Conflict with Objects and the law?

[Zulu Eleven]

We are cycling organisation, even our member may have views on sort of issues that often express on this forum.

Some of our members may be symthice to the issues that the riot very poorly expressed

Our CTC/CUK is non party polical and non religious. Otherwise we go down a slippy slope.

You think our members have racist and Islamophobic views?

Undoubtedly some will.

Do you think that holding a particular viewpoint on a political issue should exclude people from membership?

[mattheus]

We are cycling organisation, even our member may have views on sort of issues that often express on this forum.

Some of our members may be symthice to the issues that the riot very poorly expressed

Our CTC/CUK is non party polical and non religious. Otherwise we go down a slippy slope.

You think our members have racist and Islamophobic views?

Undoubtedly some will.

Do you think that holding a particular viewpoint on a political issue should exclude people from membership?

Please don't partially quote me.

I won't be answering your irrelevant question, as you've taken away all context from my post (using quite detailed editing, clearly no accident).

Apologies. I got this wrong, as I thought you were quoting my more recent post on the topic. My mistake.

[Zulu Eleven]

Please don't partially quote me.

I won't be answering your irrelevant question, as you've taken away all context from my post (using quite detailed editing, clearly no accident).

I didn’t partially quote you or edit you, I quoted your comment word for word, in context.

And I restate my point. Yes, some CUK members may well hold racist or Islamophobic views. So what of it? We live is a society in which holding such a point of view - however objectionable - is perfectly legal. Fascists ride bikes too.

There’s a slippery slope here. Once a charity begins speaking out on social and political issues that have no significant relationship to their objects, where does it stop? Are we to expect an ongoing commentary on other social issues?

[Nearholmer]

CUK isn’t condemning people for holding views; it’s condemning people for rioting on the strength of their views.

It’s an important distinction that forever gets lost in debates about freedom of thought, speech, and action.

A person can hold any belief that will fit between their ears, and frankly nobody else will either know or care unless or until the thinker comes out with their views, or acts upon them. In this country, as in many others, “hate speech” is illegal, and rioting likewise.

So, people of a fascistic mindset, or anti-monarchist left-revolutionary mindset, or any other mindset are free to pedal away to their heart’s content. What they aren’t free to do is spout provocative hate, or smash-up places, or attempt to set-fire to buildings full of people. Thankfully.

[Jdsk]

CUK isn’t condemning people for holding views; it’s condemning people for rioting on the strength of their views.

It’s an important distinction that forever gets lost in debates about freedom of thought, speech, and action.

A person can hold any belief that will fit between their ears, and frankly nobody else will either know or care unless or until the thinker comes out with their views, or acts upon them. In this country, as in many others, “hate speech” is illegal, and rioting likewise.

So, people of a fascistic mindset, or anti-monarchist left-revolutionary mindset, or any other mindset are free to pedal away to their heart’s content. What they aren’t free to do is spout provocative hate, or smash-up places, or attempt to set-fire to buildings full of people. Thankfully.

Thankyou

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

...
Once a charity begins speaking out on social and political issues that have no significant relationship to their objects, where does it stop? Are we to expect an ongoing commentary on other social issues?

These "social issues" included terrifying people so that they didn't feel safe on the streets. That affected people who Cycling UK would like to see cycling and their staff, as upthread.

Once it gets to this it's not speaking out that is the problem.

Jonathan

[mattheus]

Do you think that holding a particular viewpoint on a political issue should exclude people from membership?<snippage> ...

And I restate my point. Yes, some CUK members may well hold racist or Islamophobic views. So what of it? We live is a society in which holding such a point of view - however objectionable - is perfectly legal. Fascists ride bikes too.

There’s a slippery slope here. Once a charity begins speaking out on social and political issues that have no significant relationship to their objects, where does it stop? Are we to expect an ongoing commentary on other social issues?

OK, right, here is my response TO PHIL that should make this clear:

Mr Benstead wrote:
"
Some of our members may be symthice to the issues that the riot very poorly expressed
"

Let's review the CUK statement:
"Cycling UK condemns the racist and Islamophobic riots that we have seen taking place"

Do you think some CUK members have sympathy for racist or Islamophobic views? If not, on what grounds do you object to CUK's statement?

Clear enough?

Bear in mind we're not talking about a political view in the sense of which party one votes for:
racism is much more serious than that. I'm quite happy for CUK to express a lack of support for it.

[Zulu Eleven]

...
Once a charity begins speaking out on social and political issues that have no significant relationship to their objects, where does it stop? Are we to expect an ongoing commentary on other social issues?

These "social issues" included terrifying people so that they didn't feel safe on the streets. That affected people who Cycling UK would like to see cycling and their staff, as upthread.

Once it gets to this it's not speaking out that is the problem.

Jonathan

Reductio ad absurdism - If we’re going to rely on tenuous links like that then let’s start with pregnancy and childcare - both play a massive role in women’s ability to ride bikes, should CUK take a public position on abortion? How about cross border travel for cyclists in the event of Scottish Independence? Should CUK hold a position on Scottish Independence as well?

Where does it stop?

[Jdsk]

...
How about cross border travel for cyclists in the event of Scottish Independence? Should CUK hold a position on that as well?

Where does it stop?

Scottish independence is some way off. I would hope that Cycling UK does try to make crossing the border as easy as possible for people on bikes when it does. Just as I hope that they are already doing for travel between the UK and the EU. And for cycle parts.

But the riots actually happened. A few days ago. And terrified some people. That's the big difference.

Jonathan

[mattheus]

Any views

https://www.cyclinguk.org/.../pol.../Ar ... ssociation

4. OBJECTS
The Objects of the Charity are to:
4.1 promote community participation in healthy recreation by promoting the amateur sport of cycling, cycle touring and associated amateur sports;
4.2 preserve and protect the health and safety of the public by encouraging and facilitating cycling and the safety of cyclists;
4.3 advance education by whatever means the trustees think fit, including the provision of cycling, training and educational activities related to cycling; and
4.4 promote the conservation and protection of the environment.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/political-a ... l-activity

Riots.jpg

For clarity:

Is this anti-racism statement on the live CUK site?

Google is only showing it to me as Tweets.

[Bmblbzzz]

Travel for cyclists across the UK's borders, current or potential, is obviously a CUK interest. And one CUK does currently campaign on, in the form of pressuring Eurostar to take bikes (not very effectively, unfortunately). Before 1921, CTC must have had members in what became the Irish Republic. I would be amazed if they had been prepared to accept that a DA ride starting on one side of the new border could not cross that border.

The link with nuclear power is more tenuous. I do remember that circa 1986 a letter was published in what was then called Cycletouring & Campaigning arguing against nuclear weapons. But that was weapons not power, and a letter from a member (possibly from a whole DA or something) rather than an official statement.

[axel_knutt]

In this country, as in many others, “hate speech” is illegal

The law is quite selective though. I think the law, and society in general, would react quite differently to inciting someone to run over a Muslim and inciting them to run over a cyclist.

[Jdsk]

In this country, as in many others, “hate speech” is illegal

The law is quite selective though. I think the law, and society in general, would react quite differently to inciting someone to run over a Muslim and inciting them to run over a cyclist.

The law in England and Wales is based on defined groups:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... ed_Kingdom

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

I think the law, and society in general, would react quite differently to inciting someone to run over a Muslim and inciting them to run over a cyclist.

Society probably, but I think the law might catch it by a different Act (Offences against the Person??) in the form of incitement to cause or commit grevious bodily harm. That’s how people who commission “hit men” are prosecuted.

Edit: I’m wrong, of incitement, it was common not statute law, and:

“It was abolished in England and Wales on 1 October 2008[4] when Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 came into force, replacing it with three new statutory offences of encouraging or assisting crime.[5] The common law is now only relevant to offences committed before that date.[6]”

[drossall]

There is a consensus that charities and civil society have a role in promoting civic harmony. The degree to which an individual charity can do that will vary with its charitable objects, but CUK is not unusual in trying to contribute, as far as I can see.