England Jails Homophobes

[Grey Day for Elcia]

But why? Why protect them?

Because what happens when your opinion is the minority? What happens when everyone thinks your wrong? Do they get to demand you be silenced because they think your hateful or flat-out wrong?

Just because you don't agree with them and won't lose anything by them behind forced to shut up, doesn't mean it's okay. Remember: at one point in time, people campaigning for race equality were the extreme minority. Until very recently, saying that gay people should be allowed to get married would be insane--in some places you could easily be jumped in the street for it.

These guys are idiots and I couldn't disagree with them more. But I think they should be legally allowed to say how much they hate gay people and how much they wish they could be executed. Luckily, that some right allows me to loudly proclaim beside them how ignorant, selfish and bigoted they are. That's freedom.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

to be honest you could remove the "homosexual" part and replace it with ANY group of people and they still would have been arrested

also I fail to see any irony in this... if say a group of homosexuals had hanged, stoned or burned to death these guys then it would be ironic... but them going to jail for saying people should kill gays isn't

The irony is in the general context of people being jailed for campaigning against something they say should be criminal.

The irony is also that they will be enjoying some nice penis while in prison...the very thing they were fighting against!

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

to be honest you could remove the "homosexual" part and replace it with ANY group of people and they still would have been arrested

also I fail to see any irony in this... if say a group of homosexuals had hanged, stoned or burned to death these guys then it would be ironic... but them going to jail for saying people should kill gays isn't

The irony is in the general context of people being jailed for campaigning against something they say should be criminal.

The irony is also that they will be enjoying some nice penis while in prison...the very thing they were fighting against!

That's a disgusting thing to even joke about.

Rape =/= funny. In any circumstance.

 

[thePyro_13]

I don't see why we need a specific law foreboding inciting hate against X

Where X is gays or whatever.

Shouldn't it just be an offence to incite hate against any group of people?

 

[Diluted Dante]

People should be free to stand in the street and proclaim their hatred for homosexuals until the cows come home. They should have every right in the world to say they should be arrested and to request they be executed. Filing it under hate speech and rushing to make sure no gay people were upset is offensive as hell. You don't get special treatment because you're a minority. You don't get to make laws that demand no one voices how much they hate you. The world isn't free if if no one is free to hate.

You have every right to publicly declare your hatred for homosexuals. You have every right to say that homosexuality should be a crime, and that the punishment for this should be the death penalty.

The distinction in this case is the manner in which these people went about it. If they had formed a political party, and listed this in their manifesto detailing which laws they planned to repeal, and what new laws they would bring in, they would have been fine.

What you cannot do, is produce material likely to incite hatred in the pursuit of these aims. Aims which in this case there isn't really any evidence to suggest that this group were seriously trying to achieve. The imaginary and wording of the leaflets were incredibly inflammatory, and provided no meaningful discourse. The group also attempted to intimidate people to prevent them from exercising their legal right to vote.

This law is not concerned with protecting minorities. According to the 2001 census, 71.6% of people are Christian. This law protects them, an overwhelming majority. 85.67% of people are White British. This law protects them. It is not affording any minority special treatment. It protects every citizen, across the board. The reverse of this situation would have been replacing homosexuality with heterosexuality (again, an overwhelming majority). The decision would have been exactly the same.

 

[Callate]

I really don't feel that "those people should be killed" ought to be that hard a line to avoid crossing.

"Those people should be socially sanctioned."

"That ought to be illegal."

"That kind of conduct is as bad as murder."

It seems like there's a pretty broad stretch of turf between things like that and

"God would be totally okay if those people were killed. *wink*"

Considering that there is no capital punishment in the UK at present, it's pretty damn hard to see these men's actions as anything less than advocating violence.

 

[Darkmantle]

I'm totally okay with this. Hate crimes like that are illegal, at least here in Canada.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

People should be free to stand in the street and proclaim their hatred for homosexuals until the cows come home. They should have every right in the world to say they should be arrested and to request they be executed. Filing it under hate speech and rushing to make sure no gay people were upset is offensive as hell. You don't get special treatment because you're a minority. You don't get to make laws that demand no one voices how much they hate you. The world isn't free if if no one is free to hate.

You have every right to publicly declare your hatred for homosexuals. You have every right to say that homosexuality should be a crime, and that the punishment for this should be the death penalty.

The distinction in this case is the manner in which these people went about it. If they had formed a political party, and listed this in their manifesto detailing which laws they planned to repeal, and what new laws they would bring in, they would have been fine.

What you cannot do, is produce material likely to incite hatred in the pursuit of these aims. Aims which in this case there isn't really any evidence to suggest that this group were seriously trying to achieve. The imaginary and wording of the leaflets were incredibly inflammatory, and provided no meaningful discourse. The group also attempted to intimidate people to prevent them from exercising their legal right to vote.

This law is not concerned with protecting minorities. According to the 2001 census, 71.6% of people are Christian. This law protects them, an overwhelming majority. 85.67% of people are White British. This law protects them. It is not affording any minority special treatment. It protects every citizen, across the board. The reverse of this situation would have been replacing homosexuality with heterosexuality (again, an overwhelming majority). The decision would have been exactly the same.

But that's the thing--I believe it should be legal to incite hatred.

 

[Diluted Dante]

You believe that it should be legal for people to create an atmosphere intended to harass and threaten people? Really? It's ok to put people in fear of violence? We're talking rational fear here as well, not the frightened of a dog argument brought up earlier.

 

[Sansha]

You believe that it should be legal for people to create an atmosphere intended to harass and threaten people? Really? It's ok to put people in fear of violence? We're talking rational fear here as well, not the frightened of a dog argument brought up earlier.

Exactly. It shouldn't be acceptable or legal to instill fear of death into people, especially for no other reason than their sexual orientation, race, gender etc. Situations like this can easily elevate into rioting, violence, destruction... remember Kristallnacht?

I support the imprisonment of these men - for one, they deserve it, and the general message to everyone else that this will not stand. I really am sick and tired of hate. I don't know why homophobia and racism still exist.

 

[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.

You mustn't have read any of the 7 pages, then.

No, I didn't. I gave up after the 7th "Oh these guys are jerks. Its good that they're in prison."

Seemed pointless to continue.

Regardless, it's been pointed out to me that this has turned into a discussion on free speech and whatnot.

 

[lacktheknack]

to be honest you could remove the "homosexual" part and replace it with ANY group of people and they still would have been arrested

This is true. I don't see someone handling out pamphlets about how all vegetarians should be hanged by the will of God doing that for very long before the police arrive.

 

[violinist1129]

Whoops

 

[ablac]

Why can't the US do this to the WBC?

Because we don't jail people for unpopular opinions like the "free" nations of Europe do.

I didn't mean just for having the opinion that homosexuals are satanic. Even if it is stupid and narrow-minded, hell it's their opinion and they can have it. I meant for the protests, etc. Those are pretty clearly unjust and I think should be qualified as hate crimes.

Is one truly free if another is allowed to call for his death openly and encourage those around him to harm him? No. Freedom has reasonable limits. True freedom is not just freedom to behave how you wish but also freedom from threat.

Isn't that what I said?

Yeah Iwas supporting you now attacking. Sorry I was tired an I wasnt thinking right.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

That's a pretty inflammatory statement right there. Care to explain why it should be legal to go around telling everyone that a certain group of people shouldn't be allowed to live?

Because the collective right of all people to voice their opinion, no matter how much you think it is vulgar, outweighs any offense that may be caused.

I couldn't care less if someone is upset by it. Freedom doesn't have a 'unless the majority don't like to hear it' clause.

Anyone who supports imprisoning people vocally hating homosexuality and calling it disgusting, etc., is sadly missing a blatant irony; when homosexuality was illegal in many places, fighting for gay rights was 'obscene' and 'vulgar' and people didn't want to hear someone marching down the street shouting about how homosexual people deserve equal rights--the very idea was repulsive to most. Why were they allowed to fight for gay rights? Freedom of speech. Just because it's 'okay' to hate on homophobes and just because we--the neutral or pro-gay rights collective--have won the battle to have homosexuality broadly tolerated, doesn't mean we get to pull the plug on free speech and not let anyone else have their say--no matter how much you hate it.

Go ahead, hate whoever you want. March down the streets and tell us all how much you think bigots should be executed, or how rapists need a death sentence; tell us how much you hate Christianity or how certain you are that hippies are going to Hell. Don't expect to gain many friends, but go right ahead.

It's a disgraceful idea to think people want to not allow others from voicing their ideals just because we don't want to hear it. My sexuality is a mystery to myself, but I've dated a lot of people and would be a target for these people to want me executed. That sucks. But so what? They don't get to speak their mind because I might get hurt feelings? They don't get to have the same rights as the rest of us to state their opinion because I might be scared by it? Tough. The right for everyone to voice their opinion is an order of magnitude more important than having your feelings hurt.

*I'm talking only about speaking hatred here. Inciting violent acts directly--such as saying "let's go murder a gay guy" as opposed to "gay people should be executed"--is a separate matter and I don't support it. There's a fine line, but a firm one.*

 

[ablac]

And this friends, is why Britain is awesome. We actually shut the loud mouth bigots up and lock em in cells if we have to rather than give them a podium and let them run the country.

You think it's awesome because they are locking up people you disagree with. Would your tone change if they started locking up people who were bigoted towards a group you also hold hatred for?

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.

You mustn't have read any of the 7 pages, then.

and if someone was yelling that you should be executed because of your race or sexuality and was listing off how it should be you should simply accept that? It isnt about opinion. These men were calling for a groups death. The law is intended to stop speach leading to violence and perpetuating hatred against a group in such a way is encouraging violence. If they said 'I disagree with gay marriage' or 'I dont believe homosexuals should be allowed to open about it' then thats a non-agrresive opnion. Calling for execution is calling for violence. The law is an extension of the idea that you cannot simply say things like that to others the same way you cant simply yell racist smears at blacks or latinos. Imagine if the KKK did this and then a black guy got shot because of it. Someones now dead because of exercising 'free speech'. An opinion is only deserving of freedom to be spoken if it isnt based around threatening someone else. I dont know where your from but look at America. hey have freedom of speech over there in its absolute form. You can say what you like over there. Now look at the relations between races/sexualitys. Notice how much more divided people are. thats because people can say what theyy like and thus hatred is perpetuated. If you stop people from doing that and tell them they are going to have to accept that you cant have x people killed because you dont like them then they shut up or face punishment and normal people are not swayed by their bigotry. Violence isnt an opinion. Encouraging it is the same as doing it.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Imagine if the KKK did this and then a black guy got shot because of it.

Invalid, as no one was hurt--barring the men now being imprisoned. You can't create figurative examples and use them as real world examples against something. "Imagine if someone saw Harry Potter and wanted to kill everyone named Harry. We need to ban Harry Potter." That's a silly example (lol) but you get my point; we have to argue the facts, not what we think could have happened.

I guess we will leave the debate there, as I have no intention of relenting and I don't think you wanna switch sides either, lol.

 

[ablac]

Imagine if the KKK did this and then a black guy got shot because of it.

Invalid, as no one was hurt--barring the men now being imprisoned. You can't create figurative examples and use them as real world examples against something. "Imagine if someone saw Harry Potter and wanted to kill everyone named Harry. We need to ban Harry Potter." That's a silly example (lol) but you get my point; we have to argue the facts, not what we think could have happened.

I guess we will leave the debate there, as I have no intention of relenting and I don't think you wanna switch sides either, lol.

Ok so first of all, ever heard of an analogy? and in the analogy it was based on reality and real things which have happened over the past due to free speech (or at least partially). We dont have a codified constitution and thereofore can change any law we want. If this law was such an abuse of free speech it woudlnt exist without opposition. There isnt any real effort to change the law so the law isnt a problem. Your analogy was fucking stupid. It bore no relation to what were talking about and is a good demonstration of how little you know about this law before arguing against it. Encouraging violence is not acceptable. Just because its someones opinion doesnt mean it should be allowed. It makes discussion and a real resolution to these issues impossible to achieve. Also you seem to think that if it didnt happen then it cant happen. That someone needs to die before a law should exist to stop the cause, hatred. You cant encourage violence. To say encouraging violence does not lead to violence is completely ignorant and naive. Free speech does not mean you have a right to yell death threats. Just because they're at a large group of people does not mean it isnt a threat against the individuals in the group.