England Jails Homophobes

[PinochetIsMyBro]

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.

 

[MC K-Mac]

There are certain things which are objectively wrong. Inciting hatred and violence against people who have done nothing wrong is one of those things.

I'm pretty sure to these guys that being gay is 'objectively wrong.'

Why is your opinion and system of values any more valid than theirs?

Judging by your username, I'm pretty sure taking anything you say seriously is a waste of time, but what the heck, I'll take a stab at your question:

One "opinion and system of values" advocates the killing millions of innocent people, and one doesn't. Guess which one is more valid?

(Hint: don't ask your "bro" for advice on this one.)

 

[McMullen]

I think that the greatest irony here is that England used to jail people for being homosexual.

Turing ring a bell?

EDIT: Actually, that might not be fair. I'm sure we've jailed people for that too.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

There are certain things which are objectively wrong. Inciting hatred and violence against people who have done nothing wrong is one of those things.

I'm pretty sure to these guys that being gay is 'objectively wrong.'

Why is your opinion and system of values any more valid than theirs?

Judging by your username, I'm pretty sure taking anything you say seriously is a waste of time, but what the heck, I'll take a stab at your question:

One "opinion and system of values" advocates the killing millions of innocent people, and one doesn't. Guess which one is more valid?

(Hint: don't ask your "bro" for advice on this one.)

Except that they're not innocent, as their sexual orientation is viewed as a sin/crime/whatever. Incase you're curious, the correct answer was: both of them are equally valid. One just happens to be more in favor at the moment than the other in this particular country.

Hint: The "my moral high ground is higher" stance is rather pathetic, you shouldn't use it.

As long as we're judging people based on their user names, have you 'busted a cap' in any undeserving 'pigs' lately, dawg?

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

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.

Ahhh, there we go. More of the 'herp derp' comments.

Nice to see things haven't changed that much. Don't think I was quite ready for an entirely sensible Escapist.

Oh come on, 'my nation is freeR than yours' competitions are the highlight of escapist off topic forum discussions.

It beats out the usual leftist circlejerk any day of the week.

 

[Spitfire]

Could've done without the sensationalist title. These gentlemen weren't arrested because of their views on homosexuality; they were arrested because they're a public danger, and it was only a matter of time until they would've hurt someone.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

What exactly are the BNP, Orange Order, Islam4UK, Muslims Against Crusades, and the English Defence League?

 

[MrTub]

I would be behind them being in prison if they were putting around leaflets calling for the `legal` death of any race/religion.

You are trying to make an argument against free speech there. There is nothing wrong with wanting a law to be made, even if it asks for the death penalty. Just because YOU dislike the death penalty (as do I), doesn't mean it's not okay for others to want it.

You are walking down the path of making your own moral law. That's bad. That's what countries that KILL gay people have.

Nooooo. I am simply saying that hate speech (which this was) is not protected and you can be prosecuted for it.
That is what the law is.
It's not my moral law, its the law law.

Inciting hatred against a group (such as gays) is against the law. If a bunch of guys were doing this (and if you read it clearly they certainly were), they shouldn't act suprised when they go to jail.

Inciting hatred against a sexual orientation is only illegal in the UK and only has been for about a month. Inciting VIOLENCE is illegal in more places.

It's illegal in Sweden as well. A pastor was jailed for calling homosexuals a plague and such while preaching.

 

[DarkRyter]

Aw man.

Leaflets.

Leaflets are truly the face of EVIL.

 

[dragonswarrior]

This law is very new and only exists in the UK. I don't see it lasting long.

I definitely hope it lasts forever. You make some statements about a "moral" law as opposed to a law law... Or something to that effect.

What this really gets into though, is psychology, and morality as defined by empirical evidence.

See, if you make a campaign to kill a certain group of people that are NOT criminals and NOT hurting others with their actions (in this case gay people) then you are certainly causing psychological harm to that entire group. Or if not the entire group, a good portion of it, and plenty of their friends and allies and etc.

What this then gets into, is should one have the ability to harm a group of people that is not harming anyone else.

Almost everywhere, people will agree that the answer is "no". Most importantly to you, the law in the UK says that the answer is no. Harming innocents is NOT okay.

And a campaign of hate and intolerance against a group of innocents HURTS them. Every time. So yes, this is similar to walking up and punching gay people in the face.

 

[Melon Hunter]

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.

What exactly are the BNP, Orange Order, Islam4UK, Muslims Against Crusades, and the English Defence League?

I believe he means they never came to anything. Even in the 1930s, when Far Right groups were gaining serious ground in parts of Europe, and when racial politics were still in vogue, Oswald Mosely's British Union of Fascists never took off and were regarded with faint derision at best by the British people. It simply never occurred to the British public to support such a group; the socio-economic situations that propelled the Italian Fascists and the Nazis into power never came about in Britain.

Of course, bigoted groups such as the ones you've mentioned will always exist, but they are usually forced to neuter their arguments in public owing to the hate speech laws, which just weakens their position further as they try to place a thin veneer of 'respectability' over their parties.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

What exactly are the BNP, Orange Order, Islam4UK, Muslims Against Crusades, and the English Defence League?

All vile hate filled idiots who have to censor what they say in public and wouldn't have a chance at national victory if they systematically kneecapped all the opposition.

and their also far-right groups.