SD on 13/11/2006 at 21:38
This is exactly what I'm talking about TGGP. People are ridiculing me for comparing New Labour's policies to more overt and hostile threats of the recent past, but this is a group of people who, when the court makes a decision they don't like, decide that the law is wrong and must be changed.
If that isn't reactionary authoritarianism of the most frightening kind, I don't know what is. I don't want to live in a country where my very opinions can be criminalised because New Labour's intelligentsia deems them a threat.
Paz on 13/11/2006 at 22:19
Quote Posted by Some blogging blogocrat from blogosphere blogtown blogity blog blog blogington blogs
How much longer can you afford to take the risk of vacationing in Britain when you could be arrested for, say, some comment you posted on somebody's blog?
Hi guys I'm writing this from prison.
Ho ho .. but seriously. Right, what happened here is that the leader of what most people who've been paying attention would agree is a racist party was cleared of inciting racial hatred. Correctly cleared, because in this particular instance he wasn't inciting racial hatred (must have been his five minute break) - he was slagging off a religion, which is not a race. He's still a bellend, but there we go.
In light of this, it is my understanding that ministers are CONSIDERING changing/updating laws to incorporate the criminalisation of inciting religious hatred.
There is clearly a debate to be had here. What constitutes "inciting racial/religious hatred"? Is it ok for some dude sat at home to be a racist fuck (well obviously it's not "ok," but should it actually be criminalised), but not for someone who holds the office of party leader or shouts it on the street, say? etc etc, we can all drum up some talking points and issues.
I'm not crazy about the direction it's leaning.
It's a pretty interstellar leap to go from that to ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE. If you speak out against the government in an actual authoritarian state, you get taken away and shot. They don't go "hmm, maybe we should look at these laws and consider going through an extensive democratic process in order to potentially silence you." And then dick around for a few years, ultimately achieving nothing.
You remember what happened when they tried to ban fox hunting, don't you? Aside from being the stupidest waste of government time in the history of Britain, it ended with such a weak law that .. um .. nothing changed at all. If the authoritarian overlords can't even control a minority bloodsport, they aren't about to crack down on ROGUE BLOG COMMENTS FROM BLOGISTAN.
Perspective, and so on.
Myoldnamebroke on 13/11/2006 at 22:35
Has anyone got a link to what was argued? Everyone seems rather quiet on what actually went on in the case.
And to be fair, attacking religion may well constitute inciting racial hatred in the right context. If I go to an area with bubbling racial tension and preach about how muslims are going to kill you and steal your women, the angry young men I'm trying to stir up aren't going to run around checking the doctrine of every Asian person before they beat him up or set fire to his car. The BNP have been consistently white supremacist and their attacking of 'Islam' is of a radically different nature to proper examination of religious belief and more a loophole or more acceptable face on straight-up racism.
*Zaccheus* on 13/11/2006 at 22:45
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
BNP and UKIP are irrelevancies. For all its moaning and whinging about multi-culturalism and Europeans destroying the country, the British public hasn't seen fit to back parties that push a fascist or xenophobe agenda at the ballot box in any great numbers (unless you count the Tories and Labour, ho ho).
I don't trust Cameron as far as I could throw him; he was largely responsible for authoring the last Tory manifesto, which was horribly right-wing, so I find his Damascene conversion to liberal conservatism somewhat hard to believe.
That said, I think I could at least rely on him to retain most of the centuries-old civil liberties that the Labour government is so desperately trying to wipe out, which is why I'd favour him over Labour. More than anything, I don't want to live in some Orwellian nightmare.
If the price for personal freedom is the erosion of public services and the oppression of the underclass that has been a feature of most Tory governments, I can live with that - that can be fixed later. The damage Labour is doing to the country, whether it is abolishing the right to trial by jury, tagging us all wherever we go, destroying habeas corpus, or whatever - that damage is
irreparable.
Labour is the biggest threat to freedom this country has faced since World War II.
I compeletely agree.
SD on 13/11/2006 at 22:49
Quote Posted by Paz
It's a pretty interstellar leap to go from that to ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE.
No, it's a whole series of baby steps, and this government takes one more almost every single day. It's a gradual erosion of the basic human freedoms that we take for granted.
*Zaccheus* on 13/11/2006 at 22:51
Quote Posted by Paz
In light of this, it is my understanding that ministers are CONSIDERING changing/updating laws to incorporate the criminalisation of inciting religious hatred.
Except that they are talking bullshit, because the law has
already been changed to cover religious hatred.
Paz on 13/11/2006 at 22:57
^^^^ In that case the law is pretty crap and ineffective (or still allows a great deal of free speech, take your pick) because Nickypoos got off with his freedom.
Oh ok then, I'll bite.
What can I no longer do tomorrow that I could do in, I dunno, 1995? (comedy "watch Oldham Athletic in Division One" answers will not appreciated!)
This had better be some pretty serious stuff, because you've invoked THE ORWELL.
I'll give you a freebie: I can't smoke very easily in Scotland.
VVVVVV woooah, topside bottomside. Cunning - so has anyone been charged under the current religious-hooha law? Oh shit, that last abortion thread is a goldmine for our police now :o
*Zaccheus* on 13/11/2006 at 23:05
The law was introduced after he had made his comments.
*Zaccheus* on 13/11/2006 at 23:12
If you want an example of a law which lets the authorities arrest/charge just about anyone they choose, how about the fact that labour have made it illegal to own "any item which could be useful to a terrorist".
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6134538.stm)
*Zaccheus* on 13/11/2006 at 23:19
Note that there does not need to be any intention of using such material.
(
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/00011--g.htm#58)
Now seriously, who does not possess "a document or record containing information" which would be "useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"?
