Griffin + Collett cleared

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't.

I think in all this type of legislation, no matter what the target - race, gender, sexuality, religion ... whatever - we need to differentiate between dislike/disapproval/etc. (and expression of that dislike/disapproval/etc.) and encouragement of others to that view or, even worse, to active attacks (physical, certainly, but probably also verbal) on the target group or their property.

I think the issue of expression of personal views also needs to be treated differently in private (where people have a choice whether or not to be exposed to views they may find offensive) and in public (where they have the right to go about their business wthout being subjected to people saying, doing and displaying things they find offensive).

Neither of these areas is easy - where does expression of personal views and justification of them become encouragement of others to take on those views? where does "offensive" start and finish?

But it is neither right nor possible in my view to simply outlaw the holding of views.

But, for instance, what if I were to not only say that I think a particular religion is wrong (or even idiotic), but to encourage others to believe this too. In my case, I would genuinely encourage all followers of religious dogma to give up their stupid beliefs immediately. If I were to go around an area handing out leaflets, say (I'm way too apathetic to do this, but let's suppose), lambasting the bible/koran, how is that different from those who hand out pro-religious literature?

I agree that people should be allowed to go about their business without being abused, but only until that business involves the espousal of opinions or beliefs (including religious beliefs). Once you have stated a belief in public, should you not be fair game to anyone who wants to say pretty much anything about that belief?

Let us say I hate Christianity. Why should I not be allowed to encourage others to hate it? Nobody will prosecute me for encouraging others to hate the BNP. What's the difference?

 

[JHE]

In the article of 11.11.06 you linked to, I cannot find the quote you used. It reads:

Legislation banning the use of threatening words to incite religious hatred were passed by Parliament earlier this week and are expected to come into force next year.​

They've corrected the article, then. The quote I used was copy & pasted directly from the article.

They still haven't got it right, though. It could do with further correction. The law was not passed 'earlier this week' (as the article now claims), but some months ago (Feb?).

 

[TAE]

But, for instance, what if I were to not only say that I think a particular religion is wrong (or even idiotic), but to encourage others to believe this too. In my case, I would genuinely encourage all followers of religious dogma to give up their stupid beliefs immediately. If I were to go around an area handing out leaflets, say (I'm way too apathetic to do this, but let's suppose), lambasting the bible/koran, how is that different from those who hand out pro-religious literature?

I agree that people should be allowed to go about their business without being abused, but only until that business involves the espousal of opinions or beliefs (including religious beliefs). Once you have stated a belief in public, should you not be fair game to anyone who wants to say pretty much anything about that belief?

Let us say I hate Christianity. Why should I not be allowed to encourage others to hate it? Nobody will prosecute me for encouraging others to hate the BNP. What's the difference?

The Church of England asked very similar questions when this legislation was proposed.

 

[detective-boy]

But, for instance, what if I were to not only say that I think a particular religion is wrong (or even idiotic), but to encourage others to believe this too.

This is the sort of difficult area which I referred to.

Starting from:

1. I think Religion X is misguided, and not as good as mine, religion Y. You should convert.
2. I think Religion X is wrong. You are foolish to follow it.
3. I think Religion X is dangerous bollocks. It should be banned.
4. I think people who follow Religion X are stupid and they should be encouraged to convert.
5. I think people who follow Religion X are dangerous and they should be banned from following it.
6. I dislike people who follow Religion X and you should dislike them too.
7. I hate people who follow Religion X and you should hate them too.
8. People who follow Religion X are so hateful their property should be attacked and I encourage you to go and do it.
9. People who follow Religion X are so hateful they should be physically attacked and I encourage you to go and attack them.
10. People who follow Religion X are so hateful they should be killed and I encourage you to go and kill them.

I think most people would agree that the line should be drawn somewhere between 1 and 10 ... but where.

In relation to race it is drawn at 7 - incitement to hatred based on race. Why would it be inconsistent to draw it there in relation to religion as well. Sure, it is a thought, a choice, but why should encouragement of active hatred of people (and not just criticism or hatred of their religion) be allowed on any basis?

 

[detective-boy]

They've corrected the article, then. The quote I used was copy & pasted directly from the article.

They still haven't got it right, though. It could do with further correction. The law was not passed 'earlier this week' (as the article now claims), but some months ago (Feb?).

It is an excellent example of my repeated mantra that the media add to the confusion and moral panic by their lack of competence in accurately stating the law ... let alone bloody well explaining it!

 

[TAE]

This is the sort of difficult area which I referred to.

Starting from:

1. I think Religion X is misguided, and not as good as mine, religion Y. You should convert.
2. I think Religion X is wrong. You are foolish to follow it.
3. I think Religion X is dangerous bollocks. It should be banned.
4. I think people who follow Religion X are stupid and they should be encouraged to convert.
5. I think people who follow Religion X are dangerous and they should be banned from following it.
6. I dislike people who follow Religion X and you should dislike them too.
7. I hate people who follow Religion X and you should hate them too.
8. People who follow Religion X are so hateful their property should be attacked and I encourage you to go and do it.
9. People who follow Religion X are so hateful they should be physically attacked and I encourage you to go and attack them.
10. People who follow Religion X are so hateful they should be killed and I encourage you to go and kill them.

I think most people would agree that the line should be drawn somewhere between 1 and 10 ... but where.

What's the problem?

1 through 7 is not encouraging people to do something which is breaking other laws.
8 through 10 is encouraging people to do something which is breaking other laws.

It should not be illegal to encourage people to do something lawful.

In relation to race it is drawn at 7 - incitement to hatred based on race. Why would it be inconsistent to draw it there in relation to religion as well. Sure, it is a thought, a choice, but why should encouragement of active hatred of people (and not just criticism or hatred of their religion) be allowed on any basis?

I should add that I always think there needs to be a differentiation between the faith and the followers of the faith. Claiming that 'islam' is evil is one thing, claiming that (all) moslems are evil is something different altogether. Never-the-less, I don't think it should be illegal to incite lawful behaviour.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

1. I think Religion X is misguided, and not as good as mine, religion Y. You should convert.
2. I think Religion X is wrong. You are foolish to follow it.
3. I think Religion X is dangerous bollocks. It should be banned.
4. I think people who follow Religion X are stupid and they should be encouraged to convert.
5. I think people who follow Religion X are dangerous and they should be banned from following it.
6. I dislike people who follow Religion X and you should dislike them too.
7. I hate people who follow Religion X and you should hate them too.
8. People who follow Religion X are so hateful their property should be attacked and I encourage you to go and do it.
9. People who follow Religion X are so hateful they should be physically attacked and I encourage you to go and attack them.
10. People who follow Religion X are so hateful they should be killed and I encourage you to go and kill them.

You explain your point very well.

For what it's worth, I would reluctantly draw the line at 8. By substituting 'fascists' for 'people who follow Religion X' (since I don't see why religions should be given privileged status in the world of ideas), I'd be tempted to go up to drawing it at 10, but my lily-liberal heart can see the sense in putting it at 8.

 

[detective-boy]

What's the problem?

1 through 7 is not encouraging people to do something which is breaking other laws.
8 through 10 is encouraging people to do something which is breaking other laws.

It should not be illegal to encourage people to do something lawful.

I think a lot of the issue is over whether or not "encouraging hatred" should be illegal or not. I see no reason for differentiating between concepts - if it is illegal to use threatening, abusive or insulting words to stir up racial hatred (which it currently is) then it should be to stir up hatred on any other basis. If we don't want it to be an offence in other cases, perhaps we should remove it for race? Otherwise we get in this difficult position where some religions (e.g. Sikhism) are de facto protected because they are aligned closely with an identifiable race where others (e.g. Islam) are not because they are not.

I take your point that the things encouraged (damage, assault, murder) in 8 to 10 are illegal, but I am not so sure that it is always so easy to convict of encouraging them as people seem to think (the more specific in terms of time, location and identity of victim the easier it becomes but we saw the limitations of the law in relation to the cartoon demonstrations).

 

[TAE]

I think a lot of the issue is over whether or not "encouraging hatred" should be illegal or not. I see no reason for differentiating between concepts - if it is illegal to use threatening, abusive or insulting words to stir up racial hatred (which it currently is) then it should be to stir up hatred on any other basis.

Then ALL encouragement of hatred should be illegal?

I take your point that the things encouraged (damage, assault, murder) in 8 to 10 are illegal, but I am not so sure that it is always so easy to convict of encouraging them as people seem to think (the more specific in terms of time, location and identity of victim the easier it becomes but we saw the limitations of the law in relation to the cartoon demonstrations).

Whether it is easy to get a conviction should not be the benchmark of what is/not legal.

 

[detective-boy]

Then ALL encouragement of hatred should be illegal?

I would suggest it should be all or none. There is no differentiation in relation to damage, assault or murder, at least not in terms of some being legal

Whether it is easy to get a conviction should not be the benchmark of what is/not legal

I agree. But my point was that perhaps we need to tighten the laws against encouraging damage, assault and murder because, at present, 8, 9 and 10 are not illegal per se - they may be, they may not, dependant on the circumstances.

 

[TAE]

I am not against making "incitement to law breaking" illegal.

 

[JHE]

I am not against making "incitement to law breaking" illegal.

Inciting someone to commit a crime (any crime) is already a crime.

 

[detective-boy]

Inciting someone to commit a crime (any crime) is already a crime.

The point is that "hatred" is not, of itself a crime. Should it be?

And the offence of incitement has evolved to the point where it is not quite as simple you may at first think - many instances of apparent incitement to damage / assault / murder are actually not offences in the eyes of the law at present due to the detailed requirements. Should the law of incitement be changed so that it clearly includes carrying a placard saying "Behead all those who insult Religion X" on the grounds that that placard incites assault / murder?

 

[TAE]

The point is that "hatred" is not, of itself a crime. Should it be?

How could "hatred" be a crime? That's non-sense. You'd have to arrest everyone who hates anyone.

 

[JHE]

The point is that "hatred" is not, of itself a crime. Should it be?

No, of course not.

Should the law of incitement be changed so that it clearly includes carrying a placard saying "Behead all those who insult Religion X" on the grounds that that placard incites assault / murder?

I'd have thought it was a clear case of inciting murder (unless it were just a joke or part of a drama etc) - but of course that's up to the jury to decide.

The jury in the recent case couldn't decide whether the tantrum-throwing Islamist had solicited murder, but decided that he had incited racial hatred. I think both decisions were wrong but I'm in favour of having it decided by a jury.

We can't know what (odd) reasoning or motive produced that result. I rather suspect that some of the jurors just thought the Islamist deserved to be convicted of something and punished but didn't want to go as far as convicting him of the more serious offence of soliciting murder (for which the max penalty is life imprisonment).

Anyway, no - I don't see any reason why the law should be changed.

What amendment do you have in mind and would you support it?

 

[detective-boy]

How could "hatred" be a crime? That's non-sense. You'd have to arrest everyone who hates anyone.

So should we repeal the offence of "inciting racial hatred" then? If it shouldn't be a crime to hate someone, how can it be right for it to be an offence to incite someone to hate them?

 

[detective-boy]

I'd have thought it was a clear case of inciting murder (unless it were just a joke or part of a drama etc) - but of course that's up to the jury to decide.

That's my point. It isn't as the law stands. The jury cannot change that situation as they are directed on what the law is and is not, they only decide the facts and whether they reach whatever test is imposed by the law.

What amendment do you have in mind and would you support it?

I just think we should have clarity and consistency - which we will not get whilst we have different rules for different pieces of the same problem - what is good for race should be good for religion and vice versa, shouldn't it?

I think there is an awful lot to be said for clarifying / strengthening the laws on inciting / counselling / procuring criminal offences (damage, assault and murder for the most part) so that it is an offence whether or not there is any specific, identifiable victim / specific, identifiable person incited / time and place in mind, perhaps with an aggravated form if the specifics are there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So should we repeal the offence of "inciting racial hatred" then? If it shouldn't be a crime to hate someone, how can it be right for it to be an offence to incite someone to hate them?

That's what I would do. The law is too crude an instrument to be used for anything other than protecting people from the action of others. Try protecting people from the thoughts of others, or making certain opinions illegal, and you will have to not only keep an eye on those committing the thought crimes but on those formulating those thought crime laws. We should be confident enough in the rightness of our opinions about this to allow idiots to say what they want. Do we have such a dim view of others that we think Griffin and his henchmen are about to take over?

 

[TAE]

So should we repeal the offence of "inciting racial hatred" then? If it shouldn't be a crime to hate someone, how can it be right for it to be an offence to incite someone to hate them?

It should not be illegal to encourage people to do something lawful.

 

[JHE]

That's my point. It isn't as the law stands. The jury cannot change that situation as they are directed on what the law is and is not, they only decide the facts and whether they reach whatever test is imposed by the law.

Yes, of course the jury is directed on the law - and indeed can ask the judge for further clarification. Nevertheless, the jury (where there is one) decides guilt or innocence. I bet many juries are extremely conscientious - but I see no reason to think juries never produce verdicts for their own reasons.

Indeed I'm sure they sometimes do. Do you remember the Clive Ponting case?

I just think we should have clarity and consistency - which we will not get whilst we have different rules for different pieces of the same problem - what is good for race should be good for religion and vice versa, shouldn't it?

And for:

• sex?
• age?
• sexual orientation?
• political allegiance/opinion?
• hair style?
• manner of dressing?
• standard of personal hygiene?
• size or shape of body?
• accent?
• football team supported?
• taste in music?
• coming from Essex/Liverpool/Tunbridge Wells?
• preferred end of boiled egg to open?
• ... and so on...

Whether 'incitement to racial hatred' should remain a crime I'm really not sure - but the chances of parliament getting rid of that crime are virtually zero.

I'm more interested in parliament protecting freedom to speak frankly about religion - and about any other set of ideas.

 

[JoePolitix]

Here's another brave manifestation of free expression that I'm sure the huddled masses of Urban 75 will be keen to defend:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/6139662.stm

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Here's another brave manifestation of free expression that I'm sure the huddled masses of Urban 75 will be keen to defend:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/6139662.stm

Is that your idea of an 'argument'?

 

[TAE]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/6139662.stm

That's property damage.

John Livermore, West Sussex County Councillor for Worthing West, said ... "The person or persons that did it are just the scum of the earth ... They should be drummed out of Worthing, drummed out of the country."

Should he be procecuted for inciting hatred?

 

[JoePolitix]

Is that your idea of an 'argument'?

I'm just trying to test the water as to which exact forms racist hatred some of the contributers are prepared to support. I mean when people defend the right to call Asian Muslims gang rapists and asylum seekers as cockroaches then its hard to know exactly what they'll find unacceptable.

 

[JoePolitix]

Should he be procecuted for inciting hatred?

Oh I see, neo-Nazis are on same level playing feild as ethnic minorities then?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Stupid people saying stupid things should not imo be made criminals. If they say such things in private, ignore them. If they say it in public, show how they are wrong. I actually think giving Griffin free reign to give his moronic opinions and show his true colours, by not restricting him legally in what he is allowed to say, is the best way to expose him for what he is. Let him hang himself.

 

[TAE]

Oh I see, neo-Nazis are on same level playing feild as ethnic minorities then?

Legally speaking, yes of course.

I'm just trying to test the water as to which exact forms racist hatred some of the contributers are prepared to support. I mean when people defend the right to call Asian Muslims gang rapists and asylum seekers as cockroaches then its hard to know exactly what they'll find unacceptable.

Support? Strawman alert!

I don't think anyone here 'supports' these. But nor do I think that everything which I find objectionable should be made illegal.

 

[JoePolitix]

Stupid people saying stupid things should not imo be made criminals. If they say such things in private, ignore them. If they say it in public, show how they are wrong. I actually think giving Griffin free reign to give his moronic opinions and show his true colours, by not restricting him legally in what he is allowed to say, is the best way to expose him for what he is. Let him hang himself.

Really? So I suppose anti-fascists in the east end should have allowed Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts march through the streets freely expressing themselves by saying "the yids, the yids, we've got to get rid of the yids" then? I suppose the ant-fascist movement has been wrong to no platform the NF, deny them free speech and smash up their meetings?

To support fascist "free speech" is a disaster - why let these vermin hang themselves when we could hang them earlier?

 

[JoePolitix]

I don't think anyone here 'supports' these. But nor do I think that everything which I find objectionable should be made illegal.

I said people support their *right* to make such remarks.

I'm not advocating making everything which I find objectionable to be made illegal (now whos erecting the straw man?). I find your defence of fascist "free speech" objectionable, but I find inciting hatred against minority communities abominable and incompatable with a free society that ensures the right of people to live in freedom from hatred and the threat of violence. Racial Hatred has been illiegal since the 60's and no political parties other than the BNP and worse favour overturning this. Which leaves you in very murkey waters I'm afraid.

 

[detective-boy]

Whether 'incitement to racial hatred' should remain a crime I'm really not sure - but the chances of parliament getting rid of that crime are virtually zero.

Your list of other charcateristics was precisely my point - what applies to one area should apply to another. So, if we cannot get rid of the race related offence (and I agree the chances are zero), and we don't want to generalise it, we're stuck with the anomaly.

Would it be possible to remove the odd few religions which are caught by the race related offence? Legislation should be do-able in terms of wording and it is very common for statute to correct something unintended that legal precedent has created. Do you think that would be acceptable?