally prefer to argue for open responsible speech. "
I meant public as in the street. It depends on the audience you are in front of. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You could say I think or in my opinion David Cameron is a c u next Tuesday, people can't stop you having an opinion as long as you state it is just your opinion and you don't try to force that opinion on anyone else |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
If you said that David Cameron was a cxxt in a public place I believe you would be committing a crime under the Public Order Act.
Free speech is a myth and in my opinion overated in some respects, I personally prefer to argue for open responsible speech.
I meant public as in the street. It depends on the audience you are in front of. "
Check out Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, I also meant public, as in the street. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
If you said that David Cameron was a cxxt in a public place I believe you would be committing a crime under the Public Order Act.
Free speech is a myth and in my opinion overated in some respects, I personally prefer to argue for open responsible speech.
I meant public as in the street. It depends on the audience you are in front of.
Check out Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, I also meant public, as in the street. "
You have to show harassment alarm or distress was intended or a subjective recklessness to it causing it. We live in a very open free country despite what many campaigners would have you believe....my opinion only of course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
