England Jails Homophobes

[Gerishnakov]

Snip

Calling for violence against a group based on sexuality is a crime under British law, there is no irony in jailing people for calling violence against a group of people because of their sexuality.

You mention that they were just 'calling for the death penalty for homosexuals'. Newsflash: That's one and the same as my first point.

It's not the same as calling for tougher sentences for murders or active paedophiles (I really wish more people would spell that correctly), because those people are criminals. We are all well within our rights to discuss sentencing policy for those people. Are you trying to say that committing 'homosexual acts' is a crime? It's not, that was decriminalised in the 1960s.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Snip

Calling for violence against a group based on sexuality is a crime under British law, there is no irony in jailing people for calling violence against a group of people because of their sexuality.

You mention that they were just 'calling for the death penalty for homosexuals'. Newsflash: That's one and the same as my first point.

It's not the same as calling for tougher sentences for murders or active paedophiles (I really wish more people would spell that correctly), because those people are criminals. We are all well within our rights to discuss sentencing policy for those people. Are you trying to say that committing 'homosexual acts' is a crime? It's not, that was decriminalised in the 1960s.

I'm not saying what these douche bags did wasn't against English law (it was). I'm saying it shouldn't be.

But I do find it interesting that you say "we are well within our rights to discuss sentencing policy for those people"--people we have decided are criminals. How does something become a crime if no one talks about it? You are saying it's okay to talk about crime and punishment of an act AFTER it's been made illegal, but you can't talk about MAKING the law in the first place. Laws are constantly made and what is and isn't 'okay' is always changing. For example, at one point in time, people campaigning against having sex with children were in the minority--it perfectly normal for grown men to take a child as their partner. As such, anyone yelling and shouting about how appalling and disgusting that was, at the time, would be seen exactly the same as we are seeing these men.

Although they went about it in the worst way, I don't believe they did anything wrong personally. If they were encouraging people to actually do the things described to gay people on the street, that's different. I feel they were speaking of what SHOULD be done to them under law. They believe homosexuality is a crime and should be punished with death--a violent death, at that. Some people believe rape is a crime and should be punished with death. Just because homosexuality is a sensitive topic and we don't want to hurt gay people's feelings doesn't mean anything. If someone did exactly what these guys did, but did it in regards to heterosexuality, not a single person would care.

I'm not against homosexuality, btw. Wanna make that clear. I only recently got out of a relationship with a same sex partner.

I won't be able to reply for a while if you respond to this comment, sorry. Not bailing out of any discussion, but I've gotta hit the hay.

EDIT: when I say they believe homosexuality should be punished with death, I mean a death sentence, not a group of guys deciding to do it themselves. They seem to want the courts to convict them and sentence them to execution via those means. Which is insane, but in my eyes, no different than wanting anything else criminalized and punishable with incarceration or a regular death penalty. Just... crazier, lol.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

So those would-be terrorists

How are they would-be terrorists? Deluded and immoral, yeah. Believing Sharia law is the best law doesn't make you a terrorist. If you follow that train of thought, to them, you are a terrorist for believing your law is the best law.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

People would be arrested too if they handed out leaflets saying "I feel offended by the existance of Muslims. Kill all Muslims!"

Oh, and they didn't say "kill gay people." They said "gay people should be killed" in regardless to a death sentence.

There is a fine line of difference, but an important one. One is requesting a law be made that would result in a death sentence, while the other is requesting murder on the streets.

The equivalent would be "Being Muslim is an offense. They should be arrested and executed via hanging" etc., etc.

 

[geK0]

It's not really an arrest for homophobia, more for endorsing/conspiring murder. This would have been just as bad with ANY motivation (ie. if they endorsed the killing of aldulturers, thieves or even murderers)

 

[Melon Hunter]

Snip

Calling for violence against a group based on sexuality is a crime under British law, there is no irony in jailing people for calling violence against a group of people because of their sexuality.

You mention that they were just 'calling for the death penalty for homosexuals'. Newsflash: That's one and the same as my first point.

It's not the same as calling for tougher sentences for murders or active paedophiles (I really wish more people would spell that correctly), because those people are criminals. We are all well within our rights to discuss sentencing policy for those people. Are you trying to say that committing 'homosexual acts' is a crime? It's not, that was decriminalised in the 1960s.

I'm not saying what these douche bags did wasn't against English law (it was). I'm saying it shouldn't be.

But I do find it interesting that you say "we are well within our rights to discuss sentencing policy for those people"--people we have decided are criminals. How does something become a crime if no one talks about it? You are saying it's okay to talk about crime and punishment of an act AFTER it's been made illegal, but you can't talk about MAKING the law in the first place. Laws are constantly made and what is and isn't 'okay' is always changing. For example, at one point in time, people campaigning against having sex with children were in the minority--it perfectly normal for grown men to take a child as their partner. As such, anyone yelling and shouting about how appalling and disgusting that was, at the time, would be seen exactly the same as we are seeing these men.

Although they went about it in the worst way, I don't believe they did anything wrong personally. If they were encouraging people to actually do the things described to gay people on the street, that's different. I feel they were speaking of what SHOULD be done to them under law. They believe homosexuality is a crime and should be punished with death--a violent death, at that. Some people believe rape is a crime and should be punished with death. Just because homosexuality is a sensitive topic and we don't want to hurt gay people's feelings doesn't mean anything. If someone did exactly what these guys did, but did it in regards to heterosexuality, not a single person would care.

I'm not against homosexuality, btw. Wanna make that clear. I only recently got out of a relationship with a same sex partner.

I won't be able to reply for a while if you respond to this comment, sorry. Not bailing out of any discussion, but I've gotta hit the hay.

You keep making these points about how 'wrong' it is for British law to make hate speech illegal, and I don't think you really understand why.

Britain has some very different cultural views on free speech to America, where most of this forum's views seem to be based. America, thanks to the First Amendment, enshrines the rights and freedoms of the individual; free speech is first and foremost, and the idea of one's speech being censored is anathema to the American psyche, regardless of how hateful it is.

Britain, on the other hand, places far more emphasis on the individual's role in society and tolerance. This is why, unlike other European countries, fascism and the Far Right have never taken off in this country, ever since the days of Oswald Mosely - it simply is not something the British people are interested in. This is why, unlike France, we allow multiculturalism and don't pass laws banning the hijab, because the British way is to tolerate differences.

This is why hate speech based on race, gender and sexual orientation is illegal in Britain - it is not OK. It is not an exercise of free speech to call for the deaths of homosexuals. It is an outright abuse. This is why people who say such things as the men you have mentioned are jailed, because they are a threat to society and must be punished as the law states.

And it is not OK to sit there and start denouncing laws that you don't fully understand, particularly with such utterly facetious arguments like comparing homosexuality to paedophilia, or saying 'if this was said about heterosexuality, no one would care'. The hate speech laws recognise that there are limits to one's right to free speech, and to use it to oppress another portion of society is an outright abuse of that right. We have moved on from the days where your place in society was decided by the colour of your skin, or what genitalia you have, or what gender(s) you're attracted to, and people calling for a return to those days in such a violent and aggressive way as these men have deserve to be removed from society just like any other criminal. I would have thought you of all people on this forum would understand that.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Whether or not they were campaigning for homosexuals' execution under law, it was still infringing on other people's rights and inciting hatred. THAT is against the law, so it's good that they were jailed. I mean, what if one of these man handed a leaflet to his friend, who got into his head that he should "take the law into his own hands" if the government aren't doing anything about it and kill a homosexual himself.

This isn't comparable to a campaign for rapists to be executed, because rape IS illegal and those convicted of rape are arrested and put into jail. Homosexuality was made legal YEARS ago, therefore trying to persuade people to persecute and kill human beings that actually haven't committed a crime (and, in the process, frightening many people in your community) is more than suitable grounds to throw them into jail.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

This is what happens when you let the government regulate what people can and can't say.

It's all fun and games until suddenly YOUR ideology becomes one of the unacceptable ones. Enjoy your future jail time for doing nothing except speaking your mind.

 

[Realitycrash]

Yeah..If you hand out leaflets calling for the murder of X public group, you deserve to get arrested. I don't see the problem here.

 

[Realitycrash]

This is what happens when you let the government regulate what people can and can't say.

It's all fun and games until suddenly YOUR ideology becomes one of the unacceptable ones. Enjoy your future jail time for doing nothing except speaking your mind.

I don't care what you do, if you use your freedom to say that another group in the same society should be killed, whatever that group may be, you don't deserve your freedom.
If you honestly think this is correct, I fear for whatever other values you may have. Encouraging a criminal act is not protected by the right to free speech.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

This is what happens when you let the government regulate what people can and can't say.

It's all fun and games until suddenly YOUR ideology becomes one of the unacceptable ones. Enjoy your future jail time for doing nothing except speaking your mind.

I don't care what you do, if you use your freedom to say that another group in the same society should be killed, whatever that group may be, you don't deserve your freedom.
If you honestly think this is correct, I fear for whatever other values you may have.

I think murderers should be executed. So I deserve to go to jail because of my opinion?

Yeah, I think you're the one who belongs in a jail (actually, a mental asylum would be more fitting). Ditto for the values, though instead of fear you'd probably just disgust me.

So hypocritical. You have no problem taking away the freedom of people who disagree with you, but can't see why that's basically setting the groundwork that makes it okay for them to do the same.

 

[Trivun]

Speaking as a bi guy, I don't see why homophobia should be made illegal or anything. But I will never approve of hate speech, against any group, so seeing these guys get sent down is a definite good thing. Also, speaking as a Brit, it's nice to see our justice system actually doing something good, instead of either letting criminals off the hook or sending them to America for 'crimes' they haven't even committed by UK law

 

[Realitycrash]

This is what happens when you let the government regulate what people can and can't say.

It's all fun and games until suddenly YOUR ideology becomes one of the unacceptable ones. Enjoy your future jail time for doing nothing except speaking your mind.

I don't care what you do, if you use your freedom to say that another group in the same society should be killed, whatever that group may be, you don't deserve your freedom.
If you honestly think this is correct, I fear for whatever other values you may have.

I think murderers should be executed. So I deserve to go to jail because of my opinion?

Yeah, I think you're the one who belongs in a jail (actually, a mental asylum would be more fitting). Ditto for the values, though instead of fear you'd probably just disgust me.

So hypocritical. You have no problem taking away the freedom of people who disagree with you, but can't see why that's basically setting the groundwork that makes it okay for them to do the same.

No, you can feel free to have an opinion about the death-penelty. If you go out in the street and say "X person should be murdered in a non-legitimate way", you should be arrested.
If, for instance, England criminalises homosexuality, then feel free to go ahead and also say "Homosexuals should be put to death, not just put in jail".

I have no problem with taking away a lot of freedoms, no. I also know what is allowed and not allowed in a democracy.

 

[Blind Sight]

Would be nice to be actually able to read the pamphlets on the site but it's blurred out, the article kind of goes back and forth on whether they're arguing for street violence or a recriminalization of homosexuality.

 

[Freechoice]

This is why de facto law is better than de jure law.

 

[Gigano]

Well, as they were engaging in a real and specific instance of incitement of violence[footnote]Had they called for democratically passed legislation, then it should've been protected speech; But any reference here to "legality" would obviously be to Sharia law. If you're going to demand that people be killed, then the burden is on you to qualify that it should not at any point happen in conflict with the laws of land. Something these guys failed at.[/footnote] such convictions seems justifiable.

A sentence of 2 years is disproportional though. One could break somebody's arm and get away with less.