Good Law, or more New-Labour crap?

Post Reply New Topic

Check out the links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4329716.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm

My views are unprintable, and will probably leave me liable to arrest, fairly shortly.

"The government says the legislation is a response to the concerns of faith groups, particularly Muslims.

The Muslim Council of Britain has welcomed the move..."

What do you think?

New Labour crap, actually. I don't believe the new law will serve any useful purpose other than to make people more likely to self-censor, and ceretainly won't stop the bigots.

they've realised they've not thought about the ramifications of this properly, and are now trying to manicure manure, basically. dear me, why don't they just scrap it and start again, with their thinking brains in, as to what they actually want to achieve with it?

For the impressionable it lends a certain glamour.
"It was not that Adam ate the apple for the apple's sake, but because it was forbidden. It would have been better for us--oh infinitely better for us--if the serpent had been forbidden."
- Mark Twain's Notebook

Last edited by jb814 on 12 Oct 2005, 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is Your own Patriot Act in the UK, isn"t that You may have to live with in the UK. So live with it.

Not sure about this one. I can see where they are coming from, but it could be misused.

I do believe the libel and slander laws should be repealed, though. It is disgraceful that we cannot accuse companies like McDonnald's of mistreating workers and animals. If it damages their business, tough - they deserve to go bankrupt.

Deleted

Last edited by Ante on 09 Nov 2005, 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The thing is that it isnt clear though and it looks like it is open to abuse. What is criticism and what is hate speech is open to interpretation. I hope that it will be used with common sense but that is something that seems to be lacking in prosecutors and the courts these days.

Echo and amplify that.
We made all the same mistakes before in Ireland. Do you think this new law will be applied to the likes of Ian Paisley whose fundamentalism leads this democratic preacher to condone the death of one and the injury of 40 odd policemen?, Will it cause him to call for protestant disarmament to come in line with the IRA? Will christian extremists be considered at all? If not and the law is perceived to be anti-muslim only, do you think that will help? This is populism and pandering to the press, not constructive in the least.

They are considered distinct races as far as laws in connection with inciting racial hatred are concerned.

My opinion is that none of these laws should exist anyway, and we certainly don't need anymore. There's already enough legislation, without specific stuff relating to race and religion, to enable thugs bent on violence to be tackled. If the state spent as much effort enforcing existing legislation on guns and other real criminal activity, and stopped turning a blind eye to crimes committed in areas with large populations of immigrants, then we would all be a lot happier. Also, these types of laws only serve to fuel resentement: they make crime committed against ethnic minorities worse, in the eyes of the Law, than those committed against indigenous English people. Example: If I walk down the street and get mugged, and called a "f*****g autistic s**t" by the mugger, then if he's caught he'll probably get off with some community service. If he mugged a black person and substituted the N word for autistic, he'd be going down for some time. So, you see, we're second class citizens in our own country.

These incitement to religous hatred laws add to that unfortunate predicament. Additionally, they put more power in the hands of the state, to be used as a political tool, when necessary. The trouble is, as already mentioned, all law is open to interpretation. Moreover, much bad law is implemented in a hasty manner, with little regard to the many contexts in which it can be used, or misused. And, you don't necessarily have to break the law to be punished by it. The state could make life very difficult for some people on the pretext of wishing to obtain a prosecution, when in fact they know they've not enough evidence, and will eventually drop the charges.

Actually, I could demonstrate how laws get abused right here on WP!

Take this: "Personal attacks, which include insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect, are not allowed on the forums."

Now, what exactly constitutes a personal attack?

Perhaps this?

"Its to stop racists like you being racist." (Directed at me)

Or this:

"You seem extremely selfish, [name removed]."

Well, it's the latter. I'll leave you to figure out why.

You see, people enforce the Law, or rules, to suit themselves. Government works like that, too.

I think this proposed "incitement to religious hatred" law is a terrible idea. As many others have pointed out, a person is free to choose their religious beliefs - unlike their race - and making it illegal to criticise beliefs and ideas is an affront to freedom of speech.

Also, this law is likely to stir up more religious hatred, as religious people try to bring prosecutions against people from other religious groups.

This law has clearly been proposed to help Labour win Muslim votes, since Muslims are not covered by the “incitement to racial hatred” law, which covers Jews and Sikhs, nor the blasphemy law, which only refers to Christianity.
A better way to promote “equality” between religions as far as the law is concerned would be to repeal the blasphemy law. In practice, though, people get away with offending Christian sensibilities all the time in the UK. And so they should. Some people seem to take an unusual amount of pleasure from it though. It's almost compulsory in the modern art world. I suppose people figure they're unlikely to meet the same fate as Theo van Gogh or Salman Rushdie.

By the way, my university tutor – an American – has told me that, in the name of free speech, there is no such “race” law in the United States. Is this true?

I hope the religious hatred law can be scrapped now that Labour have won their election. It’s good to see Christian groups opposing it.
Incidentally, the Muslim Council of Britain, who have “welcomed” the proposed law, have also proposed scrapping Holocaust Memorial Day, because they say it’s offensive to Muslims.

Last edited by Klytus on 16 Oct 2005, 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

By the way, UK law’s definition of distinct races has some interesting consequences.
My dad recently did a law degree, and he told me about a certain case study. There were two guys – one a Sikh (with turban), and one a Rastafarian (with dreadlocks) - who attended interviews for jobs (different jobs presumably, but that’s not important) where they were told they’d need to cut their hair for health and safety reasons. They both said they’d refuse, and so they were both turned down automatically. They both tried to sue for racial discrimination. The Sikh won, but the Rastafarian lost (as Rastafarians are not considered a distinct “race”).