The Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill - did ANYBODY think this was a good idea?

[In Bloom]

Its not the be all and end all of fighting fascism, but it helps, Griffin is currently being prosecuted under the incitement to racial hatred act, which
-makes him look like a criminal
-and can cause him practical damage, a fine or a prison sentence im not sure what the punishment for such an offence is.

It makes him look like a martyr. It strengthens this "We're the radical alternative that the evil PC government is trying to put down" shit they try to put out.

i dont think the act would seriously be used to undermine stuff like jerry springer, and i dont think a law as such would discourage people from doing stuff like jerry springer these kind of media shit usually thrive on contorversy.

Jerry Springer is probably a bad example, because it was designed to be controversial. But let's say somebody wanted to do a Christian equivalent of Behtzi, where a young boy is sexually abused by a member of the clergy in a church, and Christian Voice take exception, threaten to prosecute. If its a small show without much funding, they might not be able to afford to fight it.

 

[JoePolitix]

Really? So if there was videotape of someone saying that people in the Spanish Civil War were right to burn down churches and hopefully it will happen in this country some time soon, you don't think that would be enough to prosecute?

What about if someone was taped saying vicars and imams are scum and hopefully the working class will lynch them all in the near future?

Im more interested in dealing with the actual problems that really exist and need to be countered rather than dealing in the world of fantasy and whether or not dickheads who advocate lynching religious figures and burning churches would be prosecuted or not.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Im more interested in dealing with the actual problems that really exist and need to be counter rather than dealing in the world of fantasy and whether or not dickheads who advocate lynching religious figures and burning churches would be prosecuted or not.

That might be fantasy here and now, but if the working class became more radicalised in the future there might well be calls to burn down churches and mosques.

Do you think someone should be prosecuted for advocating that people should hate religions?

dickheads who advocate lynching religious figures and burning churches

Do you think the people who did this in the Spanish Civil War were dickheads?

 

[BNP member]

You can't rely upon the state to fight fascism. They'll only show up, put up the leaflets anonymously, then fuck off before anybody can do anything about it. The only way to stop fascists is to stop them organising in the first place, break up their meetings, kick them off the streets. I trust Tony Blair about as much as I trust Nick Griffin.

So, you see nothing wrong in doing illegal things, so long as you think its the right thing to do. Obviously, you wouldnt condone such an attitude in me.

 

[JoePolitix]

That might be fantasy here and now, but if the working class became more radicalised in the future there might well be calls to burn down churches and mosques.

Well that's the anarchist/stalinist/moaist/polpotist attitude to fighting religion apparently shared by some WP comrades but in the mean time it may have escaped your notice that inciting criminal damage and murder are already offences under English law.

 

[grogwilton]

It makes him look like a martyr. It strengthens this "We're the radical alternative that the evil PC government is trying to put down" shit they try to put out.


Jerry Springer is probably a bad example, because it was designed to be controversial. But let's say somebody wanted to do a Christian equivalent of Behtzi, where a young boy is sexually abused by a member of the clergy in a church, and Christian Voice take exception, threaten to prosecute. If its a small show without much funding, they might not be able to afford to fight it.

how often does that line actually work for them though? with the BNP targetting the soft racist vote i think theyre criminal antics actually work against them with there voters yearning for an imaginary age when 'law and order' still existed.

A christian version of Behtzi wouldnt be prosecuted because it would be written by a christian. i think a good example of what you think would be prosecuted is that book/play whatever written by that dutchman about islam that got murdered. but imo he was an idiot for coming out with a harsh criticism of a islam as a white secular dutchman anyway.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Well that's the anarchist/stalinist/moaist/polpotist attitude to fighting religion apparently shared by some WP comrades but in the mean time it may have escaped your notice that inciting criminal damage and murder are already offences under English law.

Where did I say I shared these views

Maybe the better question was do you think people should be prosecuted for saying that people should hate religion?

 

[cockneyrebel]

So, you see nothing wrong in doing illegal things, so long as you think its the right thing to do. Obviously, you wouldnt condone such an attitude in me.

You're kind of stating the obvious. Obviously if people think laws are wrong then they may well say it's ok to break them. QED.

More to the point I also condone banning you.

 

[cockneyrebel]

i think a good example of what you think would be prosecuted is that book/play whatever written by that dutchman about islam that got murdered. but imo he was an idiot for coming out with a harsh criticism of a islam as a white secular dutchman anyway.

But do you think he should be prosecuted?

 

[In Bloom]

So, you see nothing wrong in doing illegal things, so long as you think its the right thing to do.

No shit, hope you enjoy being banned

 

[grogwilton]

So, you see nothing wrong in doing illegal things, so long as you think its the right thing to do. Obviously, you wouldnt condone such an attitude in me.

the difference is that hes commiting crimes to stop the mass slaughter of people based on there racial background, and so the greater moral good is at stake. your party commits crimes in order to make that slaughter a reality.

i think you should take a hard look at the hardcore racist ideology of your leaders. its a political dead end for the working class if you want working class communitys lives improved.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Eight minutes!

edit: okay, nine by the time I'd posted this, but it was eight when I banned him

 

[In Bloom]

how often does that line actually work for them though? with the BNP targetting the soft racist vote i think theyre criminal antics actually work against them with there voters yearning for an imaginary age when 'law and order' still existed.

People vote BNP because they think they're a principled alternative to Labour and the Tories. Look at the BNP's recent election literature, it focuses on stuff like crime, environment and the welfare state.

A christian version of Behtzi wouldnt be prosecuted because it would be written by a christian. i think a good example of what you think would be prosecuted is that book/play whatever written by that dutchman about islam that got murdered. but imo he was an idiot for coming out with a harsh criticism of a islam as a white secular dutchman anyway.

What bollocks, he deserved to be murdered because he criticised Islam?

He was a racist piece of shit, IIRC, but your argument is bollocks.

 

[grogwilton]

But do you think he should be prosecuted?

no, but if a law was used to hamper the work of the BNP, and he was also prosecuted, i would still back that law.

 

[JoePolitix]

Where did I say I shared these views

Maybe the better question was do you think people should be prosecuted for saying that people should hate religion?

The law concerns inciting hatred against entire groups on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

Inciting hatred against a belief system is/would not have been an offence.

But thats enough for one day from me I don't really like sounding like a broken record.

 

[JHE]

i think a good example of what you think would be prosecuted is that book/play whatever written by that dutchman about islam that got murdered.

In fact it was written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She is living under death threats.

 

[cockneyrebel]

The law concerns inciting hatred against entire groups on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

Inciting hatred against a belief system is/would not have been an offence.

Bit of a grey area though. If someone said they hated all religions and hated the people who went round spreading those ideas I don't know where that would fall.

The problem is that you've got to trust the government and courts to interprete something which is pretty vague.

 

[Astramax]

Originally it was meant as a sop to the muslim community, partly to offset the electoral effect of the war. That was a long time ago, silly then even sillier now. Blair must have thought it was a good idea though. Shows how out of touch he is.

Exactly right.

Nu Lab has lost the Moozlum vote, did not matter this time but might mean that Cameron gets the keys to number 10 next time round.

 

[JoePolitix]

Bit of a grey area though. If someone said they hated all religions and hated the people who went round spreading those ideas I don't know where that would fall.

The problem is that you've got to trust the government and courts to interprete something which is pretty vague.

And the juries to reach a verdict of course.

The concrete issue here is that Muslims are not given the same level of protection under the law against being incitement hatred against as other ethno-religious groups. This problem is compounded by the fact Muslims currently suffer a disproportunate level of hate mongering.

The Lords ammendment voted for yesterday perpetuates, albeit in a modified form, that inequity. What do you propose CR?

P.S something that amused me today. I was flicking through the AWL's website and found this report from that sect's arch Islamophobe, Mark Sandell. Poor Mark turned up with his papers to demonstrate against the proposed bill outside parliament only to find out that the demonstration was dominated almost entirely by christian fundamentalists!!:

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/5602

I'm sure the secularism arguements went down like a led ballon.

 

[JoePolitix]

People vote BNP because they think they're a principled alternative to Labour and the Tories. Look at the BNP's recent election literature, it focuses on stuff like crime, environment and the welfare state.


What bollocks, he deserved to be murdered because he criticised Islam?

He was a racist piece of shit, IIRC, but your argument is bollocks.

I’m sure no-one condones the murder of Theo Van Gogh but as you say he was a filthy racist. He described Muslim migrants in Holland as “a Fifth Column of goatfuckers in this country, who despise and spit at its native people” adding “they hate our freedom…..Soon, the Fifth Column of goatfuckers will hurl poison gas, diseases and atomic bombs at your children and my children."

Surely this goes beyond the boundaries of acceptable speech and legitimate criticism and enters the realms of hate mongering?

And it should surprise no-one that Ayaan Hirshi Ali has colluded with Van Gogh in his exploits given that she is a member of the rightwing anti-immigrant WD party.

 

[DexterTCN]

Of course but neither should you oppose the state when it does fight fascism.

They'd just change the meaning of the word 'fascism' to suit their needs.

 

[tangentlama]

i am in favour of extending current legislation which protects sikhs and jews to cover all MONOTHEISTIC religions because whilst they are differentiated by their holy writs and rites, they are united in this singular and abiding faith in the one G-d/s/pirit. the existing race-hatred and violence laws should suffice to protect people who get bashed for 'looking lebanese'. we don't need a new law. we need an amendment to an existing law.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

On the related issues of the R&RH Bill and the ISG it should be noted that latters take on the former was neated trouced in the current issue of What Next:

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Latest/Hatred.html

Even if you don't agree with the content, you've got to give credit to the author for the title alone.

It's so original that he should copyright it

This could have been a press release by the Labour Party and appears to be based on the mistaken premise that the Bill (Act now) will actually protect muslims and is therefore 'A-GOOD-THING'. In any case, since when did socialists rely on the legal force of the state to defend oppressed people?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

i am in favour of extending current legislation which protects sikhs and jews to cover all MONOTHEISTIC religions because whilst they are differentiated by their holy writs and rites, they are united in this singular and abiding faith in the one G-d/s/pirit. the existing race-hatred and violence laws should suffice to protect people who get bashed for 'looking lebanese'. we don't need a new law. we need an amendment to an existing law.

So in your view Druids shouldn't be covered by the same legislation as other religious groups because they are not monotheists? It's an interesting theological debate as to whether only the Unitarians are monotheists,as distinct from christians, and assuming that you count them as theists in the first place.

 

[grogwilton]

People vote BNP because they think they're a principled alternative to Labour and the Tories. Look at the BNP's recent election literature, it focuses on stuff like crime, environment and the welfare state.


What bollocks, he deserved to be murdered because he criticised Islam?

He was a racist piece of shit, IIRC, but your argument is bollocks.

i didnt actually say it was ok to murder him because he criticised islam, i said i thought he was an idiot for doing it the way he did, considering his background. and this was before i knew about his racism, now that i do know, i think he deserved the capping he got.

 

[tangentlama]

So in your view Druids shouldn't be covered by the same legislation as other religious groups because they are not monotheists? It's an interesting theological debate as to whether only the Unitarians are monotheists,as distinct from christians, and assuming that you count them as theists in the first place.

Druids have fought the uk authorities for Religious Freedom already, and won, and they had some pretty powerful Lawyers backing them too. i might add that Druids don't currently suffer overmuch from negative stereotyping now that the Romans have left, and Druids don't consider Goscinny's Getafix to be an insulting Cartoon

no one particular political group is persecuting Druids (not since thatcher's days, anyways). Druids aren't being scapegoated by the press or for the country's ills in BNP electioneering. Druids don't have public sectarian disagreements plastered all over the global meda, nor do they have popularist left-wing groups campaigning against them for homophobia or 'oppression of women'. People don't hear the word Druid and think 'bloody scrounging asylum/immigrant/foreigner'. In fact, they're so discreet, you wouldn't even know if you had a Druid living next door to you.

 

[tobyjug]

In fact, they're so discreet, you wouldn't even know if you had a Druid living next door to you.

The Dolmen in the front garden is usually a bit of a clue.
(No I am not joking)

 

[redsquirrel]

i am in favour of extending current legislation which protects sikhs and jews to cover all MONOTHEISTIC religions

Why only them?

 

[tangentlama]

Why only them?

I don't see why you can't make some suggestions for additional religions to include, as that list was by no means complete. Add Ba'hai, for example.

If you want to extend it to include polytheism, animism, and satanism, then suggest away. i was just focusing on the existing law which protects two MONOTHEISTIC religions, Judaism, and Sikhism.

 

[JoePolitix]

It's so original that he should copyright it

This could have been a press release by the Labour Party and appears to be based on the mistaken premise that the Bill (Act now) will actually protect muslims and is therefore 'A-GOOD-THING'. In any case, since when did socialists rely on the legal force of the state to defend oppressed people?

So definately an ISGer then.

Geoff Brown's artice was at least based on actual knowledge of the bill and the issues that surrounded it which is more than can be said for Thornett and co.

The question of "since when did socialists rely on the legal force of the state to defend oppressed people?" is just plain silly. The bill was a matter of fact and socialists were required to take a side.

I doubt many socialists beleive that New Labour will champion the rights of the working class and yet this would not necessarily translate into opposing say the Employment Relations Act 1999 which made limited consessions to worker's rights and trade union recogntion.

More to the point are you suggesting that socialists should campiagn for the repeal of the existing race hate legislation? The fact is that this was consolidated by the Thatcher government shortly after bashing up the miners in the 1980's. And yet the only political party I am aware that stands for such a thing is the BNP.