UK's new discrimination laws

[patrickbeverley]

What are the opinions of the board's members on the UK's new laws against "incitement to ... hatred"? There is one banning incitement to hatred on grounds of race, and another banning it on grounds of religion.

Those in favour of the laws say that they will substantially reduce prejudice in British society, allowing members of racial and religious minorities to be freer.

Those opposed say that they are an unacceptable reduction of freedom of speech, and that they represent increasing governmental control over people's right to express their opinions.

My mind is not made up on this. I normally defend people's right to say what they want, even as I attack their opinions, but I'm not going to march in the street for a bunch of racist arses, because I frankly don't care about them. I am excited about the possibility of dickheads like Abu Hamza getting arrested (in fact, hasn't that already happened?), but am worried that, in the light of these laws, some of my own more inflammatory anti-religious comments could be interpreted as illegal. Also, if they're going to fight discrimination, where's the bill on incitement to homophobic hatred?

Your thoughts?

EDIT: misplaced apostrophe

[Red Polak]

Christ...I thought that got overturned?

Regarding Hamza - he wasn't done for inciting religious hatred, but rather for inciting people to murder (resulting in the 7/7 attacks). I think there is a very important difference between the two.

I'm very much against this bill because I feel it is an attack on people's right to free speech. I think that religion should be open to ridicule or debate and believers should put up with it and realize that perhaps not everyone in the world shares their beliefs.


Anyway, both religion and political affiliation are merely beliefs and so should both be subject to the same scrutiny. Why do religious beliefs warrant this sort of protection whilst other beliefs are neglected the same?

[TC]

Its not an anti-discrimination law its an anti-subversive speech law and thats percisely how its been used, to target people who oppose british foriegn policy since basically any opposition to british imperialism in the middle east can be construed as religious hatred (as they're muslims) and it can be conceptualized as inspiring hatred towards the UK, US, or the west in general.

Anti-terrorism legislation in the UK has essentially abolished freedom of speech.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)Its not an anti-discrimination law its an anti-subversive speech law and thats percisely how its been used, to target people who oppose british foriegn policy since basically any opposition to british imperialism in the middle east can be construed as religious hatred (as they're muslims) and it can be conceptualized as inspiring hatred towards the UK, US, or the west in general.[/b]

I don't think it actually has been used that way, can you find me any examples of it being used "to target people who oppose british foreign policy"? Thus far its use has been limited to people who preach racist or anti-religious beliefs, in the specific sense of "pakis go home" or "all jews must die", as far as I know.

Red Polak

Anyway, both religion and political affiliation are merely beliefs and so should both be subject to the same scrutiny.

Agreed. The religion law is definitely the one out of the two to which there can be most legitimate objection.

[TC]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley@May 3 2006, 06:39 PM

I don't think it actually has been used that way, can you find me any examples of it being used "to target people who oppose british foreign policy"? Thus far its use has been limited to people who preach racist or anti-religious beliefs, in the specific sense of "pakis go home" or "all jews must die", as far as I know.

I thought it was used on Abu Hamza and on the anti-cartoon protesters at the Danish embassy...but i guess i'm mistaken about Hamza (although, the same applies, he simply supported Osama Bin Laden's politics and opposed the war on Iraq and warned of retaliation, he didnt participate in any direct way or tell anyone to blow up the london underground, no?)

In any case, at least one of the anti-danish protesters was charged with "inciting racial hatred" when, in fact, the protest was hardly about the racial inferiority of the people of denmark. Although frankly the cartoon protests were f'ing retarded, the point is that it creates a precedent to interpret any aggressive, militant protest as 'inciting racial hatred'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4847752.stm

[redstar2000]

Once again, I would really strongly urge that people get used to the idea that there's no "freedom of speech" for those who are intransigently opposed to the prevailing social order.

You are appealing to something that is an "ideal"...not something that's ever actually existed.

Bourgeois "law" is for their benefit...not ours!

We should simply say whatever we think needs to be said and fuck their goddam laws! If we have to do that anonymously or in an indirect way to avoid prison, then we should do that!

Asking the despots who rule us to "play fair" is just silly! :angry:

[PRC-UTE]

It's been used against Irish republicans, just for singing rebel songs. They also use their laws in Scotland against sectarianism for the same purpose.

[Andy Bowden]

In Scotland as part of a plan to combat sectarianism, Che Guevara scarves were banned from being sold outside Parkhead, as it&#39;s content was "political" <_<

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Tragiclown+--> (Tragiclown)In any case, at least one of the anti-danish protesters was charged with "inciting racial hatred" when, in fact, the protest was hardly about the racial inferiority of the people of denmark. Although frankly the cartoon protests were f&#39;ing retarded, the point is that it creates a precedent to interpret any aggressive, militant protest as &#39;inciting racial hatred&#39;[/b]

Hmmm. That is rather tenuous, however wasn&#39;t that specific protester doing something like shouting "kill all the x" - might not have been against the people of Denmark, but against someone?

redstar2000

We should simply say whatever we think needs to be said and fuck their goddam laws&#33; If we have to do that anonymously or in an indirect way to avoid prison, then we should do that&#33;

Asking the despots who rule us to "play fair" is just silly&#33;

Good point. If you think about it, "legal protest" is something of a contradiction in terms. All the great protest movements (American Civil Rights, British Women&#39;s Suffrage etc.) have been characterised by mass arrests.

It probably helped them.