Swap places with boat migrants, Thai PM tells critics

[tbthailand]

Nonsense.

You can protest or object to anything in the UK as long as you have rational reasons for doing so. Or at least like UKIP pretend you have.

Racist prejudice, religious bigotry or other forms of hate are quite rightly banned, ignored or in extreme cases prosecuted.

If you object to something on rational grounds you can say what you like in terms that do not play upon racism, prejudice or bigotry.

If you can't do that but rely on fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate then you have no case to argue.

And just who determines whether your objection is "rational" or based on "fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate?"

If your argument is sound and is based on factors that do not play on racism, bigotry, prejudice, intolerance, irrational fears, then in theory it should be rational.

In the UK you can argue your case but not preach hate.

Luckily the courts there are able to decide when hate is used to replace the truth.

The courts? This is why I prefer to see free speech as specifically established in the US. The fact that I would need to go to court to "prove" my right to speak to some judge inherently curtails free speech and free thought. This makes for government speech codes that chill freedom of expression.

The SCOTUS has a long history of rulings on Free Speech...

Last time I checked, that was a court...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

[JDGRUEN]

I am happy to see those spreading hate speech based on all I've previously said in court.

Even happier when they are forced to stop.

Freedom of speech carries the responsibility not to abuse it to spread hate.

No it does not ... when liberals - leftists and progressives are the self-appointed ones who insist that their definition of hate is the rule and arbiter of all speech. Political Correctness has bastardized any concept of direct speech that carried the world fine until PC reared its ugly head some 30-40 years ago

I pity the Brits of today ... they would not be alive today had their grandfathers and grandmothers not called Nazis for what they were. There never would have been a successful Battle of Britain had modern day metro sexual namby pambies spouting Political Correctness been in charge back in the day ... Jackboot Nazis would have been just misunderstood ruffians ...

I am sad that you are happy for stifling free speech ...

The nazi's genocidal actions is a clear example of where hate speech leads and a salutary lesson in why it should not be allowed to happen.

It is ridiculous to claim opposing nazi ideas is hate speech. Laughable on fact. I find it incredible that anyone cannot see this or believe opposing such philosophies based upon lies, hate and fear is difficult to break down in rational grounds.

I said previously that you could oppose anything as long as it was based on rational arguments and not bigotry. Did you read those posts?

The intolerance and xenophobia that underlies nazi philosophy is the same as that which is behind religious bigotry, racism and other forms of prejudice.

Very easy to counter without any need to resort to hate speech.

Your judgmental philosophy is totally absurd ... Who gave you and your ilk the right to define what is racist - what is hate ? Megalomania gave you the right - in my opinion...

[Bluespunk]

I am happy to see those spreading hate speech based on all I've previously said in court.

Even happier when they are forced to stop.

Freedom of speech carries the responsibility not to abuse it to spread hate.

No it does not ... when liberals - leftists and progressives are the self-appointed ones who insist that their definition of hate is the rule and arbiter of all speech. Political Correctness has bastardized any concept of direct speech that carried the world fine until PC reared its ugly head some 30-40 years ago

I pity the Brits of today ... they would not be alive today had their grandfathers and grandmothers not called Nazis for what they were. There never would have been a successful Battle of Britain had modern day metro sexual namby pambies spouting Political Correctness been in charge back in the day ... Jackboot Nazis would have been just misunderstood ruffians ...

I am sad that you are happy for stifling free speech ...

The nazi's genocidal actions is a clear example of where hate speech leads and a salutary lesson in why it should not be allowed to happen.

It is ridiculous to claim opposing nazi ideas is hate speech. Laughable on fact. I find it incredible that anyone cannot see this or believe opposing such philosophies based upon lies, hate and fear is difficult to break down in rational grounds.

I said previously that you could oppose anything as long as it was based on rational arguments and not bigotry. Did you read those posts?

The intolerance and xenophobia that underlies nazi philosophy is the same as that which is behind religious bigotry, racism and other forms of prejudice.

Very easy to counter without any need to resort to hate speech.

Your judgmental philosophy is totally absurd ... Who gave you and your ilk the right to define what is racist - what is hate ? Megalomania gave you the right - in my opinion...

Hate is very easy to spot. Very easy indeed.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Bluespunk

[NeverSure]

Your judgmental philosophy is totally absurd ... Who gave you and your ilk the right to define what is racist - what is hate ? Megalomania gave you the right - in my opinion...

Hate is very easy to spot. Very easy indeed.

Freedom of speech has to include the freedom to offend someone or it's not free speech. You would like to impose your ideas of acceptable speech on others but who do you think you are?

In a marketplace of free ideas and speech my speech would be counterbalanced by your speech or your writing. "Sticks and stones" and all that.

You have no concept of how free speech invites debate and how the majority can shout down an idiot. If you live under what you're describing, you for a fact don't have freedom of speech. You can't even define it.

[Bluespunk]

Your judgmental philosophy is totally absurd ... Who gave you and your ilk the right to define what is racist - what is hate ? Megalomania gave you the right - in my opinion...

Hate is very easy to spot. Very easy indeed.

Freedom of speech has to include the freedom to offend someone or it's not free speech. You would like to impose your ideas of acceptable speech on others but who do you think you are?

In a marketplace of free ideas and speech my speech would be counterbalanced by your speech or your writing. "Sticks and stones" and all that.

You have no concept of how free speech invites debate and how the majority can shout down an idiot. If you live under what you're describing, you for a fact don't have freedom of speech. You can't even define it.

Hate speech is an abuse of freedom of speech.

[zydeco]

And just who determines whether your objection is "rational" or based on "fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate?"

If your argument is sound and is based on factors that do not play on racism, bigotry, prejudice, intolerance, irrational fears, then in theory it should be rational.

In the UK you can argue your case but not preach hate.

Luckily the courts there are able to decide when hate is used to replace the truth.

The courts? This is why I prefer to see free speech as specifically established in the US. The fact that I would need to go to court to "prove" my right to speak to some judge inherently curtails free speech and free thought. This makes for government speech codes that chill freedom of expression.

The SCOTUS has a long history of rulings on Free Speech...

Last time I checked, that was a court...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

And most of those rulings affirmed free speech, especially where local governments had tried to restrict such. I have never seen a ruling from the Supreme Court that banned speech because it was deemed "racist, bigoted, prejudiced, or intolerant." It does just the opposite.

[NeverSure]

Hate speech is an abuse of freedom of speech.

That is a classic oxymoron which someone or something has allowed you to believe.

[Bluespunk]

Hate speech is an abuse of freedom of speech.

That is a classic oxymoron which someone or something has allowed you to believe.

Yeah, well, we're going to have to disagree there as I think you are wrong..

Edited May 26, 2015 by Bluespunk

[chuckd]

Nonsense.

You can protest or object to anything in the UK as long as you have rational reasons for doing so. Or at least like UKIP pretend you have.

Racist prejudice, religious bigotry or other forms of hate are quite rightly banned, ignored or in extreme cases prosecuted.

If you object to something on rational grounds you can say what you like in terms that do not play upon racism, prejudice or bigotry.

If you can't do that but rely on fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate then you have no case to argue.

"You can protest or object to anything in the UK as long as you have rational reasons for doing so."

You defeated your free speech argument with your first sentence.

The UK has no free speech if those parameters exist.

Your position is nonsensical in itself.

[JDGRUEN]

Your judgmental philosophy is totally absurd ... Who gave you and your ilk the right to define what is racist - what is hate ? Megalomania gave you the right - in my opinion...

Hate is very easy to spot. Very easy indeed.

Freedom of speech has to include the freedom to offend someone or it's not free speech. You would like to impose your ideas of acceptable speech on others but who do you think you are?

In a marketplace of free ideas and speech my speech would be counterbalanced by your speech or your writing. "Sticks and stones" and all that.

You have no concept of how free speech invites debate and how the majority can shout down an idiot. If you live under what you're describing, you for a fact don't have freedom of speech. You can't even define it.

Hate speech is an abuse of freedom of speech.

According to you - but not according to people who live in countries where there is REAL Freedom of Speech So do you support the current enforcement arm to limit freedom of speech these days ... it is called Radical Islam -- Fanatical Muslims - not just ISIS ...but even some on the 'refugee' boats... These Islamist are ready willing and able to kill people that they label as speaking hate speech or blasphemy. Killing your opponent for making a speech about Islam is ultimate tyranny ... Once limiting of speech starts -- Freedom of Speech Ends. So what is next for Jolly old England ... can't talk about Muslims or Islam in any way that might be perceived as hatred ... such as calling into question Islam's often practiced policy of stoning or killing homosexuals, or adulterers. Or how about that Pakistani young girl who as shot in the head for simply wanting to go to school ... she recovered in England I believe - Can we talk about that and in the process criticize the barbaric practices of modern day Islam... Or can be deplore ISIS killing Christians wholesale - using words of damnation for these crazy maniacs ? Can't we speculate that maybe these Rohingya people bring problems onto themselves since they cannot get along with even other Muslims in Bangladesh ... and seemed to offend the Buddhist in Myanmar... can we discuss this issue without people like you labeling everyone a racist, a bigot and hater?

Where does your definition of hater or hate speech stop ? What is the extent? Are Muslims totally off limits for criticism -- what we might consider legitimate criticism.

I do not think you fully grasp the extent of the hole you are digging by wanting to define and limit Freedom of Speech as your see it. You strongly criticize several of us on this thread for our statements ... using your definition - you must hate us - is that correct?

[Bluespunk]

Nonsense.

You can protest or object to anything in the UK as long as you have rational reasons for doing so. Or at least like UKIP pretend you have.

Racist prejudice, religious bigotry or other forms of hate are quite rightly banned, ignored or in extreme cases prosecuted.

If you object to something on rational grounds you can say what you like in terms that do not play upon racism, prejudice or bigotry.

If you can't do that but rely on fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate then you have no case to argue.

"You can protest or object to anything in the UK as long as you have rational reasons for doing so."

You defeated your free speech argument with your first sentence.

The UK has no free speech if those parameters exist.

Your position is nonsensical in itself.

Nope.

[Chao Lao Beach]

Bt it was ok to have thousands a month when the Thai Authorities sold them for cash

[Bluespunk]

Hate is very easy to spot. Very easy indeed.

Freedom of speech has to include the freedom to offend someone or it's not free speech. You would like to impose your ideas of acceptable speech on others but who do you think you are?

In a marketplace of free ideas and speech my speech would be counterbalanced by your speech or your writing. "Sticks and stones" and all that.

You have no concept of how free speech invites debate and how the majority can shout down an idiot. If you live under what you're describing, you for a fact don't have freedom of speech. You can't even define it.

Hate speech is an abuse of freedom of speech.

According to you - but not according to people who live in countries where there is REAL Freedom of Speech So do you support the current enforcement arm to limit freedom of speech these days ... it is called Radical Islam -- Fanatical Muslims - not just ISIS ...but even some on the 'refugee' boats... These Islamist are ready willing and able to kill people that they label as speaking hate speech or blasphemy. Killing your opponent for making a speech about Islam is ultimate tyranny ... Once limiting of speech starts -- Freedom of Speech Ends. So what is next for Jolly old England ... can't talk about Muslims or Islam in any way that might be perceived as hatred ... such as calling into question Islam's often practiced policy of stoning or killing homosexuals, or adulterers. Or how about that Pakistani young girl who as shot in the head for simply wanting to go to school ... she recovered in England I believe - Can we talk about that and in the process criticize the barbaric practices of modern day Islam... Or can be deplore ISIS killing Christians wholesale - using words of damnation for these crazy maniacs ? Can't we speculate that maybe these Rohingya people bring problems onto themselves since they cannot get along with even other Muslims in Bangladesh ... and seemed to offend the Buddhist in Myanmar... can we discuss this issue without people like you labeling everyone a racist, a bigot and hater?

Where does your definition of hater or hate speech stop ? What is the extent? Are Muslims totally off limits for criticism -- what we might consider legitimate criticism.

I do not think you fully grasp the extent of the hole you are digging by wanting to define and limit Freedom of Speech as your see it. You strongly criticize several of us on this thread for our statements ... using your definition - you must hate us - is that correct?

I have repeatedly said you can criticise anything you want but without the language of hate.

I have no sympathy for radical Islam or the scum who kill in it's name and regularly criticise them. I was happy to see a number of fanatics refused entry to the UK or even deported because of the hate they espouse, Christian and Muslim.

Nowhere did I say you cannot criticise stoning, the shooting of anyone or the butchery of isis.

However this can be done without the bigotry of some who blame all Muslims for these crimes or are so crass as to suggest Muslims and Christians or Buddhists can't live in the same society.

Or even so riddled with hate they would not accept refugees fleeing persecution because of the refugees faith.

Criticise the actions by all means but do so without spreading hatred of all members of a faith or nationality.

And by that I mean any faith or any nationality.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Bluespunk

[ExPratt]

I like the PM's no nonsense style of governing....the people are left with no doubt about his position....like it or not!

Yes but in a democracy he'd be voted out for such tactics, Its Dictators prerogative to bully those who disagree with them

[ExPratt]

There's an interesting lead headline in today's BBC news about Thailand and the boat people OK it's by Jonathan Head who I know some TV members don't particularly like, but I think this article tells us what it's about and the extent to which Thailand is involved in the human trafficking trade.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32835811

It is horrific and just pure evil what people will do to each other.

All in the name of greed.

Scum.

One of my heroes, the immortal Robert Burns said something about " man's inhumanity to man ".

Agree with that , There is no depravity beneath some members of the human race. Nothing out there that some people will not do for money

[ExPratt]

I'm not surprised Thailand doesn't want to take these people in and i'm not sure that it should, as all the neighbouring countries have a responsibility to deal with this situation - not only Thailand.

However, Thailand should at least offer basic humanitarian aid to these people in their time of need. The point blank refusal to help them, followed up by Thailand's failure to even bother to attend the talks with neighbouring nations on the matter earlier this week, and then Prayuth's comments yesterday are disgusting in my opinion - what an abominable way for a prime minister to behave.

Let's face it, some people in Thailand couldn't get enough of these migrants when they had them working on their fishing boats.

Secondly, it's not unreasonable to assume that many of these Rohingya people will have found themselves in this situation having been at the mercy of Thai human trafficking gangs.

Thailand has been offering humanitarian aid, hell, they're even contemplating giving the people islands to live on (more than I can say for the Mediterranean nations with the same problem). Myanmar NOT Thailand refused to attend talks that were held in...wait for it...Thailand!

Yes but some dust bowl in the Andaman Sea is a little bit different to the Med islands, should they be given Cyprus or Crete perhaps. Europe has a Refugee , asylum seekers record and policy far far in advance to Asia