England Jails Homophobes

[pffh]

Oh god that beard! It's like a 'fro that has migrated down to his chin.

Also hatespeech is illegal in most of the western world and that certainly qualifies as hate speech.

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.

They didn't go to jail because of their opinion, they were sent to jail because of hate speech. Just keeping it to themselves or in their social group would have been fine but they actively went out into the streets to spread hate and that is illegal.

 

[Casual Shinji]

And they seemed like such nice Salafists.

Who knew they turned out to be homophobic.

I still don't understand why these people want Sharia law in Britain when they can just move to one of the many countries where this law is already in place. I hear Somalia is very nice this time of year.

 

[Edible Avatar]

I JUST had a exam about this in my civil liberties class. What a coincidence!

The Muslims, while complete douches, are in the right here. As long as they were advocating a law to kill homosexuals and nothing more, they are innocent. Now if they were to advocate direct violence against homosexuals, then that would be upheld as hate speech.
The homosexuals said that the muslims made them scared but there was no report of any direct threats made against them. This can't be used in a court.

Remember: offensive manner and insulting is protected speech (in the US, anyway), while aggresive conduct and action is not.
kinda relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

 

[Sylveria]

Islam, the religion of peace... yep.

Snip

The law is the law folks. The courts deemed what they were doing as hate speech or attempts to incite violence, that's against the law there. Can't just ignore the laws you don't like. Work to get them changed, then you can spread all the hate and violence you want. Of course, if you disagree with the courts ruling, I'm sure that you could contribute to their legal expenses to have the ruling appealed. That wont set off any red flags or anything.

Also, you may wish to know we have similar laws that regulate free speech in the US. It's more limited to direct threats of violence or the incitation of violence, rather than just prejudiced speech, but they do exist.

 

[peruvianskys]

[This is why, unlike France, we allow multiculturalism and don't pass laws banning the hijab, because the British way is to tolerate differences.

"Our way is to tolerate differences, which is why we throw people we disagree with in jail."

First off, let me say that I'm a gay gay gay as balls gayster so I know what intimidation, prejudice, and outright physical violence feels like. I live in Idaho, which, in case you don't know, is the single most conservative state in America. Over a third of the Neo-Nazis in the entire country live here.

With that said, it is absurd to say that these people should go to jail. I think they're scumbags, but I don't see why the government has any right at all to decide what people can and can't say. So long as gay people are allowed to put out flyers demanding the death penalty for homophobia, then there's no problem here. Feeling attacked or hated is part of living in a free society; I get abused fairly often by white trash strangers and if someone from the fed came down and asked me whether or not I wanted to have a police escort throw them all in jail, I would say no in a heartbeat. So long as they aren't advocating non-judicial murder, it shouldn't be a crime. If I get to say what I want to say, then so should they.

 

[PBMcNair]

Well, as they were engaging in a real and specific instance of incitement of violence, such convictions seems justifiable.

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

They were the first to be prosecuted under this law, so the sentence is probably to set some kind of example.

Also, I'm suprised that these laws are so new, I would have thought they'd have been around longer.

 

[awesomeClaw]

There´s two alternatives to this situation:

The court is in the right if the men advocated non-juridical murdering of homosexuals.

The court is in the wrong if the men advocated juridical murdering of homosexual.

I don´t know which, but I´m open to both options.

 

[El Luck]

Islam, the religion of peace... yep.

Depends who's interpreting it really.

Anywho, on topic: Good. Thats all I've got to say on the matter.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

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.

They were jailed for inciting hatred, not inciting violence. If they were running around yelling about how gays should be dragged into the streets and lynched then yes, I'd have no problem with them being arrested. When they say 'being gay should be made illegal and punishable by death' that is not the same thing. I just read the full article, and nowhere does it state that they were arrested for inciting violence.

What is and isn't allowed in a democracy has nothing to do with your opinion, and everything to do with the majority's opinion. What we're saying is that this SHOULDN'T be acceptable, according to how we view freedom of speech.

Oh god that beard! It's like a 'fro that has migrated down to his chin.

Also hatespeech is illegal in most of the western world and that certainly qualifies as hate speech.
They didn't go to jail because of their opinion, they were sent to jail because of hate speech. Just keeping it to themselves or in their social group would have been fine but they actively went out into the streets to spread hate and that is illegal.

That's what hate speech is. The prosecution of 'unacceptable opinions.' It being illegal in certain parts of the world isn't really an argument for or against it, by the way. Lots of things are illegal that shouldn't be, and vice versa.

My statement still stands. Hate speech is nothing but a thought crime law used to jail people who disagree with it. The only reason you're okay with it is because it's being used against people you don't like. If a "X-wing" (according to which side of the spectrum you dislike) government was in power prosecuting people with opinions like your own, you'd be frothing at the mouth. Don't be such a hypocrite.

 

[lemby117]

This is good. I wish we would do this to all the Christian ministers speaking out about gay marriage proposals, as a straight man speaking, they can all go F*** themselves with their 2000 year old out of date bull**** Besides they talk of Agape and love to all people, then why the hell do they think they have the right to judge other people.

 

[MC K-Mac]

I am absolutely baffled by the people who say this is a free speech issue. Look guys, your right to freedom of expression ends when you use said expression to say it's okay to kill a certain group of people. End. Of. Story.

And as for the bullshit argument that it's just like saying paedophiles should be killed, well, thanks so much for keeping the brain-dead medieval "all gay people are paedophiles" thinking alive. Way to go, equating being gay with molesting children. You obviously don't hate gay people at all.

Oh, and equating someone walking their dog to someone distributing leaflets advocating murder is a spurious analogy and you know it. I'm looking at you, Grey Day for Elcia.

Grow up, all of you.

 

[pffh]

Oh god that beard! It's like a 'fro that has migrated down to his chin.

Also hatespeech is illegal in most of the western world and that certainly qualifies as hate speech.
They didn't go to jail because of their opinion, they were sent to jail because of hate speech. Just keeping it to themselves or in their social group would have been fine but they actively went out into the streets to spread hate and that is illegal.

That's what hate speech is. The prosecution of 'unacceptable opinions.' It being illegal in certain parts of the world isn't really an argument for or against it, by the way. Lots of things are illegal that shouldn't be, and vice versa.

My statement still stands. Hate speech is nothing but a thought crime law used to jail people who disagree with it. The only reason you're okay with it is because it's being used against people you don't like. If a "X-wing" (according to which side of the spectrum you dislike) government was in power prosecuting people with opinions like your own, you'd be frothing at the mouth. Don't be such a hypocrite.

If the pamphlets had just stated "homosexuality is wrong and here is why: Reason X, Y and Z" then nothing would have been done. What they did say was that a certain group of people should be killed and that's hate speech. Hate speech laws cover everyone and every opinion. They would also have been arrested if they went out into the streets with pamphlets saying "we should kill all BNP members".

 

[AdumbroDeus]

I am absolutely baffled by the people who say this is a free speech issue. Look guys, your right to freedom of expression ends when you use said expression to say it's okay to kill a certain group of people. End. Of. Story.

And as for the bullshit argument that it's just like saying paedophiles should be killed, well, thanks so much for keeping the brain-dead medieval "all gay people are paedophiles" thinking alive. Way to go, equating being gay with molesting children. You obviously don't hate gay people at all.

Oh, and equating someone walking their dog to someone distributing leaflets advocating murder is a spurious analogy and you know it. I'm looking at you, Grey Day for Elcia.

Grow up, all of you.

That is idiotic, they were proposing a change in the legal system. No matter how horrific and stupid the change they proposed was, they still should have a right to speak unless it reaches the point of actual conspiracy (in otherwise, they start planning the time and place specifics of committing a crime against a person).

If you do not have the right to lobby against laws, regardless of what the view you're trying to push is, then effectively you have no rights in society.

The law is a cudgel, not a scapel, you cannot create it with the necessary provisions to deal with all speech you find distasteful without banning necessary speech, that is why it is necessary to take the least possible restrictive measure.

I'd prefer they'd be able to talk about killing me and people like me then handicap the right of people to lobby for change in law.

 

[LunchboxKilla]

Annnnnnnd Here is where the police in England get a bunch of protests and say they are sorry to offend the Muslim community

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Which kinda fits with the topic title. It sounds like they just don't like gays, rather than what they actually were doing.

 

[A-D.]

Free Speech ends when infringes on the basic human rights of another Person.

That is all that needs to be said. It is not a Free Speech Issue. They have asked, regardless of form, to be allowed, either legally, or if failing that, to simply illegaly kill a undetermined Number of People for their way of life.

There is no "fine line" in there.

 

[MC K-Mac]

That is idiotic, they were proposing a change in the legal system. No matter how horrific and stupid the change they proposed was, they still should have a right to speak unless it reaches the point of actual conspiracy (in otherwise, they start planning the time and place specifics of committing a crime against a person).

If you do not have the right to lobby against laws, regardless of what the view you're trying to push is, then effectively you have no rights in society.

The law is a cudgel, not a scapel, you cannot create it with the necessary provisions to deal with all speech you find distasteful without banning necessary speech, that is why it is necessary to take the least possible restrictive measure.

I'd prefer they'd be able to talk about killing me and people like me then handicap the right of people to lobby for change in law.

Try reading the article, jackass. The pamphlet said: "'Allah permits the destruction' of gay people and that 'the only question is how it should be carried out'". How in the holy hell is that 'proposing a change in the legal system'? Idiot.

 

[Magnicon]

"England Jails Homophobes"

Misleading title is misleading.

They were charged with certain crimes as it fit the wording, but what they were doing wasn't really about homosexuals, as they do this for anything their religion tells them is a bad thing.

Its about religion. They are all the same. The only reason the other major religions don't do stuff like this anymore is because they are based in parts of the world where they can't get away with it anymore.

There will likely be a very large increase of things like this happening with Muslims as they continue to expand into other parts of the world. It isn't going to end well for anyone.