5 Men charged with stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation

[GommeInc]

Seems a waste of time pushing them into the court room, it's their view after all and shouldn't be forced to change by act of intervention. Hopefully the general public have an ounce of common sense and will know that their clearly ignorant views are to be taken with a pinch of salt. It's their money they've wasted on printing the damn leaflets

[ifuseekamy]

That is what the Qur'an says though :S these men will just be seen as martyrs or something.

[Catzsy]

Seems a waste of time pushing them into the court room, it's their view after all and shouldn't be forced to change by act of intervention. Hopefully the general public have an ounce of common sense and will know that their clearly ignorant views are to be taken with a pinch of salt. It's their money they've wasted on printing the damn leaflets

But Gomme by allowing this to happen some sections of the population will believe that all ethnic minorities agree with this fuelled by the right wing extremists who will revel in exploiting the situation. It will be an interesting case and as I said welcomed by the majority of law abiding citizens from the ethnic minorities who have had a bad press for a long time.

[GommeInc]

That is what the Qur'an says though :S these men will just be seen as martyrs or something.

All religious texts are up for interpretation and some parts contradict others. The majority of Islam followers (Muslims) follow the "good" side of Islam, and can be compared to Christianity in terms of morals. Infact, Muslims who correctly follow the Qu'ran would know to be tolerant of others. Extremists tend to strictly follow the Qu'ran down to every detail, especially the old, unrealistic texts where anyone who isn't a Muslim should be killed - you get it with Christianity but somehow you never get Christians who go out shooting non-believers (never really understood why, but it's probably western values vs. unrealistic, barbaric texts which don't make peace).

But Gomme by allowing this to happen some sections of the population will believe that all ethnic minorities agree with this fuelled by the right wing extremists who will revel in exploiting the situation. It will be an interesting case and as I said welcomed by the majority of law abiding citizens from the ethnic minorities who have had a bad press for a long time.

Then do what the BBC and a few other corporates, and local newspapers did when "Muslims vs. World" arguments appear - get what a group of each have to say. They did it a few Christmas' ago, they got a teenager Muslim girl from one group of Muslims, then an older generation one, and they said what their "brethren" do is complete rubbish and unnecessary. The general population didn't really need this confrontation because if all Muslims were trigger happy then you'd have evidence everyday and everytime you walked near one - I don't see Muslims walking towards me with guns, so therefore I can deduct that they must be good people or forgot to bring their guns out, which evey one suits me at the time

[-:Undertaker:-]

No need to be aggressive There is a great deal of difference between private and public conversations. If you spout racism in the street then you can be charged 'with incitement to
cause racial hatred' This is no different except it is aimed at inciting hatred of sexual orientation.

I am arguing the same for any laws concerning free speech.

I agree with both these laws and I have a right to do so. It is called 'freedom of expression'. I do not go around breaking the law doing it though.

You do have right to do so and you have the right to say it, so why shouldn't these people be allowed to air their views. Freedom of expression, yes the clue is in the name 'freedom' - meaning you make the choice how to express yourself and not have it done for you by somebody else.

You don't break the law because your thoughts are currently banned, but if they were to be banned - you would be breaking the law. How would you feel if someone were to ban anybody openly supporting Ed Miliband? (and their reason would be 'oh he is a danger to this country, he can divide peoples opinions' - you wouldn't like it would you?

But Gomme by allowing this to happen some sections of the population will believe that all ethnic minorities agree with this fuelled by the right wing extremists who will revel in exploiting the situation. It will be an interesting case and as I said welcomed by the majority of law abiding citizens from the ethnic minorities who have had a bad press for a long time.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ed...r-cent-muslim/

For example, opinion polls of British Muslims consistently show around 7 per cent support terrorist attacks on UK civilians, more than 10 per cent support attacks on UK troops, and anywhere between 30 and 50 per cent wish for Sharia law and the death penalty for apostates and homosexuals.

Many muslims who are in ethnic minorities certainly will not agree with you - I don't agree with their stance on homosexuality, but I think they should have a right to air them just as the group of muslims who burnt poppies had a right to do so and I defended them even though I do not agree with them. It all comes down to 'can you accept that other people have differing opinions to your own?'.

[Conservative,]

People get arrested for stirring up hatred on Racial grounds - so this should be equal. All or nothing - as you often say Undertaker. Either you arrest for BOTH (racial & sexual) stirring, or neither.

[Catzsy]

I am arguing the same for any laws concerning free speech.



You do have right to do so and you have the right to say it, so why shouldn't these people be allowed to air their views. Freedom of expression, yes the clue is in the name 'freedom' - meaning you make the choice how to express yourself and not have it done for you by somebody else.

You don't break the law because your thoughts are currently banned, but if they were to be banned - you would be breaking the law. How would you feel if someone were to ban anybody openly supporting Ed Miliband? (and their reason would be 'oh he is a danger to this country, he can divide peoples opinions' - you wouldn't like it would you?

This is just silly, Dan and totally unrealistic as to what might happen.


Okay would you say this is freedom of speech/ freedom of expression.

1. Women handing out pornographic magazines to children outside a school.

2. Abuse and strong language in a public place.

3. Men advocating child sex and handing out leaflets supporting Paedophilia outside the houses of parliament.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is just silly, Dan and totally unrealistic as to what might happen.


Okay would you say this is freedom of speech/ freedom of expression.

1. Women handing out pornographic magazines to children outside a school.

2. Abuse and strong language in a public place.

3. Men advocating child sex and handing out leaflets supporting Paedophilia outside the houses of parliament.

Well 1 and 3 would be unlikely to happen, and number two happens as it is anyway - but yeah, thats freedom of speech and expression. Nobody forces anybody to accept or read the leaflets and the same goes for the magazines. Freedom of speech/expression and thought it about accepting that things you may not like to hear/see will happen, something which all dictators naturally have a problem with. I have said before, in the unlikely event that somebody denies me a job because I have black hair/i'm gay then I wouldn't like it, but i'd accept it.

But you wouldn't like the Ed Miliband example would you? so don't restrict the opnions and thoughts of others.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire.

[Catzsy]

Well 1 and 3 would be unlikely to happen, and number two happens as it is anyway - but yeah, thats freedom of speech and expression. Nobody forces anybody to accept or read the leaflets and the same goes for the magazines. Freedom of speech/expression and thought it about accepting that things you may not like to hear/see will happen, something which all dictators naturally have a problem with. I have said before, in the unlikely event that somebody denies me a job because I have black hair/i'm gay then I wouldn't like it, but i'd accept it.

But you wouldn't like the Ed Miliband example would you? so don't restrict the opnions and thoughts of others.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire.

Well all those are against laws of the land that have been with us for a long time and this is the law of the land. The Ed Milliband comment is a pretty spurious one and I am surprised you have not come up with one with a bit more substance. On a scale from 1% to 100% how likely, in your view, is this likely to happen in the next 10 years? You are against control orders and say people should be charged and have a trial and then when one happens that is against the current law you are against that as well.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well all those are against laws of the land that have been with us for a long time and this is the law of the land. The Ed Milliband comment is a pretty spurious one and I am surprised you have not come up with one with a bit more sunstance. You are against control orders and say people should be charged and have a trial and then when one happens that is against the current law you are against that as well.

I am against many of our laws, we're turning into a country of 'this is what you can do' rather than the old system of 'you cant do these' - that is very very dangerous, its a sort of Europeanisation of our criminal system where innocent until proven guilty is simply dropped. A better example would be for instance if the Labour Party were banned - you would not like it but on the other hand the people banning it may see the Labour Party as a destructive force (as I myself genuinely do) - but never ever should you ban something concerning thoughts, ideals or opinions just because you do not agree with those views.

It is like when regimes collapse, often the party which was in power is banned in the new 'free and democratic country' - that in itself is contradictory.