England Jails Homophobes

[ElPatron]

Look, every single example you gave was of a group working within the system to try and put their (in some cases awful) views into law. This does *NOT* describe the homophobes in the article. They did not form a political party. They did not try to work within the system. They threatened and bullied people, and they got exactly what they deserved.

Yet nobody talks about the threats or bullying. Only that they tried to legalize something they see as "right".

The Piratepartied did not come from thin air. They had to meet other people with the same opinions and group them.

If you consider that "not working within the system" then basically no party should be allowed.

There are somethings that have been culturally decided that are just not okay to ask for.

I seriously don't give a monkey's about their religion.

I am against "cultural decisions". It is logical to not ask for it, yet it should not be prohibited.

The party's manifesto advocated reducing the school leaving age to nine, the annexation of France, and the reintroduction of hanging, but only for "minor offences" such as littering. By contrast, murderers would be disembowelled, along with improper users of text language. The proposed rate of tax was 90%. Immigrants would be repelled with boiling oil and longbows at all ports and airports.

Oh, I get it. Satire.

Will those three dudes get away with it if they claim they were "role playing"?

 

[Muspelheim]

Jolly well, glad to see there are indeed judges with their heads screwed on correctly.

Yes, you have freedom of speech, but that also entails responsibility, not just the liberty to spew out whatever you like without a consequence. There are boundries, and these possible time-travellers from the iron-age have overstepped them.

 

[MC K-Mac]

Look, every single example you gave was of a group working within the system to try and put their (in some cases awful) views into law. This does *NOT* describe the homophobes in the article. They did not form a political party. They did not try to work within the system. They threatened and bullied people, and they got exactly what they deserved.

Yet nobody talks about the threats or bullying. Only that they tried to legalize something they see as "right".

Ahem. From the article:

"Sentencing the men today, Judge John Burgess, Recorder of Derby, told them: 'You have been convicted of intending to stir up hatred.

'It follows that your intention was to do great harm in a peaceful community.'"

" Moderate Muslim leaders who spoke out against the group's activities were targeted in a hate campaign in which their faces were printed on 'wanted' posters;

Police had to be called during local elections because the group's supporters were standing guard at polling stations, ordering Muslims not to vote."

"During the trial, the court heard how the group's activities intimidated residents and left gay people frightened to walk on the streets."

You did read it, right?

The Piratepartied did not come from thin air. They had to meet other people with the same opinions and group them.

If you consider that "not working within the system" then basically no party should be allowed.

This is getting stupid. You're equating "meet other people with the same opinions and group them" with calling for the death by hanging or stoning of all homosexuals? Really? Really?

 

[Aur0ra145]

Have a gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Effectively, the most important part is 'In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.' So, the decision was made on the basis that the pamphlets distributed called for the execution of gays in a way that was threatening, i.e. listing how they should be killed, very loudly and publicly. A judge would be required to make the final decision as to whether something deserved the label of 'hate speech', but that's the case for pretty much any legislation you can think of.

Being jailed for a spoken death threat isn't ridiculous, and isn't anything to do with reveling secrets. Why should it be if that threat was sized up to a whole section of society?

Thank you for the link, it was very informational.

I guess my next question is, is it allowable to campaign openly for a war to be started? I.e., let's take the Falklands back, etc.

Well, I guess yeah. At some points it could seem so. Of course how is revealing state or military secrets bad? Because it harms people right? So does hate speech, in a fashion. These men wanted the execution of all homosexuals. I hope no one contests that it's pretty vile thing to say. That's why in the UK you can be jailed for hate speech. The U.S is one of the few countries where hate speech is legal.

Perhaps for you it's ridiculous. For people in the UK however, it might not be. Things are done differently, maybe for the better or maybe for the worse. The laws are different in the UK, and you can't deride the UK for it's laws without someone deriding America for it's acceptance of vile hatred. Nothing that justifies calling the UK a prototype for Oceania. The same could be said for the U.S which has jailed people for suspicions of being a terrorist.

The U.S is not a better, more just country than the rest of the developed world and we'll do well to remember that.

I see your points, and though I don't necessarily agree with all of them, they are valid. I can understand how someone would feel threatened by such rampant speech.

However, I live in America and I do come across a lot of hate speech. Honestly, I'm really good at tuning people out when they are crazy. So I may have an unrealistic expectation of others to move along without being bothered and without crying to the government for assistance.

However, I'm pretty certain it was more the death threats and the fact that they really scared people, than the homophobia that got these guys arrested.

I think you're right about that.

Also, for me to continue discussion on this topic I need to read a lot about the UK court system. Any pointers on where to start?

 

[Darth_Dude]

What's the point of this thread again?

Apart from everyone hating on these guys (no problem with that), this thread doesn't seem to have any discussion value.

 

[ElPatron]

copy pasta from news piece

I meant that this thread seems more focused on congratulating the UK for drowning the freedom of speech than actually just accepting that they did it in a fashion that disturbed the public.

This is getting stupid. You're equating "meet other people with the same opinions and group them" with calling for the death by hanging or stoning of all homosexuals? Really? Really?

What makes it so different from going to the street and trying to convince people to legalize piracy, marijuana, or even pedophilia? (that Dutch party needed the signatures, didn't they?)

I have been asked for so much weird shit on the street that I think that "sign here to make homosexuality illegal and let the populace help carrying out the sentence" should not be worth the jail time.

 

[Narfo]

The group handed out the material in the street as well as posting it through letterboxes in a hate-filled campaign calling for the execution of gay people who they claimed were at the root of society's problems.

I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I read this. Anyone who claims that a any one group/thing is the "root of all evil" is an assuming dipshit who should be publicly laughed at.

The only time an argument like this can come close to being true is when that group has been shown to be TRYING to cause harm and damage. Even then, it's still a stupid statement.

 

[Naeras]

What's the point of this thread again?

Apart from everyone hating on these guys (no problem with that), this thread doesn't seem to have any discussion value.

Information.

Also discussion whether or not hate speech and death threats should be illegal or not. People are actually discussing something here, anyhow.

 

[MC K-Mac]

copy pasta from news piece

I meant that this thread seems more focused on congratulating the UK for drowning the freedom of speech than actually just accepting that they did it in a fashion that disturbed the public.

This is getting stupid. You're equating "meet other people with the same opinions and group them" with calling for the death by hanging or stoning of all homosexuals? Really? Really?

What makes it so different from going to the street and trying to convince people to legalize piracy, marijuana, or even pedophilia? (that Dutch party needed the signatures, didn't they?)

I have been asked for so much weird shit on the street that I think that "sign here to make homosexuality illegal and let the populace help carrying out the sentence" should not be worth the jail time.

All right, ElPatron, I am officially done arguing with you. Only on the Internet could you find someone that, while sort of addressing certain sentences you write, completely and utterly misses the overall point. However, you seem like an OK sort, so I will wish you a good day. Just one request before I go: would you please, please tell me that you don't think killing all gay people is a good idea? Please? It's necessary for my peace of mind.

 

[srm79]

The guys are wankers, of that I have no doubt, lol. But I'm not too keen on going down a road of "don't upset people".

It's been going on in this country for years for fuck's sake. Usually it's the minorities we're taking extreme care not to upset. Usually at the expense of common sense too.

 

[Frostbyte666]

Hmm I wonder if we could coax Westboro over here and then arrest and jail them for hate mongering...

Still have to say it is a good thing they are arrested as free speech only goes so far since words actually do hurt. If your free speech is to try and incite others to cause violence against people causing them to fear for their lives then the hatemongerers have no place in civilised society and I'm sick of the criminal being treated better than the victims.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

I did substantiate my argument. It's not my fault you're too stupid to pick up on it. I was illustrating the stupidity of calling the homophobes' actions civilized and democratic via an analogy.

Yes they ARE promoting individual violence against you and me, if we're both gay (for the sake of argument, let's say we are). Newsflash: advocating the death of a certain group of people is promoting violence against all individuals who are members of that group.

"it's not a direct threat as long as their opinions don't become law"??? What bullshittery is that? "Officer, that man threatened to kill me!" "Well sir, that death threat hasn't become law yet, so we can't charge him."

There, I've just explained to you why your views are wrong and now I will move on.

How?

Is there no difference between saying "people should be punished for using pot by law" and going out and attacking people who use it?

Death threats are an independent crime, but there's a major difference between threat to do something and proposing the government do something.

Similarly there is a major difference between saying "you should go to jail for that" and threatening to kidnap somebody as retribution for something they did.

Yes, we may not like the opinion, but why should he be legally be prevented from expressing them. That's the point.

 

[Versuvius]

Hmm I wonder if we could coax Westboro over here and then arrest and jail them for hate mongering...

Still have to say it is a good thing they are arrested as free speech only goes so far since words actually do hurt. If your free speech is to try and incite others to cause violence against people causing them to fear for their lives then the hatemongerers have no place in civilised society and I'm sick of the criminal being treated better than the victims.

The Westboro guy is banned from the country. If i remember right they wanted to do their koran burning over here, or A burning. The government responded with a resounding "mmmno".

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

As Melon Hunter said, in Britain, we have different ideas about freedom of speech than you do in America. Does that make us wrong? It's not like America has total freedom of speech either, slander, libel and death threats are still illegal.
Thanks to British hate speech laws, we have never had a powerful far-right fascist political party and we have far fewer people like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church here, and that makes me happy.

I'm sorry, but:

-- KKK has committed far more crimes than hate speech. It's not the freedom of speech that protects them.

-- You basically said "I want freedom of speech to be restricted except to myself and people I agree with".

See the last point is an arguement i see often but always comes across as a straw man. Im FINE with apposing views. Views that lead to the mistreatment, abuse and discrimination against others are NOT ok. Remember when the majority thought it was ok to make black people slaves? Democracy is a double egded blade. Sometimes some things are so wrong that no matter how many people agree it should ALWAYS be illegal. This extends to the mass execution of innocent people. As such campaigning for such a change is not protected by free speech. Offer any view that cant be considered a war cime by any means. Or is comparable to hitlers acts. And the mass slaughter of gays is most certainly comparable.

 

[CoffeeBoy]

I have read some posts describing the distribution of these leaflets as a misguided attempt to change a law. I have listed a few ways in which this comparison fails.

1. This was not an attempt to change a law, as there is no law against homosexuality. They may have been in the right to start such a campaign. Instead, they started a campaign to get a local populace to approve of the execution of homosexuals.

2. Laws are written to punish/rehabilitate people for what they do, not for who they are. This was not a campaign to criminalize homosexuality but to execute homosexuals.

3. The United Kingdom does not execute its criminals. Calling for the execution of someone in Britain is calling for action outside of the British legal system.

Additionally, while the trio claimed that they were merely spreading the message of their religion by citing passages from a religious texts, the inclusion of 'the only question is how it should be carried out' was not a historical citation but a call for action, specifically the execution of homosexuals. This was a clear case of attempting to incite violence (execution) against a group for who they are not what they do.

 

[hawkeye52]

"Hate speech" laws are bad because they are thought crime laws, and the government in power gets to determine what is or isn't a thought crime.

Stop there.

This isn't a "Thought crime" because if it were then we would have up to half of England in jail. Thought crime implies that by merely holding a belief you are guilty of the act of inciting racial hatred/violence etc etc and oddly enough this isn't actually illegal. You can hold as many xenophobic/homophobic/?????phobic beliefs as you want. You can even freely converse with others in private about your beliefs. In legal terms what you have here is a mens rea but no actus reus which cannot be a crime.

To get said actus reus and therefore make it a crime is where you go out and start actively publicising and promoting your beliefs on the public forum and where those beliefs are dangerous to another (in this case its homosexuals specifically) then it becomes a crime because you held a belief and acted upon it and therefore now have actus reus with that mens rea. This is what these people did and hence why they are locked away.

To define the difference between a dangerous belief and a non dangerous one is where its key though because this is your whole "what beliefs the government deems legal". Lets make this as simple as possible and say Person "A" hates person "B" because "A" finds the practice of "Z" immoral and "B" practices or is "Z". Now this is not dangerous in itself because you can hate whoever the fuck you want and not face any reprocussions. You can even inverse the situation and have "B" hating "A" because "A" doesn't do "Z" and it still not be a problem. The problem lies where when say for example "A" goes out and starts pubclising and advertising and otherwise pushing his opinion down everyone elses throat in a public as opposed to private area that "B" is a horrible person because he is "Z". That is where it starts getting dangerous and becomes a crime because one person is detrimenting another for no other reason because he is "Z". This is the reason why Religion as a whole is ok by the government (because they don't act on it) but the extremist cults/versions of it aren't (because they do).

If you want a proper act of free speech which was condemned by nearly everyone in the UK and most likely in private including everyone in the government (Although they weren't allowed to voice their opinions on the matter credibly due to the fear of a media reprisal) and had members of the EDL in a bloody rage look no further then the poppy burning of last year on november the 11th. The reason why these people weren't carted off to jail was because the only people this could possibly be against is the memories of dead soldiers and you can't kill memories. Obviously the whole point of this was a protest against the invasions of Iraq and by extension Afghanistan but thats a whole different story since they weren't remembered for that protest just the fact that they dishonered the memories of servicemen. Actually if I remember correctly the Police were there to protect them because the crowd around them was understandably so getting a bit more then fucked off about this issue. Even I was a bit annoyed at this despite the fact that I disagree with the invasions just because these people decided to highlight this issue in the most antagonistic way possible.

As you can see just from the above example and a bit more indepth explanation of the difference between a benign and dangerous belief why these people were imprisoned.
inb4hypocrite

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves...

Such a British response.

[insert hate speech here]

I say, old boy, would you calm the bloody hell down, we don't accept that kind of rudeness around here

[continue hate speech here]

Right, that's it.

[HEADING=1]You're nicked, you slaaaaaaaaaag![/HEADING]