Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex Mann)
    Well we're talking about different kinds of hatred. You're talking about hatred which you're not going to act on, one would assume that the Bill is talking about hatred which is likely to incite violence and cause casualties. Although I do not know the specific wording, from what I have heard (and I'm sure I have heard many inaccuracies) while the bill is open and could be abused if it wanted to be, that is what the media is there for: to act as a power check. And besides, yes, I do trust out Government. They may have lied to us on issues as Iraq but I do not believe any major political party is about to engage in ethnic cleansing and abuse of minority religions.
    You said it. "Likely to incite" The three most ambiguous and open to interpretation words in the legal lexicon. Meaningless bollox I'm afraid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Absolutely. We should be able to say whatever we please, however ridiculous it may be. The crime should be when we act, not when we speak.

    Consider Tommorow2Day's example:

    "The muslims think we are infidels! They want us dead! We need to kick them all out of the country and if the government is too scared to do it it falls to we the people to take matters into our own hands!".

    Now, I should have the absolute right to say that without fear of persecution for voicing an opinion. If however, somebody "does take matters into their own hands" and decides to burn a house full of sleeping pakistanis to the ground then that's the crime which should be punished. And of course, we already have laws in place to do just that.
    What about ordering a subordinate to commit a crime? Do you think that should be legal?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    It's even slipping out into their speeches, now:

    "The constitution can't proceed until a way is found round those referendum votes..."
    - Tony Blair, Prime Minister's Question Time, today.
    haha, almost as bad as the EU President himself,

    "If at the end of the ratification process, we do not manage to solve the problems, the countries that would have said ‘No,’ would have to ask themselves the question again”

    "If it’s a ‘Yes,’ we will say ‘on we go,’ and if it’s a ‘No’ we will say ‘we continue.’"
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    I thought we already had legislation against inciting crime?
    But the legislation addresses religion specifically. Technically I guess it already exists then but my having a specific bill it lets the public know that there is a problem and that it needs to be supported. It comes back to the old problem in Handmaid's Tale, do we give "freedom to" speak or "freedom from" speech that incites violence. While I am a Liberal Democrat and support free speech, there are some things that just don't need to be said. Debating religion, criticising religion, is fine. It's when you get people inciting religious hatred which can then lead to the persecution of millions that it needs to be curbed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    What about ordering a subordinate to commit a crime? Do you think that should be legal?
    Can someone explain to me exactly what "freedom of speech" is supposed to mean now?
    Unless youre chatting about last nights episode of Coronation Street, theres not an awful lot that is "acceptable" now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex Mann)
    But the legislation addresses religion specifically. Technically I guess it already exists then but my having a specific bill it lets the public know that there is a problem and that it needs to be supported. It comes back to the old problem in Handmaid's Tale, do we give "freedom to" speak or "freedom from" speech that incites violence. While I am a Liberal Democrat and support free speech, there are some things that just don't need to be said. Debating religion, criticising religion, is fine. It's when you get people inciting religious hatred which can then lead to the persecution of millions that it needs to be curbed.
    You clearly dont respect free speech. There is legislation to prevent not only the punishment of criminal acts, but the INCITEMENT OF criminal acts. The persecution of millions has arisen because extremists suddenly adopt the centre ground usually because the moderates have been silenced by the very laws meant to protect them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    What about ordering a subordinate to commit a crime? Do you think that should be legal?
    It already is illegal.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I have proudly screamed my lungs off against nazi BNP members. But they should not be banned.

    But how many were white?
    I've been racially abused for my non-english name and I am white. What am I classed as?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I've been racially abused for my non-english name and I am white. What am I classed as?
    a moan?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What exactly do you mean? I should shut up and put up with it?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    What exactly do you mean? I should shut up and put up with it?
    who exactly racially abused you then?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Why do you use such an odd tone as if I'm making something up or exaggerating it?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Why do you use such an odd tone as if I'm making something up or exaggerating it?
    there is no tone.

    im asking for more details.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I apologise if I got the wrong end of the stick.

    The worst time was when I had racist messages left on my mobile when I was 13 by older boys. They bullied me on my school bus for a few years. The worst thing is, you know, that they can't understand why they are wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Putting a religion in the same context as race is flawed. Race is genetical, religion is an OPINION that in our "free" country we should be allowed to take the piss out of all we like. And in our "free" country they can change their religion every single day if they wish, unlike their race.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I apologise if I got the wrong end of the stick.

    The worst time was when I had racist messages left on my mobile when I was 13 by older boys. They bullied me on my school bus for a few years. The worst thing is, you know, that they can't understand why they are wrong.
    what race were these other boys?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    White British
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    White British
    (Original post by Northhumbrian)
    I am white
    time to re-evaluate your claim.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    time to re-evaluate your claim.
    Is there also a lack of tone here?

    I've been racially abused for my non-english name and I am white.
    There you go
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Is there also a lack of tone here?

    There you go
    the name is not important.

    the fact the "abusers" are the same race as you voids the claim it was racist.

    i could walk up to you, as a white person myself, and call you a "pale white ******* who should be black". its "racist" language, but isnt racist as im the same race as you.

    ****ging you off about your name is not racism.

    my first name is greek and loosely rhymes with some derogatory comments...its clearly racism when people call me by the other terms. :rolleyes:
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,240

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.