quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: is islam a race??

It is when by "Islam" you mean "Pakis" as the BNP do...

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Not me, I understand what your saying I'm just saying I prefer it this way.

My apologies .

quote:

Whats that got to do with their right to free speach(to use your own arguement)? I know your trying to contest the point with thouse who just say they are bad, but maybe the reason it hasn't happened is because we won't let it(via laws like these).

It has nothing to do with free speech. It simply addresses the argument that non UK natives simply don't know what the BNP was like and if we did we wouldn't defend their right to free speech. As for hypthothesizng that the reason why the BNP hasn't become as bad as the KKK because these laws prevent it from doing so, utilizes a flawed assumption that the KKK grew because of the atmosphere of free speech whereas it otherwise would not have with a "racial-hate" law. As a matter of fact, Congress passed the Ku Klux Act in 1871 which gave the president the power to intervene in troubled states with the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in counties where disturbances occurred. And Grant did indeed take advantage of this ability. Needless to say it was woefully ineffective in accomplishing much of anything except increasing solidarity. But you can simply look at the situation today ... the KKK is free to speak, march, and diseminate their hate. They're protected by the ultra-liberal ACLU and nearly every other constitutional group. They're hardly growing or increasingly carrying out violent acts against minorities. They're free to spout out their beliefs and everybody else is free to ignore them.

___________________
Retro ...

In Britain we had a pretty "old fashioned" view of things (even recently) until laws like these brought it to the front of our minds.

But obviously in Britain we've accepted decendants of other nations quite well and made them part of "britishness". Indian food (in take away form more 'british' now than say a fish and chip shop nearly), Indian Music (on radio 1 as I speak actually, british indian music), Indian comedy, Italian, Greek food, Black music, Black food, Black comedy.

I belive that the only thing the kind of people who would hate someone based upon race understand is the law (and how to avoid it in most cases). You need to have a mechanism to tackle these people you can't just say "Ahh it's ok no-one will listen to them" because people who have a shitty life want someone to blame if someone gives them an excuse that their lives are shit becuase of someone else. Not because they are lazy but it's thouse "forgieners" in "my" country.

Theres always someone who'll listen, always a lowest level. And these people tap into that well because they are the same.

We need a way to tackle them to protect our people who they might target.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish In Britain we had a pretty "old fashioned" view of things (even recently) until laws like these brought it to the front of our minds. But obviously in Britain we've accepted decendants of other nations quite well and made them part of "britishness". Indian food (in take away form more 'british' now than say a fish and chip shop nearly), Indian Music (on radio 1 as I speak actually, british indian music), Indian comedy, Italian, Greek food, Black music, Black food, Black comedy. I belive that the only thing the kind of people who would hate someone based upon race understand is the law (and how to avoid it in most cases). You need to have a mechanism to tackle these people you can't just say "Ahh it's ok no-one will listen to them" because people who have a shitty life want someone to blame if someone gives them an excuse that their lives are shit becuase of someone else. Not because they are lazy but it's thouse "forgieners" in "my" country. Theres always someone who'll listen, always a lowest level. And these people tap into that well because they are the same. We need a way to tackle them to protect our people who they might target.

Well, I can pretty much accept your point, but as long as nobody explicitely says those foreign guys should be exterminated or devoid of their rights, government or police shouldn't intervene. Hell, we all have our ideas of a perfect world, and we will always find someone who wholeheartedly disagrees with them. I don't see such a huge problem if the guy likes to see Britain populated with indigenous population. And if his view is shared by the majority, so what? That's not racism, that's cultural preservation. Everybody pretends to be so horrified when the culture of small indigenous tribes in Africa is destroyed due to globalization, yet it's perfectly ok to turn UK into a multiethnic society radically different than the one 50 years ago, both by its population structure and by its cultural values. It's basically double standards. I'm not saying here that I'm against globalization, as well as I admit that I'm not really concerned about destroying customs of primitive tribes all around the world either. But if somebody wants to conserve the country and to push it back into the past, I might be against it, but I'll also be against banning the right of speach of a person who proposes such ideas. Especially since he has a good reason to consider Islam vicious. Just take a look at the Taliban, the general state of woman rights, and the amount of freedom that exists in islamic countries and say that the guy doesn't have a point.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish I belive that the only thing the kind of people who would hate someone based upon race understand is the law (and how to avoid it in most cases). You need to have a mechanism to tackle these people you can't just say "Ahh it's ok no-one will listen to them" because people who have a shitty life want someone to blame if someone gives them an excuse that their lives are shit becuase of someone else. Not because they are lazy but it's thouse "forgieners" in "my" country. Theres always someone who'll listen, always a lowest level. And these people tap into that well because they are the same. We need a way to tackle them to protect our people who they might target.

Well if those types of people understand only one thing, the law, than you have nothing to worry about now do you? They can be free to speak their minds, and they won't violate any actual laws such as committing violence. The mechanism to tackle those people are already in place without the need to restrict their free speech. And once again you shouldn't disenfranchise someone of their right to free speech based upon how others will react to what they will say. Free speech rights are indivisible and restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations or rationale used to silence bigots can be used to silence any other group that "society" or government deems offensive or inappropriate.

When ACLU director Aryeh Neier, whose relatives died in concentration camps during World War II, was asked why he defended a Neo-Nazi group's right to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois he commented: "Keeping a few Nazis off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened."

___________________
Retro ...

Well with a 100% detection and capture rate for verbal and physical abuse and no associated reprecussions for the victim that might be ok. But that doesn't happen. Grass on some ned for calling you a "paki" today and your house will be burned down tommorrow(obviously an extreme case).

Where do these junior ned racists get their pardgim from? People like the BNP leader. Peope who incite hate.

I know it is on one level restricting what you say. But on another level it isn't, it's restricting your right to incite people to hate people based upon race.

For example there is incomming religious hate laws, heres an artide on it.

quote:

The offence only covers hatred stirred up against people deliberately targeted because of religious beliefs or lack of them. It is not simple dislike or hatred of their beliefs; it's not a new blasphemy law by the back door. Nor is it an assault on people's right to disapprove of beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion. It's about tackling people who set out to whip up hatred, not about stopping people telling jokes - however offensive.

Former Home Secretary David Blunket

LINK

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Geez, why do you always have to bring hitler into the picture? But since you did, Hitler wasn't only spewing propoganda - this has been done since people couldn't read... He banned the very FREE PRESS.

Just thought I'd add, so has Putin.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by razmataz Incitement for hatred and abuse is different than freedom of speech. I strongly believe in independent views but if these views include encouraging people to go out and abuse others or cause damage to property/terrorize than one has to put down a set of priorities. It realy pisses me off seeing racist idiots protecting themselves with such a flimsy excuse as "my freedom to speak". The same applies to other political and/or religious parties (e.g. Islamic radical clerics). I don't see why we are debating this- its common sense really. And what about the person who actually encourages his friends to go out and rob banks, in fact saying that its okay to steal other people's money. All the more troublesome if that person is someone of inflence.

+1



Also, there are an awful lot of generalizations about Islam flying around. Everyone who says that Islam is practiced by "vicious" people are fairly unfamiliar with Muslims. Islam is a peace-loving religion at its core, and if you ask 99% of Muslims, they will say they are openly embarrassed by the violence perpetrated by that other 1%. Remember, there are over 1 BILLION Muslims in the world. To say they are all violent and vicious is pretty simplistic.

Also remember, just because the only Muslims you read about in the news are terrorists doesn't mean that all Muslims are -- that's a pretty big fallacy. In fact, if you do any reading on Islam at all, you'll probably find that Islam is in many ways much more peaceful on the whole than Christianity.

___________________

Last edited by Lebezniatnikov on Dec-17-2004 at 23:39

This conversation gets more and more interesting ..and as it goes on even more so..pseudo intellectualism and points of law seem to be the running order of the debate on this thread..and imo after nearly 70 posts it really hasnt gotten beyond that..common sense will prevail at the end of the day..and thats the only way this thread will ever end..

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Well with a 100% detection and capture rate for verbal and physical abuse and no associated reprecussions for the victim that might be ok. But that doesn't happen. Grass on some ned for calling you a "paki" today and your house will be burned down tommorrow(obviously an extreme case).

Ok so you say that because the law is incapable of punishing and preventing violent acts with a 100% success rate, therefore just to be safe, you need to pass additional laws that curb and limit free speech? Well why stop there, you can pass a whole slew of laws "just to be safe". Why not increase the powers of MI5 10 fold such that they have looser restrictions in apprehending criminals and potential terrorists? They can monitor internet communications, phone lines with unlimited indescretion ... after all it would certainly do wonders in attaining that 100% detection and capture rate now wouldn't it (obviously an extreme case)?

quote:

Where do these junior ned racists get their pardgim from? People like the BNP leader. Peope who incite hate.

Yes and the reason why there's so much crime in the US is because we don't have enough prisons and we aren't harsh enough on criminals ... I've heard that one before.

quote:

I know it is on one level restricting what you say. But on another level it isn't, it's restricting your right to incite people to hate people based upon race. For example there is incomming religious hate laws, heres an artide on it. Former Home Secretary David Blunket LINK

Yes I read the entire article and the primary justification for the anti-religious hate laws seems to be the anti-racial hate law. A law I disagree with on the same principal. It says that there are plenty of safeties in place and blah blah blah, but I didn't see such safeties in place when I first criticized the law and referenced this incident:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../20/npage20.xml

It's not like the US recklessly adopted absolute free speech without a thorough discussion. I believe the final affirmation of indivisible free speech occurred in Terminiello v. Chicago where a de-frocked priest was arrested for delivering a vitriolic speech in which he criticized various political and racial groups and viciously condemned the protesting crowd that had gathered outside the auditorium. This resulted in several disturbances by the crowd and the police arrested Terminiello for "breach of the peace". The Supreme Court held that the "breach of the peace" ordinance unconstitutionally infringed upon the freedom of speech. I rather liked the opinion it penned:

quote:

The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 , 260, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes. Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, 315 U.S. at pages 571-572, 62 S.Ct. at page 769, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262 , 193, 159 A.L.R. 1346; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373 , 1253. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas [337 U.S. 1 , 5] either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups. The ordinance as construed by the trial court seriously invaded this province. It permitted conviction of petitioner if his speech stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand.

By the way, many of the articles I read in support of the racial/religious hate laws all express outrage at how the BNP is gaining representation in government. As such these laws are warranted to limit their gains. Isn't that well ... slightly undemocratic?

quote:

Originally posted by Zig This conversation gets more and more interesting ..and as it goes on even more so..pseudo intellectualism and points of law seem to be the running order of the debate on this thread..and imo after nearly 70 posts it really hasnt gotten beyond that..common sense will prevail at the end of the day..and thats the only way this thread will ever end..

Do your courts operate under a system of "common sense"? If the police engage in an unlawful search or put unlawful phone taps in order to capture a known criminal who they couldn't convict otherwise, does your court system give the prosecutor and the police a *wink* *wink* and let it slide because common sense dictates that you would be stupid to let an individual who is so obviously guilty free? All those silly rules that let criminals slide because of "minor technicalities", don't you just wish the justice system would practice common sense? I mean, because obviously the government, the police, and the court system are shining purveyors of common sense that eliminates the need for technical rule of law.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish You need to have a mechanism to tackle these people you can't just say "Ahh it's ok no-one will listen to them" because people who have a shitty life want someone to blame if someone gives them an excuse that their lives are shit becuase of someone else. Not because they are lazy but it's thouse "forgieners" in "my" country. Theres always someone who'll listen, always a lowest level. And these people tap into that well because they are the same. We need a way to tackle them to protect our people who they might target.

I find it disgusting to impose severe limitations on the entire population in order to protect a small minority from its own stupidity. Furthermore, adopting that principle as sound can easily lead to a totalitarian system, as occrider just hinted.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov In fact, if you do any reading on Islam at all, you'll probably find that Islam is in many ways much more peaceful on the whole than Christianity.

That may be true of a strict interpretation of the Quoran and the Bible, but if you look at the two as the religious movements they are today, you cannot possible claim that. Disregarding fanatic lunatics on both sides, Christianity has evolved (or degenerated, if you like) into a mostly spiritual oriented belief. (Catholicism still holds some important rituals, though.) Islam on the other hand, has not evolved very much from the form it took when it was invented a thousand years ago: It still preaches reform of the material world, listing rules for behaviour rather than ideals.

quote:

Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, 315 U.S. at pages 571-572, 62 S.Ct. at page 769, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262 , 193, 159 A.L.R. 1346; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373 , 1253. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas [337 U.S. 1 , 5] either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

I take it there is some law to legislate for that otherwise he wouldn't put in that little caveat.

And it's not about protecting them it's about protecting people from them.

Btw MI5 doesn't arrest anyone they just provide information. Tougher laws as a deterant could actually reduce the prison population,

no leaders (instigators) for these hate groups>>>less organised groups>>>less new recuits>>>less hate crime>>>less criminals

It isn't a "just to be safe" law it's about curtailing the propegation of hate based upon race (note you can hate a race yourself all you like). Something I think is posative, and socity as a whole think is posative. So it's law, no high drama, no secret survailance. If there was a dogdy use of the law the papers would love to hear it (as you've demonstrated).

And this whole thread should e underpinned but the fact that the guy in question hasn't even been found guilty yet.......

[By the way in terms restriction of freedoms and so on there are far worse laws on both sides of the pond.]

quote:

Last week, he was telephoned by an officer from Gloucestershire police and asked to attend an interview on Monday at a police station near his farm in Cambridgeshire. The caller said his chief constable had received a number of complaints. Mr Page duly attended the meeting with two officers, but when he refused to answer questions without his lawyer present he was arrested and taken to Cambridge police station, spending 40 minutes in a cell. He was told that he would have to stay there overnight if he wished to wait for his lawyer to attend, and so eventually agreed to be interviewed without him. ... He was later released on police bail and was ordered to report to Stroud police station in January. Mr Page went on: "Obviously somebody has not understood the message. Whereas once you were innocent until proven guilty, Gloucestershire police now assume you are guilty until proven innocent. It seems to me that I am being stitched up by the anti-hunting lobby and the politically correct." Gloucestershire police confirmed that they had arrested Mr Page on suspicion of violating Section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act, referring to stirring up racial hatred.

How exactly is this that bad? They recived complaints took him in for questioning. He come out with "Whereas once you were innocent until proven guilty, Gloucestershire police now assume you are guilty until proven innocent." what a load of rubbish you got questioned not jailed thats normal process it's just a big issue because it's happening to you.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

Last edited by Dervish on Dec-18-2004 at 10:46