quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic 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. 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.

This isn't about religion its about RACE!!!

Nick "Twat" Griffin was arrested under the RACE LAW

People can have the right to criticise religions because religions make people different, but nobody has any right whatsoever to criticise people based on race, its illegal and so it should be...

I stand by my comments - no matter if we're talking race, religion, hair colour, wearing of eye glasses, or any other means of singling out a portion of the population for hate or ridicule. People should be allowed to say whatever they like - bjectively speaking there is no "right" opinion, and speech does not physically hurt anyone or their property. It's the basic principle which allows you to call anyone you disagree with a twat.
The golden line - to me - is when we start talking about solid threats. When you are threatening someone, you are stating an intent to hurt him/her or his/hers property. As you are the only one responsible for and controlling your own actions, it is sensible to prevent you from carrying out your threat. If you encourage others to hurt someone or their property, then you are not controlling the actions of that other person, and therefore you cannot be responsible for them.

"All extremist should be taken out and shot".

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish 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.

The key phrase is: "clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.

Meaning the standard is so rediculously high that for the state to engage in the restriction of the freedom of speech, the act must preclude imminent loss of life. If you follow through to the case it references, the supreme court expands on its judgement:

quote:

very recently we have also suggested that 'clear and present danger' is an appropriate guide in determining the constitutionality of restrictions upon expression where the substantive evil sought to be prevented by the restriction is 'destruction of life or property, or invasion of the right of privacy.' Moreover, the likelihood, however great that a substantive evil will result cannot alone justify a restriction upon freedom of speech or the press. The evil itself must be 'substantial', Brandeis, J., concurring in Whitney v. California, supra, 274 U.S. at page 374, 47 S.Ct. at page 647; it must be 'serious', Id., 274 U.S. at page 376, 47 S.Ct. at page 648, 71 L.ed. 1095. And [314 U.S. 252, 263] even the expression of 'legislative preferences or beliefs' cannot transform minor matters of public inconvenience or annoyance into substantive evils of sufficient weight to warrant the curtailment of liberty of expression. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161 , 60 S.Ct. 146, 151. What finally emerges from the 'clerk and present danger' cases is a working principle that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished. Those cases do not purport to mark the furthermost constitutional boundaries of protected expression, nor do we here. They do no more than recognize a minimum compulsion of the Bill of Rights. For the First Amendment6 does not speak equivocally. It prohibits and law 'abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.' It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty- loving society, will allow. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-b...4&invol=252#262

Essentially a speech that merely sets of civil disturbances, unrest, or even minor rioting is not justification to curtail first amendment freedoms. Imminent loss of life or the curtailment of another's right to privacy must be "clear and present" in order to warrant action. Some guy saying that Islam is a "vicious, wicked religion" doesn't quite ring home as a clear and presnt danger" of a substantive evil that is of imminent loss of life. A situation of that magnitutde would probably be a speaker who is arming a mob with weapons and preparing them to roam the streets in civil insurrection. In such a situation there is an identifiable clear and imminent danger.

quote:

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

Great so you're not adverse to them having sweeping surveillance powers to provide the police with information to arrest criminals?

quote:

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

No Hamas leaders >> Less organized groups >> Less recruits >> Less suicide bombings >> Less terrorists

I guess it's worked for Israel.

quote:

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).

It's a law about curtailing the freedom of speech. You're saying: "Oh it's ok if you hate another race or a religion (soon to come) yourself ... you just can't say anything about it to anyone else." Why even allow the person to practice hate even if he keeps it to himself? If he's not allowed to speak of it to anyone else for fear of the propogation of racial hatred, obviously you're trying to rid society of all racial hatred so why allow him to practice hate himself? So arrest him if people find journals or writings where he gives himself away as a racial bigot. So if society deems something as positive, even if it curtails individual freedoms, it's a-ok? Once again that brings us all the way back to legislating morality and societal standards across the broader population.

quote:

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

Yea and all those protestors who were arrested while protesting at the Republican national convention and held in holding cells for hours is ok because they were never found guilty of anything ...

quote:

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

This isn't an us vs. them issue. I've criticized more than my fair share of American civil liberties violations. Just because there are American civil liberty violations means I can't criticize civil liberties infractions across the pond?

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

How is that NOT a presumption of guilt until proven innocent? He wasn't charged with anything, so he has to wait in jail until he answers the police's questions??? If that's not abuse of the law I don't know what is ... wow I guess people aren't concerned about unwarranted detentions as they used to be. So long as you aren't found guilty it's ok???

___________________
Retro ...

If you go even slightly deeper than that one quote about islam(I'm quite busy just now so I can't explore this as much as I'd want to):

quote:

"BLOW UP MOSQUES" One BNP member was filmed confessing to a violent assault on an Asian man, while another admitted to pushing dog excrement through the door of an Asian takeaway. Other evidence collected included a man saying he wanted to attack mosques and kill Asians, and members plotting to firebomb a van distributing anti-BNP leaflets.

LINK


Some details on the law rather than conjecture.

quote:

THE offence of inciting racial hatred is difficult to prove – there have been only 21 successful convictions in the last decade.

also

quote:

Its own (that is the Crown Prosecution Service) guidance states: "Hatred is a very strong emotion. Stirring up racial tension, opposition, even hostility may not necessarily be enough to amount to an offence.

and

quote:

CPS guidance states: "We have to balance the rights of an individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to step in to prevent violence or the threat of violence."

LINK


But in the US....

quote:

Under the USA Patriot Act, the secretary of state, in consultation with the attorney general, is authorized to designate terrorist organizations for immigration purposes. Persons who provide support to or associate with organizations on the Terrorist Exclusion List may be denied entry to the United States, or deported if they are already in the United States. The law states that the secretary may designate an organization that "commits or incites to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity."

LINK

So based upon the attorney general's (one man not a jury) opinion a group (say the BNP) could have every member deported just because they are 'associated' with them? Also would it be likely to be deporting KKK members (who you've said have commited terroist acts in the past.... define your way out of that one).... no..... this laws ment for the ehhhh..... "new people".

So where exactly is it that "Free Speech Surrenders"? I'm not trying to shift the issue just widen the debate. EDIT: And it isn't a us v. them thing either.

By the way I am enjoying this debate, good issues (and I'm the sort who likes to disagree to debate and properly explore issues, incase I piss anyone off).

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

Last edited by Dervish on Dec-19-2004 at 01:44

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish If you go even slightly deeper than that one quote about islam(I'm quite busy just now so I can't explore this as much as I'd want to): quote: "BLOW UP MOSQUES" One BNP member was filmed confessing to a violent assault on an Asian man, while another admitted to pushing dog excrement through the door of an Asian takeaway. Other evidence collected included a man saying he wanted to attack mosques and kill Asians, and members plotting to firebomb a van distributing anti-BNP leaflets. LINK

Yes I paid close attention to the details before I posted as well. Griffin is not one of the BNP members who admitted to committing crimes on the documentary, other memebers did, in particular Steve Barkham and Dave Midgley. Griffin is solely charged with his speech, not criminal acts. Going "slightly deeper", Griffin apologized for and expelled those members guilty of confessing to actual crimes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3898695.stm

quote:

Some details on the law rather than conjecture. quote: THE offence of inciting racial hatred is difficult to prove – there have been only 21 successful convictions in the last decade.

Once again it appears you attempt to justify the law by illustrating how ineffective it is in actually obtaining a conviction. What do you need 200, 2000, 200,000 convictions to actually convince you to seriously question the law's impact on civil liberties? How many times has the government attempted to apply the law in an intimidation of free speech and failed? Does it not count unless a "guilty" verdict is delivered? Laws stand on principle ... not practicality, convenience, or effectivness.

quote:

also quote: also [quote] Its own (that is the Crown Prosecution Service) guidance states: "Hatred is a very strong emotion. Stirring up racial tension, opposition, even hostility may not necessarily be enough to amount to an offence. and quote: CPS guidance states: "We have to balance the rights of an individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to step in to prevent violence or the threat of violence."

Ummm ok so demonstrate how: "Islam is a vicious, wicked faith" extends beyond the scope of "Stirring up racial tension, opposition, even hostility". What imminent threat of violence overcomes the CPC's objective of an individual's right to freedom of expression?

quote:

But in the US.... quote: Under the USA Patriot Act, the secretary of state, in consultation with the attorney general, is authorized to designate terrorist organizations for immigration purposes. Persons who provide support to or associate with organizations on the Terrorist Exclusion List may be denied entry to the United States, or deported if they are already in the United States. The law states that the secretary may designate an organization that "commits or incites to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity." LINK So based upon the attorney general's (one man not a jury) opinion a group (say the BNP) could have every member deported just because they are 'associated' with them? Also would it be likely to be deporting KKK members (who you've said have commited terroist acts in the past.... define your way out of that one).... no..... this laws ment for the ehhhh..... "new people". So where exactly is it that "Free Speech Surrenders"? I'm not trying to shift the issue just widen the debate. EDIT: And it isn't a us v. them thing either.

Ummm I'm not quite sure your source understands legal documentation.

The quote that your source uses, "commits or incites to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity," comes from SEC. 411. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html


Sec 411 amends texts relating to Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act covers:

212 GENERAL CLASSES OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS AND INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION; WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILITY
http://www.immigration-usa.com/ina_96_title_2.html

Summarizing the effect of the Patriot Act on the text of Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the change allows the secretary of state and the attorney general to deport aliens who they deem as collaborators of terrorist organizations (even if it allowed them to deport civilians, would this be analagous to Tony Blair explicitly evicting Griffin?). Ultimately, the US cannot deport US citizens. As a matter of fact, funny that the issue were to arise now, but US courts just ruled that US citizens arrested abroad at the behest of the US government are entitled to the same legal rights that the constitution affords to US citizens on domestic soil:

http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/...6100009_12.html

quote:

By the way I am enjoying this debate, good issues (and I'm the sort who likes to disagree to debate and properly explore issues, incase I piss anyone off).

I always enjoy debates on constitutional fredomes and am almost never offended unless the arguemnt degrades to petty bickering.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummm ok so demonstrate how: "Islam is a vicious, wicked faith" extends beyond the scope of "Stirring up racial tension, opposition, even hostility". What imminent threat of violence overcomes the CPC's objective of an individual's right to freedom of expression?

quote:

"[If you get a copy of the Koran] you will find verse after verse after verse which says that you can take any woman you want as long as they are not Muslim women; any woman that your right arm can own - that is the sword arm, the fighting arm, the arm you hit a white lad with a baseball bat. Any woman they can take by force or by guile is theirs."

By telling a room full of neo-Nazis that Muslims hit white people with baseball bats, not only does that negate the religious arguments (as this is clearly race as he has brought white people into the equasion, effectively saying Muslim = Asian) he is also stirring up hatred with the very real possibility of causing them to harm Asians

Basically he has told a load of thugs that the Koran says Asians can hit white people with baseball bats...what is their reaction likely to be?...

It is..."I would like to blow mosques up"

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You mean the one currently residing at Her Majesty's pleasure charged with numerous terrorism offences?

about time.

___________________
Fave Tune at the Moment: Mesmerizer - Taking Control

>>> Download my mix here <<< (Electro, Techno & Psy-Trance)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley By telling a room full of neo-Nazis that Muslims hit white people with baseball bats, not only does that negate the religious arguments (as this is clearly race as he has brought white people into the equasion, effectively saying Muslim = Asian) he is also stirring up hatred with the very real possibility of causing them to harm Asians Basically he has told a load of thugs that the Koran says Asians can hit white people with baseball bats...what is their reaction likely to be?... It is..."I would like to blow mosques up"

What imminent violence did his speech generate? Can you even point to something remotely tangible? Furthermore, we're supposed to infer from his criticism of Islam and allusion to muslims attacking people that he's actually advocating for people to "blow mosques up"??? So if you're a poor person with a criminal background who's loitering in a rich neighborhood, I can infer that you're up to no good and arrest you for attempted robbery? Similarly, if his audience were intellectuals and college professors his statement would be permissible but because his audience is composed of Neo-Nazis it suddenly becomes illegal?? So let me get this straight ... based upon what can be inferrred from what you say and who your audience is, determines whether your speech is legal or not? That's free speech?

Please remind me to never speak in front of an audience that lacks proper credentials and to keep my words limited to content that avoids any confrontational or accusatory language that may invite any possiblity of "hate" associated with race or religion. My apologies for all the religous denegration I have ever committed on TA, jokingly or otherwise.

By the way, though exageration is prevalent, Griffin is factually correct:

quote:

33: The Clans 50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. 51 Thou canst defer whom thou wilt of them and receive unto thee whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou desirest of those whom thou hast set aside (temporarily), it is no sin for thee (to receive her again); that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieve, and may all be pleased with what thou givest them. Allah knoweth what is in your hearts (O men), and Allah is ever Forgiving, Clement.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What imminent violence did his speech generate? Can you even point to something remotely tangible? Furthermore, we're supposed to infer from his criticism of Islam and allusion to muslims attacking people that he's actually advocating for people to "blow mosques up"??? So if you're a poor person with a criminal background who's loitering in a rich neighborhood, I can infer that you're up to no good and arrest you for attempted robbery? Similarly, if his audience were intellectuals and college professors his statement would be permissible but because his audience is composed of Neo-Nazis it suddenly becomes illegal?? So let me get this straight ... based upon what can be inferrred from what you say and who your audience is, determines whether your speech is legal or not? That's free speech? Please remind me to never speak in front of an audience that lacks proper credentials and to keep my words limited to content that avoids any confrontational or accusatory language that may invite any possiblity of "hate" associated with race or religion. My apologies for all the religous denegration I have ever committed on TA, jokingly or otherwise. By the way, though exageration is prevalent, Griffin is factually correct:

I am in no way saying you should not be able to criticise religions as they are the same as political ideologies...they change the way people act. However, this is a race issue, and there is no justification whatsoever to criticise race...race does not change people. There is no justification for murder so it is illegal, same with rape or theiving. There is no justification for racism so that should be illegal. You should not have the right to convince people that different races are different and even worse you should not be allowed to incite hatred of another race (which is what Nick Griffin has been rightfully arrested for) We do not live in an anarchic society and unless you are advocating such a society, then you have to accept that certain liberties will inevitably be restricted (through laws). Why does "freedom of speach" have to be immune from such restrictions like every other liberty is? Dont get me wrong, freedom of speach is an undeniable right, but some times it goes too far...

(I'd be quite interested to hear your views on Abu Hamza and see if you believe in his right to free speach?)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I am in no way saying you should not be able to criticise religions as they are the same as political ideologies...they change the way people act.

So I take it you're against the incitement of religious hatred law?

quote:

However, this is a race issue, and there is no justification whatsoever to criticise race...race does not change people. There is no justification for murder so it is illegal, same with rape or theiving. There is no justification for racism so that should be illegal. You should not have the right to convince people that different races are different and even worse you should not be allowed to incite hatred of another race (which is what Nick Griffin has been rightfully arrested for) We do not live in an anarchic society and unless you are advocating such a society, then you have to accept that certain liberties will inevitably be restricted (through laws). Why does "freedom of speach" have to be immune from such restrictions like every other liberty is? Dont get me wrong, freedom of speach is an undeniable right, but some times it goes too far...

Murdering, raping, and theiving constitute as violations of another person's inalienable rights. Speech that is offensive to me, does not infringe upon my rights. Furthermore, my desire to silence speech that is offensive to me does not supercede that individual's inalienable right to free speech regardless of how inappropriate the content may be. Unless said speech can be tangibly linked to a violation of my rights, such as a death threat, I cannot force the individual to keep silent. Such a mentality is hardly synonymous with an anarchic society as evidenced by the fact that many nations protect free speech regardless of whether it contains racial or religious hatred and are doing just fine. Lastly, it appears that no one can even tell me what specific parts about Griffin's speech should be illegal. So far it appears that we are supposed to convict him based upon our interpretations and inferences as to what he is "actually" saying (a notion that is so rediculously ludicrous to think of that a court would have such subjectivity in arresting a person), and who his audience is, both of which I think I have substantively addressed in my last post.

quote:

(I'd be quite interested to hear your views on Abu Hamza and see if you believe in his right to free speach?)

If the allegations of his aid to terrorist groups are true than he should be arrested. If he's simply saying that Muslims should rise up in Jihad and kill more Americans and whatnot, than he's entitled to his opinion. There's certainly Americans who think that we should indiscriminatly kill Muslims in Iraq, and they're entitled to their opinions.

___________________
Retro ...