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

[-:Undertaker:-]

No I am asking you if the 'right to strike' and secondary picketing curbs freedom of expression and freedom of speech? It's a simple question. Do you think that leglislation is good or bad for the UK?

It doesn't fit into my line of views so its bad, but if we were to get rid of that legislation then we should also get rid of the legislation which prohibits business owners from firing strikers.. agreed yes? You can't have it two sided, but if you insist on keeping controls over business owners from firing strikers then I agree with the legislation as then it is at least fair even if I don't agree with it.

The same applies to this, either you outlaw all insults/offensive lanaguage or you don't outlaw any - take your pick.

How is banning the labour party got anything to do with the incitement to racial hatred/hatred of sexual orientation? It is a spurious argument and you know it. Where has anybody stood on a street corner giving out leaflets saying that Tony Blair should be hanged for war crimes, Dan?

Because homophobia and racial hatred are also views, thats all they are - views. So again I am asking you, why should one view be banned but another should not be banned? I disagree with Ed Miliband over the EU, why shouldn't his views be banned?

As for Tony Blair, you've seen the banners etc at stop the war campaigns just as there were banners when Lord Pearson invited Geert Wilders over to the UK with banners saying things such as 'FREEDOM CAN GO TO HELL' and with mottos such as 'Blair lied, thousands died' and 'Bliar' etc etc - can view many banners on Google.

Also what makes Peter Hitchens, a right wing columnist of the Daily Mail an authority on the subject? Hardly an independent/unbiased view is it?

Hitchens doesn't support any party and was a left winger, if you read his blog you'll see he isn't tribal. Again I ask you to read it, it will reveal shocking things about the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.

[Catzsy]

It doesn't fit into my line of views so its bad, but if we were to get rid of that legislation then we should also get rid of the legislation which prohibits business owners from firing strikers.. agreed yes? You can't have it two sided, but if you insist on keeping controls over business owners from firing strikers then I agree with the legislation as then it is at least fair even if I don't agree with it.

The same applies to this, either you outlaw all insults/offensive lanaguage or you don't outlaw any - take your pick.

Because homophobia and racial hatred are also views, thats all they are - views. So again I am asking you, why should one view be banned but another should not be banned? I disagree with Ed Miliband over the EU, why shouldn't his views be banned?

I don't have to take my pick because I am not the one on the forum who crusades tirelessly on breach of 'freedom of speeach/ expression'.
Enough of your verbal gymnastics, Dan answer the question. Do you feel that curbing the right to strike and secondary picketing was a breach of freedom of speech/expression? As you often say 'yes or no'?

As for Tony Blair, you've seen the banners etc at stop the war campaigns just as there were banners when Lord Pearson invited Geert Wilders over to the UK with banners saying things such as 'FREEDOM CAN GO TO HELL' and with mottos such as 'Blair lied, thousands died' and 'Bliar' etc etc - can view many banners on Google.

Again, I am sure if someone had been standing on a street corner handing out leaflets saying that Tony Blair should be executed for warcrimes then something would be done about it. I am not sure UK law covers 'google'.

Hitchens doesn't support any party and was a left winger, if you read his blog you'll see he isn't tribal. Again I ask you to read it, it will reveal shocking things about the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.

Please don't try to tell me he is not a right wing conservative - he may have initially supported Tony Blair but indeed some hard left wingers in the party considered Tony Blair a conservative.
I have read some of his blogs and I can see exactly where you get your views from:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=640596
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....in-return.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...k-barbaric.htm
Whilst his book is probably quite a good read I cannot see that he is an unbiased independent person although you have every right to think so. I prefer to take opinions from the whole spectrum before I come to a conclusion. It would be like me saying that you should read Tony Blairs' biography and learn the true position from that. Again not an independent or unbiased view.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't have to take my pick because I am not the one on the forum who crusades tirelessly on breach of 'freedom of speeach/ expression'.
Enough of your verbal gymnastics, Dan answer the question. Do you feel that curbing the right to strike and secondary picketing was a breach of freedom of speech/expression? As you often say 'yes or no'?

I answered this, I do feel thats a breach of civil liberties but also feel that business should be able to have the right to fire strikers if striking laws are to be relaxed. Now you answer, my answer and stance on that issue is fair and very simple to both sides 'all or nothing' - now your turn, or is it just the usual case of a one-sided crusade against common sense Thatcher policies.

The system was unfair, it allowed strikes to paralyse the country but didn't allow employeers to fire strikers - so instead of allowing business the right to fire strikers (as should have been done in my view) she made it harder for strikes to occur - thats fair right? it cannot be one sided.

Again, I am sure if someone had been standing on a street corner handing out leaflets saying that Tony Blair should be executed for warcrimes then something would be done about it. I am not sure UK law covers 'google'.

Anyone awake to the Iraq war protests would remember it and as I said, there's various pictures/statements from the internet that you can read/view concerning threats made against Antony Blair.

Would you ban offensive language towards Blair? if not, why ban homophobic language and not other offensive speech?

Please don't try to tell me he is not a right wing conservative - he may have initially supported Tony Blair but indeed some hard left wingers in the party considered Tony Blair a conservative.
I have read some of his blogs and I can see exactly where you get your views from:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=640596
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....in-return.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...k-barbaric.htm
Whilst his book is probably quite a good read I cannot see that he is an unbiased independent person although you have every right to think so. I prefer to take opinions from the whole spectrum before I come to a conclusion. It would be like me saying that you should read Tony Blairs' biography and learn the true position from that. Again not an independent or unbiased view.

I never once said he was unbiased, of course he's biased - but not in a party political way. The book of Tony Blair is complete tripe just as the man talks in real life, he can talk for hours but not say anything of real substance. Hitchens will give you an insight into the Labour and Conservative media circle and you'll see that your leaders that you so admire don't actually think all that badly on the other side, a bit like professional wrestling - in the public they hate one another, in the locker room they are best of buddies. I'd also add, that Hitchens never supported Blair from the outset as far as i'm aware, and in the book he discusses how the conventional wisdom that Blair was a 'conservative' is complete and utter rubbish.

Now back to this actual subject; homophobia is an opinion - why should one opinion that is deemed offensive by banned but another opinion/viewpoint that can also be offensive is not also banned? try explaining the logic of it to me.

[Catzsy]

I answered this, I do feel thats a breach of civil liberties but also feel that business should be able to have the right to fire strikers if striking laws are to be relaxed. Now you answer, my answer and stance on that issue is fair and very simple to both sides 'all or nothing' - now your turn, or is it just the usual case of a one-sided crusade against common sense Thatcher policies.

The system was unfair, it allowed strikes to paralyse the country but didn't allow employeers to fire strikers - so instead of allowing business the right to fire strikers (as should have been done in my view) she made it harder for strikes to occur - thats fair right? it cannot be one sided.

Yes, I actually agree with you about the leglislation but it was seen as a breach of civil liberties. One thing she got right because the left at that time with the Arthur Scargills and Militant Tendancy were getting somewhat out of control. She was a very smart lady - just not up my alley, so to speak.Thing is just because you don't agree with something it doesn't automatically mean it is a breach. That is what I am trying to say to you. It is your view which quite often clashes with mine.
It is the Liberty v utilitarian argument. You are farther right than me on it that's all. We still want to see society prototected by laws but it is the 'laws' and how far they go that we disagree on. That will never change.

Anyone awake to the Iraq war protests would remember it and as I said, there's various pictures/statements from the internet that you can read/view concerning threats made against Antony Blair.
Would you ban offensive language towards Blair? if not, why ban homophobic language and not other offensive speech?
I never once said he was unbiased, of course he's biased - but not in a party political way. The book of Tony Blair is complete tripe just as the man talks in real life, he can talk for hours but not say anything of real substance. Hitchens will give you an insight into the Labour and Conservative media circle and you'll see that your leaders that you so admire don't actually think all that badly on the other side, a bit like professional wrestling - in the public they hate one another, in the locker room they are best of buddies. I'd also add, that Hitchens never supported Blair from the outset as far as i'm aware, and in the book he discusses how the conventional wisdom that Blair was a 'conservative' is complete and utter rubbish.

Now back to this actual subject; homophobia is an opinion - why should one opinion that is deemed offensive by banned but another opinion/viewpoint that can also be offensive is not also banned? try explaining the logic of it to me.

Well again, Peter Hitchens is obviously a man of great intellect, however, I do not agree with his views. Of course you would say that Tony Blair's book is tripe - I would not expect anything else from you. This is how different we are. My hero is Nelson Mandela. Who is yours?

To state homophobia as an opinion is probably a bit on the niave side. The oxford definition of it is:

an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

A bit more than an opinion I feel, but it is not the opinion that is against the law it is stirring up hated of them that is.
This was the press release:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease230310c.htm
Whether you agree or not it is against the law and I agree with this law.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, I actually agree with you about the leglislation but it was seen as a breach of civil liberties. One thing she got right because the left at that time with the Arthur Scargills and Militant Tendancy were getting somewhat out of control. She was a very smart lady - just not up my alley, so to speak.Thing is just because you don't agree with something it doesn't automatically mean it is a breach. That is what I am trying to say to you. It is your view which quite often clashes with mine.

Indeed and it was, but regulation over business concerning 'workers rights' is also a breach of civil liberties and that is never ever mentioned when it comes to these types of debates. As with the debate we're having, you cannot have it both ways - one way or the other.

It is the Liberty v utilitarian argument. You are farther right than me on it that's all. We still want to see society prototected by laws but it is the 'laws' and how far they go that we disagree on. That will never change.

Indeed but you must ask yourself, are these laws really for our protection?

Why do you need protecting from things you may not like to hear? it is an absurd concept.

Well again, Peter Hitchens is obviously a man of great intellect, however, I do not agree with his views. Of course you would say that Tony Blair's book is tripe - I would not expect anything else from you. This is how different we are. My hero is Nelson Mandela. Who is yours?

It certainly is not Mr Mandela who was head of the armed wing of the ANC and conducted terrorist attacks against innocents who had nothing to do with the government/regime in power at that time. But again, look into these things and ignore conventional wisdom and you'll often find a different conclusion which is why I advise Hitchens book as opposed to Blair, because Blair is part of the conventional wisdom brigade.

For one interesting fact concerning Mandela and his wife Winnie, see 'necklacing'.

A bit more than an opinion I feel, but it is not the opinion that is against the law it is stirring up hated of them that is.
This was the press release:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease230310c.htm
Whether you agree or not it is against the law and I agree with this law.

But that is an opinon/feeling, and what makes it any different to any other opinion/feeling provided it does not cross the line into violence. I know this debate is winding down, but I want an answer for this; why should a gay guy be protected from hatred/insults when a ginger guy isn't?

Laws such as these not only destroy civil liberties, they do not add up logically.

[Gibs960]

Bloody disgrace! If I wanted them dead then I wouldn't have out a leaflet saying that!!!!!!!!!!!! NO, BECAUSE IF YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ANYWHERE IN THE WHOLE ******' WORLD YOU GET INTO BLOODY TROUBLE FOR BEING RACIST, BUT HOMOPHOBIC BEHAVIOUR IS OK?!

Some Muslims are just so ignorant.

[Catzsy]

Indeed and it was, but regulation over business concerning 'workers rights' is also a breach of civil liberties and that is never ever mentioned when it comes to these types of debates. As with the debate we're having, you cannot have it both ways - one way or the other.

Of course I can - you do when it suits your argument.

Indeed but you must ask yourself, are these laws really for our protection?

Why do you need protecting from things you may not like to hear? it is an absurd concept.

I think they are for the protection of people at whom the hatred is aimed at.

It certainly is not Mr Mandela who was head of the armed wing of the ANC and conducted terrorist attacks against innocents who had nothing to do with the government/regime in power at that time. But again, look into these things and ignore conventional wisdom and you'll often find a different conclusion which is why I advise Hitchens book as opposed to Blair, because Blair is part of the conventional wisdom brigade.

For one interesting fact concerning Mandela and his wife Winnie, see 'necklacing'.

My guess is that you supported the Rhodesian regime. This man served 30 years in jail for a country he loved. When he came out he did not seek revenge he sought reconcilliation for all the people of South Africa. His wife, whom he never lived with after he came out, was a very different matter.

But that is an opinon/feeling, and what makes it any different to any other opinion/feeling provided it does not cross the line into violence. I know this debate is winding down, but I want an answer for this; why should a gay guy be protected from hatred/insults when a ginger guy isn't? Laws such as these not only destroy civil liberties, they do not add up logically.

Well because Dan 'gingers' are a not a section of the community that are actually hated. You can say this about all sorts of isms 'fat', 'anorexic', big ears, wears glasses, has a lisp. People get bullied all the time about something. That is life. I do not think you would find a group on a street corner seriously suggesting in a leaflet that they should be executed. It does seem logical to me, Dan especially as in addition to the gay community who can freely go about their lives in the community there are gay people from the ethnic communities quite often in fear of their lives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course I can - you do when it suits your argument.

I don't (would like examples to suggest otherwise), I keep to principles as Conservative said before 'all or nothing'.

I think they are for the protection of people at whom the hatred is aimed at.

So if I have a schoolyard grudge with somebody, I should be protected from arguments with them as they hate me?

My guess is that you supported the Rhodesian regime. This man served 30 years in jail for a country he loved. When he came out he did not seek revenge he sought reconcilliation for all the people of South Africa. His wife, whom he never lived with after he came out, was a very different matter.

I didn't support the regime at all, now see you've just ignored everything I said there and have attempted to link me with the regime. I support Northern Ireland remaining a part of the United Kingdom and describe myself as a Unionist yet I am firmly against Unionist gang terrorist attacks against Catholics - terrorism or freedom fighting in my eyes should be aimed at the regime itself, not innocent people.

He was a terrorist, he and the ANC armed wing targeted innocent people who had nothing to do with the regime.

Well because Dan 'gingers' are a not a section of the community that are actually hated. You can say this about all sorts of isms 'fat', 'anorexic', big ears, wears glasses, has a lisp. People get bullied all the time about something. That is life. I do not think you would find a group on a street corner seriously suggesting in a leaflet that they should be executed.

I can't help being gay just as a ginger guy can't help but having ginger hair, so why should I be protected by the law but the ginger guy can't? or is being gay now cult yet we're expected to treat people all the same as though gay is normal? it's either natural and thus normal or it is not. Why should I be protected from something that is out of my control, while others don't get that protection?

And a more important question really, why should gay people be exempt from what is essentially an (extreme) opinion?

[Catzsy]

I don't (would like examples to suggest otherwise), I keep to principles as Conservative said before 'all or nothing'.



So if I have a schoolyard grudge with somebody, I should be protected from arguments with them as they hate me?



I didn't support the regime at all, now see you've just ignored everything I said there and have attempted to link me with the regime. I support Northern Ireland remaining a part of the United Kingdom and describe myself as a Unionist yet I am firmly against Unionist gang terrorist attacks against Catholics - terrorism or freedom fighting in my eyes should be aimed at the regime itself, not innocent people.

He was a terrorist, he and the ANC armed wing targeted innocent people who had nothing to do with the regime.



I can't help being gay just as a ginger guy can't help but having ginger hair, so why should I be protected by the law but the ginger guy can't? or is being gay now cult yet we're expected to treat people all the same as though gay is normal? it's either natural and thus normal or it is not. Why should I be protected from something that is out of my control, while others don't get that protection?

And a more important question really, why should gay people be exempt from what is essentially an (extreme) opinion?

Sorry Dan I have answered all these questions and given my views - I now feel badgered. Perhaps somebody else will take you on

[qaxzsw]

I didn't read all of the other post as they are like small essays (though they have valid points, I'm agreeing with Catzsy however!)

I agree that they should be charged. Lets say 5 men handed out leaflets saying 'All muslims should be executed' or 'All jews should be executed', they would certainly be charged! Therefore, it's only just these idiots are charged.