Comments:European Court of Human Rights orders UK to compensate Islamist
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was a direct afront to the rule of law - The current administration, and their mouthpieces (such as the Sun newspaper) seem to be of the opinion that we are best served by ignoring such principles as evidence and due process, by using such magic words as "terrorism" or "child abuse", when these are the situations when they are most needed.
The freedom to say unpopular and offensive things is precisely what freedom of speech is about - after all, no protection is needed for saying what people like to hear. If freedom of speech is only freedom to say that which offends on-one, then we should all be struck mute.
—Philculmer (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is what we know, when you tell us of your fondest hopes and dreams for us: that your greatest wish is that one day we will cease to be, and strangers you can love will move in behind our faces. Jim Sinclair, "Don't Mourn for Us", http://autistics.selfip.org/dont_mourn.html