Even as all these are attainable, the benefits of the course are not isolated just to, by you being simply in the course. The skills you learn are to ensure that your golden years are spent meaningfully, thus giving your post-retirement dignity.
That means you will always have a job because you have always had an invaluable skill. What is more what you will be taught all of the news reporting styles used by the world's leading wire services.
That just means you will almost be assured of entry into diploma programmes. Certificates are only granted upon students satisfying all major tests. Importantly, they need to get their works published and hand in all assignments. The awarding of the certificate will be based on the accomplishment of all the said tasks. All applicants need to have standard English proficiency or at least a standard that allows them to write and speak reasonably well. The offence is only committed if it has that effect.
Under section 4 it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of making someone else believe that immediate violence will be used against them or of provoking an immediate violent response. The offence is also committed if the effect of the person's language is that someone else will think that immediate violence will be used against them or a violent response provoked. Would a person who uses the words "Fuck off, you bloody kuffar! Assuming, as we are doing, that kuffar is a term of abuse, then yes. Which offence will depend on the context: how it was said, what gestures, threatening or otherwise, accompanied it, etc.
It is even arguable that the person is committing the religiously aggravated form of one of the offences. Under section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act , these three Public Order Act offences are treated as religiously aggravated if, at the time of the offence or immediately before, the offender displays hostility towards the victim based on the victim's membership or presumed membership of a religious group.
Significantly, "religious group" is defined as "a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief", so abuse directed at someone for not being a Muslim or for not sharing the same interpretation of Islam as the speaker may come within the aggravated forms of the offences. It is worth pointing out that Liberty has concerns both about the aggravated offences — religious hostility should be relevant to the level of sentence imposed for the basic offences but should not be the basis of a separate offence — and about the low level of offensive language that may be caught by section 5.
Suggestions have been made that "insulting" should be removed from the definition of the offence, so that only threatening and abusive language would be covered — a proposal that Liberty would support.
So is WeAreTheWorld entitled to respond in kind to the verbal abuse to which he is subjected? Can he, as he puts it, act in self-defence?
Self-defence is a defence in law, but only to a charge of assault; it has no application to speech offences. Popularized by the American sociologist Barry Glassner , culture of fear or climate of fear is the concept that people may incite fear in the general public to achieve political or workplace goals through emotional bias. The people don't want war , but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
In her book "State and Opposition in Military Brazil," Maria Helena Moreira Alves found a "culture of fear" was implemented as part of political repression since She used the term to describe methods implemented by the national security apparatus of Brazil in its effort to equate political participation with risk of arrest and torture. This enhanced the potential for political control through intensifying the culture of fear as a deterrent to opposition. Alves found the changes of the National Security Law of , as beginning the use of " economic exploitation , physical repression , political control, and strict censorship " to establish a "culture of fear" in Brazil.
Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski argues that the use of the term War on Terror was intended to generate a culture of fear deliberately because it "obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue". Frank Furedi , a former professor of Sociology and writer for Spiked magazine, says that today's culture of fear did not begin with the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Long before September 11, he argues, public panics were widespread — on everything from GM crops to mobile phones, from global warming to foot-and-mouth disease. Rather, they are shaped by cultural assumptions about human vulnerability.
Furedi say that "we need a grown-up discussion about our post-September 11 world, based on a reasoned evaluation of all the available evidence rather than on irrational fears for the future. British academics Gabe Mythen and Sandra Walklate argue that following terrorist attacks in New York, the Pentagon, Madrid, and London, government agencies developed a discourse of "new terrorism" in a cultural climate of fear and uncertainty.
UK researchers argued that these processes reduced notions of public safety and created the simplistic image of a non-white "terroristic other" that has negative consequences for ethnic minority groups in the UK. In his BBC documentary film series, The Power of Nightmares , subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear , the journalist Adam Curtis argues that politicians have used our fears to increase their power and control over society.
Though he does not use the term "culture of fear," what Curtis describes in his film is a reflection of this concept. He looks at the American neo-conservative movement and its depiction of the threat first from the Soviet Union and then from radical Islamists. Ashforth discussed potentially destructive sides of leadership and identified what he referred to as petty tyrants : leaders who exercise a tyrannical style of management, resulting in a climate of fear in the workplace. An authoritarian style of leadership may create a climate of fear, with little or no room for dialogue and with complaining being considered futile.
In a study of public-sector union members, approximately one in five workers reported having considered leaving the workplace as a result of witnessing bullying taking place.