this is in the news a lot today, with much protest over David Blunkets plans to make it a crime.

I was wondering as I drove to work (probably speeding and running down many pedestrians and deers wandering on the motorway) why he doesn't scrap all these specific "incitement to x hatred" and just make it illegal to incite hatred full stop. Wouldn't that be easier, or are there specific hatreds that he wishes to continue to be incited. Incitement to hatred of fox hunters, the government might fall foul over that one for example.

There's also the free speech angle, why should we stop someone who has an opinion trying to convince others to the same point of view. The fact that we find that point of view offensive is neither here nor there really.
I guess it's based on the fact that it's actually likely to cause illegal behaviour after the fact...

Originally posted by Cyclone
There's also the free speech angle, why should we stop someone who has an opinion trying to convince others to the same point of view.

From my experience, those that try to convince others of their own hate-filled opinions are either:

1) lying through their teeth or
2) being hypocritical about their own failings at the same time they're condemning any particular race / religion / gender / council tenant of that same act.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I guess it's based on the fact that it's actually likely to cause illegal behaviour after the fact...

That's it I suppose. Look what happened in WWII. Would you have gven Hitler airtime for a Party Political Broadcast, on the assumption that not doing so would infringe his human rights?

Those that call for hatred aren't usually the ones who get caught up in the violent backlash, so unless something is enshrined in law to at least make them think twice about what they're writing, then incitement will continue.

Freedom without responsibility is a dangerous thing.

Originally posted by Abdul
lying through their teeth or
2) being hypocritical about their own failings at the same time they're condemning any particular race / religion / gender / council tenant of that same act.


those aren't reasons to stop someone speaking though.

What happened in Germany was a lot more complicated than 1 man and his psychosis.

I'm inclined to agree. Better to proove them wrong than stop them speaking altogether - that'll just drive them underground.

Originally posted by Agent Dan
I'm inclined to agree. Better to proove them wrong than stop them speaking altogether - that'll just drive them underground.

That's possible on somewhere like the Sheffield Forum, where we can discuss both points of view.

But when your only source of information is somebody promoting one side of the story, how are you supposed to know who is right and who is wrong?

At the risk of inflating Geoff's ego, I would not be surprised if the relatively low BNP presence in Sheffield was because many people on the forum had been able to prove their propaganda was baseless - all this at a time when racial tension was sending other parts of the North up in flames.

Those inclined to violence will not bother to check the facts for accuracy before putting the boot in.

I wrote an essay on incitement to racial hatred whilst studying for my law degree and i obviously read a lot of material covering all different angles.

however, i'm still confused about the subject. it is difficult to draw a line on such a subjective area - what one person finds offensive another won't, what will drive one person to violence will make another just shrug.

I am all for free speech but if there is someone stood in sheffield town centre speaking openly about how jews (for example) are making up the holocaust, how can we not expect the jewish community to get angry and even possibly violent? Should then this person not be arrest/forcably removed (as he probably would be) to prevent a riot? but from the speakers point of view, his right to freedom of speech is protected by the ECHR and it is his right.

does it depend on exactly what he says and where he says it? where do we draw the line?

Originally posted by Abdul
But when your only source of information is somebody promoting one side of the story, how are you supposed to know who is right and who is wrong?

My answer (slightly glib) would be to teach everyone never to believe one side of the story!! I was always brought up to try looking at things from other perspectives...

denying the holocaust wouldn't be covered under incitement to racial hatred though.

Originally posted by Abdul
From my experience, those that try to convince others of their own hate-filled opinions are either:

1) lying through their teeth or
2) being hypocritical about their own failings at the same time they're condemning any particular race / religion / gender / council tenant of that same act.



That's it I suppose. Look what happened in WWII. Would you have gven Hitler airtime for a Party Political Broadcast, on the assumption that not doing so would infringe his human rights?

Those that call for hatred aren't usually the ones who get caught up in the violent backlash, so unless something is enshrined in law to at least make them think twice about what they're writing, then incitement will continue.

Freedom without responsibility is a dangerous thing. to true ,but adolf hitler was voted man of the year by time magazine.usa ,in the thirties so this sort of thing has been around for a long time

Originally posted by Cyclone
denying the holocaust wouldn't be covered under incitement to racial hatred though.

Why not?!

Originally posted by Agent Dan
Why not?!
ermm, well the same reason that denying the slave trade wouldn't be incitement to racial hatred.

Saying that something didn't happen is hardly the same as trying to get people to hate jews is it. If they were talking about jews taking our jobs, being the cause of islamic fundamentalism and stealing our women, then it would be as those things are likely to make people angry and hateful.

I'd disagree. You're still inciting jews to riot - why is that any different? I thought the incitement could be from either side.

If a muslim started going around proclaiming that all english people were evil rapists that would incite a riot too, therefore would also be racial hatred.

Originally posted by Cyclone
ermm, well the same reason that denying the slave trade wouldn't be incitement to racial hatred

The slave trade, though, didn't target a specific group of people. More like anyone they got their hands on. Equally, you might find that if you went to Africa and denied it, people would also be quite angry...

Originally posted by Agent Dan
The slave trade, though, didn't target a specific group of people. More like anyone they got their hands on. Equally, you might find that if you went to Africa and denied it, people would also be quite angry...
dont wanna upset anyone, but wasnt it africans who rounded up african and sold them to the Arabs and then Britsh transported them to USA? just asking....:( :confused:

Originally posted by Agent Dan
I'd disagree. You're still inciting jews to riot - why is that any different?

Because it is incitment to riot, and not religous hatred... as you said yourself. If you were asking people to believe that the holocaust, it isn't trying to make someone hate a religion.

Salman Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses.

He is a Muslim and he wrote a book about the "Quran" He incited hatred with his facts and his views, as we all know..

Now this is interesting.

He gets British police protection for his views on the Quran, Which incited religious hatred amongst Muslims. Yet others doing the same thing, will be sent to prison. !!!!!!!

Now i do know that the Quran, has many details within it, that are very confusing, and sick.

One is that Muhammad was a Merchant ( didn’t get into religion until he was 40 ) and he married 7-9 girls no older than 15. The eldest was in her 20's, the youngest 9 years old!

Their is a name for people like this, yet if i said that Muhammad was a Peadophile. I would cause religious hatred. Why!
Yet it is the fact.
As is the fact that Muhammad murdered Jews. This is a fact also in the Quran.

Not many people know that the Filmmaker, Theo van Gogh Son of the famous painter was murdered only a few weeks ago for speaking the truth, about the Hate in the Quran towards Women.
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_4335.shtml

He spoke the truth about what was written in the Quran and was murdered by a Muslim for doing so.
The Iranian Religious Government put a death sentence on Salman Rushdie for speaking the truth.

Is this normal behaviour killing people for speaking the truth? Yes, So the angle now in the UK, is to outlaw the truth being spoken.
By saying its racist or inciting hatred. All because the muslim leaders in the UK. Do not want to give their reasons on the behaviour of Muhammad or the Quran.

The Dutch are now quickly picking up the Quran to research the truth, due to this high profile killing of Van Goghs Son.

The Quran really does preach Evil and their are a few followers of this faith, amongst our society, who will go out their way to kill, to stop the truth being spoken about it.
I say Evil because i do have the grasp on Christian religion. Jesus didn’t have sex with children, he didn’t murder people. And I don’t think he showed any hatred towards women as the Quran does in nearly every page of the book.

Blunkett wants to make it a crime, because the British public ( The sheep ). Do not have a clue what is being preached in this book. And the muslim council board, are making certain we do not, by rushing new laws to stop people like Van Goghs Son, salman Rushdie from speaking the truth.

It's a bit like the Nazis stopping the media in the 30's in Germany from informing the truth about Hilter. Hence Hilter preached in his own news papers.

making all people of a religion hate you is not the same as inciting others to hate a religion.

If i wish to go around proclaiming that the virgin mary was actually a whore I will upset many christians, that is not the same as going around trying to convince people that christians are the spawn of satan and they should all be shot.

Nothing against christians of course, but i had to use something as an example.

you on the other hand would quickly be falling foul of the new law with statements like this;

"The Quran really does preach Evil and their are a few followers of this faith, amongst our society, who will go out their way to kill, to stop the truth being spoken about it."

Originally posted by Invictus
Salman Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses.

He is a Muslim and he wrote a book about the "Quran" He incited hatred with his facts and his views, as we all know..

Now this is interesting.

He gets British police protection for his views on the Quran, Which incited religious hatred amongst Muslims. Yet others doing the same thing, will be sent to prison. !!!!!!!

Now i do know that the Quran, has many details within it, that are very confusing, and sick.

One is that Muhammad was a Merchant ( didn’t get into religion until he was 40 ) and he married 7-9 girls no older than 15. The eldest was in her 20's, the youngest 9 years old!

Their is a name for people like this, yet if i said that Muhammad was a Peadophile. I would cause religious hatred. Why!
Yet it is the fact.
As is the fact that Muhammad murdered Jews. This is a fact also in the Quran.

Not many people know that the Filmmaker, Theo van Gogh Son of the famous painter was murdered only a few weeks ago for speaking the truth, about the Hate in the Quran towards Women.
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_4335.shtml

He spoke the truth about what was written in the Quran and was murdered by a Muslim for doing so.
The Iranian Religious Government put a death sentence on Salman Rushdie for speaking the truth.

Is this normal behaviour killing people for speaking the truth? Yes, So the angle now in the UK, is to outlaw the truth being spoken.
By saying its racist or inciting hatred. All because the muslim leaders in the UK. Do not want to give their reasons on the behaviour of Muhammad or the Quran.

The Dutch are now quickly picking up the Quran to research the truth, due to this high profile killing of Van Goghs Son.

The Quran really does preach Evil and their are a few followers of this faith, amongst our society, who will go out their way to kill, to stop the truth being spoken about it.
I say Evil because i do have the grasp on Christian religion. Jesus didn’t have sex with children, he didn’t murder people. And I don’t think he showed any hatred towards women as the Quran does in nearly every page of the book.

Blunkett wants to make it a crime, because the British public ( The sheep ). Do not have a clue what is being preached in this book. And the muslim council board, are making certain we do not, by rushing new laws to stop people like Van Goghs Son, salman Rushdie from speaking the truth.

It's a bit like the Nazis stopping the media in the 30's in Germany from informing the truth about Hilter. Hence Hilter preached in his own news papers.

Many thanks for your comments, Invictus.

They contain so many lies, I honestly don't know where to start answering them!

Where did you get your info from? The BNP website, or an Islamophobic Christain fundamentalist website? You know the type - the ones that preach Jesus was the prince of peace and love before exhorting George Bush to kill Arabs?

As I said in my first post -

From my experience, those that try to convince others of their own hate-filled opinions are either:

1) lying through their teeth or
2) being hypocritical about their own failings at the same time they're condemning any particular race / religion / gender / council tenant of that same act.


I thank you Invictus for proving my point.

Originally posted by Snook
Because it is incitment to riot, and not religous hatred... as you said yourself. If you were asking people to believe that the holocaust didn't happen, it isn't trying to make someone hate a religion.

But it would imply that all jews were liars for saying the holocaust does happen... which would cause people to call jews liars. Which is inciting religious hatred, surely...

Originally posted by Abdul
Many thanks for your comments, Invictus.

They contain so many lies, I honestly don't know where to start answering them!

Where did you get your info from? The BNP website, or an Islamophobic Christain fundamentalist website? You know the type - the ones that preach Jesus was the prince of peace and love before exhorting George Bush to kill Arabs?

As I said in my first post -




I thank you Invictus for proving my point.


Bigs words ALL lies .

But my point also is being made. You are preventing the truth being told.

Goghs son was Murdered by muslim, Why?
Then why is Salaman Rushdie hiding for his life?

Did not muhammed become a religious figure in his 40s?
Did not Muhammed marry chidlren?
Did not Muhammed murder?
Does not Quran speak evil about women.

If you say I am a liar i will provide you the proof to what it is i am telling lies about.

But to waffle every thing is a lie LOL. With no Facts to prove my comments are false. Is funny.

I lived in saudi as a commercial diver.

make the law tougher on rioters,after seeing some of the sentences the oldham rioters got it makes the law look foolish,what im trying to say is that incitement to riot ,to egg some one on to riot, cant be as bad as actually bieng involved in rioting,so hammer the rioters for doing it and give them proper prison terms,not a slapped wrist

Invictus

Your points are either false, or greatly exaggerated. But what is new, coming from yet another of the forums' part-time middle-east 'experts' and / or part-time Islamic Scholars?

Originally posted by Invictus
Did not muhammed become a religious figure in his 40s?

Yes...Mohammed did did receive Prophethood at age 40. So your comment that he 'got into' religion until 40 is accurate I suppose. Even before he attained Prophethood, he was well known for his truthfulness and honesty and was financially secure...so I strongly doubt he did it for the money and status.

In the spirit of fairness, I'll give you that one.

Originally posted by Invictus
Did not Muhammed marry chidlren?

As for him marrying a young girl, it was custom in that part of the world for girls to marry at a young age; In some parts of the world, it still is. The Prophet was not the first to do so. As for any sexual relations between the two (which I suspect is what your post is focusing on) Islam forbids this before the couple have reached puberty.

Therefore I won't award you that one.

Originally posted by Invictus
and he married 7-9 girls no older than 15.

False. Aside from Aisha, all the Prophet's other wives aged between 17 and 50, with the majority of them being older widows.

So I can't award that one to you either.

Originally posted by Invictus
Did not Muhammed murder?
Murder is usually defined as 'The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice'. I'm sure you're aware that Islam takes a dim view of criminals and there will be cases where the death penalty applies.

Perhaps you'd give us an example of where the Prophet Muhammad committed murder before I decide whether or not to award the points?

Originally posted by Invictus
...i do have the grasp on Christian religion. Jesus didn’t have sex with children, he didn’t murder people.

It's important not to compare apples to oranges here. Jesus didn't marry, and because the Romans were the superpower at the time; Jesus couldn't fight the Romans else he and his followers would have been killed.

Again, in the spirit of fairness, I'll award you that one, because although your second sentence is correct, I'm unsure of the first

Originally posted by Invictus
And I don’t think he showed any hatred towards women as the Quran does in nearly every page of the book.

Have you even read the Quran? If so, please provide us with an example of this.

I do know of one religious book where incest, fornication, adultery and debauchery are mentioned throughout, and I'll give you a clue; it isn't the Quran.

So I can't award the points to you for that one.

Originally posted by Invictus
I lived in saudi as a commercial diver.

< A round of applause for Invictus; please take a bow >

And I've lived in England all my life and am currently employed as a Systems Administrator for a PLC in Sheffield.

Before I award the points, may I ask what on earth has that got to with this thread?

Shall we call that one a draw?

Originally posted by Invictus
Bigs words ALL lies .

<snip>

If you say I am a liar i will provide you the proof to what it is i am telling lies about.

But to waffle every thing is a lie LOL. With no Facts to prove my comments are false. Is funny.


When I first posted on this thread, I thought it was the likes of you that people need protecting from. Hence I was for stricter legislation for those who incite others to violence.

But perhaps Agent Dan is right; it is better to prove you wrong that drive you underground. We'll see.

And may I take this opportunity to welcome yet another part-time Islamic Scholar to the forum :)

Originally posted by depoix
make the law tougher on rioters,after seeing some of the sentences the oldham rioters got it makes the law look foolish,what im trying to say is that incitement to riot ,to egg some one on to riot, cant be as bad as actually bieng involved in rioting,so hammer the rioters for doing it and give them proper prison terms,not a slapped wrist

You may find this article of interest:

Oldham riot sentences 'too harsh' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2285749.stm)

I'm all for punishing rioters, but they're only the puppets; what do you think should happen to the puppeteers?

Originally posted by Abdul
You may find this article of interest:

Oldham riot sentences 'too harsh' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2285749.stm)

I'm all for punishing rioters, but they're only the puppets; what do you think should happen to the puppeteers? thanx for that abdul but i still think they got off lightly millions of poundsworth of damage police officers injured its wrong and the only way to make people understand that its wrong to destroy property that other people have worked hard for is to give very harsh sentences,6 years might have been better plus an extra 3 years for those convicted of harming the police officers a for the instigators ten years woul calm their tempers, no one has the right to riot clamp down hard now and the thugs will think twice if there is ever a next time.cheers

Post by Invictus removed. Please read terms of use regarding the registration and use of multiple usernames.

Nothing to see here, move (carry) on :)

Originally posted by Agent Dan
But it would imply that all Jews were liars for saying the holocaust does happen... which would cause people to call Jews liars. Which is inciting religious hatred, surely...

But not all Jews have first hand evidence that it happened, and some Christians (The soldiers that liberated the camps, for example) do have first hand evidence. So you are not only calling Jews liars, but lots of other people too, so it isn't a statement against one religion. You would just be questioning something that happened to one religion... to make such claims you would probably have to be either very stupid, or an anti-semite, but that isn't the point.

Invictus has raised some interesting points but the one thing to remember here is that the sentence you can receive for this is up to 7 yrs in the nick.
I for one dont want this law to come in as it will infringe my human rights to free speech under the united nations convention, and I am fairly sure it wont be long before this peice of legislation is indeed challenged in the european courts.
We are moving down a dangerous road here and I wonder what will be next for our labour masters,because you can bet it wont finish here.
As for Abdul saying the BNP are relativley small here in Sheffield in part due to this forum is is very silly,I say to you watch this space .

Originally posted by royjames
Invictus has raised some interesting points but the one thing to remember here is that the sentence you can receive for this is up to 7 yrs in the nick.
I for one dont want this law to come in as it will infringe my human rights to free speech under the united nations convention, and I am fairly sure it wont be long before this peice of legislation is indeed challenged in the european courts.
We are moving down a dangerous road here and I wonder what will be next for our labour masters,because you can bet it wont finish here.
As for Abdul saying the BNP are relativley small here in Sheffield in part due to this forum is is very silly,I say to you watch this space .

Hey, I agree with you again Roy... twice in one lifetime, who would have thunk it! :D

I think if you stop people like the BNP airing their views, then it does because a dangerous road to go down, and it does infringe on peoples right to free speach... although we have never had that right in this country.

I think people should be allowed to share their views, and I believe that there will always be good people to stand against them... yes, another Nazi Germany could happen if the BNP ever got into power, but that is the risk you take to have freedom.

I would hope that most people would see that living under the rule of the BNP would soon turn into a dictatorship and we would lose democracy, the country would lose trade with other countries, the pound would become worthless, and we'd probably have to start a war with a nearby country to to take peoples minds off things.

do you feel the same about the laws regarding incitement to hate on other grounds?

I don't really see how it infringes free speech. You can still express your opinion, just not in a way that would incite others to hate.

Originally posted by royjames
Invictus has raised some interesting points but the one thing to remember here is that the sentence you can receive for this is up to 7 yrs in the nick.
I for one dont want this law to come in as it will infringe my human rights to free speech under the united nations convention, and I am fairly sure it wont be long before this peice of legislation is indeed challenged in the european courts.
We are moving down a dangerous road here and I wonder what will be next for our labour masters,because you can bet it wont finish here.
As for Abdul saying the BNP are relativley small here in Sheffield in part due to this forum is is very silly,I say to you watch this space .

I'm a little confused about the need for this change in the law, mainly because I have no experience of incitement to religious hatred, - with the exception of that one Muslim cleric who was jailed for the exhortation to his congregation to kill all Jews, Catholics, Americans and all infidels in general.

To me the move seems nothing other than a cynical ploy by the government to curry favour with the Muslim community in the face of it's widespread condemnation of the invasion of Iraq.

And although this proposed legislation is not a real threat to freedom of speech it could be the foundation stone of law that Muslims here are really looking for. In a recent poll conducted by the Guardian it appears that almost 60% of British Muslims believe that those who insult or criticise Islam should face criminal prosecution.

So...60% of Muslims believe anyone who criticises their religion should face criminal charges - how do we feel about that ? And would any UK government, in a desperate bid to get re-elected, eventually satisfy their desire ?

Well let us look at this from the political angle shall we,the muslim vote is becoming evermore powerfull as the electorate become more diverse.
This in turn is certainly taken in to account by new labour,and is becoming more and more inportant to the labour goverment.
The muslim vote is crucial in quite a few labour areas and they wont want to do anything to upset the Immans who carry great power in the muslim community.
The upshot of this can be seen in a speech by the cabinet minister patricia hodge who has complained that the boundary commision have changed some of her constituency, and she has lost a large number of muslims who she relied on to keep her seat.
She has now got more white voters, and she had the cheek to complain to the electoral commision who bye the way quickly told her where to get off.
One more reason why the left wing zealots want to re name x mas as this MIGHT upset the muslim and other faiths,the list goes on and on.
And one final point to make is all this is happening when the immigrant population is around %10 god knows what it will be like when they are the majority.makes you think dont it?

So, Rowan Atkinson has stated that the new law will limit freedom of expression and stop them from telling religious jokes.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4114582.stm

Religion, unlike race, is a matter of personal choice, and it is also something which tends to make people feel passionately for or against particular religious positions. It hasn't been possible to get a coherent answer from the government about what exactly would constitute the offence.

There may in fact be many people wanting to pursue private prosecutions against individuals for allegedly inciting religious hatred, when they make jokes about a particular religion or criticise it. And if the Attorney General makes decisions allowing or disallowing any particular claim, that in itself will open him to charges of bias and could potentially promote discord between religious communities.

The most ironic thing is that the government is unwilling to address the most potentially explosive issue, which is the protection of the Christian religion against blasphemy and the failure to afford any other faith with the same status.

Originally posted by Snook
as you said yourself. If you were asking people to believe that the holocaust, it isn't trying to make someone hate a religion.

I was at a Holocaust memorial event in Sheffield once when I was approached by a very young skin head lad with two neo-nazi tattoos, he started having a go at me for being at the event because according to him the holocaust was all a myth made up by the Jews as part of their plan to destroy the white race and it’s only the BNP who have seen through this scheme etc etc

What I’m trying to emphasise is that Holocaust denial isn’t just about questioning the holocaust it’s about demonising and degrading the Jewish people, it is used as part of the myth of Zionism that Jews are a threat to the purity of the white race and must be stopped at all cost.

So the realities of Holocaust denial if you look at the people behind it, is it is not based upon rational historical debate but purely about hatred of Jews and more often then not spreading that hatred as widely as possible.

Whoever was responsible for telling this angry lad (who was to young to shave) that the Jews lied about the holocaust as a means of destroying his race, did so with the sole intentions of focusing his anger nito the BNP and against the Jewish community. Personally I think such a clear cut attempt to spread hatred and violence should be a crime.

Originally posted by Greybeard
I'm a little confused about the need for this change in the law, mainly because I have no experience of incitement to religious hatred,

Have you read any BNP or National Front material?

Originally posted by Lickszz
So, Rowan Atkinson has stated that the new law will limit freedom of expression and stop them from telling religious jokes.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4114582.stm

Religion, unlike race, is a matter of personal choice, and it is also something which tends to make people feel passionately for or against particular religious positions. It hasn't been possible to get a coherent answer from the government about what exactly would constitute the offence.

There may in fact be many people wanting to pursue private prosecutions against individuals for allegedly inciting religious hatred, when they make jokes about a particular religion or criticise it. And if the Attorney General makes decisions allowing or disallowing any particular claim, that in itself will open him to charges of bias and could potentially promote discord between religious communities.

The most ironic thing is that the government is unwilling to address the most potentially explosive issue, which is the protection of the Christian religion against blasphemy and the failure to afford any other faith with the same status.

i've never been told a joke that incited me to hate, I can't see how something funny is an incitement to anything but to laugh.

Originally posted by Cyclone
i've never been told a joke that incited me to hate, I can't see how something funny is an incitement to anything but to laugh.

I agree.

My Nephew is a big fan of Family Guy and I watched one episode where the entire show was just about Jewish stereotypes, I believe the premise was the main character had decided to become Jewish and it was just an excuse to poke fun Judaism.

I found this a pretty offensive piece of comedy, but it was clear that it's intention was to make people laugh and not hate each other and that is why you can go into any video shop and buy this episode on DVD. In a similar way a central joke in Will and Grace is that Grace is a Jewish stereotype and in every episode their is a least one sketch about how tight with money she is. Again Will and Grace prime time TV, no question of it’s writers being prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.

So since this new legislation is roughly about giving Muslims the same legal protection currently offered to Jews, and this legislation has never been used to stop people telling jokes about Jews, only to stop scum like Nick Griffin publishing material such as, “Who are the Mind Benders” (seeing him in an interview insisting that Gabby Roselyn and Vanessa Feltz were part of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy humanity did make me laugh, but I don’t think that was his intention) I think comics fears that this will outlaw religious humour are misguided.

If further examples are needed people like Bernard Manning make in my opinion pretty sick jokes about other races all the time, but he’s doing it to get laughs not to trigger violence and so as far as I am aware he has never been charged under the legislation against inciting race hatred.

The Bible, in particular Deuteronomy, contains several instructions to the faithful that they should murder people of other religions - see e.g. http://www.religioustolerance.org/intol_bibl3.htm

The Qur'an also contains some, shall we say, less-than-liberal passages which would not be hard to interpret as inciting religious hatred.

Will these books be banned under the proposed legislation?

Quick response to last couple of posts. It's definitely healthy to laugh at stereotypes applying to yourself, and at oneself for having these stereotyped ideas - that's one way to get beyond them, defuse them. But Bernard Manning is a sad old man and I should think has sailed pretty close to being prosecuted under race relations legislation.

We should be repealing the blasphemy laws, not effectively extending them to other religions.

Originally posted by Cyclone
why he doesn't scrap all these specific "incitement to x hatred" and just make it illegal to incite hatred full stop.

I think this would be the best thing to do, I can’t understand why they haven’t chosen to.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I think this would be the best thing to do, I can’t understand why they haven’t chosen to.

My feelings also.

You couldnt have a law that outlawed incitement to hatred of all kinds

Think what it would do for the following groups, the courts would be chock-a-block

1. The Daily Mail and its hatred of Camilla
2. George Galloway and his hatred of the Prime Minister
3. Evertonians and their hatred of Wayne Rooney

etc

You couldnt outlaw them........could you?

Originally posted by Belle
You couldnt have a law that outlawed incitement to hatred of all kinds

Think what it would do for the following groups, the courts would be chock-a-block

1. The Daily Mail and its hatred of Camilla
2. George Galloway and his hatred of the Prime Minister
3. Evertonians and their hatred of Wayne Rooney

etc

You couldnt outlaw them........could you?

no one is talking about outlawing hating anything. The new law doesn't outlaw the hating of any given religion.

it's the incitement of other people to hatred that is outlawed (ie trying to convince people of your point of view).

Originally posted by Cyclone
no one is talking about outlawing hating anything. The new law doesn't outlaw the hating of any given religion.

it's the incitement of other people to hatred that is outlawed (ie trying to convince people of your point of view).


Other than the previous three posters you mean?

Umm, no, we were talking about incitement to hatred. Though you have a point - there'd have to be some definitions/qualifications involved. That's why Acts of Parliament are more than one or two sentences long.

It seems now pretty obvious that Tony Blair is pushing this legislation through because in an effort to secure the Muslim vote at the last election he made a solemn promise that he would do. I read recently that he is so determined to enact this law that he's prepared to use the Parliament Act to get it through as he did with the hunting bill.

I'm betting he'll fail ;)

Originally posted by Belle
Other than the previous three posters you mean?

other than you I mean.

Originally posted by Greybeard
It seems now pretty obvious that Tony Blair is pushing this legislation through because in an effort to secure the Muslim vote at the last election he made a solemn promise that he would do. I read recently that he is so determined to enact this law that he's prepared to use the Parliament Act to get it through as he did with the hunting bill.

I'm betting he'll fail ;)

Would be a funny way of securing the Muslim vote since (as I say) the Bible and the Koran would presumably be among the first things to be banned under the legislation (if it was applied honestly).

But I hope he does fail.

Originally posted by Belle
You couldnt have a law that outlawed incitement to hatred of all kinds

Think what it would do for the following groups, the courts would be chock-a-block

1. The Daily Mail and its hatred of Camilla
2. George Galloway and his hatred of the Prime Minister
3. Evertonians and their hatred of Wayne Rooney

etc

You couldnt outlaw them........could you?

Look at it this way

It's ok for the Daily Mail to hate Camilla, it's fine for them to print as many editorials as they want expressing that opinion.

But if the Daily Mail takes this hatred a stage further and begins a campaign to instigate acts of violence against Camilla, then in my opinion that isn't ok and should be illegal.