This is getting funnier and funnier...
Can anyone tell me where it says people have the right to incite another person to break the law?
How can a freedom be a freedom if by exercise of it it infringes another's freedom?
I don't neccesarily want a clever answer, or even a 'right' answer, but someone actually focusing on those issues would be kind of fun.
Now, to emphasize, this law exists but in a way where only religous groups with a strong racial identity have that protection, namely Jews or Seikhs.
This is patently absurd; I could be a Seikh or a Jews if I so wished; both traditons accept converts. Jews are not even that clearly defined a racial group coming as they do from several different racial groups.
Yet these religious groups have protection. I cannot legally publish a sentence like;
"Jews and Seikhs are evil criminals conspiring to control the world and must be controlled by any means neccesary, even if that means violence".
However, I can legally say;
"Muslims and Christians are evil criminals conspiring to control the world and must be controlled by any means neccesary, even if that means violence".
All this law does is redress the imbalance. And it can be applied as neatly to mad Muslim Mullahs with an eyepatch and a hook (no, I'm not making that up) who preach violence against Christians, as to ignoramouses who preach violence against Muslims.
I am no big fan of the Blair government, but this statement is fair and backed by the evidence;
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_04126blac.shtml
... a Home Office spokeswoman defended the Bill, insisting it would not interfere with the right to free speech.
She said: ?There is a clear difference between criticism of a religion and the act of inciting hatred against members of a religious group.
?The incitement offences have a high criminal threshold and prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney General.
?There has not been a widespread sense that the existing offence has interfered with free speech and we are confident that an offence of incitement to religious hatred will not do so either.?
(highlights mine)
As I said earlier, the sliding slope scenario presented by some HAS NOT happened with existing laws that apply to other groups.
Stupid prosecutions by moronic members of the public COULD NOT happen, as only THE Attorney General can bring prosecutions unde this law. In the UK we only have one, and as it is an appointed office we don't have some political whore making stupid prosecutions for publicity for their re-election campaign.
donkey
This is just silliness. More European social engineering at work...blah!!!
I know, it's terrible. We Europeans want to dismantle the public health systems and start paying private ones so they can make money on our illness, and we don't want to be assured of an income in the face of protracted illness or unemployment. If only we had the freedom to not afford health care if we didn't have it as part of our job, and the freedom to be financially destroyed if we were out of work or ill for a long time!
Why do the PC leftists discourage candor? When these religious whackos (include xian idiots too) use their religious holy books to spout condemnation on non believers they remain protected under "religious freedom".
If you'd acquainted yourself with the facts that are available you wouldn't need to ask this question. This law cuts religious whackos FAR MORE than secular humourists.
The world has turned into a bunch of "protect the muslim" fairies.
Oh, and there was me thinking the idea was to protect the innocent, regardless of their beliefs or race...
While Newbleak was publishing its story about the US flushing pieces of the Koran down the toilet (good place for all holy books IMO)
Oh, I did think it was funny; 'oh no, they flushed a Qu'ran!'. I thought people would have objected more to prisoners being smeared with menstural blood and sodomised with broomsticks far more than flushing a book.
and all the world was up in arms over this where have the protestors been when countries like Saudi Arabia have arrested people for the crime of "being Christian"?
I'd suggest you talk to your Congressperson and encourage a withdrawl of all aid and political support from all countries that violated human rights. Unfortunately, in common with (for example) the British government, the US government has a very poor track record when it comes to withdrawing aid or political support from countries that violate human rights, like Saudi Arabia, as they put their country's strategic interests above human rights in the countries they get some strategic benefit from.
Face it the world is better off without religion. Criticize it and obliterate it with free speech....it's the only way to get rid of Christian Crackpots, Muslim Morons and Whacko Witches!!!
This speech is protected. No incitement to hate.
If I call for the obliteration of religion - is that hate speech?
That might be seen as hate speech if in context it was felt that your intent was to get people to take the law into their own hands, or if you were obviously advocating violently stopping people from exercising the religion of their choice.
Will Britain ban the works of Richard Dawkins as hate speech now? Will they prevent publication of his new book (which really shoves religion in the eye)?
No. Now you're being silly. Shoving one in the eye is fine. Shoving one in the eye and summing up with 'so, burn down your local church' is not fine.
