On the one hand this certainly seems like a long overdue proposal. Speaking from my experience of London, legislation certainly seems to be out of step with social reality. Expressions of racism – which are legislated against most extensively – remian a serious problem, but today they pale in expression to common place and vicious expressions of homophobia.

On the other hand I am increasingly unconvinced that legislation regulating expression is the best way to deal with attitudes which we despise is the best way to go. Something about ‘if you don’t believe in free speech for those you espise, you don’t believe in it at all.’

Look at all the ‘murder music’ songs inciting the killing of ‘queers’ by individuals like Buju Banton, Beenie Man and Bounty Killa, all encouraging and glorifying the shooting, burning, hanging and drowning of gay and lesbian people.</em.

Would the same approach be allowed if people incited violence against black or Jewish people?

The exact same artists you reference provide the example; they sing about killing Afro-Caribbeans all the time. The whole of Gangsta Rap is about killing one another: it’s an art form glorifying a lifestyle which is self-consciously autodestructive. No-one in the game doesn’t know this; Tupac and B.I.G. made the point well enough in the nineties.

One of the problems we have in London is that no-one within their own community seems to be able to stop black kids singing about killing black kids. One might argue this is because as a society, we have failed to offer them any realistic alternatives.

While I am not really fence sitting I look at this situation as well as others this way.

If you are a bigot of any kind then prepare for your bigotry to be questioned, debated, and simply dismissed as the filth that it is.

If you stifle debate you push it underground and let it ferment into anger and then you get one person who speaks in a tabloid ticking the right boxes and voilà!

Bigotry is ugly and the only way, only way to expunge it from society is to see it full on, with the vile face it has and let people make their own minds up – that is the way to rid society of it.

Make discrimination illegal, indeed, but just legislating that you cannot say something only plays into the hand of those who will make themselves the victim, e.g. the racist or homophobe.

The OP proves this point – he read the article, brought it to the attention of readers here and it will be discussed and debated.

Taking responsibility for what you say is as much a part of free speech as saying it in the first place.

I can’t wait to see the prosecution of Shabba ‘crucify homosexuals’ Ranks – that should set the lefty camp on fire – blacks vs. queers. What to do? Whose side are you on Joe?

Also, a reasonable quantity of feminist writing (e.g. Valerie Solanas’ SCUM manifesto) could easily fall under the category of hate literature directed at heterosexual men (they count as a sexual orientation don’t they – or will the law specifically exclude them?)

Can’t wait to see prominent feminists and their work in court as well (Solanas died in the 80s so she’s in the clear at least).

Good luck with opening this can of worms.

To the Fellow Traveller @4: I can’t see any language being in the bill defending the status of heterosexuals from slight. Can’t be done, for the same reason as there is not (that I’m aware of) any language anywhere which explicitly says you can’t discriminate against ethnic Anglo-Saxons. The query which remains is how often are actual heterosexual men going to be attacked by women (or gay people) on those grounds, in any way which will make a practical rather than cosmetic difference?

I’ve been a politically active feminist for 15 years or so, which means I’ve been treated abysmally by lots of women I* was trying to work with on the grounds that I’m a straight man. I frequently got offended (I was very young), and on those grounds I get offended when people who’re supposed to be on my side make generalisations about ‘men’ (if I have to prime my caveats with care, so does everyone else). However, none of that did anything like the damage to me that would have been done had any of those objections to my sexuality been carried over into, say, keeping me out of Uni.

I hear occasional anti-straight speech from gay men. I hear vitriol of extraordinary depth and breadth directed by those same gay men (and women) at their bi-sexual associates. I’d be very glad if there was a law which allowed us to stop the gay community bashing the bi community for ‘not trying hard enough’ or whatever.

This proposed law criminalizes speech on the ground that it is motivated by hate against a specific group defined by their choice of sexual object. Does it have anything to do with the speech inciting criminal acts against those groups? As far as I can see, merely uttering the speech constitutes the crime regardless of whether any subsequent crimes resulted.

You’ve introduced a red herring – the idea that only speech that results in a physical attack on the group will get treated as criminal. This is not the case. The law treats the speech by itself as an attack.

Feminist speech has resulted in attacks on men in the past BTW, Solanas being the most famous example with her attempted assassination of Andy Warhol and the critic Mario Amaya.

After her imprisonment, prominent feminists campaigned for her release. I can quote Wikipedia’s entry again (it’s referenced):

Feminist Robin Morgan (later editor of Ms. magazine) demonstrated for Solanas’ release from prison. Ti-Grace Atkinson, the New York chapter president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), described Solanas as “the first outstanding champion of women’s rights.”[6] Another member, Florynce Kennedy, represented Solanas at her trial, calling her “one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement.”[6]

This was after she tried to kill two men.

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex. It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so… The male is a biological accident.

– SCUM manifesto

I’ve just copied this off the Wikipedia entry on Solanas. Would my quoting of this speech under this proposed law constitute a criminal offense? Would Wikipedia be prosecutable (assuming it has representatives in the UK?)

Personally I’m opposed to all limits on freedom of speech by the government including limits on “incitement”. If you behave in a violent way towards someone that is your fault and your fault alone. Nasty words do not compel people to commit violence.

Are you able to provide any examples, where you would like to see prosecutions under this proposed legislation, where the actions of such individuals are not already covered by existing laws?

You’re on to a loser asking to grant homosexuals the same protection as religious groups when so many are asking for THAT protection to be revoked.

@ 2 – “Look at all the ‘murder music’ songs inciting the killing of ‘queers’ by individuals like Buju Banton, Beenie Man and Bounty Killa, all encouraging and glorifying the shooting, burning, hanging and drowning of gay and lesbian people.
Would the same approach be allowed if people incited violence against black or Jewish people?”

Well that would depend upon the church as that is where ALL reggae artists get it from. If you look at the lyrics of dancehall artists and roots artists you will find the bible and bible stories are used readily. The fact of the matter is Jamaican society as a whole is anti gay and this comes from their churches. So if you want to stop such lyrics then you have to start with the church, because that’s how they justify their position. When Shabba was first pulled up about it on The Word (old tv programme) his justification was that he followed the teachings of the bible.

As for free speech, well how can you justify free speech if that speech is specifically about harming a group of people for no other reason than their sexual preferences or skin colour? No you wont stop people hating just because there are laws, but at least it allows an individual to be prosecuted for that specific ‘crime’.
@ 7 – “Nasty words do not compel people to commit violence.” Erm yeah they do. It starts with words and then it leads to violence, usually because the words can be become the norm, accepted, so for some the move from words to deads is a natural progression.

….his justification was that he followed the teachings of the bible.

So, once Parliament enacts this law, the courts should immediately prosecute everyone who promulgates the Bible on the grounds that it constitutes hate speech against homosexuals? Will the government have to ban it?

You’ve attributed the origin of the anti-homosexual hatred to this book so it would seem consistent.

Surely rather than add an additional layer of badly worded legislation on our discrimination laws (I appreciate the intent is in the best spirit, but can you actually define what “Inciting hatred” is? What’s the threshold? Violence, persecution or using the word “faggot” too often?) we need to have a tabula rasa and begin again with our discrimination laws.

Rather than try and slip clauses into other bills (this is not the United States Congress) we should create one, single act which legislates clearly against discrimination on such grounds as race, religion, sexuality and so on, but also against inciting violence and persecution.

If you chose to define it as inciting violence and persecution against specific groups, then you’re creating a series of problems, as the RRA of 1976 demonstrated. Why should Sikhs be protected under the Act, but Muslims and Hindus not?

Rather than create counter-intuitive, but well intentioned clauses, create a Single Discrimination Act which offers the protection of the law to everyone (on the issue of inciting violence, etc.) rather than to specific identity groups.

An anti-discrimination law would have to detail actual EFFECTS, not hurt feelings.

Hatred isn’t illegal, violence and many kinds of discrimination are.

Laws against inciting violence or prejudicial BEHAVIOUR are fair enough but ‘inciting’ someone to have feelings which are repellant but not actually illegal in themselves is absurd.

Incitement also involves a reaction among an appreciative audience. You can’t incite violence, for instance, if there’s no-one actually being incited.

Well said chavscum.

A disgraceful article which yet again emphasises how some authors on this supposedly liberal website are anything but liberal.

As one example of how poor it is, it finished with a reel of examples of Muslim hate preachers and artists who call for the murder of homosexuals. I think the author will find that openly calling for the murder of ANYONE is already illegal in this country and probably has been for quite some time.

We do not need new laws that, despite what the Bill’s supporters might say, will have a catastrophic effect on liberty and free speech. Calling for murder and inciting violence is absolutely wrong and thankfully we already have laws to deal with it. What’s a “serious act of hatred” anyway? Ambiguity will be abused by the government and lobbyists to crack down on whoever they want to.

Incitement also involves a reaction among an appreciative audience. You can’t incite violence, for instance, if there’s no-one actually being incited.

Isn’t that a mitigating factor which might determine the punishment?

Conceivably you would have two mitigating factors; the level of violence/persecution incited and the reaction of the audience to the incitement.

Then again, that suggests that the speaker is responsible for the actions of the crowd.

“Well said chavscum”

I don’t like to MINCE my words.

‘Then again, that suggests that the speaker is responsible for the behaviour of the crowd’

Only to a limited extent. There’s a difference between a preacher calling on his congregation to string up homosexuals and a bigot wandering the streets shouting FAG! at anyone with long hair. The latter is not likely to have an effect upon his unwitting ‘audience’, while the listners in the first example have already made some commitment to receive the message and have agreed upon the way it should be interpreted.

(A reporter or protestor who has sneaked in will hear the same words, but a different ‘message’)

Likewise, a teacher promoting prejudice in the classroom can have an appreciable effect on his students while a bit of graffiti in the toilets will have negligable effect.

You can’t seperate transmission from reception without greatly misunderstanding the communication process, and this is the fundamental flaw in most pro-censorship arguments.

Look at the words spouted by some fundamentalist Muslim hate preachers like Abdul Muhid or Arshad Misbahi who openly call for the murder of homosexuals.

You blame Conservatives ( A Party stuffed to the hilt with gays ) for aggressive Islam ? It is you that have back pedalled , you that have encouraged the import of such problems and you who will not admit that we have aright to insist of English Culture in England and that tolerance has its limits. Here is one of them. This is down to you .

Look at all the ‘murder music’ songs inciting the killing of ‘queers’ by individuals like Buju Banton, Beenie Man and Bounty Killa, all encouraging and glorifying the shooting, burning, hanging and drowning of gay and lesbian people. They are sold in record shops and aired on the radio.

Well yes I suppose so this is considerably less serious though, I do not see that such terrible consequences result that its worth a law

What interests me is that while you claim this law will only apply to acts aimed at individuals you obviously see it as a means of importing a general law as to what anyone is allowed to say about homosexuals . Or is this section irrelevant? I don’t like to see anyone’s feelings hurt but its hardly worth a new law. I think we should repeals the whole silly caboodle .

( Go Chavscum ! )

Personally I feel that the hatred, persecution and discrimination directed against more marginal sexual minorities – i.e. people who are into BDSM – to be equally digusting as homophobia. Would people here support similar legal protection for this group?

My position regarding BDSM would be the same: I’d support anti-discrimination and anti-violence (well, non-consensual violence) legislation against those who choose the lifestyle, but defend the rights of others to take the piss (what’s left of it once they’re done with it).

My defence of free speech would extend to ‘violent’ but consensual pornography for the same reason I’d protect the right to mock: that it is important to understand the meanings that viewers of such material take, and not make unwarranted assumptions of the ‘effects’ it has upon them.

I was surprised but pleased to see this article here. Freedom of speech cannot be infinite; my instinct would be to support this effort.

#19 – I haven’t heard of people calling for people who are into BDSM to be killed, but I admit I don’t know much about it.

BDSM is a sexual ‘kink’ just the same as ‘role play’, ‘foot fetish’ and so on – not a sexual orientation such as homosexuality/lesbianism.

Personally I feel that the hatred, persecution and discrimination directed against more marginal sexual minorities – i.e. people who are into BDSM – to be equally digusting as homophobia. Would people here support similar legal protection for this group?

Are you sure they don`t enjoy it ?

@ 11 – “So, once Parliament enacts this law, the courts should immediately prosecute everyone who promulgates the Bible on the grounds that it constitutes hate speech against homosexuals? Will the government have to ban it?
You’ve attributed the origin of the anti-homosexual hatred to this book so it would seem consistent.”
Yeah I would actually – at least with such legislation the church would have to think again, just like it had to with slavery which was justified by the bible at the time. The fact is there are so called Christians who think it is just fine to figurativley bash gays. This is not what the bible says and I would/do argue the point whenever I can.
I would prefer to waiver full freedom of speech if it means curbing people openly voicing hate for a group of people and for me that includes the church. If it means looking again at all such laws with the view of making one all inclusive law then fine.

“even though the promoters of the Bill have repeatedly clarified that Clause 58 will not be aimed at those who tell jokes”

Fine, except that where the Clause is “aimed” is irrelevant to what’s in the Clause.

There’s been a lot of argument elsewhere on the site about other provisions of the Bill e.g. data sharing – if we applied the same standards to that as you are applying here we would say “the government have clarified things and introduced safeguards, its fine”.

If we haven’t learnt that intentions mean nothing in legislation by now, then we’ve learnt nothing from the whole terrorism legislation fiasco.

The Qur’an might be in a spot of hot water

“When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes.”

( I take this doesnot mean shakes with pleasure ?)

“Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.” (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)

Crickey ! They didn’t go to puiblic school did they

In practical terms, the government couldn’t ban either the Bible or the Qur’an (or the Torah) or imprison those preaching from them as it would interfere with the Human Rights Act Article 9 on freedom of religion and conscience. The religious groups would obviously mount an enormous campaign against any such proposal. No one in government would go near it – not the least as the current Prime Minister is a Christian himself and his cabinet has featured Opus Dei members.

If religious persons who oppose homosexuals fall back on their scriptures as a justification of their position the government will find itself in a difficult situation. It will need very tricky and sophistical arguments to demonstrate that the relevant sections of scripture don’t actually count as an offense under the new law. Gay groups will demand punishment of religious types citing scripture in their defense – the courts will have to try and imprison them for preaching hatred against homosexuals without agreeing that the relevant text in scripture actually counts as hate speech.

One solution I’ve just thought of would involve the courts ruling that the Qur’an and the Bible are literally the Word of God as their adherents believe and that since the court can’t summon God before it and punish him for his hate speech, we can just let the whole matter rest.

Courts don’t need to summon God as he’s omnipresent and will attend as a matter of Heavenly course – and by that same logic there’s no point threatening him with prison as he’s already inside (which makes it jolly conveniant for all those who find him there).

In any case, could you really believe him if he swears on a Bible he is responsible for?

You’ve not thought this through, have you?

I’d forgotten about the option to swear on the Bible in court. They definitely can’t rule it as containing illegal hate speech as they’d have people swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, on a book full of hateful lies about gays (and women too).

I try to avoid thinking whenever I’m on the Internet. It helps me acclimatize better.

Enormous amount of toss-arguing and clutching at straws.

Actual situation.
If a man get abused to the tune of “f&*king faggot”, “S%&&t lifter” and all the rest, and later -or in the meantime- battered with similar abuse as soundtrack, this should be charged as a homophobic hate crime. As in: violence, but with the aggravating factor of hatred due to the intrinsic nature of the victim. The same as a racist hate crime or religious hate crime. In Britain it’s happening a lot. Worringly so.

I agree it’s a shame that this should be regulated by law. I agree grey areas invariably exist. The same way there is often a grey area between manslaughter and murder. But that is exactly what the courts and the juries are there for. To analyse the specific matter.

No-one’s advocating the arrest of Chris Moyles for saying the word ‘gay’ every 2 seconds, each to their own, that’s his own nervous twitch. Let’s not pretend that this is what Claude 58 is about.

We are talking about hatred and incitemement to violence.
For the weak-minded. Picture an busive situation and simply replace the word “gay” or “fag” or “queer” with Jew, Black or similar abusive nonsense.

What about someone quoting from the Bible or Qur’an on a placard while demonstrating against gays? Would that qualify for prosecution?

BTW – swearing in an abusive fashion at anyone on a British street can result in you seeing the inside of a jail cell in short order. The police bang up a lot of people doing this on Friday and Saturday nights.

“@ 7 – “Nasty words do not compel people to commit violence.” Erm yeah they do. It starts with words and then it leads to violence, usually because the words can be become the norm, accepted, so for some the move from words to deads is a natural progression.”

Those who hear the nasty words have the ability to choose how to act on them. As long as free will exists the idea of outlawing words that “incite” violence is absurd.

It doesn’t start with nasty words, it starts with nasty thoughts – and even New Labour hasn’t figured out a way of convicting people for having those.

Yet.

And Claude, nobody is talking about using this legislation to convict Chris Moyles but then nobody was talking about using anti-terrorist legislation to spy on families who may or may not live in the right school catchment areas either. Why the legs-akimbo trust here?

I don’t really think we need one.

I’d much rather bigots expose themselves as often as possible, actually.

32.
Potentially yes. It the CPS decides so yes.
But if Clause 58 is not included in the Bill the answer will be a DEFINITE no, because until now there was a SPECIFIC exemption (courtesy of the House of Lords last May) granted on the basis of “religious beliefs” or “religious freedom” I can’t remember the exact wording.
So here’s your answer.

Tim@21 Freedom of speech cannot be infinite

I disagree entirely but, even if you’re right, I don’t want your type setting the boundaries.

Claude@31

I am interested in the language because it is the language you want to ban. I see in your post that you could not bring yourself to type the term “shirt-lifter” as if it were some kind of swear word. I suspect this began as an intendedly mildly amusing reference to homosexuals and to a particular sexual act which some appear to enjoy. There is no doubt it has developed, over time, to have some derogatory undertones but I suspect this is mainly because the gay lobby has moved the debate on. So let me try a few more.

“arse bandit, carpet muncher” are these to be arrestable?

What about “muff diver or cock sucker”? Bugger?

Are these ” to be arrestable only if used to describe homosexual acts?

And where does motherfucker fit in?

Come on, these are words. Used in certain contexts it is possible words can cause offence and in other contexts they can be used with the intention of causing offence.

So shirt-lifting what!!!

Our world would be a poorer place without them.

OK, so ignoring most of the drivel here, I actually want to answer Will #3 and James #35, because I’m either misunderstanding where you’re coming from or very much disagree.

‘Homophobic’ (or similar adjective) isn’t an innate quality of a person; it’s a description of a action; speech or thing. I’ve said things in the past that are racist, transphobic or ablest, but I’m not fundamentally a bigot. (Yes, I just said “I’m not a racist but…” I feel dirty now)

But it’s not the occasional bad taste joke or vocabulary slip-up we’re talking about. In some cases – the cases Clause 58 will protect against – homophobic speech causes harm. Allowing this harm so we know who’s perpetrating it is like legalising theft so we know who’s a dirty thief. What we actually have is people who confuse morality and legality and think that it’s OK to say queers deserve to die because there’s no law against saying it. And if it’s OK to say it, it’s OK to think it, and OK to act on it.

Incidentally, I’m perfectly OK with anyone thinking I’m less of a person for whatever reason they choose, as long as they aren’t able to use this hate to cause me harm, physically or verbally.

Bigots are not born, they are made, and if we can stem the sheer amount of homophobic rhetoric out there, maybe we can manage to create fewer of them.

Yeah Debbi.

Control the language and you control the agenda. Then nobody can cause you harm.

Verbally.

Verbally harm you? What, with sonic waves?

Or do you mean offend you? Because that puts us in a worrying position: outlawing everything offensive. Everyone from Richard Littlejohn to George Monbiot says things that people find immensely offensive. I suspect that locking up the entire political spectrum of comment columnists would rather infringe upon a free press…

& your comparison to theft doesn’t really stand up: a bigot who is banned from saying bigoted things will simply be a bigot which we never get to hear. That’s not going to stop them having those views, indeed them never spewing them out in public will make it far less likely that they’ll have their limited mindset challenged and, in reference to your “Not born” comment, far less likely to get unmade.

James, I think you need to reread Claude’s posts and comments about what the Clause actually contains.

& your comparison to theft doesn’t really stand up: a bigot who is banned from saying bigoted things will simply be a bigot which we never get to hear.

And a thief who is banned from stealing is just a thief which we never get to lose our property to.

Again: “bigotted” is not a personal quality, it is a description of actions.

them never spewing them out in public will make it far less likely that they’ll have their limited mindset challenged

My experience with calling out bigots who express this limited mindset is usually have to the complaint ignored. They’re allowed to spew their hate, and I can’t stop them. YMMV, but if it does I’d be very keen to hear about all the bigots you’ve coverted.

James, I think you need to reread Claude’s posts and comments about what the Clause actually contains.

I think you need to understand the concept of “Law Creep” and “Subjectivity Induced Vagueness”.

And a thief who is banned from stealing is just a thief which we never get to lose our property to.

Uh…

Again: “bigotted” is not a personal quality, it is a description of actions.

Words, to be precise. You still haven’t explained how those cause you harm, either…

My experience with calling out bigots who express this limited mindset is usually have to the complaint ignored. They’re allowed to spew their hate, and I can’t stop them. YMMV, but if it does I’d be very keen to hear about all the bigots you’ve coverted.

So since you’re not great at converting people to pluralistic liberalism you think that a dose of prison will do it? This reminds me of the Cruise Missile Left…

[38] “I’ve said things in the past that are racist, transphobic or ablest, but I’m not fundamentally a bigot”.

A sentence that unintentionally encapsulates the agonies of the liberal mind – I’ve been chuckling about it all morning.

[40] Verbally harm you? What, with sonic waves? …………. that made me laugh as well.

I do not know enough about the law to say if existing legislation is robust enough to safeguard certain groups from being persecuted – I do worry though, as others have already pointed out, that laws on anti-terrorism, say, have been used to lock up old ladies.
http://www.noliberties.com/trailer.htm

Attitudes, of course tend to be rather more complex and trying to unpick them is sometimes a cause of unintended mirth – this thread is a very good example of it.

Sam Kinison could harm you with his larynx alone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_VURr6jnWQ

Ouch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj9DdTXxDFU&feature=related

Pagar @ 37:
>Tim@21 Freedom of speech cannot be infinite
>I disagree entirely

Really? *Infinite*? Think about that. Inciting actual violence is speech. Conspiracy is speech. Slander and libel are speech.

Do you believe these should all be protected rights? I’m genuinely curious, because I’ve come across people in some fora who HAVE defended libellous statements and incitements to violence on the grounds of “free speech”.

I doubt that many people would support incitement to violence but the bill is about incitement to ‘hatred’, an emotion which is legal in itself. There are already laws to punish those who conspire to commit violent ACTS.

And it’s the ultimate victory for capitalism that killing someone for money is considered more acceptable than killing someone you hate.

Marcus

Of course everyone is responsible for the consequences of what they say as well as do.

If I say to A, “kill B” and he does so I am complicit in the murder. That is not a free speech issue.

If I say something about someone else that damages them and can be shown to be untrue, of course they have the remedy of alleging slander. That is not a free speech issue.

The defining characteristic of a human being is that he is capable of independent thought and that characteristic is subverted if the thought cannot be communicated. Hence my diatribe above about the attempt to ban words and control language.

What we are talking about in relation to freedom of speech is the prohibition by legislation of the right of the individual to state what he believes regardless of how controversial that view is and how abhorrent (or even hurtful) it might be to others.

I don’t believe such legislation is ever justified and, to that extent, the right to free speech is absolute.

Potentially yes. It the CPS decides so yes.

In other words, the application of the law becomes, once again, an operational matter and the framers of this legislation and its supporters can just ignore any potential problems about that side of things since it isn’t their job. We’ve seen the current government retreat into this mealy mouthed defensiveness time and again – people raise objections, describe possible scenarios of unintended harm and the government minister just sits, stares, blinks a few times and says blandly – the courts will decide. I couldn’t possibly comment.

You’ve gone out of your way to reassure us that the clause won’t affect people like Chris Moyles telling dubious jokes about gays but on the other hand you’ve left it all up to the lawyers at the CPS, the judges and juries in the courts to decide exactly what this law you champion will mean in practice (the gray areas that you say will be sorted out by them not the legislators).

This doesn’t sound all that persuasive and amounts to saying ‘trust us, this law will only get the people who deserve to get it.’

You’ve also agreed that this law, if passed in its current form, could lead to an almighty collision between those riding on the religious freedom train and those on your right to freedom from bigotry train. It doesn’t seem to concern you all that much however. I guess because it will be a headache for the courts and a lot of other people and not for you.

#47

First of all, I’m flattered by the “your type” insinuation.

I believe hate-speech contributes to an atmosphere which makes violence and discrimination more likely. As it’s a contributing cause rather than a direct cause, that isn’t much use in court and incitement to violence laws are not applicable. But that doesn’t mean hate-speech doesn’t have an effect, and if it does have an effect of this kind then it becomes important to have a legal tool to stop it. In that context the balance between preventing violence & discrimination and keeping freedom of speech as wide as possible comes into play. Which isn’t to say that freedom of speech is unimportant, just that it shouldn’t be absolute.

If you don’t think hate-speech makes violence and discrimination more likely except where a direct causal link can be established, then I can see how you might think freedom of speech should be absolute. But if you do think that, it seems like an incredibly simplistic crude liberal atomistic view that doesn’t sufficiently recognise people’s interdependence.

Pagar @47:

What we are talking about in relation to freedom of speech is the prohibition by legislation of the right of the individual to state what he believes regardless of how controversial that view is and how abhorrent (or even hurtful) it might be to others.

First off: I am, like you, an active proponent of free speech. The place where you and I differ is not ‘abhorrent’; Big Brother would qualify for that, and I absolutely defend their right to broadcast it.

Where we differ is ‘hurtful’. To quote a physical metaphor; your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Permitting “hate-speech” (or, in my phraseology, unbridled public prejudice) gives those who want to have an excuse for active hate prosecution the feeling they are not alone, that they represent something more than personal anger and pain. The argument here goes like this: yes, you can lock up two boys for life after they kicked a girl to death in the street. However, it is surely better for society at large if the wide-spread acceptance of anti-alternative bigotry was curbed before two boys got so deluded they could believe that they would get away with kicking any girl to death in the street.

Normal people seeing Goths on a London street insult, berate, shout at, demean, spit on, throw things at and attack with knives. I’m only referring to specific things that have happened to me and my friends. The attacks with knives would happen a hell of a lot less if the street insults, shouts and demeaning attitudes were not tolerated by society, and were instead punished. The point of hate-speech law is it gives the sane bits of a society the chance to rein in the idiots before someone dies.

Fellow Traveller @48:

on the other hand you’ve left it all up to the lawyers at the CPS, the judges and juries in the courts to decide exactly what this law you champion will mean in practice

I see this a lot. It always bemuses me. We have for some mumble centuries now operated a hybrid legal system in this country, where statute defines law and judges interpret law, thus establishing precedents which are cited in future judgements. That aspect of legal responsibility placed on judges is one of the reasons it matters so much who they are, how broadly they are drawn from the demographics which make up our country, and how closely they’re watched.

Every single law that goes through Parliament will be interpreted and thus defined by judges. This is a check and balance against: a) law-makers trying to cover every eventuality and thus writing laws which need four strong men just to carry a copy, as in the USA and b) a person caught in unusual circumstances being punished by a law not intended for their situation. Judicial discretion is important.

The extent to which it works does not in any way change the fact that it’s true of all UK laws: it only gets cast in this light when the laws cover prejudices that people would like to keep, in my experience. I am not necessarily saying this is true of you; merely that it is true of many of those you travel alongside.

TimF @49:

But if you do think that, it seems like an incredibly simplistic crude liberal atomistic view that doesn’t sufficiently recognise people’s interdependence.

s/liberal/libertarian/ surely?

I don’t know where you live John Q, but ‘normal people’ don’t attack Goths with knives, areseholes do. Again we see the almost-Catholic confusion of thoughts and deeds.

John Q. Publican: thanks for the history lesson on how the English judicial system operates; I hadn’t realized. I’m talking about badly framed legislation getting pushed through Parliament by people who use this as an excuse for poorly worded and vaguely defined laws.

Thanks also for suggesting that I ‘travel alongside’ homosexual haters and presumably find their company congenial.

#50

I did mean liberal, although I will freely admit that some liberal philosophers make an attempt to work interdependence into their systems of thought. Some more successfully than others.

John@50

Quite how you can correlate freedom of speech with Goth murderers is beyond me. If you believe in freedom of speech, you must believe in the right of your enemy to express himself.

So the right of the racist, the religious bigot, the homophobe, the misogynist, the communist and the fascist to speak must be upheld at all costs. Indeed, if they are not allowed to express themselves, how can their views be confronted? They can’t.

They are left to fester in the shadows and that is much more dangerous.

“The defining characteristic of a human being is that he is capable of independent thought and that characteristic is subverted if the thought cannot be communicated.”

So do the severely brain damaged cease to be human?

Shatterface @51:

I don’t know where you live John Q, but ‘normal people’ don’t attack Goths with knives, areseholes do.

London. And arseholes are normal people. When a kid is allowed to pick anyone who looks different and taunt them down the street, and not a single adult in that street stops them, they get the idea that their target is legitimate. It only takes a short jump and a lot of teenage hormones for that to become a murder. Or, in the case of a friend of mine who was knifed on his way home from a juggling meeting, it only takes a few guys on a street deciding that if you mug the Goth the police won’t care like they would with “a real person”. Direct quote, during the taunting phase.

Sophie Lancaster is the nice example. Wasn’t there a kid in the States who actually, literally, staked his babysitter because she was a Goth and he decided that meant she must be an actual, honest-to-God vampire?

We have a culture which is in a paradigm flux. Some of us are trying to re-engineer the default British paradigm away from Gene Hunt’s attitudes in Life on Mars, towards something more philosophically defensible. A lot of us are pushing the other way, because they like being allowed to beat up anyone that looks, talks or acts differently. I had personal experience of this shit in the 80s and would rather we stopped it systematically. One way is to get people to understand that talking about someone as though they don’t matter leads to thinking about someone as though they don’t matter, or vice versa.

Fellow Traveller @52:

I’m talking about badly framed legislation getting pushed through Parliament by people who use this as an excuse for poorly worded and vaguely defined laws.

But what you said was, “you’ve left it all up to the lawyers at the CPS, the judges and juries in the courts to decide exactly what this law you champion will mean in practice (the gray areas that you say will be sorted out by them not the legislators).”

I pointed out that this is true of any law here, and therefore is not a noteworthy feature of this one.

Regarding the apparently inaccurate aspersion I accidentally cast on you: as far as I knew at the time, you oppose this law and your nickname is ‘Fellow Traveler’. I presumed that implied who you were traveling with (people who oppose this law). If I’m wrong, I most sincerely apologise.

Pagar @54:

I understand the point you’re trying to make here, but you really don’t seem to understand mine.

I debated at Southampton University whether or not the BNP should be allowed to address the Union. I supported the motion, because I loathe them with a fiery passion and it seemed to me the best way to actuate that loathing was to put them on a public stage and then make them look like dangerous lunatics. I am committed to the idea of freedom of speech. I am not committed to its platonic ideal, because we don’t live in an platonic, ideal world.

How do I equate the issue to the murder of Sophie Lancaster? She was kicked to death in the street for looking different. Those boys, like little children everywhere, will have grown up taunting anyone who looked and acted outside the norm. When they did this, adults will have prevented and punished them if they took it too far. That will not have happened when they were taunting people who looked like Ms. Lancaster, because in this country, it is considered normal for people to taunt and otherwise harass goths. The boys grew up with the idea that people who look like her don’t matter. So they killed her.

This is not straight-forward, as the ranting of a Bible-Belt preacher against Muslims might be. This is about how letting people redefine another person as ‘not someone who matters’ can lead to tragic consequences. This law says, let’s redefine gay people as ‘people who matter’.

Existing laws and regulations may be appropriate. Their application is however political, and then the question is in reality, why do so many people support aggressive right-wing speech. Have a look at this

http://state-ethics.blogspot.com/2009/03/censoring-godhatesfagscom.html

and see what you think of the idea. Do you think it’s an ‘assault on free speech’? And if so, doesn’t that simply make you a supporter of Fred Phelps?

“Do you think it’s an ‘assault on free speech’?”

Yes.

“And if so, doesn’t that simply make you a supporter of Fred Phelps?”

…No?

“When a kid is allowed to pick anyone who looks different and taunt them down the street, and not a single adult in that street stops them, they get the idea that their target is legitimate. It only takes a short jump and a lot of teenage hormones for that to become a murder.”

What a load of ageist, pseudo-scientific clap-trap.

‘Hormones’? So, James, it’s a retreat into biology now? And how do we stop hormones misbehaving by restricting free speech?

In the case of the Goths, it is THEY who are expressing themselves (through their make-up and clothing) and their attackers who are the censors (through violence).

Censorship is a violent act, an attack on thought itself, backed up by threat of force and perpetrated by those in power.

No James, it’s actually just sensationalist, pro-centrally defined morality, baseless clap-trap.

Unfortunately some here can’t correlate the facts of the world with their own paranoia that if the public aren’t controlled to all “Be nice” to each other and never cause offence to another (regardless of not knowing WHAT would offend another person exactly) then we’ll all die in some mass hate filled blood shed.

Sorry, James – meant John Q!

Paul, the reason so many will support the RIGHT to ‘aggressive right-wing speech’ (get that : the RIGHT to such speech, not the speech itself? Do you GET the distinction?) is that we currently have an aggressive, vaguely ‘left-wing’ government.

When we have an openly right-wing government, as we did in the 80′s, where they were banning the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality again then we’ll be attacking THEM. In the case of many of us, we won’t just be protesting just the right to free speech, we’ll be defending the rights of homosexuals – but we’ll find that a damn sight easier if the right to free speech itself is already secure.

S’cool, Shatterface.

“No James, it’s actually just sensationalist, pro-centrally defined morality, baseless clap-trap.”

I will not deny that it is that AS WELL. But as a male teenager I grow weary of the seemingly fathomless oceans of contempt that our culture holds for that specific section of the population.

Shatterface, Lee Griffin, James et al.
A simple question:
Do you think the offence of incitement to racism or religious hatred should be scrapped?