Race hate laws to be toughened

**InsaneApache** · 11-11-2006, 09:56

Ministers are considering whether race hate laws should be revised after BNP leader Nick Griffin was cleared of charges relating to speeches he made.

A jury decided speeches by Mr Griffin and party activist Mark Collett in 2004 had not incited racial hatred.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6137722.stm

That's all fine and good but I feel a bit uneasy about this. This seems to me to be [i] Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted [ii] Ineffectual laws passed that don't stand up in a court of law [iii] We're going to move the goal posts anytime we want to get the buggers.

I dislike the BNP and all it stands for. However these guys were tried in a court of law and found to be not guilty. This government should have realised that the law was flawed before this and set it right. Blair has already done away with double jeopardy....the question is will he seek to change the law everytime they don't get the right result?

**King Ragnar** · 11-11-2006, 11:58

this is stupid if we are really living in democracy surely people should be allowed to be racist?, isnt it just freedom speech? im really sick of all this PC rubbish.

**Aenlic** · 11-11-2006, 12:08

I don't get it. From this side of the pond, it seems rather extreme to outlaw hate speech. Over here, some speech can be outlawed; but such speech must be threatening, not just simply hate speech. Also, not being familiar with current British law, do you guys have anything resembling our ex post facto protections? Meaning, new laws can't be applied after the fact to crimes committed prior to the law?

**InsaneApache** · 11-11-2006, 12:20

Originally Posted by Aenlic

I don't get it. From this side of the pond, it seems rather extreme to outlaw hate speech. Over here, some speech can be outlawed; but such speech must be threatening, not just simply hate speech. Also, not being familiar with current British law, do you guys have anything resembling our ex post facto protections? Meaning, new laws can't be applied after the fact to crimes committed prior to the law?

I may be wrong but I believe that some laws passed, such as the removal of double jeopardy were in fact retrospective. One of the problems, as I see it, is an inability to see the outcome of legislation passed or forced through parliament. The incorporation of the Human Rights Act into British law being the most notorious.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 11-11-2006, 19:12

I dislike the BNP and all it stands for. However these guys were tried in a court of law and found to be not guilty. This government should have realised that the law was flawed before this and set it right. Blair has already done away with double jeopardy....the question is will he seek to change the law everytime they don't get the right result?

That's not it at all. The ministers know who those terrible BNP people are, and the mere thought of them makes some ministers wet their panties. They also know beyond doubt that the BNP is full of bad men, who say bad things. And in such an enlightened society as the UK, we can't allow this type of hate to continue, can we? So we have to make just a few laws that stop these terrible people from speaking. We know they're bad, we just need to write the right law to shut them up.

Crazed Rabbit

**Motep** · 11-11-2006, 19:35

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

That's not it at all. The ministers know who those terrible BNP people are, and the mere thought of them makes some ministers wet their panties. They also know beyond doubt that the BNP is full of bad men, who say bad things. And in such an enlightened society as the UK, we can't allow this type of hate to continue, can we? So we have to make just a few laws that stop these terrible people from speaking. We know they're bad, we just need to write the right law to shut them up.

Crazed Rabbit

bingo...kinda snached my words there...

**Scurvy** · 11-11-2006, 19:47

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

this is stupid if we are really living in democracy surely people should be allowed to be racist?, isnt it just freedom speech? im really sick of all this PC rubbish.

Theres a difference between racism and freedom of speech..... although i agree the government is ott with the PCstuff (although a bit of PCness is sensible if your a government) allowing racsim is crazy.

CR kind of sums up why the law has to be changed, although i actually have sympathy with the BNP on this one - the governments failed once, so decides to change the rules in order to win - its cheating! --> still, its necessary.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 11-11-2006, 20:26

See, scurvy's got it. There's a difference between freedom of speech and plain offensiveness. We know these people have bad opinions- well, at least the majority recognizes that. So I think it's right that, since the majority recognizes the falseness and hate of these opinions, we should pass laws to stop these terrible people from speaking their mind.

CR

**King Ragnar** · 11-12-2006, 14:13

If you completely agree with democracy you would not call someones opinion wrong and bad, you would accept it. You may disagree with it but they should be entitled to it.

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

we should pass laws to stop these terrible people from speaking their mind.
CR

is it just me or does that sound fascist? and if i am right your completely against fascism,yes?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 11-12-2006, 14:23

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

If you completely agree with democracy you would not call someones opinion wrong and bad, you would accept it. You may disagree with it but they should be entitled to it.

is it just me or does that sound fascist? and if i am right your completely against fascism,yes?

Actually you are required to tollerate someone's opinion, not accept it. In this case the law says you are not allowed to incite racial hatred. The BNP got around it by attacking Muslim beliefs.

The problem with banning that kind of speech is that it also makes it illegal for me to attack a Muslim who says women are pieces of meat. It prevents any kind of intellectual debate.

**Banquo's Ghost** · 11-12-2006, 14:23

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

If you completely agree with democracy you would not call someones opinion wrong and bad, you would accept it. You may disagree with it but they should be entitled to it.

I'm overwhelmed by the completeness of your conversion. Can this really be the same King Ragnar that used to call for muslims to be thrown out of the country for expressing their views?

Good to see that you have become a tolerant and understanding fellow after all.

**Adrian II** · 11-12-2006, 18:58

Originally Posted by King Ragnar

If you completely agree with democracy you would not call someones opinion wrong and bad, you would accept it. You may disagree with it but they should be entitled to it.

Agreed.

I hate to hijack a perfectly good thread, but I am amazed at the general thrust of British criminal legislation these days. The United Kingdom seems to be on the road to becoming the most supervised, most controlled and most nannied nation in all of Europe. I may be wrong, I don't live there and I just read the papers. But if this in indeed the case, how come?

Can anyone give me an explanation that goes beyond the familiar partisan outcry against Blair and his party?

**caravel** · 11-13-2006, 00:50

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Blair has already done away with double jeopardy....the question is will he seek to change the law everytime they don't get the right result?

'fraid so...

You can do what you like over here, just don't think/speak publically in a non-politically correct fashion. There is boundless energy, and unlimited coffers for prosecuting the likes of the BNP (the silly party), but as to 'real crime', well...