ginnyg2
Full Member
Don't blame me - I voted for someone else.
Posts: 410
Member is Online
|
Post by ginnyg2 on Feb 25, 2024 10:21:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 25, 2024 13:28:28 GMT
Indeed. We are now entering a time where ‘ hate speech ‘ will be a purely subjective term and dependant on anyone who deems it to be so ( and of course completely slewed to a woke lrftie viewpoint. We already have one particularly hysterical leftie seeing racism and bigotry everywhere she looks .
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 25, 2024 14:09:44 GMT
It's a good overview but missing much contextual detail. There are also several ahistorical errors such as implying that the Public Order Act dates from 1986. The first version of the POA was enacted in 1936.
It's also excessively mono-causal, as is typical for the particular source. In fingering the Jews as more or less exclusively responsible for the repressive race-related legislation in the UK it gives a misleading impression of who the actual culprits were. Many if not most were not Jews.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 25, 2024 14:13:39 GMT
What is actually needed is legal measures that restrict the government rather than us - ie it should be illegal for the government to make laws that restrict speech one the basis of wide open, vague and subjective categories (ie 'hate').
|
|
ginnyg2
Full Member
Don't blame me - I voted for someone else.
Posts: 410
Member is Online
|
Post by ginnyg2 on Feb 25, 2024 15:53:05 GMT
It's a good overview but missing much contextual detail. There are also several ahistorical errors such as implying that the Public Order Act dates from 1986. The first version of the POA was enacted in 1936. It's also excessively mono-causal, as is typical for the particular source. In fingering the Jews as more or less exclusively responsible for the repressive race-related legislation in the UK it gives a misleading impression of who the actual culprits were. Many if not most were not Jews. The 1936 act was mainly in response to clashes between rival factions (Blackshirts/Reds) but the amendments of the 1986 act brought in the offences relating to hate speech. This is what the writer is pointing out.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 25, 2024 16:09:21 GMT
As a matter of fact, 'hate speech' does not appear as a criminal offence until quite a while after 1986. What the POA86 did was to assume the role mission of prosecuting 'incitement to racial hatred' which had been a feature of the various Race Relations Acts in place prior to 1986. The new POA repealed s.70 of the RRA76 and replaced it by the new Part III of the Public Order Act.
The POA86 was a Thatcherite innovation; various legislation dealing with 'hate crime' and its close relative 'hate speech' was not enacted by the Blairite regime until ca 1998 onwards.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 25, 2024 16:11:19 GMT
I see the green shoots of pedantry starting to emerge .
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 25, 2024 16:17:44 GMT
Now, now, play nice.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 25, 2024 16:19:29 GMT
What is actually needed is legal measures that restrict the government rather than us - ie it should be illegal for the government to make laws that restrict speech one the basis of wide open, vague and subjective categories (ie 'hate'). It's quite remarkable that the terms 'hate' and 'hatred' are not defined anywhere in the great raft of legislation that has been put in place to eradicate them.
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Feb 25, 2024 20:08:52 GMT
There used to be a guy at Speaker's Corner who attracted an audience by blaming women for EVERYTHING. All the problems of society, all the problems men had, were caused by women. Most of his audience, which included many women, knew what he was about ... and the fun began when someone took him seriously. Nowadays he probably wouldn't last long before someone complains and the police have to intervene.
There also used to be a guy who talked about sex, in detail, using all the "correct words". There would be a couple of cops present. Every so often he would say that if he used the words "most people use" they would arrest him. Eventually he would use them ... and the police would move forward and stop him. His spiel included detailed descriptions of the supposed sex life of politicians ... which the police didn't react to.
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 26, 2024 10:40:21 GMT
Indeed. We are now entering a time where ‘ hate speech ‘ will be a purely subjective term and dependant on anyone who deems it to be so ( and of course completely slewed to a woke lrftie viewpoint. We already have one particularly hysterical leftie seeing racism and bigotry everywhere she looks . What we have seen is a group of people who dont know what racism is. Rhey remind me of groups who used to refer to black people as inferior ( like why do we have to have black people in adverts) butc would take huge offence at being called a whitey b**tard. Freedom of speech goes both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 26, 2024 11:25:10 GMT
Indeed. We are now entering a time where ‘ hate speech ‘ will be a purely subjective term and dependant on anyone who deems it to be so ( and of course completely slewed to a woke lrftie viewpoint. We already have one particularly hysterical leftie seeing racism and bigotry everywhere she looks . What we have seen is a group of people who dont know what racism is. Rhey remind me of groups who used to refer to black people as inferior ( like why do we have to have black people in adverts) butc would take huge offence at being called a whitey b**tard. Freedom of speech goes both ways. And of course you know what racism is but you don’t know what misandry and sanctimoniousness is . A while ago it was ok to object to underrepresent ethnic groups in the media . Now its not ok to object to over representation of ethnic groups in the media . Well according to bitter self hating lefties anyway . Racism is whatever YOU think racism is because of your sense of self importance .? ……Of which you have expressed many times
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 27, 2024 10:57:21 GMT
One slight factual innacuracy Griffin was brought up before the court on a charge of racism for declaring islam to be ‘a wicked and vicious faith’ The trial collapsed pretty spectacularly when the court was forced to review the published words of a chap known under the pseudonym of ‘Ed Hussain: The Islamist’ Mr Hussain (whose name is not Hussain nor is his first name anything like Edward) publicly states that he turned his back on a certain group in (manchester ?) university when it became clear their views were too extreme, but the comments he made that took down the trial referred to activities of islamist recruiters in various countries following the treatment of followers of the cult of mohammedanism in kosovo. Folliwers of the prophet there were for the main part blonde, blue eyed Aryans and their treatment at the hands of non cult members while NATO forces deployed by SHAPE looked on gave the average ISIS recruiting sergeant the delightful propaganda line ‘see how the infidel beat, murder and rape your brothers and sisters in Islam in that land, and see how they do these things to blond, blue eyed, white skinned brothers and sisters. Imagine then how the infidel will treat YOU….. The entering into testimony of the fact such ‘recruiting sergeants’ were able to make much of the fact the cult welcomed white, blonde, blue eyed men and women into its ranks pretty much nuked the legal case that islam was a race and that therefore legislation which at the time made it illegal to say these things about racial groups applied to the religious group Anyone with half a brain could see that of course but not the left leaning CPS and magistrates / judges. They had to be MADE fools of The upshot was the extension to hate crime legislation making it a hate crime to bad mouth islam, but strangely NOT a hate crime for moslems to kick the shit out of, or murder, or maim, infidels
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 27, 2024 13:33:48 GMT
There used to be a guy at Speaker's Corner who attracted an audience by blaming women for EVERYTHING. All the problems of society, all the problems men had, were caused by women. Most of his audience, which included many women, knew what he was about ... and the fun began when someone took him seriously. Nowadays he probably wouldn't last long before someone complains and the police have to intervene. There also used to be a guy who talked about sex, in detail, using all the "correct words". There would be a couple of cops present. Every so often he would say that if he used the words "most people use" they would arrest him. Eventually he would use them ... and the police would move forward and stop him. His spiel included detailed descriptions of the supposed sex life of politicians ... which the police didn't react to. I’ve been to speakers corner about half a dozen times, once as a kid with dad, several times when in london from teenager to fiftysomething I think you know, as i do, in times past you could SAY anything provided that the six foot three copper standing at the edge of the crowd was not given cause to believe you had put the little old grandma next to your pitch in a state of fear, alarm or distress or you were inciting others listening to you to act in a way that would have her feel that way, plus obscenity, lewdness and so on. Of course giving the copper cause to believe he’d be needing to truncheon the crowd who you were inciting to kick him shitless was your free ride in a plod van for sure But OFFENDING someone’s beliefs was not on the banned list. I recall as a kid a number of ‘repent, the day of judgement is at hand’ types and i swear that chap Soper was one of the men on a soap box. Last time i was there was about a decade and a half ago and they had some imam mouthing off and he looked and acted pretty bloody inciting incan tell you. But that was when Blair was about to hand over to Brown and leg it
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 27, 2024 16:47:34 GMT
Indeed. We are now entering a time where ‘ hate speech ‘ will be a purely subjective term and dependant on anyone who deems it to be so ( and of course completely slewed to a woke lrftie viewpoint. We already have one particularly hysterical leftie seeing racism and bigotry everywhere she looks . Please refer to the first of the three links from the UK Crown Prosecution office which clearly defines what hate speech / hate crime is. I take it you cant be bothered to read it either. So here it is again:https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime
|
|