The state shouldn't get to declare mandatory solemnity.
Of course they can - for example, remembering those who died in a terrorist attack, victims of genocide, victims of the diseases such as the AIDS epidemic, etc. Lots of groups can declare solemn events for a lot of different reasons, and they shouldn't have to deal with obnoxious and thoughtless individuals purposely trying to disrupt those events.
lol, my country's concept of free speech is in part based on the idea everyone should be able to tell your country's nobility things they don't want to hear.
And to put a fine point on it, the age of consent in New York is 17 and is 16 in New Jersey.
So I think the focus on "child" is not only misplaced, but untrue. Rape is the real issue, so that's the real thing to focus on.
The argument is flawed because we generally tolerate power differences in relationships: men and women (institutional power), certain cases of coworkers of different ranks, an able-bodied person with a disabled person, a depressed person with a mentally healthy person, a suicidal person with a happy person, etc.
There are also a lot of adults who vary, due to personal characteristics or experiences with relationships (or lack thereof) who are far more easily snared into a relationship; the average 17 year old has had many more relationships than I have as a 25 year old, and sexual ones too, usually with peers. If anything, I'm the naive one who would fall into a very convincing snare with an older man.
But I do agree somewhat, if what you’re saying is true. People should be able to hold a funeral in peace.
This very obviously isn't "just a funeral".
Anyone else dies and they don't cancel the EPL for the weekend.
I assumed based on what OP said, it was akin to a funeral being disrupted. That’s a big “if” though.
One person, probably not invited, makes a scene, shouts a bunch of stuff. Perhaps they have a mental illness, perhaps they had a grudge against your mom - she might have been a judge or a teacher.
Are you just going to ignore it? Would you expect some security to remove that person so that you and others can have a peaceful funeral?
But it's far more offensive and far more vile to suggest that the State has any right to regulate public speech based on its content.
If you want to control what is said at the funeral, don't have the funeral in public. End of.
Why? Offensive to whom? There seems to be general agreement that some speech crosses lines that are not okay and should be regulated. This is why all countries that have freedom of speech protections also have a list of exceptions. In the US, certain things like ads, pornography, slander, sedition, and lies are generally not considered protected speech. It depends on the specifics in any given case, but I’m not offended at all by the suggestion that the State should be allowed to regulate these kinds of speech when they cause harm.
She was the head of state who presided over genocides, resisted the independence many dozens of British colonies, got carveouts in laws to shield her personal possessions from scrutiny for stolen antiquities...
I could go on.
Public figures in general, and heads of state in particular, lose the right to be treated as "just somebody's mom". They get treated by the public based, at least in part, on their treatment of the public.
And even apart from all that, this funeral, at a time when many, many UK residents are facing skyrocketing costs for everything from food to electricity to heat—as in, increases of 5-10x, not just a few percent—is projected to cost upwards of half a billion pounds, from what I've heard.
So no, let's not "say it is your mom's funeral".
Then it is pretty damning that not almost everyone is shouting! I'll go even further, then it is outrageous that people around the world mostly, including in the US, are saying what a great person she was.
So I wonder why is that?
Also, my understanding is that the person who got arrested for heckling was doing so because Andrew had sex with a 17 year old. So he was more upset about that than the queen overseeing genocides.
And if people really think she was evil, why wait until death? Why not speak up very loudly while the person is alive in order to affect change.
Weird priorities, or misdirection.
Having someone removed for being loud and obnoxious is a much different thing than being arrested and potentially incarcerated for same.
False equivalence.
This is the accession to the throne of a monarch wrapped around a funeral.
That doesn't happen when anyone else's mom dies.
And the people being arrested were in public places.
Funerals are reasonably often held at public cemeteries. FWIW I disagree the arrests were justifiable unless the protestors refused to be non-violently lead away from the scene, assuming they presented a genuine risk of provoking a violent response from the mourners etc.
Of course it would be wrong for the police to arrest people for being disrespectful in a cemetery. What would be alright is if the owners of that cemetery wanted them to leave the property, they refused, and the police were called. That's why all of the photos of Westboro protesting at funerals were them on the sidewalk facing a cemetery.
Just because City Hall is public doesn't mean that there aren't rules that you have to follow when you're there, or that you can't be kicked out when you break those rules. What it means is that you can't make up rules, because those are just the whims of the ruler.
If there are no rules at a publicly-owned cemetery against verbally abusing your recently dead mother in front of her grandchildren, you have to face that the abuser, as part of the public, has as much a right to be there as you do. But in real life there will be posted rules, just like there are rules at the public pool.
If Britain wants to pass a blanket law criminalizing all criticism of the royal family, they should. Plenty of dictatorships and monarchies already have lèse majesté laws, they can just copy them. They won't have to make up rules or improvise.
This is extremely compatible with Juche thought. Let's say that the Kim family is the mother of North Korea.
I would say this for _anyone_, today it just happens to be a famous person.
If the family wanted to control the show, they should organize a private event with only invited guests who signed a code of conduct.
Unlike in the 80-es, singing that today would make you arrested. Maybe the song is now more true than then, maybe the regime really became more fascist?
Maybe the common British people should take notes from their French neighbors and teach these royal shits what true persecution feels like.
Their moment for grief was severely impacted by the protestor.
It's nowhere near as simple as you or other people in this thread are pretending it is. Even though I think Andrew should be stripped of his titles, it's right that guy was arrested.
>Their moment for grief was severely impacted by the protestor.
>It's nowhere near as simple as you or other people in this thread are pretending it is. Even though I think Andrew should be stripped of his titles, it's right that guy was arrested.
Clearly that guy was being an asshole, but being a loud jerk shouldn't be a crime, IMHO.
If that's the prevailing attitude there, I'm glad I don't live in the UK.
Not because I think it's right to intrude on the mourning/grief/funerary rights of others (cf., Westboro Baptist Church[0]), much to the contrary, but because it shouldn't be illegal (as much as I despise such folks) to be an asshole.
It's not just the protestors that have rights, the mourners do too.
Just like you've got no human right to stab people as much as you like, you can't cause other people distress at a funeral.
You're the one being incredibly unreasonable here.
Also, you can't freely protest a soldier's funerals in America, so you're also ridiculously hypocritical, sort your own country out first if you feel so strongly about this!
If you're not actively protesti g The Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act then you need to get off your high horse.
Right. Because words that are unpleasant are exactly the same as violence, right?
Shall we jail anyone who says something that annoys, disturbs or is unpleasant to anyone else? Based on the unpleasantness in your comment, let's start with you.
Yes, it's rude and obnoxious to intrude on others, especially at gatherings like funerals. And most of us (myself included) try not to do so.
However, some folks are jerks, and will do so anyway. But making such a thing a crime rather than just removing the disruptive individual from the area is a recipe for abuse.
Who decides what's a crime or not in a given circumstance? You?
I'd note that I'm neither angry nor insulted by you. Rather, I'm trying (I hope successfully this time) to get you to see that making someone a criminal for being a jerk is a really bad idea.
Remove such a person from your sight. Shun them. Verbally abuse them right back. But the idea that someone should be criminalised for being insensitive and/or obnoxious is risible at best.
I expect you will continue to disagree with me and think I'm being nasty, disruptive and a jerk. Shall we arrest me too? How long should I spend in prison for pissing you off?
Edit: Fixed typo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest
To arrest someone, the behaviour they're engaging in has to be criminal (i.e. chargeable).
Then the police can ask the prosecution service to charge them (the US equivalent of the DA I guess), which is the discretionary bit. This seems to be the thing you're taking issue with.
So although you don't realize it, you're basically saying you want to give the police brand new powers to grab anyone they want. That's an incredibly dangerous and seriously poorly thought out suggestion.
Nope. Not intentionally or otherwise. Police have always had the "move along citizen" (with no arrest/detention at all) power. In fact, I'd say they use it far too often, at least in the US.
I'm not in the UK, and when I've visited I haven't interacted with the police, so that may not be true there. Is it?
What's more, being asked/encouraged to leave if someone is being disruptive is pretty normal and certainly doesn't require detention and/or arrest. Or even police for that matter.
Even more, (again, I'm not in the UK so not sure if this applies there) arrest records are public records and can negatively affect one's ability to get a job or housing due to the stigma around "criminals" even if they aren't actually charged/convicted in relation to such an arrest.
So no. I'm not advocating (wittingly or otherwise) for any new powers for the police. Rather, I'm agreeing with your premise that folks shouldn't disrupt solemn occasions like funerals, but I'm disagreeing with your premise[0] that such activity should be criminalised.
And I also take issue with your assertion (perhaps I misunderstood, but that's the impression I got. Please enlighten me if I've misunderstood) that the only options for police are either arrest or do nothing at all. That's absurd on its face.
Possibly me, too. Maybe we could be cell mates. What do you say, handsome?
And as for time & place, finding the right moment and location to be maximally irritating is part of the art of protest.
Which school of thought is this from? Protesting can take many forms and they need not be offensive and/or irritating to be effective. I personally respect calm, dignified, and persistent protestors far more than the loud, disruptive, and in-your-face ones.
Edit: Also, this is OT anyway from the matter of privacy and "nothing to hide".