Incitement to religious hatred: here come the thought police

#1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ml&sSheet=/portal/2005/06/10/ixportaltop.html

Now you face jail for being nasty to Satanists
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
(Filed: 10/06/2005)

Extremist religious groups that advocate child abuse will be given protection under a Bill published by the Government yesterday.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill would outlaw remarks considered likely to stir up hatred against all religious groups, including those whose followers believe in beating children to drive out demons.


The law could have prevented the race riots in Bradford in 2001
The Bill contains no definition of "religious belief" and ministers confirmed it would cover members of the African religion whose adherents were convicted last week of cruelty to a girl of eight they regarded as a witch.

Satanists, pagans and atheists would be protected.
and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/06/10/ixopinion.html
A Bill built on flimsy foundations
(Filed: 10/06/2005)

'I am a man of unclean lips," said the prophet Isaiah, "and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips." The Government has decided that something must be done, and is legislating to wash out our mouths. For the third time in four years, MPs are being asked to ban people from speaking or writing in a way which is "likely to stir up... religious hatred". There is every possibility that this time the law will pass, for ministers have hinted that they will force it through the House of Lords using the Parliament Act if necessary.
I despair, I really do.



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

Regards

PTP
 
#3
Having good reason for making insulting comments that could provoke hatred of a particular religious doctrine would be no defence, nor would the fact that they were true.
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. www.libdems.org.uk says this...

Mark Oaten MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, today pledged to outlaw racism disguised as religious hatred, adding that he was disappointed that Labour had rejected Liberal Democrat plans to tighten up the law whilst preserving free speech.

Mr Oaten said:

"There is a real problem with far-right groups using attacks on religion to stir up trouble in our communities. This is racism by any other name, and the law needs to be tightened up.

"Labour's proposal would create more problems than it solves. We have discussed this with Muslim and other communities and have put forward an alternative in the form of an extension of the law to outlaw racism disguised as religious hatred.
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
PartTimePongo said:
Ignore Mark Oaten , I think he does this deliberately.

Look in to the other LibDem comments, especially those made yesterday
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
Seriously, this is going to affect what gets posted on ARRSE isn't it
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
armourer said:
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....
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
GwaiLo said:
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?
.
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'?

Lovely.
 
#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
GwaiLo said:
Awol
Neither law prevents critisism, both are to prevent incitement to hatred. See the difference?
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.
 
#16
Awol said:
GwaiLo said:
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.
The thing is Islam in the UK by and large delivers votes en masse to liar Blair. While Islam continues to do that Tony and his lickspittles will cower, fawn and do as Islam tells them.
 
#17
How do you qualify what is criticism and what is incitement?
Criminal law isn't my area of expertise but I understand that this proposed new law is similar to that which already exists in regards to race under the Public Order Act 1986. So deciding what is critisism and what is incitement to hatred will be your job and mine. If you don't think you are capable of deciding then explain that to the judge when you are called for jury service. Most people will be quite capable of making those judgements.

To convince a jury to convict the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention or likelihood of thereby stirring up religious hatred. I understand that the same test also applies to the display of written material; the publication or distribution of written material; the distribution, showing or playing of a recording; and the possession of religiously inflammatory material.

The BNP is a political party, not a race, not a religion. It is not comparable to either. Our race laws have been used to prevent undesirable behaviour by non whites as well as whites, for example it was the provisions of the public order Act which allowed Louis Farrakhan to be banned from entering the UK.

The proposed law will apply to muslims who stir up religious hatred just s much as to anyone else. My wife come from an islamic country, although she isn't a muslim, and we know a number of her fellow countrymen who reside in the UK who are muslim. They have pointed out that at present there are some muslims who are free to preach religious hatred and there is nothing that can be done about it. They would welcome this law being used to prevent that, which is one of the reasons it is proposed. If you want those extremists to carry on preaching hatred then don't support this law. Personally I want it stopped and want moderate muslims to have some means of shutting up the people who misuse islam.
 
#18
awol
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.
Proves nothing. You have made a statement that is all. Give me an example, any example, of someone having said exactly the same thing about Islam and the BNP and the latter ending up in the dock whilst the former did not.

It think is a myth. I don't think it has never happened. I'll help you out here, go search the law reports here and find me the cases http://www.bailii.org

Anything I say here is supported by case law.

Whilst I don't profess any particular expertise in criminal law, I do understand the law and legal practice as I appear in court regularly as an expert. So I do keep up to date with developments in the law generally. If there were any cases such as you describe I would almost certainly be familiar with them.
 
#19
armourer
I think it is true that poor muslims were en masse labour voters before Blair decided to invade Iraq, but less so now. Observe Bethnal Green and Bow. Equally, and I am no Labour or Tony groupie, if Blair and his lot really "cower, fawn and do as Islam tells them." how do you account for the decision to invade Iraq? How do you account for the decision to imprison terrorist suspects without trial (all of whom are muslims)? I don't think the claim that they do as Islam tells them is sustainable.

All of the muslims I know personally are middle class professionals and, from what I can tell, floating voters just like me. I don't get the impression that thier religion figures very much in thier political thinking, but I accept that they may not represent the majority of muslims in the UK who I suspect are one of the poorest groups in the UK.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads