deleted

People writing in favor of Brits here make me laugh.

Considering the volume of lectures and critism Turkia gets regarding human rights, minority rights, freedom of expression, freedom to insult Ataturk etc. in this panel, I can not see how British democracy panics in the face of a few bearded guys, who apparently do not like poppy flowers.

Hey guys!  Cool it...that is freedom of expression.  

, don´t start crying Alpha Of course the "bearded bunch" has every right to protest. That is why their demonstration took place first of all. Even though they abused the idea of Rememberance Day, they were free to make fools of themselves. Nobody stopped the demonstartion, did they? Where´s the violation of freedom of speech?

If you´re referring to the lack of awe on my behalf, it is just an individual opinion. I disagree with their actions, yet, nowhere have I proposed (or anyone in this thread for that matter) that they should have been refused the right to protest.

To make things clear, freedom of speech means having the right to speak your mind, not to be supported by everyone or to be right

As for whose dady is braver, I think all input mattered back then. And there´s no guarantee alliants would have won if it hadn´t been for all the soldiers.

There is sth. wrong in tht equation.

UK attacks Iraq and exploit them, but begin to cry when the kids of their victims immigrate to their country.

Iraqies go to their killers lands, benefits from there and than protests for their unrest.

So two questions to be asked; why do UK attack the innocent people and overwhelm their lifes? why do the man of Iraq choose to live in their killers lands rather than fighting for the freedom of their country?

Most people are hypocrites. One side makes caricaatures, the other burns puppies!

However, if i were the judge, i would find UK guilty as the source of these weird events. 

To make things clear, freedom of speech means having the right to speak your mind, not to be supported by everyone or to be right

daydreamer

Not correct ! 

The absolute right to speak one´s mind can be tolerated in clinically insane only. Within a society of civilised people, "right of speech" is one´s freedom to chose to say - among all the things he/she can possibly say - only those things that can generally be considered pragmatic, at least,  within his/her society.

While the bearded men obviously have the right to dislike poppy flowers and the right to disagree with poppy lovers, they needed not make such jack asses of themselves while expressing their tastes or opinions.

Quote:Armegon

Hypocrisy is such a hard craft to hide, but only not realized by its owner... What would you say?

I would say that if people think I am a hypocrit it is their opinions and maybe I am maybe I am not it may depend on the situation at hand.  To say that others are hypocrits would mean that I would have to place judgment on others and it is not something I wish to do but sometimes it has to be done.  For this I might be considred a hypocrit. 

I have always stood behind my beleifs, opinions, standards and feelings.  True not everyones are of the same way of thinking as me but that is human nature and freedom of thinking.  If those people burned the poppies fine, they are free to express themselves just like I am intitle and free to express my opinions on their actions and conducts. 

Below is an old photo from Afghanistan, Afghanistan became independent in1919, many reforms performed by Afghani leaders till 70´s, after then surprisingly by the support of west, the hypocrite radicals became power, because they could be used as a slave much better than others to achieve their aims against Soviet Russia, and in the end west invaded Afghanistan by the help of these hypocrites again. Blimey!! such a good plan, ehh?? West loves all slave hypocrites.  So if they do not exist, you would not have the same freedom and money, who knows? Perhaps you should be thanking those bearded guys... 

In all fairness I think they started immigrating to the UK and US way before the Iraq invasion...

I can answer the two questions you asked with one answer: MONEY

Even people from countries not invaded by the Allied Forces of Evil tend to have big migration to these countries. Not for the love of 5 o´clock tea or pumpkin pie, I reckon...

Quoting armegon

 

Quoting christine

If they do not like what happens in England they are free to catch the first plane to Afganistan , but they would  not do that because they would not get any benifits there and would not have the same freedom that they have here in  England.

 They should be thanking all our brave soldiers that gave their lives to give us all the freedom we have now, i do.

 

 

 

 

? Perhaps you should be thanking those bearded guys... 

 Thanking them for what?

+1000

You are absolutely right..

Freedom of speech means "your right of speaking your mind is not being suppressed by the governments/states and laws".. On the contrary, "that right must be protected by the law and the state"..

Some people, do not realize how important that is for a decent democracy and mixing it up ´ah freedom of speech means freedom of insulting!!!´. (Our Junta leader, Kenan Evren, used to say these type of things in the past and  then he would conclude: ´do we really need democracy; do we really need intellectuals? do we really need freedom speech?´ etc)

In democracies, people´s right to speak should not be suppressed.. ´What they say´ is judged by the people. if it is moral/decent/likable or not..

I think that action in the news is a great example for this:

-has the people´s the freedom of speech violated in this incident? NO..It is not..They were allowed to do their demonstration. (their freedom of speech is not violated)

-What about their actions? They exposed themselves how disrespectful they are..

I don´t event want to think how this incident can be showed as an example to justify ´the laws and state actions  which crucify the freedom of  speech´ like banning youtube, jailing writers, all those cases opened in the past for writers for insulting Turkishness etc..

Degree of "Freedom" in civil societies is measured by the extent with which its citizens follow the prevailing laws in that country. A democratic society is no exception, except in democracies, people - when they are in sufficient numbers - can change the prevailing laws. Even personal freedoms of one citizen ends where the freedom of the next one starts.

Idiots who believe that freedom is the right to be able to do whatever their own little minds dictate will therefore be stopped when their actions may endanger rights of others or laws of the state, for state has a right to protect itself from "insurgents" as well. The alternative would have been a complete chaos, where every citizen would have to trust his own sword to protect or enforce his own principles onto others.

A civil society can only exist among citizens willing to submit to the laws of that society, limiting possible personal differences between its members to levels where none feels his/her life or way of life is threathened.

In democracies, the laws - made by majority votes, also checked by the juidicial system - determines the rules of the game; law makers however should listen to minority voices too and ensure their ways of life are not threathened only because they are lesser in numbers. This tolerance to minorities however, can not allow them to make their own rules, against the better jugement of the majority. Allowing them a part of the country´s land so they can try their own sovereignity is one of such exceptions.

What happens if minorities are so adamant that they wish to impress their own wishes on the majority? Well, if they are smart enough there are democtratic ways to change the governing rules; if they believe they are too strong to bother with any democratic stuggles,  there are undemocratic avenues to explore too. One thing to remember here however, is the democracies have the right to protect themselves too and the laws can no longer be expected protect the rebelling dissidents.

Another - but less honorable - way open to the dissidents is to become a pain in the but of the society, like certain idiots here, and while reaping the benefits of the society, display their ill feelings and intentions at every oportunity, always pretending to be a part of the state they are cursing.

Good luck to them as well !