Incitement to religious hatred: here come the thought police

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by stoatman, Jun 10, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    I despair, I really do.

    NB - C+P edited by PTP
  2. Stoatman . Once again, please precis any cut and pastes from news sites.


  3. from the same article

    So now we can no longer criticise something even if our criticism is correct? No more criticising the islamic millitants who seek to destroy us, the irish nationalists who wish to maim us, or any other nasty bunch of people. whatever next, telescreens in each house to monitor our thoughts and conversations? :roll:
  4. With Labour's majority being that much smaller, it's worth taking a look at the Opposition to see what their stance is on these issues. Obviously if they get together they could conceivably block legislation in the Commons. A quick perusal of the relevant websites shows this....

    The Tories. bless 'em, are against it, full stop. They see it as an infringement of free speech. Good so far...

    The LibDems though, think it doesn't go far enough. says this...

    Oh dear.
  5. Ignore Mark Oaten , I think he does this deliberately.

    Look in to the other LibDem comments, especially those made yesterday
  6. Lib-Dems...what are they ?

    Seriously, this is going to affect what gets posted on ARRSE isn't it.
  7. On their homepage I couldn't find any reference to it at all so I then searched their site for the word 'hatred' and that came up. If they have anything else to say, they're keeping pretty quiet about it.
  8. Yes it will , MEDIA is covered as well.

    In reply Armourer, rather than go into a rant, keep the head and contact your MP , I don't want to arbitrarily be chopping replies on this. I have warned and warned on this for a reason. I also do not know if 'Historical' instances being used to 'prove' incitement to religious hatred will be used. I don't know, neither does anyone here, so let's just be on the safe side hey?

    This proposed bill is blatant hypocrasy , and is being used to pander to the most vocal elements of this group. You may as well torch the Magna Carta while you're at it.

    AWOL , look into the remarks made by LibDem Peers yesterday . I think you'll find they think it's clockweights too.

    Oaten has a habit of saying what is on HIS mind , without considering the consequences sometimes IMHO.
  9. So, if I get this right;

    A religous group called, lets say " The NicePeeps" could urge their followers to kill westeners without fear of incitement to religous hatred, but if a westerner was to say well in that case lets kill "The NicePeeps" they would be guilty of incitement...I think I see a small flaw in all this....
  10. And....if a group of Robbie Williams fans want to, say, burn a child's eyes out with chilli pepper, we would be allowed to criticise them, but if a group of Robbie Williams worshippers do it, then we can't.

    Who is to say what is a religion?
  11. Rubbish. Incitement to racial hatred has been a criminal offence for years without any of the problems suggested here occuring, so why should a law against incitement to religious hatred be a problem. Of course it limits our freedom of speech, so does much of our law already. It limits or free speech only to the extent that it prevents us from lawfully inciting religious hatred. So who here is in favour of religious hatred?

    The law will not prevent people telling religious jokes, critisising religious practices, or anything like that anymore then the laws on racial hatred have prevented Jim Davison telling his "chalky" jokes or people critisising the cultural practices of some ethnic groups (say female circumcision for example).

    Too much hot air about this.
  12. Laws against racial hatred are their to prevent criticism of people based on their colour. Laws against religious hatred prevent criticism of people based on their actions.

    See the difference?

    Criticism of a law outlawing criticism is 'Rubbish'?

  13. What a bag of Sh*te this country has become.
  14. Awol
    Neither law prevents critisism, both are to prevent incitement to hatred. See the difference?

    Incedentally our race laws are not there simply to prevent discrimination based upon the colour of ones skin. They are there to prevent dsicrimination based on race and race is not always defined by the colour of ones skin, often it is defined by ones cultural practices. For example anti semetic behaviour has been recognised as racially motivated, even though there are white, black and yellow Jews.

    This whole thing is being sensationalised. Unless you think inciting one part of our community to hate another is acceptable then you should have no problem with it being outlawed.
  15. How do you qualify what is criticism and what is incitement? Even now, before the law has been passed, you can stand on a street corner and say one thing about the BNP and no one will turn a hair because they are the establishment's bogeymen. Say exactly the same thing about Islam and you'll be in the dock before you know it. Kind of proves the point I think.