by diamondblue1974 9 Replies latest social current
I dont know if anyone else has posted on this issue but the Religious Hatred Bill has hit a stumbling block.
The House of Lords have put in place ammendments to the bill which will protect freedom and speech and the offence will only proven where there is an intention to incite religious hatred.
Glad to see that Blair is beaten yet again in his 'draconian' attempts to reform our legal system.
Opponents of the bill argue that people can choose their religion, unlike their race, and so should not be protected against offence or criticism.
This is a very powerful argument indeed
I agree, a very powerful argument indeed.
Almost as powerful as your avatar....
Hi there DB1974, yes I tried starting a thread on this the other day. I also am chuffed that Blair has been knocked back again. What I was trying to ask was whether the WTS could conceivably quell criticism from "the likes of us" under the auspices of it being religious intolerance. On the flip side too, could WTS's verbal trashing of other faiths be deemed to be potentially illegal too? No stretch of the imagination could see these two examples as coming under incitement of religious hatred, but the fact that comedians, artists and actors are stressing about the thicker end of the wedge makes the issue interesting.
Stilla yes I like your new avator too - although it makes it harder to concentrate.
the WTS could conceivably quell criticism from "the likes of us" under the auspices of it being religious intolerance. On the flip side too, could WTS's verbal trashing of other faiths be deemed to be potentially illegal too? No stretch of the imagination could see these two examples as coming under incitement of religious hatred, but the fact that comedians, artists and actors are stressing about the thicker end of the wedge makes the issue interesting.
If the original plans had gone ahead both scenario's you describe could have been possible; its good we will still have the ability to critically analyse religion without running the risk (however small) of committing a criminal offence. I am also pleased that the House of Lords has created in their proposed ammendment, a liability arising out of intent as previously the bill was silent on this issue.
DB74
Morning All!
DB! What's with the proposed ammendment?
Does that mean that it will eventually go through, one way or another, and is the 'ammendment' guaranteed?
Stilla - There's some scary looking 'chest muscles' to almost flat chested lady like me.
The H.O.L have voted to retain some protection with regards to freedom of speech within the bill, which as you can imagine is great news; personally I dont agree with inciting religious or any other kind of hatred but everyones beliefs should be open to criticism challenge and debate.
IMHO
DB74
The amendments proposed by the HOL have been passed by the commons yesterday. The legislation as it now stands, only covers threatening incitement. A big improvement in my book.
That bill can't go too far because the moslems can find all sorts of things that other religions just ignore, as offensive. No christian gets fanatical if Jesus gets reviled and degraded but the Moslems can kill if Mohammed gets similarly treated.
So, why is Jack Straw not protecting us from the Muslim protesters in London today, who were threatening, in their posters, beheading, massacring, and killing, those who caricatured Mohommad!
Who protects us from their religious hatred, even though we protect their freedom of speech?
