Does UKIP oppose "incitement to relegious hatred"

gareth2 · 09-06-2005, 10:57 AM

I messed the title of this thread up, read the question carefully.

From; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075442.stm

Quote:

Controversial plans to make incitement to religious hatred illegal are being unveiled by the government.
Critics say the re-introduced bill - which bans insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up religious hatred - will stifle free speech.

But ministers have pledged the new law will not affect "criticism, commentary or ridicule of faiths".

If it mirrors racial hatred laws, the maximum sentence for those found guilty will be seven years in prison.

The bill will apply to comments made in public or in the media, as well as through written material.

Quote:

Muslim groups have led calls for new laws

Alex McKee · 09-06-2005, 11:07 AM

You can ignore one NO vote there I acidentaly voted NO, I meant to vote YES. The reason I got confused is because the title of the topic is the opposite to the title of the poll.

Sorry bout that!

The reason I oppose this bill is because, like a lot of other people, I feel it will most likely have unexpected side-effects. Whilst the concept is intrinsically good, it is already covered any way.

Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with the responsibility not to greiviously offend. Therefore this is unnecessary. Also like many other "new" laws they are so poorly written they have unexpected side-effects. Or are they intentional?!

Hereward the Wake · 09-06-2005, 11:58 AM

The concept is intrinsically bad. You cannot choose your race but you can choose your religion.

If your religion cannot stand up to criticism.

What next, incitement to political hatred illegal?

John Carter · 09-06-2005, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hereward the Wake

What next, incitement to political hatred illegal?

Don't be joking about it. It's probably cropped up more than once in the minds of our esteemed leaders.

gareth2 · 09-06-2005, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

You can ignore one NO vote there I acidentaly voted NO, I meant to vote YES. The reason I got confused is because the title of the topic is the opposite to the title of the poll.

Sorry bout that!

Whoops, sorry about that, i changed the question without thinking to change the title. Ive fixed it as best a can with the warning at the top of my post, thanks for pointing that out.

I also believe that any real religeous hatred, like the smashing of those muslim graves, is already covered by our current laws. This is basically an anti free speech law.

Regards,
Gareth.

Tom Collier · 09-06-2005, 12:52 PM

I oppose the incitement to religious hatred bill. Much though I really dislike the BNP I also oppose the incitement to racial hatred act. It is essentially a thought crime. I suspect the arrest of Nick Griffin was politically motivated (though it may have actually increased his support).

Alex McKee · 09-06-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hereward the Wake

The concept is intrinsically bad. You cannot choose your race but you can choose your religion.

If your religion cannot stand up to criticism.

What next, incitement to political hatred illegal?

The concept is to protect people from greivous offence, but as I said we already have enough protection.

Alex McKee · 09-06-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gareth2

This is basically an anti free speech law.

Yep pretty much.

FuroraCeltica · 09-06-2005, 02:15 PM

This bill is all about Labour attempting to stem the flow of Muslim votes to the Lib Dems and Respect. As per usual, this government is more interested in its own political power than the long term effects of this bill.

This bill has nothing to do with protecting religions; its all about making political concessions to Muslim voters in the hope of buying them back to support the Labour party. The Labour Party, especially in some area, depends on the Muslim vote to win.

Don't believe me? Heard of Bethnal Green?

gareth2 · 09-06-2005, 05:43 PM

Below is an article from Melanie philips, an emminent Jew. recently there was a libel case which the jews as a relegion won at appeal in france, and this is her take on the matter. From the spectator.

June 9, 2005
Le Monde's jihad
Spectator, 10 June 2005

Since the intensification of the Palestinian jihad five years ago, Britain and Europe have been convulsed by an eruption of virulent anti-Jewish hatred based on systematic lies, libels and demonisation directed at Israel by the media and intelligentsia.

Still reading? Well done. Others will no doubt already have thrown this article across the room in disgust. For conventional wisdom has it that there has been no upsurge of anti-Jewish hatred, only legitimate attacks on Israel which are being labelled anti-Jewish prejudice by those who are either suffering from advanced paranoia or are Zionist zealots attempting to sanitise the crimes of Ariel Sharon.

Now, however, agreement that hatred of Jews is indeed umbilically linked to the current attack upon Israel has emerged from a most unlikely quarter. In France, everyday violence and intimidation has left French Jews in a state of siege.

Yet two weeks ago, the French appeal court in Versailles ruled that in a comment piece published by Le Monde in 2002 entitled ‘Israel-Palestine: The Cancer,’ the paper was guilty of ‘racial defamation ‘against the Jewish people. In other words, under cover of an attack upon Israel in language which is replicated every week in Britain and Europe, the most prestigious newspaper in France had been whipping up hatred of the Jews.

The appeal court ruled that the article, written by a well-known sociologist, a university lecturer and a member of the European Parliament, contained comments that ‘targeted a whole nation, or a religious group in its quasi-globality’.

The article was the usual farrago of untruths, libels and distortions about Israel. It described it as ‘oppressing and asphyxiating the Palestinian population’, repeated the lie about the massacre of Jenin that never was, and claimed that Israel was imposing apartheid beneath the shroud of the Holocaust.

In particular, the court singled out two paragraphs which explicitly defamed the Jewish people as a whole:

‘It is hard to imagine that a nation of fugitives born of a people who have been subjected to the longest persecution in the history of humanity…should be capable, in the space of two generations, of transforming themselves INTO phpbb_a people sure of themselves and dominating (of others) and, with the exception of an admirable minority, a scornful people that takes satisfaction in humiliating others…’

‘The Jews of Israel, descended of an apartheid [sic] named the ghetto, are ghettoizing the Palestinians. The Jews, who were the victims of a pitiless order are imposing their pitiless order on the Palestinians. The Jewish victims of inhumanity are displaying a terrible inhumanity. The Jews, scapegoats for every evil, are "scapegoating" Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, made responsible for attacks that they prevent them from preventing.’

Le Monde, which is now appealing to the highest court in France, merely sniffs in lofty disdain. The ruling took these remarks out of context, said one of the paper’s lawyers; of course these authors were not anti-Jewish. Some of their meilleurs amis, no doubt, are Jews.

In fact, these two paragraphs provided the rhetorical climax to the article’s group libel against Israel and thus explicitly associated what it so delightfully called ‘the chosen people’ with ‘plunder, gratuitous destruction, homicides, executions’.

One might have expected such a momentous ruling pronouncing Le Monde guilty of racial prejudice against the Jews to have made waves. Not a bit of it. The French have ignored it. The case was only brought to light by the Middle East commentator Tom Gross in the Wall Street Journal Europe, who asked why nothing had been written about it anywhere a week after the ruling. Following his article, the Guardian belatedly ran a story.

The media has been silent because the same kind of calumnies are routinely published and broadcast in Britain and throughout Europe: obsessively disproportionate and libellous coverage which equates Israel with the Nazis, misrepresents its defence against terror as brutal aggression, and singles out the Jewish people in their ancient and restored nation state as uniquely unworthy of self-determination.

So should those who are deeply concerned by the rise in prejudice and violence towards Jews provoked by this perversity be able to take similar action? In Britain, only individuals, not peoples or nations, can seek the civil redress provided by the libel laws. So should we too have a crime of racial defamation?

Well, no. For heartening as it is to see a public body at last calling this prejudice by its proper name, the case against Le Monde also provokes unease. Racial prejudice is hateful and should be exposed as such. But this should be done at the bar of public opinion, not in a court of law.

It was only through a procedural quirk of this particular case that Le Monde was required merely to pay notional damages; since racial defamation is a crime, its editor and writers could have gone to prison. It is surely oppressive to jail anyone for their opinion.

The courts are a blunt instrument, and using them to suppress free speech is deeply troubling. Our draconian libel laws already stifle much necessary expression, and anti-discrimination laws are in danger of demonising half the population for being either racists or every kind of phobe.

Incitement to violence is a crime that should be prosecuted. But hatred and prejudice are subjective concepts and so can easily be used to suppress legitimate expression.

We already have a law against incitement to racial hatred, and the government proposes to introduce a new crime of incitement to religious hatred. The latter will criminalise legitimate and necessary criticism of religion, while the former is so problematic that it is scarcely used.

If political views that promote anti-Jewish or other racist hatred were banned, so too must all literary anti-Jewish and racist stereotypes be banned, which would mean censoring much of English literature, not to mention the New Testament and the Koran.

What is hateful and prejudiced to one person may be legitimate comment to another. The way to deal with prejudice is surely through the public pillory, naming and shaming and countering it with the truth. In other words, far from suppressing expression the remedy is to open up debate.

The problem, though, is that the media refuses to do this over Israel because the prejudice is omnipresent. This is why ‘blogs’ — website comment spots — are becoming increasingly important to bust the monopoly of the mainstream media and subject its bias and prejudice on any subject to systematic exposure, deconstruction and opprobrium.

Racist expression poses an acute dilemma for a liberal society. Its effects are noxious; its antidotes may be muted. But suppressing it just drives it underground. If hearts and minds are to be won, prejudice has to be fought in the open on the battlefield of ideas.

View Poll Results: Do you oppose this bill?
Yes	20	80.00%
No	2	8.00%
Dont care	3	12.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

09-06-2005, 11:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
Alex McKee Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gloucester Posts: 6,621	You can ignore one NO vote there I acidentaly voted NO, I meant to vote YES. The reason I got confused is because the title of the topic is the opposite to the title of the poll. Sorry bout that! The reason I oppose this bill is because, like a lot of other people, I feel it will most likely have unexpected side-effects. Whilst the concept is intrinsically good, it is already covered any way. Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with the responsibility not to greiviously offend. Therefore this is unnecessary. Also like many other "new" laws they are so poorly written they have unexpected side-effects. Or are they intentional?! __________________ Anything I post on this website is my personal opinion and not necessarily my professional opinion (unless stated as such) nor is an opinion necessarily shared by any committee or group I am affiliated with. Users on Ignore list: None. Please click one of these once a day: http://gloucesterr.myminicity.com/tra

09-06-2005, 02:15 PM	#9 (permalink)
FuroraCeltica Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Manchester Posts: 448	This bill is all about Labour attempting to stem the flow of Muslim votes to the Lib Dems and Respect. As per usual, this government is more interested in its own political power than the long term effects of this bill. This bill has nothing to do with protecting religions; its all about making political concessions to Muslim voters in the hope of buying them back to support the Labour party. The Labour Party, especially in some area, depends on the Muslim vote to win. Don't believe me? Heard of Bethnal Green? __________________ Every great movement must experience three stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption. John Stuart Mill One person with a belief is equal to ninety-nine who have only interests. Stuart Mill

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-06-2005, 11:58 AM	#3 (permalink)
Hereward the Wake Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire. Posts: 237	The concept is intrinsically bad. You cannot choose your race but you can choose your religion. If your religion cannot stand up to criticism. What next, incitement to political hatred illegal?

09-06-2005, 12:52 PM	#6 (permalink)
Tom Collier Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 359	I oppose the incitement to religious hatred bill. Much though I really dislike the BNP I also oppose the incitement to racial hatred act. It is essentially a thought crime. I suspect the arrest of Nick Griffin was politically motivated (though it may have actually increased his support).

09-06-2005, 05:43 PM	#10 (permalink)
gareth2 Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 731	Below is an article from Melanie philips, an emminent Jew. recently there was a libel case which the jews as a relegion won at appeal in france, and this is her take on the matter. From the spectator. June 9, 2005 Le Monde's jihad Spectator, 10 June 2005 Since the intensification of the Palestinian jihad five years ago, Britain and Europe have been convulsed by an eruption of virulent anti-Jewish hatred based on systematic lies, libels and demonisation directed at Israel by the media and intelligentsia. Still reading? Well done. Others will no doubt already have thrown this article across the room in disgust. For conventional wisdom has it that there has been no upsurge of anti-Jewish hatred, only legitimate attacks on Israel which are being labelled anti-Jewish prejudice by those who are either suffering from advanced paranoia or are Zionist zealots attempting to sanitise the crimes of Ariel Sharon. Now, however, agreement that hatred of Jews is indeed umbilically linked to the current attack upon Israel has emerged from a most unlikely quarter. In France, everyday violence and intimidation has left French Jews in a state of siege. Yet two weeks ago, the French appeal court in Versailles ruled that in a comment piece published by Le Monde in 2002 entitled ‘Israel-Palestine: The Cancer,’ the paper was guilty of ‘racial defamation ‘against the Jewish people. In other words, under cover of an attack upon Israel in language which is replicated every week in Britain and Europe, the most prestigious newspaper in France had been whipping up hatred of the Jews. The appeal court ruled that the article, written by a well-known sociologist, a university lecturer and a member of the European Parliament, contained comments that ‘targeted a whole nation, or a religious group in its quasi-globality’. The article was the usual farrago of untruths, libels and distortions about Israel. It described it as ‘oppressing and asphyxiating the Palestinian population’, repeated the lie about the massacre of Jenin that never was, and claimed that Israel was imposing apartheid beneath the shroud of the Holocaust. In particular, the court singled out two paragraphs which explicitly defamed the Jewish people as a whole: ‘It is hard to imagine that a nation of fugitives born of a people who have been subjected to the longest persecution in the history of humanity…should be capable, in the space of two generations, of transforming themselves INTO phpbb_a people sure of themselves and dominating (of others) and, with the exception of an admirable minority, a scornful people that takes satisfaction in humiliating others…’ ‘The Jews of Israel, descended of an apartheid [sic] named the ghetto, are ghettoizing the Palestinians. The Jews, who were the victims of a pitiless order are imposing their pitiless order on the Palestinians. The Jewish victims of inhumanity are displaying a terrible inhumanity. The Jews, scapegoats for every evil, are "scapegoating" Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, made responsible for attacks that they prevent them from preventing.’ Le Monde, which is now appealing to the highest court in France, merely sniffs in lofty disdain. The ruling took these remarks out of context, said one of the paper’s lawyers; of course these authors were not anti-Jewish. Some of their meilleurs amis, no doubt, are Jews. In fact, these two paragraphs provided the rhetorical climax to the article’s group libel against Israel and thus explicitly associated what it so delightfully called ‘the chosen people’ with ‘plunder, gratuitous destruction, homicides, executions’. One might have expected such a momentous ruling pronouncing Le Monde guilty of racial prejudice against the Jews to have made waves. Not a bit of it. The French have ignored it. The case was only brought to light by the Middle East commentator Tom Gross in the Wall Street Journal Europe, who asked why nothing had been written about it anywhere a week after the ruling. Following his article, the Guardian belatedly ran a story. The media has been silent because the same kind of calumnies are routinely published and broadcast in Britain and throughout Europe: obsessively disproportionate and libellous coverage which equates Israel with the Nazis, misrepresents its defence against terror as brutal aggression, and singles out the Jewish people in their ancient and restored nation state as uniquely unworthy of self-determination. So should those who are deeply concerned by the rise in prejudice and violence towards Jews provoked by this perversity be able to take similar action? In Britain, only individuals, not peoples or nations, can seek the civil redress provided by the libel laws. So should we too have a crime of racial defamation? Well, no. For heartening as it is to see a public body at last calling this prejudice by its proper name, the case against Le Monde also provokes unease. Racial prejudice is hateful and should be exposed as such. But this should be done at the bar of public opinion, not in a court of law. It was only through a procedural quirk of this particular case that Le Monde was required merely to pay notional damages; since racial defamation is a crime, its editor and writers could have gone to prison. It is surely oppressive to jail anyone for their opinion. The courts are a blunt instrument, and using them to suppress free speech is deeply troubling. Our draconian libel laws already stifle much necessary expression, and anti-discrimination laws are in danger of demonising half the population for being either racists or every kind of phobe. Incitement to violence is a crime that should be prosecuted. But hatred and prejudice are subjective concepts and so can easily be used to suppress legitimate expression. We already have a law against incitement to racial hatred, and the government proposes to introduce a new crime of incitement to religious hatred. The latter will criminalise legitimate and necessary criticism of religion, while the former is so problematic that it is scarcely used. If political views that promote anti-Jewish or other racist hatred were banned, so too must all literary anti-Jewish and racist stereotypes be banned, which would mean censoring much of English literature, not to mention the New Testament and the Koran. What is hateful and prejudiced to one person may be legitimate comment to another. The way to deal with prejudice is surely through the public pillory, naming and shaming and countering it with the truth. In other words, far from suppressing expression the remedy is to open up debate. The problem, though, is that the media refuses to do this over Israel because the prejudice is omnipresent. This is why ‘blogs’ — website comment spots — are becoming increasingly important to bust the monopoly of the mainstream media and subject its bias and prejudice on any subject to systematic exposure, deconstruction and opprobrium. Racist expression poses an acute dilemma for a liberal society. Its effects are noxious; its antidotes may be muted. But suppressing it just drives it underground. If hearts and minds are to be won, prejudice has to be fought in the open on the battlefield of ideas.