-
@crucial said in British Politics:
It isn't a law against speech it is a law against speech that sets out to cause major problems.
How can you have a a law against speech that sets out to cause major problems that isn't a law against speech? Unless you are simply offering the brainless truism that the law isn't banning speech... which I doubt you are.
-
There is a wide exemption for freedom of speech. The Act states:
"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
Well the LS case for starters. What do you think the last guy arrested for violating the old blasphemy laws was doing? I'll give you a hint. He was handing out pamphlets.
Ultimately any criticism is liable to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction. How are you supposed to criticise something without offending someone or pissing them off, particularly if they're fanatics?
Still missing the point that LS was trying to enter the country. She held no right of entry. Now what happened after they questioned her? Was she brought before the courts to have her 'crime' tested? No. She was denied entry.
I tried to explain it simply before. If border control THINK you MAY cause a problem, they will deny entry. If they THINK you MAY intend to enter the country to deliberately cause problems they will hold you to investigate whether their suspicions meet the definition of a crime. Different level of application to the average person in the street.
I actually agree that use of terrorism laws in her case were overkill and unnecessary but that is the tool they can get away with using because it gets to be untested in court. However it is use of the tool itself that is wrong not the intention of the law behind it.They used the terrorism laws in her case as a delaying tactics, while they searched for a reason to deny her. They admitted in a call (recorded) to her father that they didn’t think she was a terrorist or in anyway related to terrorism.
The fact they can misapply a law like this without an repercussions should alarm you.
Which leads me to the actual law they used to deny entry, that her pamphlets were racist so they used that hate speech law. Despite her pamphlets having nothing to do with race.
So we can argue about the laws and there intents forever and a day, but if the authorities just make stuff up then what sort of society does that lead to?
There is a simple, yet difficult to implement, solution to these problems. If people rape, arrest them. If people get violent, arrest them. If people say things, listen or ignore them.
If people on the extreme end of Islam get upset by things people say, and get violent, arrest them.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
Although this is not your point, you are basically saying you would prefer violence to happen and then arrest the perpetrators than prevent violence.
Yes. People need to be held to account for their actions as criminals. There needs to be a very high bar for speech. Because short of telling people to commit crimes, why should you be responsible for the actions of imbeciles? That's a slippery slope to group think.
-
@antipodean do you think the same about North Korea?
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@antipodean do you think the same about North Korea?
? I don't believe North Korea is relevant. They're a despotic regime, not a Western liberal democracy bounded by the rule of law.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
Although this is not your point, you are basically saying you would prefer violence to happen and then arrest the perpetrators than prevent violence.
No, I’m saying that nobody is above the law. If you react to a pamphlet with violence then you should be arrested.
You are basically saying you can prevent soccer crowd violence by banning soccer. It’s true, but it’s throwing baby out with the bath water.
-
@antipodean same principle. Is it better to wait for violence then deal with or try to prevent violence in the first place.
-
What I don't get is how people can get done for racial vilification when insulting a religion. That just doesn't make sense.
-
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
Well the LS case for starters. What do you think the last guy arrested for violating the old blasphemy laws was doing? I'll give you a hint. He was handing out pamphlets.
Ultimately any criticism is liable to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction. How are you supposed to criticise something without offending someone or pissing them off, particularly if they're fanatics?
Still missing the point that LS was trying to enter the country. She held no right of entry. Now what happened after they questioned her? Was she brought before the courts to have her 'crime' tested? No. She was denied entry.
I tried to explain it simply before. If border control THINK you MAY cause a problem, they will deny entry. If they THINK you MAY intend to enter the country to deliberately cause problems they will hold you to investigate whether their suspicions meet the definition of a crime. Different level of application to the average person in the street.
I actually agree that use of terrorism laws in her case were overkill and unnecessary but that is the tool they can get away with using because it gets to be untested in court. However it is use of the tool itself that is wrong not the intention of the law behind it.They used the terrorism laws in her case as a delaying tactics, while they searched for a reason to deny her. They admitted in a call (recorded) to her father that they didn’t think she was a terrorist or in anyway related to terrorism.
The fact they can misapply a law like this without an repercussions should alarm you.
It doesn't alarm me, it annoys me. And the misuse of this type of law whether in the UK, US or even NZ is why so many of those horrid leftie types rail against them. Hand authorities tools like this and they most definitely play with them. I stated earlier that it was a misuse and an over-reach.
The difference is that I don't think any of these actions are being done as some kind of govt plan to avoid insulting Muslims at all costs. They are because of power misuse and incorrect interpretation of laws that are still having their boundaries defined.Which leads me to the actual law they used to deny entry, that her pamphlets were racist so they used that hate speech law. Despite her pamphlets having nothing to do with race.
So we can argue about the laws and there intents forever and a day, but if the authorities just make stuff up then what sort of society does that lead to?
Do you mean The Religious and Racial Hatred Act? Agree that you can argue the detail over whether something 'against' Muslims is religious or racist but the act covers both anyway. They aren't making stuff up. They may be pushing the boundaries but not inventing something that isn't there.
If people on the extreme end of Islam get upset by things people say, and get violent, arrest them.
Absolutely. But there also needs to be a boundary set on what is acceptable wind up material and what isn't. I don't see there is a problem in having laws against inciting violence. Finding that boundary as a clear line though is difficult. People like TR enjoy walking along that boundary, jeering at the guards to have a shot at them, then get indignant and self righteous when it happens.
I see no difference in what TR and co are doing to say, John Minto or even Kim Dotcom. Poking the bear but complaining when the bear snarls back.I guess the difference for me does boil down to ideology. Some folk are happy to ignore (or admire) TRs tactics because of the underlying key point of his message. I agree with some key elements of what he says but dislike his methods. e.g. lumping everyone in a group in with the bad elements to incite a response then saying 'I didn't mean everyone'. A tactic I myself was accused of earlier in the thread. Maybe, Iike me, he doesn't see that is how it comes across, but it does come across that way. See the 'banned interview' (a stupid title in the first place) where he continually talks about 'Muslims' rather than targeting 'a bad group acting out of archaic fundamentalist views within their religion'.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
Well the LS case for starters. What do you think the last guy arrested for violating the old blasphemy laws was doing? I'll give you a hint. He was handing out pamphlets.
Ultimately any criticism is liable to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction. How are you supposed to criticise something without offending someone or pissing them off, particularly if they're fanatics?
Still missing the point that LS was trying to enter the country. She held no right of entry. Now what happened after they questioned her? Was she brought before the courts to have her 'crime' tested? No. She was denied entry.
I tried to explain it simply before. If border control THINK you MAY cause a problem, they will deny entry. If they THINK you MAY intend to enter the country to deliberately cause problems they will hold you to investigate whether their suspicions meet the definition of a crime. Different level of application to the average person in the street.
I actually agree that use of terrorism laws in her case were overkill and unnecessary but that is the tool they can get away with using because it gets to be untested in court. However it is use of the tool itself that is wrong not the intention of the law behind it.They used the terrorism laws in her case as a delaying tactics, while they searched for a reason to deny her. They admitted in a call (recorded) to her father that they didn’t think she was a terrorist or in anyway related to terrorism.
The fact they can misapply a law like this without an repercussions should alarm you.
It doesn't alarm me, it annoys me. And the misuse of this type of law whether in the UK, US or even NZ is why so many of those horrid leftie types rail against them. Hand authorities tools like this and they most definitely play with them. I stated earlier that it was a misuse and an over-reach.
The difference is that I don't think any of these actions are being done as some kind of govt plan to avoid insulting Muslims at all costs. They are because of power misuse and incorrect interpretation of laws that are still having their boundaries defined.Which leads me to the actual law they used to deny entry, that her pamphlets were racist so they used that hate speech law. Despite her pamphlets having nothing to do with race.
So we can argue about the laws and there intents forever and a day, but if the authorities just make stuff up then what sort of society does that lead to?
Do you mean The Religious and Racial Hatred Act? Agree that you can argue the detail over whether something 'against' Muslims is religious or racist but the act covers both anyway. They aren't making stuff up. They may be pushing the boundaries but not inventing something that isn't there.
If people on the extreme end of Islam get upset by things people say, and get violent, arrest them.
Absolutely. But there also needs to be a boundary set on what is acceptable wind up material and what isn't. I don't see there is a problem in having laws against inciting violence. Finding that boundary as a clear line though is difficult. People like TR enjoy walking along that boundary, jeering at the guards to have a shot at them, then get indignant and self righteous when it happens.
I see no difference in what TR and co are doing to say, John Minto or even Kim Dotcom. Poking the bear but complaining when the bear snarls back.I guess the difference for me does boil down to ideology. Some folk are happy to ignore (or admire) TRs tactics because of the underlying key point of his message. I agree with some key elements of what he says but dislike his methods. e.g. lumping everyone in a group in with the bad elements to incite a response then saying 'I didn't mean everyone'. A tactic I myself was accused of earlier in the thread. Maybe, Iike me, he doesn't see that is how it comes across, but it does come across that way. See the 'banned interview' (a stupid title in the first place) where he continually talks about 'Muslims' rather than targeting 'a bad group acting out of archaic fundamentalist views within their religion'.
How do you determine what is and isn't acceptable windup material? Does it depend on when the group in question is likely to respond with violence? The Mormons have a musical mocking them but I assume that would be "poking the bear" for a certain other religion. Finding the boundary isn't difficult, it's impossible.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
Well the LS case for starters. What do you think the last guy arrested for violating the old blasphemy laws was doing? I'll give you a hint. He was handing out pamphlets.
Ultimately any criticism is liable to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction. How are you supposed to criticise something without offending someone or pissing them off, particularly if they're fanatics?
Still missing the point that LS was trying to enter the country. She held no right of entry. Now what happened after they questioned her? Was she brought before the courts to have her 'crime' tested? No. She was denied entry.
I tried to explain it simply before. If border control THINK you MAY cause a problem, they will deny entry. If they THINK you MAY intend to enter the country to deliberately cause problems they will hold you to investigate whether their suspicions meet the definition of a crime. Different level of application to the average person in the street.
I actually agree that use of terrorism laws in her case were overkill and unnecessary but that is the tool they can get away with using because it gets to be untested in court. However it is use of the tool itself that is wrong not the intention of the law behind it.They used the terrorism laws in her case as a delaying tactics, while they searched for a reason to deny her. They admitted in a call (recorded) to her father that they didn’t think she was a terrorist or in anyway related to terrorism.
The fact they can misapply a law like this without an repercussions should alarm you.
It doesn't alarm me, it annoys me. And the misuse of this type of law whether in the UK, US or even NZ is why so many of those horrid leftie types rail against them. Hand authorities tools like this and they most definitely play with them. I stated earlier that it was a misuse and an over-reach.
The difference is that I don't think any of these actions are being done as some kind of govt plan to avoid insulting Muslims at all costs. They are because of power misuse and incorrect interpretation of laws that are still having their boundaries defined.Which leads me to the actual law they used to deny entry, that her pamphlets were racist so they used that hate speech law. Despite her pamphlets having nothing to do with race.
So we can argue about the laws and there intents forever and a day, but if the authorities just make stuff up then what sort of society does that lead to?
Do you mean The Religious and Racial Hatred Act? Agree that you can argue the detail over whether something 'against' Muslims is religious or racist but the act covers both anyway. They aren't making stuff up. They may be pushing the boundaries but not inventing something that isn't there.
If people on the extreme end of Islam get upset by things people say, and get violent, arrest them.
Absolutely. But there also needs to be a boundary set on what is acceptable wind up material and what isn't. I don't see there is a problem in having laws against inciting violence. Finding that boundary as a clear line though is difficult. People like TR enjoy walking along that boundary, jeering at the guards to have a shot at them, then get indignant and self righteous when it happens.
I see no difference in what TR and co are doing to say, John Minto or even Kim Dotcom. Poking the bear but complaining when the bear snarls back.I guess the difference for me does boil down to ideology. Some folk are happy to ignore (or admire) TRs tactics because of the underlying key point of his message. I agree with some key elements of what he says but dislike his methods. e.g. lumping everyone in a group in with the bad elements to incite a response then saying 'I didn't mean everyone'. A tactic I myself was accused of earlier in the thread. Maybe, Iike me, he doesn't see that is how it comes across, but it does come across that way. See the 'banned interview' (a stupid title in the first place) where he continually talks about 'Muslims' rather than targeting 'a bad group acting out of archaic fundamentalist views within their religion'.
How do you determine what is and isn't acceptable windup material? Does it depend on when the group in question is likely to respond with violence? The Mormons have a musical mocking them but I assume that would be "poking the bear" for a certain other religion. Finding the boundary isn't difficult, it's impossible.
Did you read the freedom of speech exemptions in the act?
If TR and co really feel that they are being treated outside of these provisions then they have the options of the courts. Some legal interpretations of the act say that given the free speech exemptions gaining a prosecution is near impossible anyway.
What is your alternative? Free speech with no boundaries/consequences? That is quite anarchist.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
Well the LS case for starters. What do you think the last guy arrested for violating the old blasphemy laws was doing? I'll give you a hint. He was handing out pamphlets.
Ultimately any criticism is liable to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction. How are you supposed to criticise something without offending someone or pissing them off, particularly if they're fanatics?
Still missing the point that LS was trying to enter the country. She held no right of entry. Now what happened after they questioned her? Was she brought before the courts to have her 'crime' tested? No. She was denied entry.
I tried to explain it simply before. If border control THINK you MAY cause a problem, they will deny entry. If they THINK you MAY intend to enter the country to deliberately cause problems they will hold you to investigate whether their suspicions meet the definition of a crime. Different level of application to the average person in the street.
I actually agree that use of terrorism laws in her case were overkill and unnecessary but that is the tool they can get away with using because it gets to be untested in court. However it is use of the tool itself that is wrong not the intention of the law behind it.They used the terrorism laws in her case as a delaying tactics, while they searched for a reason to deny her. They admitted in a call (recorded) to her father that they didn’t think she was a terrorist or in anyway related to terrorism.
The fact they can misapply a law like this without an repercussions should alarm you.
It doesn't alarm me, it annoys me. And the misuse of this type of law whether in the UK, US or even NZ is why so many of those horrid leftie types rail against them. Hand authorities tools like this and they most definitely play with them. I stated earlier that it was a misuse and an over-reach.
The difference is that I don't think any of these actions are being done as some kind of govt plan to avoid insulting Muslims at all costs. They are because of power misuse and incorrect interpretation of laws that are still having their boundaries defined.Which leads me to the actual law they used to deny entry, that her pamphlets were racist so they used that hate speech law. Despite her pamphlets having nothing to do with race.
So we can argue about the laws and there intents forever and a day, but if the authorities just make stuff up then what sort of society does that lead to?
Do you mean The Religious and Racial Hatred Act? Agree that you can argue the detail over whether something 'against' Muslims is religious or racist but the act covers both anyway. They aren't making stuff up. They may be pushing the boundaries but not inventing something that isn't there.
If people on the extreme end of Islam get upset by things people say, and get violent, arrest them.
Absolutely. But there also needs to be a boundary set on what is acceptable wind up material and what isn't. I don't see there is a problem in having laws against inciting violence. Finding that boundary as a clear line though is difficult. People like TR enjoy walking along that boundary, jeering at the guards to have a shot at them, then get indignant and self righteous when it happens.
I see no difference in what TR and co are doing to say, John Minto or even Kim Dotcom. Poking the bear but complaining when the bear snarls back.I guess the difference for me does boil down to ideology. Some folk are happy to ignore (or admire) TRs tactics because of the underlying key point of his message. I agree with some key elements of what he says but dislike his methods. e.g. lumping everyone in a group in with the bad elements to incite a response then saying 'I didn't mean everyone'. A tactic I myself was accused of earlier in the thread. Maybe, Iike me, he doesn't see that is how it comes across, but it does come across that way. See the 'banned interview' (a stupid title in the first place) where he continually talks about 'Muslims' rather than targeting 'a bad group acting out of archaic fundamentalist views within their religion'.
How do you determine what is and isn't acceptable windup material? Does it depend on when the group in question is likely to respond with violence? The Mormons have a musical mocking them but I assume that would be "poking the bear" for a certain other religion. Finding the boundary isn't difficult, it's impossible.
Did you read the freedom of speech exemptions in the act?
If TR and co really feel that they are being treated outside of these provisions then they have the options of the courts. Some legal interpretations of the act say that given the free speech exemptions gaining a prosecution is near impossible anyway.
What is your alternative? Free speech with no boundaries/consequences? That is quite anarchist.
No it isn't. The US seem to be doing just fine. I draw the line at defamation for example, but defaming some else's God. Get real.
Those exemptions do look pretty solid on paper, so what part of the Act are people getting done for?
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@antipodean same principle. Is it better to wait for violence then deal with or try to prevent violence in the first place.
How are you preventing violence? By stopping people from going about their daily business because you think they might do something wrong?
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
The Mormons have a musical mocking them but I assume that would be "poking the bear" for a certain other religion.
They'd be losing their shit. We've already seen how they respond to a cartoon ffs.
-
@MajorRage @Crucial Genuine question, do you believe that the average person is capable of creating a liveable just society without significant controls on their speech?
And if you don't think the average person is capable, do you believe that you are?
-
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@MajorRage @Crucial Genuine question, do you believe that the average person is capable of creating a liveable just society without significant controls on their speech?
And if you don't think the average person is capable, do you believe that you are?
Yes and yes.
But the average person is capable of going through life and not murdering someone either. Should we remove that law as well?
Point being that laws are created to form boundaries around acceptability. Most people stay well within those boundaries. Some operate well outside and some wander near them checking out where they are.
Don't get me wrong. I admire what TR and people like him do. We often need these people pushing around the edges to make the sheep in the middle take notice. It works in both directions politically/ideologically as well. That doesn't mean though, that they have the right to go outside the boundaries.
The problem, as we all agree, is defining those boundaries with exactness. Therefore you tread near them with risk. TR knows this but wants to use it to his advantage by crying unfairness. He deliberately sets out to be controversial knowing there will be a response. Even the name of his organisation is provocative yet can be argued as having no provocative intent. -
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
Well the LS case for starters. What do you think the last guy arrested for violating the old blasphemy laws was doing? I'll give you a hint. He was handing out pamphlets.
Ultimately any criticism is liable to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction. How are you supposed to criticise something without offending someone or pissing them off, particularly if they're fanatics?
Still missing the point that LS was trying to enter the country. She held no right of entry. Now what happened after they questioned her? Was she brought before the courts to have her 'crime' tested? No. She was denied entry.
I tried to explain it simply before. If border control THINK you MAY cause a problem, they will deny entry. If they THINK you MAY intend to enter the country to deliberately cause problems they will hold you to investigate whether their suspicions meet the definition of a crime. Different level of application to the average person in the street.
I actually agree that use of terrorism laws in her case were overkill and unnecessary but that is the tool they can get away with using because it gets to be untested in court. However it is use of the tool itself that is wrong not the intention of the law behind it.They used the terrorism laws in her case as a delaying tactics, while they searched for a reason to deny her. They admitted in a call (recorded) to her father that they didn’t think she was a terrorist or in anyway related to terrorism.
The fact they can misapply a law like this without an repercussions should alarm you.
It doesn't alarm me, it annoys me. And the misuse of this type of law whether in the UK, US or even NZ is why so many of those horrid leftie types rail against them. Hand authorities tools like this and they most definitely play with them. I stated earlier that it was a misuse and an over-reach.
The difference is that I don't think any of these actions are being done as some kind of govt plan to avoid insulting Muslims at all costs. They are because of power misuse and incorrect interpretation of laws that are still having their boundaries defined.Which leads me to the actual law they used to deny entry, that her pamphlets were racist so they used that hate speech law. Despite her pamphlets having nothing to do with race.
So we can argue about the laws and there intents forever and a day, but if the authorities just make stuff up then what sort of society does that lead to?
Do you mean The Religious and Racial Hatred Act? Agree that you can argue the detail over whether something 'against' Muslims is religious or racist but the act covers both anyway. They aren't making stuff up. They may be pushing the boundaries but not inventing something that isn't there.
If people on the extreme end of Islam get upset by things people say, and get violent, arrest them.
Absolutely. But there also needs to be a boundary set on what is acceptable wind up material and what isn't. I don't see there is a problem in having laws against inciting violence. Finding that boundary as a clear line though is difficult. People like TR enjoy walking along that boundary, jeering at the guards to have a shot at them, then get indignant and self righteous when it happens.
I see no difference in what TR and co are doing to say, John Minto or even Kim Dotcom. Poking the bear but complaining when the bear snarls back.I guess the difference for me does boil down to ideology. Some folk are happy to ignore (or admire) TRs tactics because of the underlying key point of his message. I agree with some key elements of what he says but dislike his methods. e.g. lumping everyone in a group in with the bad elements to incite a response then saying 'I didn't mean everyone'. A tactic I myself was accused of earlier in the thread. Maybe, Iike me, he doesn't see that is how it comes across, but it does come across that way. See the 'banned interview' (a stupid title in the first place) where he continually talks about 'Muslims' rather than targeting 'a bad group acting out of archaic fundamentalist views within their religion'.
How do you determine what is and isn't acceptable windup material? Does it depend on when the group in question is likely to respond with violence? The Mormons have a musical mocking them but I assume that would be "poking the bear" for a certain other religion. Finding the boundary isn't difficult, it's impossible.
Did you read the freedom of speech exemptions in the act?
If TR and co really feel that they are being treated outside of these provisions then they have the options of the courts. Some legal interpretations of the act say that given the free speech exemptions gaining a prosecution is near impossible anyway.
What is your alternative? Free speech with no boundaries/consequences? That is quite anarchist.
No it isn't. The US seem to be doing just fine. I draw the line at defamation for example, but defaming some else's God. Get real.
Are you saying that the US upholds free speech without boundaries? And asking me to get real about it?
Those exemptions do look pretty solid on paper, so what part of the Act are people getting done for?
I asked the same question myself earlier to posts decrying the law itself rather than the use of it.
Edit: here's a table of prosecutions advanced and whether they succeeded or not https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/616804/foi-110728-racial-religious-hatred-act-2006-prosecutions-tables.xlsx
And here is the CPA prosecution guidance https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance
British Politics