> The 72-year-old, whose family served in the armed forces...
That's just surreal. Bringing in little old ladies to testify that your tweet hurt their feelings. I really wanted this to be fake, but other outlets are running the same story. Madness.
It's a very, very anti-armed forces comment. I may disagree with it, but it's a completely valid point of view to hold. The idea that the armed forces, whose job it is to kill, is above this sort of criticism (wishing death, hellfire), is pretty mental and actually quite worrying.
Imagine Major General Snodgrass says "we must go to war with Russia now and hang it if it's nuclear!" Someone responds that Snodgrass is an idiot, a fool, a bounder and trying to compensate for the fact that he is slightly less sexually attractive to humans than a badger that was hit by a lorry last tuesday fortnight.
Snodgrass will have medals and be described by establishment types as a "National Hero." It goes with rising through the ranks. Also likely upper class for students of the British class system. Prosecuting people for being critical of a national hero who supports the class system is a thing some dream of seeing happen. This is a step forward for them.
Again I don't think it's right that all UK soldiers are evil and am generally opposed to killing in any circumstances where there's a viable alternative. The idea that expressing the other side of such an opinion should cause you to be prosecuted is insane on every level.
I've heard that the most celebrated holiday throughout the world (albeit on different days) is "Independence from England." Death is what soldiers deal in as even the armed forces most strident supporters will agree. It's the whole point, otherwise they'd be aid-workers.
That's undeniably true but it's oversimplifying and cherry-picking the facts. The literature covering this subject is so vast that many libraries would not have the space to contain it all. What's contained within that information is a myriad reasons that explain why that statement isn't as straightforward as you would have us believe. It explains why nuances and fine minutiae are so important in any such discussion—and so on.
You should also not forget that war and soldiering have been inseparable from the human condition from the very beginning of recorded time, furthermore, archeology supports that view much, much further back—even back to the time of the Neanderthals.
As much of many of you who've never been in the position where you have to make a decision come a war may dislike the notion, war isn't going to be declared obsolete anytime soon. Only an ostrich would believe that.
One wonders what you would say when an enemy was at your country's door and unless some of you actually stopped it, then not only would your life be in danger but also it's likely everything you own will be pillaged and that everything you stand for will be rubbed out in utter disillusionment not to mention that your women would most likely be raped and then killed.
I say that as someone who had his rights to say no taken away by my government and was forcibly inducted into the military system against my wishes.
Even in England they celebrate the day someone tried to blow up the Parliament!
Would that have justified the tweet because now the hurt is somehow more equal? How do we measure relative hurt?
There is no actual harm in offence alone.
But there's also a lack of a purpose. The reason we have free speech is that it is beneficial to society to have it. This is not one of the cases I'd like to use if I had to support its benefit for society.
Of course, Graham Chapman would not have made such a bland comment.
Camera pans back as Palin turns towards it to close out the news report and in the background a swarm of naked people jog blithely into the distance.
I found this more surreal. Sir Walks-A-Lot. (yes I know, but I had to read it twice.)