Domain Home Debate Forum Opinion Polls Headlines Todays topics | Sitemap | RSS Feeds  September 08, 2010, 09:27:35
0 Members and 1 Guest viewing. « previous next »

All protected from hate? Or the privileged protected from criticism?

(Page 4)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] | Go Down | Go to last post Print this Page | Register for your free UK Debate account
Author Topic:

All protected from hate? Or the privileged protected from criticism?

 (Read 639 times)
MarkMuses
*****
Posts: 5224


Welcome... to, the machine

All protected from hate? Or the privileged protected from criticism?
« Reply #45 on: August 03, 2010, 22:56:10 »
Quote from: Sweet Pea on August 03, 2010, 21:41:56
It is for a judge to decide where the line is drawn, not some arbitrary political agenda.
Arbitrary is precisely what you are advocating.
 
RACISM refers to "White people", enabling us to translate the phrase "Make RACISM history". Worked it out yet?   Next, the means...Mixed-Race SUPREMACISM now 'cool'...
NoGodsNoMasters
Queen

*
Posts: 1398


objectivity is a myth

All protected from hate? Or the privileged protected from criticism?
« Reply #46 on: August 03, 2010, 23:18:38 »
To quote Mark Twain...................

"Those that respect the law and love sausage should watch neither being made."  Clap

Or to quote Archbishop Romero

" Justice is like a snake , it only bites the barefooted "   Clap
 
"We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made of us "

" In an age where deception is the norm, telling the truth is a revolutionary act "
Sweet Pea
King

*
Posts: 14915


Secular Humanist

All protected from hate? Or the privileged protected from criticism?
« Reply #47 on: August 04, 2010, 08:48:51 »
Quote from: MarkMuses on August 03, 2010, 22:56:10
Arbitrary is precisely what you are advocating.

Not at all. I am advocatiing precedent and the terms of the law.
 
Secular Humanist
MarkMuses
*****
Posts: 5224


Welcome... to, the machine

All protected from hate? Or the privileged protected from criticism?
« Reply #48 on: August 04, 2010, 15:56:48 »
Quote from: Sweet Pea on August 04, 2010, 08:48:51
Not at all. I am advocatiing precedent and the terms of the law.

What terms? All it takes is "a criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a persons religion or perceived religion.”

Not terms, but a blank cheque for censorship.
 
Sweet Pea
King

*
Posts: 14915


Secular Humanist

All protected from hate? Or the privileged protected from criticism?
« Reply #49 on: August 04, 2010, 18:37:56 »
Quote from: MarkMuses on August 04, 2010, 15:56:48
What terms? All it takes is "a criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a persons religion or perceived religion.”

Not terms, but a blank cheque for censorship.

Oh come on MM...that is the blank cheque to bring a prosection...not to find someone guilty.
 
MarkMuses
*****
Posts: 5224


Welcome... to, the machine

All protected from hate? Or the privileged protected from criticism?
« Reply #50 on: August 04, 2010, 20:27:16 »
Quote from: Sweet Pea on August 04, 2010, 18:37:56
Oh come on MM...that is the blank cheque to bring a prosection...not to find someone guilty.

Well if that's not intimidation then I don't know what is, where any criticism can be construed as hate and have someone taken to court for it..
 
Sweet Pea
King

*
Posts: 14915


Secular Humanist

All protected from hate? Or the privileged protected from criticism?
« Reply #51 on: August 05, 2010, 09:16:04 »
Quote from: MarkMuses on August 04, 2010, 20:27:16
Well if that's not intimidation then I don't know what is, where any criticism can be construed as hate and have someone taken to court for it..

So I take it you don't think  the charge of anti-semitism holds any water??

In the end it is the JUDGE who maeks the decision. merely being charged with something is not the end game.

if it were there is plenty of fertile ground in this forum for a charge of hatred by reference.
 
MarkMuses
*****
Posts: 5224


Welcome... to, the machine

All protected from hate? Or the privileged protected from criticism?
« Reply #52 on: August 05, 2010, 12:36:29 »
Quote from: Sweet Pea on August 05, 2010, 09:16:04
So I take it you don't think  the charge of anti-semitism holds any water??
Not unless it incites a real criminal act against them such as violence. Are you suggesting Jewish advocacy organisations should be above criticism? The legislation seems to do just that.

Quote
In the end it is the JUDGE who maeks the decision. merely being charged with something is not the end game.
For instance, getting falsely charged with rape can be enough to ruin a man.  My point is the legislation must be of a practicable standard, if you enact a law that says PC or else and then routinely dump it on the Judge to divine the outcome, people will inevitably consider certain groups protected fearing the stigma of being charged in the first place.

Al Murray's comedic Book of Common Sense rips into religion. On the page on Islam he writes something like "Er, I'll skip this one. Better safe than sorry" and the page is left blank. Rowan Atkinson has objected to these laws too.

Outlawing offensive free speech is incompatible with democracy. It creates privileged groups. I don't see how you can justify it.

Quote
if it were there is plenty of fertile ground in this forum for a charge of hatred by reference.
Such prosecutions have already taken place on other forums.  By your own words you consider that hate laws could be applied to posts on this forum. Confirms my point.  I would not be surprised at all to see prosecutions on this forum down the line. Now the mainstream media has ordained Mixed-race people as biologically superior, nothing in PC-lala-land seems impossible  Cry
 
Sweet Pea
King

*
Posts: 14915


Secular Humanist

All protected from hate? Or the privileged protected from criticism?
« Reply #53 on: August 05, 2010, 16:52:28 »
My point is and remains that it takes one to say something in hatred, another one to listen and act on it.It is the latter which is prosecuted and if the latter can prove the informer was the catalyst, then the saying of it becomes incitement.

If someone in here rants about someone else that is fredom of speech. If they however encourage others to burn their house down it is incitement.

if someone rants about Jews (as opposed to Israeli govt policies) that is free speech. If OTOH they encourage others to throw brisks through Jews' windows, that is incitement.

Seems pretty clear to me. One is passive, one is active. One is an opinion, one os an encouragement to act.

if OTOH someone overheard a private opinion being expressed about someone else that did not encourage direct action but took it upon themselves to act, then the one who expressed an opinion is not liable.

It is all in the language used and that legal parameter called INTENT.
 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] | Go Up | Go to last post Print this Page | Register for your free UK Debate account 
« previous next »
Jump to:  
Available mods Forum Moderators - Red names are online now and available: Admin  Ships-cat  Ranger121  MarkMuses  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP The UK Debate Forum | Powered by SMF.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.

RSS VALID FEEDS

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! [Valid RSS]