UKIP candid Geoffrey Clark calls for disabled foetuses to be aborted

[Guest sibon]

Er, no. UKIP is not 'to the right of the [Conservative Party]'; and nor has it set itself to be so.

So you're wrong.

 

That's a magnificent comeback for a party activist. Well done.

 

Let's look at some other wrong things too

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 18:54 ----------

 

Discrimination is when one group of people is treated differently than another group on the basis of their religion, sexuality, ect. and in this instance no one is being treated differently, everyone regardless of religion or sexuality as to follow the same rules.

 

Except for the small detail of being able to marry the person that you love.

[maxmaximus 10]

Except for the small detail of being able to marry the person that you love.

That same problem can and does affect anyone regardless of sexuality.

[Eater Sundae 12]

Discrimination is when one group of people is treated differently than another group on the basis of their religion, sexuality, ect. and in this instance no one is being treated differently, everyone regardless of religion or sexuality as to follow the same rules.

 

I suggest you look up INDIRECT discrimination.

 

Edit: Here's an example for you:

 

http://www.equality-law.co.uk/news/106/66/Types-of-discrimination-definitions/

 

"Indirect Discrimination can occur when you have a condition, rule, policy or even a practice in your organisation that applies to everyone but particularly disadvantages people who share a protected characteristic.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Eater Sundae
Link added

[gnvqsos 10]

You know very little about European Law. In any case you don't mean European Law but rather the legal systems of individual states. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen and German Basic Law alone protect basic freedoms and human rights. You seem to think that if you state a falsehood often enough it becomes true. Your knowledge on law overseas was summed up by your previous statement that there is no such thing as International Law. You are now discussing International Law.

 

Someone who got 652 votes at the 2010 General Elction doesn't have solid ground to accuse anyone else's voters of being lonely.

 

Tres bon,Le Maquis!The old beak will be blowing the dust off his college texts trying to sort this one out.I can see a letter to the Guardian coming up with a second penned to Joshua Rosenburg C/O BBC R4

[maxmaximus 10]

I suggest you look up INDIRECT discrimination.

 

Edit: Here's an example for you:

 

http://www.equality-law.co.uk/news/106/66/Types-of-discrimination-definitions/

 

"Indirect Discrimination can occur when you have a condition, rule, policy or even a practice in your organisation that applies to everyone but particularly disadvantages people who share a protected characteristic.

 

Indirect discrimination will occur where a person imposes, or proposes to impose, a requirement, condition or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging people with a protected attribute, and that is not reasonable.

 

Who is proposeing to impose, a requirement, condition or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging gay people?

[SevenRivers 10]

The funny thing is, it is now proposed by some on here that anybody not supporting gay marriage must be far-right extremist, yet gay marriage was not in the manifestos of either Labour, Lib Dem or Conservatives in the run up to the last General Election, so it can't be assumed either of those parties supported it in early 2010, ergo they all too must have been far-right at least in early 2010.

[altus 540]

Who is proposeing to impose, a requirement, condition or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging gay people?

They have no need to propose imposing such a requirement, condition or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging gay people. The requirement, condition or practice that does that already exists.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

That's a magnificent comeback for a party activist. Well done.

 

Let's look at some other wrong things too

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 18:54 ----------

 

 

Except for the small detail of being able to marry the person that you love.

Oh, is love now a legal pre-requisite for marriage? I omitted to read the Act that introduced this new rule.

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 20:44 ----------

 

You know very little about European Law. In any case you don't mean European Law but rather the legal systems of individual states.

That'd be why I never used the phrase 'European Law' in this context, then!

[maxmaximus 10]

They have no need to propose imposing such a requirement, condition or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging gay people. The requirement, condition or practice that does that already exists.

 

 

In what way is not getting married a disadvantage?

[aliceBB 10]

 

1. Do you condemn abuses by convicted criminals and illegal immigrants? If not, why not?

This rather silly question hinges on the erroneous assumption that the Human Rights Act encourages such abuses. I (and many others) don't believe it does. When did you stop beating your wife, by the way?

2. Do you wish policing to be subject to the Law rather than extraneities? If not, why not?

Again, giving the police more power (of an unspecified kind - UKIP is rarely clear!) does not necessarily mean that policing will be more lawful. Wake up.

3. Do you wish children to value 'their past' [whatever that means- they're only a few years old!]? If not, why not?

How should I know what your bunch of muddledheaded political wannabes mean by 'their past'? UKIP wrote it, not me! Perhaps they mean 'British history'. (It's the kind of tripe right-wingers and the Daily Fail come out with all the time). I reject the notion that children are taught not to value history (British or anyone else's) - and you still haven't told us when you stopped beating your wife.

 

Reason:

1. British/common law gives every British subject 100% right to do anything at all UNLESS the law prohibits it.

2. European/civil law gives no citizen any right to do anything at all UNLESS the law permits it.

 

Result: British subjects have no need of human rights

.

 

A fascinating insight into the mind of a pedant! But life is raggier than that.

 

You might find it a bit lonely, then.

You would know all about that, then.

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 22:15 ----------

 

Tres bon,Le Maquis!The old beak will be blowing the dust off his college texts trying to sort this one out.I can see a letter to the Guardian coming up with a second penned to Joshua Rosenburg C/O BBC R4

 

Not the Guardian. Much too left wing! He reads the Times.

Edited January 3, 2013 by aliceBB

[gnvqsos 10]

This rather silly question hinges on the erroneous assumption that the Human Rights Act encourages such abuses. I (and many others) don't believe it does. When did you stop beating your wife, by the way?

Again, giving the police more power (of an unspecified kind - UKIP is rarely clear!) does not necessarily mean that policing will be more lawful. Wake up.

How should I know what your bunch of muddledheaded political wannabes mean by 'their past' - UKIP wrote it, not me. Perhaps they mean 'British history' (It's the kind of tripe right wingers and the Daily Fail come out with all the time). I reject the notion that children are taught not to value history (British or anyone else's) - and you still haven't told us when you stopped beating your wife.

 

.

 

A fascinating insight into the mind of a pedant! But life is raggier than that.

 

You would know all about that, then.

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 22:15 ----------

 

 

Not the Guardian. Much too left wing! He reads the Times.

 

Wow,poor old beak wont know where to hide!

[Guest sibon]

Oh, is love now a legal pre-requisite for marriage? I omitted to read the Act that introduced this new rule.

!

 

No. But accurate reading and clarity of thought are pre-requistes for successful lawyers (and politicians). You need to stop thrashing about so much, and focus.

 

Read what I wrote again. Engage your brain and try to give a sensible reply.

 

Perhaps you could entertain us all by explaining why your party opposes gay marriage.

Edited January 3, 2013 by sibon