|
British Party Leader Arrested for “Inciting Hate”. Free Speech Surrenders … (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
However, this is a race issue, and there is no justification whatsoever to criticise race...race does not change people. |
How is that racism? It's directed against muslims, and muslims are not a race unless their religion somehow caused an evolutionary leap of which we're all unaware of except you.
| quote: | | You should not have the right to convince people that different races are different |
WTF? How are different races not different? If they'd all be the same then there would be no notion of race in the first place, and you couldn't tell white and black people apart. There's no point in denying the obvious because someone's feelings might get hurt. People are not equal, sad but true. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
How is that racism? It's directed against muslims, and muslims are not a race unless their religion somehow caused an evolutionary leap of which we're all unaware of except you. |
Jesus Christ have you actually read any of my posts?
| quote: | | WTF? How are different races not different? If they'd all be the same then there would be no notion of race in the first place, and you couldn't tell white and black people apart. There's no point in denying the obvious because someone's feelings might get hurt. People are not equal, sad but true. |
Your talking about appearances, I was talking about inside (I take it you donot believe there is any kind of mental differences between race right?) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So I take it you're against the incitement of religious hatred law? |
Well I dont know what it looks like yet but I should imagine I would be against it yes (altho there should be some law to stop people inciting others to kill different religions like Hamza)
| quote: | | 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. |
Well I have already said how his comments are more to do with race than religion (he uses religion as an excuse to have a go at the asians which the comments re. hitting white lads with baseball bats).
I can accept that one persons individual views can do little harm, but when that person attempts to persuade others to racist thinking that is very dangerous (and led to riots in Oldham and Bradford). I'm sorry but you should not be allowed to incite others to racial hatred... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well I dont know what it looks like yet but I should imagine I would be against it yes (altho there should be some law to stop people inciting others to kill different religions like Hamza)
|
So based upon the ex-British home secretary's justification of the Religious hate law (from Dervish's post), how do you justify the racial hate law since the religious hate law uses the very same rationale and definition?
| quote: |
Well I have already said how his comments are more to do with race than religion (he uses religion as an excuse to have a go at the asians which the comments re. hitting white lads with baseball bats).
I can accept that one persons individual views can do little harm, but when that person attempts to persuade others to racist thinking that is very dangerous (and led to riots in Oldham and Bradford). I'm sorry but you should not be allowed to incite others to racial hatred... |
But you fail to address my arguments as to the specifics of the rule of law and Griffin's statements. I cannot continue my argument unless you address them because they attack the fundamental principles of the racial/religious hate laws which reveals a very real danger of an inconsistent and subjective application of the law. The possibility of inconsistentely and subjectivity in the law is not my primary concern, but it speaks of how the law is principally flawed. While it would be nice if life allowed the rule of law to be based on common sense, that is not the case. Laws are founded on principle for a reason. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So based upon the ex-British home secretary's justification of the Religious hate law (from Dervish's post), how do you justify the racial hate law since the religious hate law uses the very same rationale and definition? |
Er...because one is race and one is for religion!
| quote: | | But you fail to address my arguments as to the specifics of the rule of law and Griffin's statements. I cannot continue my argument unless you address them because they attack the fundamental principles of the racial/religious hate laws which reveals a very real danger of an inconsistent and subjective application of the law. The possibility of inconsistentely and subjectivity in the law is not my primary concern, but it speaks of how the law is principally flawed. While it would be nice if life allowed the rule of law to be based on common sense, that is not the case. Laws are founded on principle for a reason. |
Well as I am not a law graduate or a solicitor I cant possibly comment on the specifics until after he's appeared in court (so that somebody else will have commented for me!) I did however watch the documentary (which was not about Griffin specifically but about the activities of the BNP as a whole, of which Griffin is the leader and coordinator...) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Er...because one is race and one is for religion!
|
Yes however, they are based on the same principles. Are the ex-British home secretary's justification for the one on religion due to the fundamental similarities to the one on race incorrect?
| quote: |
Well as I am not a law graduate or a solicitor I cant possibly comment on the specifics until after he's appeared in court (so that somebody else will have commented for me!) I did however watch the documentary (which was not about Griffin specifically but about the activities of the BNP as a whole, of which Griffin is the leader and coordinator...) |
Ok well I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree for now. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Yes however, they are based on the same principles. Are the ex-British home secretary's justification for the one on religion due to the fundamental similarities to the one on race incorrect? |
It makes no difference whether they are based on the same principles, race and religion are different. We all agree it is justified to criticise religion (obviously not to the extent you preach that it is ok to kill people from other religions as Hamza did) as religion is a choice, and it also can change the way people behave, whereas race is not a choice and it does not change the way people behave, and therefore there is no justification in criticising it (or inciting hatred of it which is what the BNP do...)
| quote: | | Ok well I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree for now. |
Well we will see what he is accused of when he returns to court because until then we don't actually know any details... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
It makes no difference whether they are based on the same principles, race and religion are different. We all agree it is justified to criticise religion (obviously not to the extent you preach that it is ok to kill people from other religions as Hamza did) as religion is a choice, and it also can change the way people behave, whereas race is not a choice and it does not change the way people behave, and therefore there is no justification in criticising it (or inciting hatred of it which is what the BNP do...)
|
And I've raised this issue before, the rule of law is based on principle, not your subjective evaluation of what is "ok" and "not ok." If you can't defend the law on principle than it's not a very good law. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
And I've raised this issue before, the rule of law is based on principle, not your subjective evaluation of what is "ok" and "not ok." If you can't defend the law on principle than it's not a very good law. |
No its like saying it is wrong to kill a human therefore it is wrong to kill an animal - two totally different things, but the same principle of not killing things... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
No its like saying it is wrong to kill a human therefore it is wrong to kill an animal - two totally different things, but the same principle of not killing things... |
No I would argue it differentely. You punish someone for theft of property whether it be theft of something small (shoplifting), whether it be theft of something big (grand larsoney), or whether you're stealing from a company (embezzlement). You don't say embezzlement shouldn't be considered theft because it's like stealing from an animal. Fundamentally embezzlement is the same as the other forms of theft. The principle for punishing theft is the same for all three. With respect to the speech laws, you're punishing someone for hate speak that "incites" others. So why should the legality of hate speech be perfectly fine when it comes to religion, as opposed to race. It's still hate speech and therefore the law should logically apply to both. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
No I would argue it differentely. You punish someone for theft of property whether it be theft of something small (shoplifting), whether it be theft of something big (grand larsoney), or whether you're stealing from a company (embezzlement). You don't say embezzlement shouldn't be considered theft because it's like stealing from an animal. Fundamentally embezzlement is the same as the other forms of theft. The principle for punishing theft is the same for all three. With respect to the speech laws, you're punishing someone for hate speak that "incites" others. So why should the legality of hate speech be perfectly fine when it comes to religion, as opposed to race. It's still hate speech and therefore the law should logically apply to both. |
i give up mate |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
i give up mate |
Yes well it's your laws ... if you're happy with them, that's no sweat off my back ;) |
|
|
|
|
