-
@jegga said in British Politics:
@crucial I think the point they were making was that the law is effectively being used as a blasphemy law since this case is involving religion and seems to only ever involve Islam.
I could be wrong , that was my take though.
Yep, they used the terrorism act as defacto blasphemy laws - applied only for Islam.
-
@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 They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
-
@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. -
@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.
-
@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. -
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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?
-
This reminds me of an old Viz comic I read. The young lad was staying with his aunt who made a good living offering illegal coathanger abortions. Unfortunately the local teacher was big on family planning and contraception and business was slow. So the young lad got in contact with the local Catholic priest (obviously against contraception) who was more than happy to supply his massive stash of kidy porn to frame the teacher. I found that bloody hilarious and I have an uncle who is a priest.
Now the entire point of that is to mock and offend the Catholic Church, i.e a billion or so people. Why wasn't this banned? Well obviously because other than maybe sending an angry letter, no Catholic will do anything about it. There will be no repercussions. So that's cool. But do something similar to a certain other religion and you need to go into hiding.
Now maybe it's just me, but I would have thought the best (certainly not the easiest but by far the best for our Western values) would be to crack down on those who will commit violence if offended. That should be stamped out and made completely unacceptable in a nation governed by secular law. But no, the authorities are going in the other direction and targeting those causing offence. Maybe that's the easiest option, at least in the short term, but it's completely unacceptable in a modern western nation. If people can hand out pamphlets in the street calling for the end of capitalism or advocating anarchy, then surely they should be allowed to hand out pamphlets mocking a religion. The sole reason is because of violence and that is completely unacceptable regardless of how contemptable the person handing these pamphlets out may be.
-
@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?
There’s the rub. The last para. Any pretence at free speech leaves the door open for people to get offended. The hate speech laws are supposed to draw a line of what is acceptable and what is not, however as @Crucial says, the framework around those laws is still being formed. That is to be expected. The very real problem we currently have is that there is little balance in the way the authorities are using the laws.
-
@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. -
@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.What were the intentions of the blasphemy laws?
-
@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:
@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.What were the intentions of the blasphemy laws?
I would guess that would depend on how far you go back. Originally to protect the word of God I would guess. Then to maintain the hegemony of the church?
-
@catogrande 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:
@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.What were the intentions of the blasphemy laws?
I would guess that would depend on how far you go back. Originally to protect the word of God I would guess. Then to maintain the hegemony of the church?
In other words, control.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@catogrande 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:
@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.What were the intentions of the blasphemy laws?
I would guess that would depend on how far you go back. Originally to protect the word of God I would guess. Then to maintain the hegemony of the church?
In other words, control.
Originally more literal in taking the Lord’s name in vain and such but I don’t see that it took too long to be subverted. So yeah IMO you’re right.
-
@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:
@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.What were the intentions of the blasphemy laws?
The old ones? Something archaic and based on one belief only that needed repealing and replacing, which is what was done.
If you mean The Racial and Religious Hatred Act then the intent was probably to meet obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. According to Wikipedia this obliges countries to "adopt legislative measures against "any advocacy of national racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."". The UK laws also added in discrimination against those having no religious beliefs.
You mentioned the last arrest under the old laws. My quick research (again Wikipedia) says this...
The last attempted prosecution under these laws was in 2007 when the evangelical group Christian Voice sought a private prosecution against the BBC over its broadcasting of the show Jerry Springer: The Opera (which includes a scene depicting Jesus, dressed as a baby, professing to be "a bit gay"). The charges were rejected by the City of Westminster magistrates court. Christian Voice applied to have this ruling overturned by the High Court, but the application was rejected. The court found that the common law blasphemy offences specifically did not apply to stage productions (s. 2(4) of the Theatres Act 1968) and broadcasts (s. 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990).[169][170] -
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@catogrande 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:
@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.What were the intentions of the blasphemy laws?
I would guess that would depend on how far you go back. Originally to protect the word of God I would guess. Then to maintain the hegemony of the church?
In other words, control.
The given reasoning was that as the law was based on christianity then attacks on the religion are attacks on the law. Yes, a means to control. But, hey, those laws do not exist now.
-
@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:
@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.What were the intentions of the blasphemy laws?
The old ones? Something archaic and based on one belief only that needed repealing and replacing, which is what was done.
If you mean The Racial and Religious Hatred Act then the intent was probably to meet obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. According to Wikipedia this obliges countries to "adopt legislative measures against "any advocacy of national racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."". The UK laws also added in discrimination against those having no religious beliefs.
You mentioned the last arrest under the old laws. My quick research (again Wikipedia) says this...
The last attempted prosecution under these laws was in 2007 when the evangelical group Christian Voice sought a private prosecution against the BBC over its broadcasting of the show Jerry Springer: The Opera (which includes a scene depicting Jesus, dressed as a baby, professing to be "a bit gay"). The charges were rejected by the City of Westminster magistrates court. Christian Voice applied to have this ruling overturned by the High Court, but the application was rejected. The court found that the common law blasphemy offences specifically did not apply to stage productions (s. 2(4) of the Theatres Act 1968) and broadcasts (s. 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990).[169][170]Erm that's not an arrest Crucial.
British Politics