Article: Christians feel threatened by new UK anti-gay-hate law
Posted on: October 9, 2007 - 11:55am
Offline
Article: Christians feel threatened by new UK anti-gay-hate law
Oh no! The Christians are feeling threatened again! 
A new law is being proposed in the UK that would give jail time to anyone who incites hate against gay & lesbian people.
"Religious groups warned it could lead to preachers being prosecuted for emotionally expressing their firmly-held beliefs and will restrict freedom of speech."
"Emotionally expressing..."? So, what they want is protected hate speech?
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/21469/Jail-threat-to-vicars-under-gay-hate-law
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
- Login to post comments
Another example of Christards feeling oppressed when they aren't allowed to oppress others.
"People shouldn’t face prison for expressing their sincerely-held religious beliefs."
Also another example of religous belief trumping all others.
If I had a sincerely held belief that Mattshizzle deserved to be doused in gasoline and set on fire for his goofy picture, I would be a hateful bitch. I could go to jail for threatening violence against Mr. Shizz.
Now if I had a sincerely held RELIGOUS belief that Mattshizzle deserved to be doused in gasoline and set on his fire for his goofy picture well... That just me "merely expressing my firmly-held religious beliefs".
It's not fair! Mattshizzles rights are trumping mine!
Your resident OTD/S, Christina
A good scientist will always change her mind if new evidence is presented which gives her sufficient reason to change it.
www.ziztur.com
I think that anti-hate laws are great, only you just know that some over-sensitive mongtards are going to start calling everything 'hate' and start abusing the laws over trivial things.
I hope the courts make a serious example out of such idiots and throw their cases out of court.
I think that's what these guys are worried about, that moderate criticisms of homosexuality (e.g. having the firm opinion that it is immoral or homophobic jokes) will be taken as 'hateful'.
The definition of 'hate' might need serious clarification, but that's something we can always tune up as we go!
Christians feel threatened? There's a first time for everything i suppose. Seriously though, it's about time something was done about this. They should introduce it in America too, perhaps it would stop those insane Westboro Baptist Church god warriors who picket random places with signs that say "God hates fags!"
I'm rather torn about this. I mean, I don't agree with what the KKK stands for, but they still have a right to their opinion. Likewise, I don't agree with a lot of religious opinions, but it's their right (and mine too) to be able to state our opinions without fear of reprisal. I think there would have to be some serious clarifications for a law like this to work successfully. If not, it might become a mess for freedom of speech.
However, I highly doubt that 'gay' rights trump 'Christian' rights. There's a huge difference between expressing a criticism of homosexuality and inciting a hate crime.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Fortunately this is the UK. The proposal will likely go through. The UK is perhaps overly politically correct and perhaps overly concerned with hate speech. The Christians really have very little to fear here. Such is not the case (people espousing ridiculous religious beliefs being jailed for them) even in countries (my own Canada) where hate speech laws and anti-discriminatory laws already exist to punish such things. Unless the priests are worried that what they're saying is actually that gay people should be 'doused in gasoline and set alight' or some equally violent act (burning in hell for all eternity for example), or are speaking about gays not being equal members of society, merely because of their sexuality and are instantly being bigoted and actively inciting people to perform such acts, or to believe such things, then they are right to be worried. I doubt that any Christian preacher in the UK actually does more than condemn gays (gays are disgusting for being gay and god doesn't love them thus) for being gay, which while reprehensible and stupid, is within their rights (even with a hate speech law in place). The law's intent would be to offer a way for legal action to take place if a preacher is actually being hateful and not just stating that he thinks gays are condemnable (which again, while stupid would not be illegal. I consider Christians of that frame of thought to be condemnable, but I won't go to jail for stating it).
What would really be upsetting, would be for this proposal not to go through. The absence of a way to specifically prosecute based on a particular type of threat means that the threat can persist and thus that gay rights can continue to be undermined. Specifically in the interest of protecting everyone's rights equally, when a particular group is being singled out based on a characteristic that is within a person's rights to possess (and in the case of gays incidental and intrinsic), laws must be specifically put in place that offer protection, lest we have instances analogous to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany or the marginalization and downright abuse of non-Muslims in parts of the middle East. It is to uphold the values of Western society that we enact laws that punish specific behaviour that is detrimental to society. As with saying that black people are ignorant, ineducable and even subhuman because they are 'black' and thus that they should be segregated from the remainder of society, it should be equally taboo (taboo really is an understatement if not a euphemism) to say that gay people are not equal to the remainder of society simply because they are gay.
That is, gay people don't care about whether anyone believes that god loves them or not, they care about not being excluded from society because other people believe it. That is what these hate speech laws are about.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Read my post on the matter and decide if the KKK are really within their rights to hold the 'opinions' they do. The KKK doesn't actually just hold the opinions, they murder people and torture people because of their opinions. They preach such opinions and earn followers and act upon those opinions in ways that are serious violations of human rights. Are they within their rights to hold such 'opinions' then?
You're right to doubt. Gay rights don't trump Christian rights. First, there are no 'Christian rights' because Christians are represented by rights that include freedom of religion et cetera. They can already seek punishment of people who infringe upon their rights. Further, they are not a marginalized portion of society and have not been segregated from society or discriminated against by society. Telling someone that you're Christian has never stopped a Christian from getting a job and a Christian would have grounds to take anyone doing so to court. So would the Atheist. Gays experience this type of discrimination. Until recently it wasn't possible for a gay person to seek legal action against someone who didn't hire them because they found out that they're gay. The point is, it's not special treatment to recognize that a particular portion of society is being sectioned out and treated differently from the rest. The special treatment would be to the rest of society if the marginalized portion is ignored. It is reprehensible to be 'torn' about hate speech acts that offer equal protection to gays. There is no reason to be torn. People either respect others' rights and freedoms and the law concerning their rights and freedoms or they do not and are punished under the law. Canada has such laws and they do not cause any problems that the Christians in the UK worry about. They are not intended to stop people from preaching that homosexuality is condemnable and that homosexuals are going hell, they are intended to stop people from promoting messages that directly affect the equal rights of gay people. (Example, preaching that gay people are condemnable and should thus not be allowed equal rights in marriage because they're condemnable based on a holy book or the interpretation thereof.) If people actually preached such things to people whom are in a position to agree with and believe in them, then they would be breaking the law. Holding the thought privately is another matter, talking with your friends about the thought is another matter, but preaching the thought to people intending to incite some reaction (perhaps a murder or a fight against equal rights) would be breaking the law.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
There is a huge difference between holding an opinion and inciting someone to murder because of it. Are you suggesting that we arrest every person who makes a racist comment because someone has murdered on the basis of racism? How about sexism as well? Ever call a woman a bitch? That's pretty sexist. See, this is exactly what I'm saying. I also think that a KKK members still has a right to his or her opinion, no matter how contemptable it might be. Once they act upon that, however, it becomes more than an opinion and that is where the hate crime laws come in. The fact is there are a lot of people out there who hold some pretty disgusting views about their fellow man. If someone is using these views to incite violence against people, then it's a major problem.
Secondly, please don't assume that I'm against hate crime speech acts, which clearly you do. Take some time out and read some of my other posts before you jump to conclusions. I feel very strongly about gay rights. I also feel very strongly about freedom of speech and I think a law like this could backfire.
I never once said I was 'torn' on hate crime laws. I'm 'torn' on this particular proposal because I think there are overly sensitive people who are going to be crying 'hate crime' at every breath and turn. I think this law could lead to similar laws in other areas of our lives. I think it comes a little too close to taking away freedom of speech all together and should be watched closely. If this is passed, I think it needs to be watched closely so that it is not taken advantage of.
Honestly, I'm so sick of everyone getting so uppity when someone expresses an opinion that differs from the majority around here. Seriously, read some of my other posts before you condemn my opinion as 'reprehensible'. You appear to think that I don't support equal rights for homosexuals and you're so far off base it isn't funny.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I am sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that you don't think hate speech laws et al are valid or are not worth pursuing. What I meant to point out is that the laws aren't going to be usurped in order to hinder anyone's free speech and the majority of my posts go into explaining how such a law would not 'backfire'. It hasn't backfired in Canada or the rest of the West where such laws do exist and function as they are intended to.
As for the rest, you and I fully agree. I expounded at length on how the opinions of the KKK aren't dangerous until they act upon them or incite others to act upon them. The KKK happens to actually act upon them and actually do incite others to act upon them. They use their opinions (or have used their opinions) to a purpose. As I said, if they simply kept it to themselves, then it wouldn't matter if they thought murdering gays was justified. The KKK isn't particularly relevant to the discussion, I only meant to use it as analogous to the kind of behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated by such a law. As I understand it, KKK organizations have dwindled in numbers recently and represent significantly less than one percent of Americans, haven't participated in any murders lately, and do not exist in the UK at all (to my knowledge).
I think the problem here comes in the ways that people other than Americans regard free speech. Americans have a different view entirely of free speech than Canadians. The American first amendment is different from freedoms of speech expressed in other countrys' constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms. Governments and courts other than the United States' actually control what is considered 'free speech' very differently from the way the United States government and courts do. I accept and stand by my national standard of free speech and am fundamentally opposed to free speech as it exists in the United States. Perhaps this difference is why you have a worry about the effects on free speech and I do not. In fact, demonstratively the effects on others' free speech where the law is practiced is minimal, so there really is no reason to think that the law could backfire in the UK, let alone in America, unless the American government can't be considered responsible enough to practice such a law, or if such a law is diametrically opposed by the American standard of free speech. This is unlikely, however, as America has hate speech laws already. Likewise, the UK also has hate speech laws and including gays would not open the laws up to anymore misuse than is already technically feasible. In fact, the UK practices and upholds free speech in a very similar way to Canada and not at all like the United States does. The law works in Canada and is not abused (overmuch, if at all), so I see no reason to conclude that it would perform differently in the UK.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Fair enough. I honestly don't know enough about other countries free speech laws and that might be my problem. I can only express my thoughts on this particular issue based on what I know about US laws.
I tend to become overly concerned when it comes to free speech because I think it's so fundamentally important to education and society.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I tend to become (almost?) irrationally passionate about equal rights.
I want to mention that I don't call anyone a 'bitch'. Have you never heard of how polite (even to a fault) Canadians are?
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
This is the same bullshit that is gaining popularity in America.
The laws are already in place that say that you cannot physically harm your neighbor, or advocate someone else doing it. But, it is complete bullshit to say that it should be illegal to say, "I hate atheists" or "I hate Muslims" or "I hate Christians".
Chrisitans and Muslims think that outsiders will burn in hell. So? They can claim that untill the cows come home as far as I am concerned. I have been called immoral because of my label. I have been equated to Hitler because of my label. AND SO THE FUCK WHAT.
I do not need my government protecting my feelings. People are going to like me, or they wont. I am a big boy. The only thing I want them to do is to arrest anyone FOR ANY REASON, if I am harmed. just as if I would want somebody arrested for robbing me at gunpoint.
If those idiot Christians want to spew Laviticus and forget the shellfish being called the same thing, let them. Gays, Christians, Atheists nor Jews deserve special government protection from being offended.
South Park showed Richard Dawkins porking Ms Garrison(a transexual). I thought it was funny as hell.
Certianly these Christians are dead wrong about condemning homosexuality. BUT, if we disire ourselves to criticise, blaspheme or poke fun of Jesus, then from a human empathy standpoint, we must allow detractors the same.
I dont think it takes an Einstien to know that people dont like being physically hurt. So, I'll agree not to physically hurt you, and you do the same for me. But forget the bullshit notion where you can create a fantacy utopia where Ward and June Cleaver slap your wrist for speaking ill of others.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I think you misunderstand what they mean by 'hate'.
'Hate' crime isn't merely holding an opinion, it's incitement to violence. I wouldn't be illegal for me to say I hated Muslims, or to make offensive jokes about them - it would be 'hateful' for me to hold a rally encouraging people to mistreat them.
I've yet to see an objection to 'anti-hate' laws from someone who understands what they are. I think that Thomathies posts explain it all quite well.
I understood you perfectly and I understand the intent. And if you understood my post you would understand why that kind of language used in law is a bad idea.
You cannot legislate emotions. You cant legislate what someone thinks in their brain. You can react to someone's actions. FOR EXAMPLE ONLY:
There is no such thing as a "jelousy crime" law. I can be jelouse, for example, my girlfriend flirting with another man. I can tell her, "I hate the fact that you are flirting with him". What I cannot do is say, "I will kill you if I see you with him again". Or I cannot say, "Hey Joe Shmo, I caught my girlfriend flirting with another guy, go ruff him up for me".
Those Christians have every right to condem gays or atheists just as we as atheists have the right to condemn the absurdity of hocus pocus.
"A call to violence" is illegal, no matter who it comes from or who it is aimed at, be it us or them. I dispise any law language that implies what my emotions should be or who I have to like.
"Hate" is a natural emotion and part of life. What "they" and "we|" need to do is to not deny it or opress it. What any human should do is agree that we dont have to like each other, and we are going to have opinions about each other, even if unkind.
You do not need "hate crime" as language to discribe what YOU already stated, and what is already on the books as far as law,
Yea, and it would be the same if I "incited" someone to kill my girlfriend,(for example).
I cant stand polliticall correctness. I dispise any government attempt to placate those who dont want to be offended. The only thing we as a society can do is agree that we dont harm each other. That is common law that does not need to envolve thought police.
I am quite sure Christians dont like to be told who they should like or what they can or cannot say, and I am no different. But I will agree not to physically harm them if they do the same for me.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
LOL! I forget that people are actually friendly with one another. C'mon, I'm from New Jersey and we're all angry assholes with bad driving records. I'll try to keep the 'tude in check, I promise.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
The whole thing reminds me of the movie Napoleon Dynamite, the scene where Pedro smashes a piñata that looks like his opponent for the school's presidential elections, and the principal scolds poor Pedro for inciting hatred against his opponent.
My real name is Pedro too. The school principal was repressing all Pedros.
Freedom of religion is a good thing. But freedom from religion is better. If religious nuts want to speak against gays, feminists, etc, etc, let them do it inside their churches. Let them break "gay piñatas" for all I care. If they try to convince politicians to pass laws that can repress anyone they dislike, then we have a problem. If they attack people they dislike, then we have a problem.
I definitely agree that people DO NOT have the right to not/never be offended. By all means offend me, and I support your right to do so!
However I find it interesting that people think religous thoughts or actions are somehow exempt from moral judgement purely because they are religous thoughts and actions. That was the original intention of my post - that religious ideas are unquestionable and beyond criticism. Hatefulness is hatefulness regardless of the "firm religious belief" attached to it.
Your resident OTD/S, Christina
A good scientist will always change her mind if new evidence is presented which gives her sufficient reason to change it.
www.ziztur.com
So uhh, what is it they want Osama for again?
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Putting his hatred of infidels into action by being behind 9/11 and other terrorist attacks?
Moral judgement and common law are to different issues and should remain seperate. Government should not be in the role of playing morality police.
Common law is simple and every law that stems from "dont harm, dont steal" stems from those core concepts that trandsend religion and atheism.
This issue is a huge pet peeve for me. Well intended people who want to end bigotry are going about it the wrong way. It is not their intent, but tactic.
It is a horrible idea to put regulation of emoitions into the hands of law inforcement, judges and jurys. "Hate crime" as language used in law is a dangerous concept.
People forget that bias people can serve in government and do serve in government and may not agree with you. That can put them in the position of calling something you say as "hate".
This is not an atheist or theist issue. This is about keeping government out of your thoughts. People are either going to like you or not. You cannot use law to force people to only say nice things about others. You can have someone arrested for harming someone else, or asking others to harm others. THAT LAW IS ALREADY IN PLACE.
The other issue people dont think about is what if the majority of a government doesnt like your label? That puts law inforcement, judges and jurys in the position of calling what you say "hate".
It is a bad idea for any theist or atheist to put your emotions into law language because those in power may not always side with you. What any label can agree on is that you dont harm others.
As an atheist living in a Jesus crazy country, I cringe at the thought of more "hate crime" laws. In the long run that can put atheist sites like this on government hit lists. I am not about to give goverment that kind of power of censorship. I would hope Christians wouldnt want that either. It is bad law language and a danger to free speech.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
To my knowledge we have not had a rash of frivolous hate-speech lawsuits in the U.S. since the enactment of these types of laws. Let's not over-react. Yes, free speech is important; vitally so. But it's still sensible that it's illegal to scream "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Thomathy made all the points I would have, quite effectively so I won't repeat them.
Susan
If it's hate and especially hate which stems from religoius beliefs, then I'm all for censoring. Mainly due to the fact that religious beliefs are irrational and the hate that stems from this irrational belief is one that hurts other humans and impedes their pursuit of happiness. So it's fair game. This is not opressing opinion, this is stopping violence against a group of people who are hated for their sexual preference (and we all know how sex is treated in religoius societies).
If we don't put a stop to religious hatred, we will live in a society where homosexuals will be put to death for crimes against god (and believe me folks, there are people out there that wish for nothing more). It is one thing to express an opinion, it's a completely different thing when a church (as an institution who preaches to millions) teaches to hate a certain group of people based on sexual orientation or any other reason. The church has and esoteric and an exoteric message when it comes to gays and lesbians. The exoteric message goes along the lines of "oh we don't hate gays and lesbians, we just think it's wrong for them to be gay. But the esoteric message: "Put Gays to Death".
Theists are quick to call the "opression" card much like the Israli lobby is so quick to call the "anti-semitism" card. It's a political and social tool they use to try to control the conversation. It's bullshit. If preachers are afraid to teach hate, then don't teach it. If you don't like it...tough shit. Try teaching tolerance and love for a change, which, Ironically enough is what your religion is supposed to represent anyway.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
For once I'm with the religious fucktards on this issue.
Whilst I have no time for the homophobic clap trap spouted by the various religion I do beleive they have the right to express their opinions, however abhorent I may find them. I find hate speach or indeed any laws that try to prevent speach on any matter really problomatic. The problme really comes in the interpretation of "inciting hatred" what does this actually mean? If someone hears a preacher say "homosexuality is a sin" and the goes out a murders a gay man is this inciting hatred? Who knows? Its really hard to tell. What then happens is that inevitably the laws will be used to stifle genuine debate or criticism. This might not be such a bad thing with regards to homphobic thoughts but what if inciting hatred on religious grounds is legislated against? This could and will lead to the stifling all debate on religion. Good lawyers hired by the religions of teh world will undoubtably level the threat of legal action against the publication of books like "the god deluison" or "the end of faith" whilst these may not stack up in court in the end it will make publishers think twice about printing such books. IT will certainly result in such books being toned down. HAte speech laws are a steep and slipperly slope coated with extra slippery super slip oil and bannana skins.
Yes, because the basis of the opinion is irrational. I do understand the concernse here, however, I also believe irrational intolerance should have no place in society.
Perhaps, but what's the alternative? Live and let live atheists have been dealing with this for a long time and look where it's gotten us.
But the difference here is, that books from free thinkers do not incite hate, they actually speak against it. And any good lawyer from a rational standpoint would undoubtedly be ably to easily win in court regarding hate speech. This is the problem with religion in society, we are expected to respect irrational beliefs that affect us, me, you, everyone. Even if that respects allows for hate speech and for the eventual criminalization of personal freedoms. This is why I think we need to take a seroius look at where religious tolerance is leading us to. Live and let live is leading to Live and let kill, so as to not offend anyone or fear that laws may be used against you. I say fuck that, if ya gotta fight, fight all the way.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Thing is, this is talking about actions.
I think you're getting caught up in the words involved and ignoring the way that they are being applied in the context. No one's saying thought police, it's just next time some fanatic group holds a big rally to incite hatred and violence we have legal grounds to tell them to stop. I can't imagine these laws affecting any of the Christian organisations in England.
Condemnation is legal.
Speaches designed to incite violence isn't.
It sounds like the old laws were insufficient other these ones wouldn't have been necessary. It sounds like those old laws required direct commands and that people could still get away with a psychological incitement.
Anyway, my main point against you as follows:
All your objections seem to fail to see why these laws were brought in in the first place. What's more, your condemnation of them is based on your interpretation on them, or your expectations on how they might be abused. If we look at other countries where such laws exist, Thomathy showed that they hadn't been abused over there and until you can point out actual cases where the law had been abused then I don't think you have a case beyond a personal paranoia.
When the law starts being abused we can work on it, modify it to ensure that it isn't any longer. Until then, what's there to complain about?
OMFG! Jezze!
There is a HUGE differance between expressing hate(and that is certainly subjective|) and directly advocating violence.
Osama went beyond merely saying, "I hate Christians". He orchistrated murder.
How many people reading this "hate" what religion does to the world? I know I do. But merely saying, |"I hate this, or I hate that" is not the same as saying "Go kill my neighbor. Or go kill gays, or atheists".
FOR THE A.D.D aflicted THE LAWS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE!
AND PRETY FUCKING SIMPLE. DONT HARM OTHERS!
Any retard can understand that.
What is impractical is to expect your neighbor to always say nice things about you, much less 6 billion people.
Otherwise sites like this could be deemed as hate speech on the whims of idiots who are as pollitically correct as some atheists here.
Will you dolts please give up on this idea of "Brady Bunch" utopian fiction and realize that people are not always going to like you.
NOW HAVING SAID THAT, I will always be for arresting and punishing anyone of any label for harming someone, be it for robbery or religion. But, just as Christians want their free speech, so do we, and the only way to defeat superstition, is not through opressing it, but letting the free market exist. I am confident enough in my position that no mater how much a theist says "I hate you" that it will be infinately unlikely to change. I wouldnt want them arrested for hating me. I would only want them arrested for harming me.
Do not confuse Bin Ladin with all other theists. There are people who hate us, just like there are atheists that hate theists, but would not act out in violence no matter how fervant the dissagreement is.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Bullcrap. The PC idiots, both atheist and theist mistake, "I love fire" as being the same as shouting "THERE IS A FIRE".
HUGE DIFFERANCE BETWEEN!
I hate this.
and
Go kill joe shmo.
I wish religion would end. You cannot tell me that there are those in this world, Muslim or Christian who would see that as falsely shouting "fire" in a theatre?
When I say, "I want religion to end" that is not the same as saying, "Lets kill all religous people".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Um, yeah, banning speech which is merely offensive is a horrible idea. Freedom of speech is meant to protect the most objectionable statements, not just the ones that a certain group agrees with. I'm against spewing a bunch of ignorant bullshit about gays, but I'd rather not have the government telling people what they can and can't say. Speech like that is hurtful and bigoted, but not immediately dangerous, and therefore should not be banned. I'm astonished that anyone wouldn't see this kind of law as the serious threat to free speech that it is.
I'm with Brian and Dr. Twerikilier on this one. As I've expressed before, I think this come perilously close to screwing with our freedom of speech. There is a huge difference between expressing an opinion and inciting people to violence.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Keep in mind that Christians never hesitate to use the "Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin" defense against atheists, implying that we are masters of mass-murder, and even though we don't talk about mass-graves for theists in these forums, any religious group could easily use anti-hate-speech laws to come after us.
Everyone has the right to love, and the right to hate. What we don't have the right to do is hurting people based on hate, or love, if you are someone like OJ. Christians want to talk about how much they hate fags, even though they probably have never even met one, let them. Provided they keep their nonsense to themselves. Fred Phelps comes to mind. Will the police ever put that lunatic behind bars once and for all?
Right, but these laws don't touch opinions.
There's having an opinion when you throw out something you believe, even if it is controversial. It's a matter of sharing what you think is true and opening debate.
Then there's hate speech is when you don't have an opinion that can be debated, and you're not merely expressive a belief either. What you are doing is using words to stir up hateful emotions among your listeners., to stir up discord.
I believe in free speech where everyone should be allowed to offer their opinion, and I can understand if they offer it angrily, but there's a large difference between expressing your own beliefs passionately and especially calculating speeches to manipulate people's emotions to encourage hatred and violence.
It's been made clear what these laws are aimed at.
The criticisms have either strawmanned the laws or produced scepticism about how they could be abused. The thing is, any law could be abused and until we have real instances to point at this comes of as just paranoia.
Let's test this statement.
Comes from: George W. Bush and friends
Aimed at: Radical Islamic Terrorists, Iraq's former dictatorship, the Taliban regime, and possibly Iran
Is it still illegal? I don't see any impeachment hearings.
I don't see a clear distinction here. Preaching intollerance should be okay as long as it's only done in the presence of opposing speech? Preaching intollerance should be okay as long as it's based on rational arguments? Preaching intollerance should be okay as long as the audience doesn't have an emotional response? Preaching intollerance should be okay as long as the audience doesn't change their opinion as a result?
Law enforcement has a long and widespread history of "stretching the truth", and vague laws empower them to arrest people just because they feel like it. This is not paranoia. There is plenty of video evidence to support this concern, and who knows how many additional cases go unreported or unproven?
You can say that the courts will sort it out, but innocent people get convicted all the time, and even just being arrested can cause a person considerable inconvenience and financial harm. Having an arrest on one's public record can make it more difficult to find employment, even if there's no conviction. Some courts (*cough* Texas) charge the accused fees for taking up the court's time even if the case gets dismissed before ever going to trial. Having to appear in court can disrupt a person's schedule and prevent that person from doing something important. Retaining competent legal representation can be very expensive.
Also, in cases with little evidence, a jury will often render judgement based on the assumption that the testimony of the police officer is more trustworthy than the testimony of the accused... and police officers have been known to lie under oath to justify their actions. Not only that, but there are many accounts of police officers planting and destroying evidence. Remember, just like the professions of lawyer and politician, the profession of police officer is a position of power and tends to attract people who want power. That's not to say that there aren't good, heroic police officers who just want to make the world a better place... there are (there are also good lawyers and politicians), and some of these noble police officers even quit their jobs to form watchdog groups to expose the misuse of police power.
To pass laws recklessly and then wait for them to be abused before trying to change them is, I think, irresponsible and shortsighted. Some laws are actually very well thought out and very well written, and I don't see why that shouldn't be the expectation from the start. And, while it's true that any law can be abused (or outright ignored), I don't see why we, as citizens of any country, should accept that as inevitable or tolerate it.
There's having an opinion on a matter of fact, which might be controversial.
Then there's stirring up emotions in people in order to increase tensions between them and other races/cultures.
One is sharing an honest opinion that free speech wishes to protect and the other is stirring up trouble to cause harm. Sure, there isn't a black and white line between them - sometimes the line is blurred. That's the same for all concepts in law.
Who says this one hasn't been well written?
What I'm saying is that until there is a case of abuse that you have no legs to stand on and that you are just projecting paranoia. What I'm saying is that in the worst case scenario it starts being abused, then we can modify it in a way to prevent abuse while still giving us the right to prevent hate speech.
It's called being realistic.
No laws are perfect so we should introduce laws for practical purposes. I've given clear cases where this law was applicable - Muslim fundies with their "hate everyone who isn't one of us - particularly Jews" rallies and white supremists who hold rallies to stir up hatred against minorities.
Your argument seems to be "although there is a problem that needs to be dealt with, as we cannot find an absolutely perfect solution with no possible side effects we should just leave it be and do nothing"
Why do gays get special anti-hate laws but other groups don't?
For example, is it ok to tell people to "Kill all the atheists"? Or "Kill all the people with blue eyes"?
Obviously not. But then if you got in front of a group of people and told them to do either you would already be charged with inciting violence. So why do gays need a special law? If you incite violence in this manner there are already laws that cover it.
The same thing has been happening in America where laws have been proposed the if you murder someone because they are gay you go to jail longer. To me that is absurd. If you murder someone you go to jail. I don't think it is worse to kill a gay person than a straight person and the punishment for murder shouldn't be different depending on who was killed. Murder is murder, inciting violence is inciting violence, we don't need a different law outlawing these things against specific groups of people when they are outlawed against all people. Our laws shouldn't say it is worse to kill a gay person than a straight person. They are both people and both should be protected equally.
At the end of the day it is just some politicians brown-nosing some gay organizations.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Dude, you're waaay behind the times.
Gay-hate laws are only the latest in the line.
Racial hate came out first and 'religious orientation' or 'culture' tends to be blurred in with 'race' or atleast considered equivalent for legal purposes. So yes, inciting hatred against theists and blue-eyes would also be illegal.
My point is why do we need any law that outlaws hate speech or hate crimes against any particular group? Why does the law have to state hate speech against a "race" or "gender" or "religious orientation" etc? We have laws that outlaw the crime. Who it is directed against shouldn't matter. Even if it is the evil wealthy white male of unknown religion inciting violence and murder are just as bad. So again my question, why do we need laws to protect specific groups of people whether racial, gay etc. when we have laws that protect everyone? Last time I checked, gays are part of everyone.
Just because they are the latest in a line doesn't justify the whole idea in general. Go back to black rights in America. For example, if the 15th Amendment to the Constitution hadn't been specifically targeted to race we could have saved a lot of trouble and not needed the 19th Amendment. As soon as laws start targeting a specific group of people, others who do not fit in that group are not being treated equally. I believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law (yes I know I am waaay behind the times with such antiquated notions) therefore, laws ought to be written in general terms that apply to all people not people of a specific group.
If inciting violence is such a problem why not write a law that says "If you incite violence against a person or group of persons you will be subject to penalty x" instead of a law that says "If you incite violence against a person or persons who are members of group y you will be subject to penalty x."
I'm not an expert of British law but I would be surprised if the first line is not already covered by their law somewhere. If it is, why do they need the second law other than to either punish someone worse for inciting violence against gays than against non-gays, or to brown-nose some special interest groups?
In the end it comes to legal theory. I believe laws should be written generally to cover all people equally. If they are not you run the risk of certain people falling between the cracks and not being protected or being protected equally. Believe me, if there is a crack some lawyer will find it.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Not only do we not need laws playing favorites to groups, any group, laws like that are dangerous. You allow one group to make public policy about what can or cannot be said against them you give them the power to silence you. Being an athiest in a majority theist country it would be suicide for me to say, "Make a law banning hate speech".
So, I get what I want and no one can say, "Atheists love Hitler". Well, then Christians will want the same, "You cant say that Jesus is fiction". Guess who outnumbers who? Guess who the cops, judges and jurys would be mostly made up of?
Bad idea for both atheists and theists. The best we can do as a society is let the words fly and agree that you cannot physically harm someone or advocate phyisical harm to someone.
Again, you cant legislate morality and you cannot opress peoples thoughts or emotions and you cannot force your neighbor to like you. You can have anyone arrested for harming someone physically, weither the motive is rape, robery or hate.
I just warn the PC Christians and atheists that this can backfire on you. You are better off getting over being offended and use your own voice to counter the bigoted crap some might spew about you. Dont silence people merely because they offend you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hear hear
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
No, it's very much not the same for all concepts in law. The vast majority of the laws that I've studied have been very clear-cut, and for those that weren't the confusion usually resulted from a term that was expected to be understood and therefore wasn't listed in the definitions.
I have no idea how the law the article is referring to is written. My post was a direct response to your post, not the article in the original post of this thread. What I'm saying is that carelessly making poorly defined laws with the expectation of fixing them once you see that they don't work is a bad idea, and it's likely to cause real problems for people that don't deserve them.
I didn't even argue for or against such a law, although I suspect that if such a law were to be properly defined, it would end up looking more or less identical to an existing law, as several other posters have suggested. If you insist on going with a "tweak it as we go" mentality, however, at least start with a law that infringes less on free speech and then modify it to close any major loopholes that are discovered.
My point is that laws should be well-defined. No law is perfect, but making vague, nebulous laws that don't clearly state what will and will not make someone a criminal is just a bad idea, plain and simple. There will always be problems with the criminal justice system, but those problems should not include the scenario where nobody really knows what the law is saying. Listing 2 scenarios is a far cry from defining a general rule.
Ok, by that standard then when an atheist says, "Religion is dangerous" and an atheist goes and kills a theist, are the atheists who said that responsible?
I cant stand that attitude. It takes away personal responsibility and places the blame on someone else for your actions.
I am not responsible for what other atheists do anymore than Pat Robertson would be if another Christian bombed an abortion clinic. Your attitude scares me quite frankly.
You want to put the responsibility of peace on government by turning government into thought police rather than what is humanly practical which is placing the responsibility on the individual NOT TO REACT to everything they hear.
I dont want you speeking for me and I am quite sure you dont want me speeking for you.
FOR EXAMPLE ONLY..........
If I were to say FOR EXAMPLE ONLY....."Go kill this person because they are Christian" That is rightfully and justly illegal to do.
Just as it would be IF FOR EXAMPLE ONLY....Pat Robertson said, |"Go kill this abortion doctor" and that too would be rightfully illegal as it should be.
But it is absurd to attempt to place blame on people who express hate or offensive things for the actions of others in every single case with a stupid blanket policy of never saying mean things about others.
Both the theist and atheist can take personal responsibility to not harm others no matter what. That is a much more realistic attitude than attempting to silence others because they dont like you.
I love you Larry, you have alot of positive qualities and tons of good intent. I just warn you about taking away personal responsibility from people and placing it in the hands of buerocrates and politicians.
I cannot tell you how many times Jerry Fallwell has condemned homosexuality. It is absurd and bigoted. But if some dipshit were to kill a gay person I would blame THEM for not taking personal responsiblity for their own actions.
Now if Jerry said "Go kill gay people" THEN IT WOULD BE A CRIME. But merely expressing "Homosexuality is a sin" is not.
You are treading on dangerous ground making it possible for Christians to cry |"hate speach" against us and the blaspheming and criticism we have toward them.
Merely having a bullshit bigoted opinion doesnt mean the person expressing it is always advocating violence. That is an absurd assumption and a dangerous one for any theist or atheist to make and a danger to free speech for all.
Dont shoot yourself in the foot with your good intent.
You may see yourself as a freethinker who does not advocate opression or violence. Your problem is that you forget that there ARE far too many Christians do see what we do here as hate, no matter how much we appeal to them. They are the majority, not us and no matter how much we may claim constitutional grounds if they are the majority interpreting the constitution they are going to view it with their bias. I would highly suggest not giving them the power to even be in that position. And the only way to prevent them from having that power is to grant them the same free speech we would want ourselves.
Again, BOTH the atheist and theist should be able to blaspheme, criticise and even express hate for each other. Merely saying mean, hurtfull or offensive things does not mean that the person saying it in every single curcumstance wants harm to happen to the person they aim it at.
I cant stand Ann Coutler. I think she is a self rightious bigoted bitch and I DO HATE HER and people like her. But that does not mean I want her dead. It merely means I hate her. Not you or any theist or atheist is going to take that right away from me merely because someone might get offended.
Dont screw with the First Amendment by making pre-emptive laws that prevent people from expressing dissent. The laws are already in place such as it being illegal to shout "fire" in a theatre.
In cases where someone has allegedly acted on the words of others you have to go beyond just saying, "this person said" and that person reacted. It is not a blanket law you can make. It is strictly case by case with tons of shades of grey.
Not everyone who expresses hate of someone or hate of a group is advocating violence. That is a dangerous assumption to make in every case and a danger to free speech, including your right to blaspheme religion.
I love you Larry, I really do. But whenever theists or atheists say things like this I get an immage of the Constitution going through a paper shreder and it makes my lip twitch.
Now, smack me in the head and call me dopey and always remember that I like shiney objects and rode the short bus.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
To be honest, I've not seen the exact wording of the law.
I'm working on what has been written about it in papers, the explanations that have been given and the incidents that gave rise to the law. My arguments were pointing out that all the arguments given against the laws relied on the law being ridiculously abused.
That's what I was countering.
Fair enough. I agree with that.
Like I said, I don't know the exact wording of the law so I can't comment further. I was simply countering the arguments on here.
If someone was to quote this law word for word and show that it had the problems that you describe then I wouldn't have an argument against. It's just that the arguments I've encountered so far in the thread just seem to bring up paranoid possibilities rather than a realistic prediction on how the law will actually be used.