-
@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 They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.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.
-
The horrific explosive interview that the UK border police tried to stop by holding an American journalist in detainment for 3 days.
Actually gives you a brief run down of Tommy's experiences and explains what he was legally prevented from talking about at his Oxford university talk.
-
@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:
@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.
The problem with these laws is that they cannot be clearly defined. What is offensive is in the eye of the beholder, so there's no way you can come up with anything that is even remotely tenable to all of society. There's basically no way you can have free speech without people being offended, which is what hate speech laws come down to.
And as we see everywhere these types of laws are implemented, the type of people that care about and end up defining these laws are exactly the type of people you DON'T want to do so.
Even enciting violence laws are probably too open to interpretation, let alone nonense hate speech laws.
-
@no-quarter 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:
@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.
The problem with these laws is that they cannot be clearly defined. What is offensive is in the eye of the beholder, so there's no way you can come up with anything that is even remotely tenable to all of society. There's basically no way you can have free speech without people being offended, which is what hate speech laws come down to.
And as we see everywhere these types of laws are implemented, the type of people that care about and end up defining these laws are exactly the type of people you DON'T want to do so.
Even enciting violence laws are probably too open to interpretation, let alone nonense hate speech laws.
Can I ask if you have read the wording of the law in question?
It isn't a law against speech it is a law against speech that sets out to cause major problems. I agree that it is hard to get this kind of thing written and defined well and the UK has taken the path (which is th standard one in their system of lawmaking) of letting the courts refine definitions and boundaries.
The people who define these laws are the judiciary. They aren't always the most perfect bunch of humans but do they really fit the definition of 'exactly the type of people you DONT want to do so?'
There are always misuses of new law as the boundaries are defined. It is a, sometimes unpalatable, part of the system. -
@Crucial parliament defines laws. They are the people I am really not comfortable deciding what is/is not OK in terms of speech.
The judiciary attempts to interpret and apply said law. In this case, the law is impossible to interpret as who gets to decide what is "too offensive"?. And more importantly, it is a law that encroaches on the most important, fundamental human right, without which we would not have the amazing society that we live in today.
It's an important issue, as any country where speech is heavily controlled by the government is not a country you or I would want to live. People are right to make a big deal of its inadequacies, and I don't buy the "it will evolve" argument as 1. I don't think I want to see where it evolves too, and 2. it is impossible to write it in a way that is able to be interpreted and applied in a consistent way.
The idea of free speech is not to protect popular ideas, it's there to protect unpopular ideas. Hate speech laws will always be in conflict with free speech.
-
@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.
British Politics