Democracy Breaks Out in the UK!

[Jon_in_london]

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Democracy has broken out in the UK!

After long years of darkness, our MPs (well half of them) have finally decided to do what they are bloody well paid for- defend our freedoms from the government:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4664398.stm

They also called for the offence to be intentional and specified that proselytising, discussion, criticism, insult, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offence.

The amendment was voted in by 1 vote in the second division - Bliar couldnt be bothered to turn up!

 

[Luke T.]

*dons black and white kaffiyeh*

 

[Ed]

from the link...

Earlier in the Commons, Home Office Minister Paul Goggins told MPs that moves to combat religious hatred would not damage freedom of speech and only those who intending to "stir up hatred" would be caught by the government's plans.

"intending"
"stir up"
"hatred"

Three imprecise words that the government, doubtless thru a handsomely funded "thought ministry", will define.

I think you dodged one, old son.

 

[CapelDodger]

Excellent news. Insulting, abusing and ridiculing religious beliefs is one of life's great pleasures.

Blair and his pack of imps have lost the plot, methinks.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think I'm going to watch a couple of Blackadder episodes to celebrate. The one with the baby-eating bishop, and the one where Edmund, as Archbishop of Cantebury, persuades the dying man that hell is more fun than heaven.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think I'm going to watch a couple of Blackadder episodes to celebrate. The one with the baby-eating bishop, and the one where Edmund, as Archbishop of Cantebury, persuades the dying man that hell is more fun than heaven.

Then there's the one when Blackadder is captured by the Spanish Inquisition and plays charades with the torturer.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And the Witchsmeller one, too. The trial scene, and the "logic" used....priceless.

 

[Mojo]

from the link...

Earlier in the Commons, Home Office Minister Paul Goggins told MPs that moves to combat religious hatred would not damage freedom of speech and only those who intending to "stir up hatred" would be caught by the government's plans.

That was not actually what the government's preferred version said. It also included being "reckless" about stirring up hatred, which in practice would mean that intent would not come into it if the authorities thought someone ought to have known that something might stir up hatred.

 

[geni]

On the other hand we miss the opertunity to find out if this bill protected athiests.

 

[Darat]

Well I'm still very disappointed that the bill is going through at all - it will still result in a new offence one that I just do not see the need for.

 

[richardm]

The amendment was voted in by 1 vote in the second division - Bliar couldnt be bothered to turn up!

I should think we'll be getting a new Chief Whip shortly.

 

[NeilC]

Yes, it wasn't exactly a complete victory. This bunch of religious apologists we have in power have still given the thought police more power.

Christ, the police here even investigated some guy from the Muslim Council for comments he made about homosexuals. Whilst I enjoyed the irony of the situation and him getting a taste of his own "human rights" flavored medicine I think it is an example of how much liberty we have already lost and how the words "thought police" are gaining chilling meaning.

Didn't Blair get reported for making private comments about the Welsh too? Where the hell will this all end? Will we be given Newspeak dictionaries next?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Christ, the police here even investigated some guy from the Muslim Council for comments he made about homosexuals.

Is that such a bad thing? Why should religion be considered a valid excuse for promoting prejudice? Remember, we once had a Christian Chief Constable who put CCTV cameras outside gay bars and said 'homosexuals should drown in the filth of their own making', or similar.

It's somewhat ironic, though, that had the bill gone through unmodified, condemning religion-inspired prejudices like this might have been criminalised!

 

[Darat]

Ian - I understand your point but we have current legislation that should be sufficient to deal with actual threats (e.g incitement to commit a crime laws).

Part of the problem however is that currently a religious belief is still treated differently then beliefs based on other premises. That's why it is apparently "acceptable" for a Christian to say "persecute homosexuals" because that is a religious belief but it is not acceptable for a racist to say "persecute blacks". Society seemingly gives a free pass for beliefs as long as they are wrapped up in the packaging of religion.

However in my view all comments and statements should be allowed as long as they are not inciting others to commit a crime. For instance people should not be able to say "lynch group X" because that is an incitement to commit a crime.

 

[brodski]

I should think we'll be getting a new Chief Whip shortly.

well, a reshuffle has been on the cards form months. Maybe this will precipitate it.

 

[Mojo]

That was not actually what the government's preferred version said. It also included being "reckless" about stirring up hatred, which in practice would mean that intent would not come into it if the authorities thought someone ought to have known that something might stir up hatred.

As an example of the sort of thing that would have been caught by the defeated version of the bill, according to the Grauniad's report, it would have included the Danish cartoons being discussed elsewhere on the forum:

As Mr Goggins struggled to make his case he admitted that the cartoons critical of Muhammad which have triggered boycotts and a political crisis in Denmark after being published there could attract prosecution under the bill.

"The straight answer is [yes] if there was an intention to stir up hatred or if the person was behaving in a reckless way about the impact of his behaviour," the minister told Labour backbencher Gordon Prentice when MPs on both sides pressed him for specific examples of a likely offence.

In other words, the passage in bold indicates that it could be about a third party's perception of what was said rather than the intent, so could have caught virtually anything that anyone might consider offensive.

 

[Darat]

well, a reshuffle has been on the cards form months. Maybe this will precipitate it.

I suspect he is keeping the threat/promise of a re-shuffle as a stick/carrot for the education bill.

 

[NeilC]

Is that such a bad thing? Why should religion be considered a valid excuse for promoting prejudice? Remember, we once had a Christian Chief Constable who put CCTV cameras outside gay bars and said 'homosexuals should drown in the filth of their own making', or similar.

It's somewhat ironic, though, that had the bill gone through unmodified, condemning religion-inspired prejudices like this might have been criminalised!

Yes it is a very bad thing.

It's not that religion is an excuse, it's that he is entitled to voice his personal opinion even if it goes against what I think (as it does in this case) and what government policy dictates.

He should have to right to say that being gay is immoral, bad even that they are all filthy perverts if he likes. He can say that white men are the spawn of the devil and paedophiles. He would be wrong and he would be being offensive but that's just bad luck. If he suggests harming the aforementioned groups then he is breaking the law. He has the right to be a bigotted religious fool and I have the right to tell him so. Let's leave it at that.

You cannot just outlaw offending people. Debate and public opinion changes people's minds over time - that is real progress. Outlawing people's right to say what they think just shoves it under the carpet.

You cannot force people to think how you want by criminalising them. If, for example, I choose to be totally racist thenhat is my option. If this shows itself by prejudicing my choice of employee then you fine me. If I beat up a black man then you arrest me. But if I want to merely say something incredibly racist then you call me a ****** and be done with it.

A Chief Constable is a different matter. He is paid official. He must toe the line in what he says. He shouldn't be prosecuted but fired.

I don't notice these laws changing anyone's mind just what they are allowed to say. From there are bourne underground groups of people who cannot express their views in public.

Would the law have protected homosexuals? I thought it would have protected the muslim against criticism

 

[Mike B.]

Then there's the one when Blackadder is captured by the Spanish Inquisition and plays charades with the torturer.

I know it is not about religion, but I love the ones where they are in World War I.

Funny but sad at the same time.