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

[Catzsy]

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.

Well I respect your right to believe that the Labour party are destructive but again the example is a poor one as it is not likely to happen in this country in the next 100 years.
I think you put all your eggs in your 'freedom of expression/ speech' basket. I agree many silly laws have been passed by the EU and governments of all colours but incitement to racial hatred/ incitement to sexual orientation hatred is not one of them. The way forward would be to jump off the 'freedom of speech' bandwagon and attack the laws that are just plain barmy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well I respect your right to believe that the Labour party are destructive but again the example is a poor one as it is not likely to happen in this country in the next 100 years.
I think you put all your eggs in your 'freedom of expression/ speech' basket. I agree many silly laws have been passed by the EU and governments of all colours but incitement to racial hatred/ incitement to sexual orientation hatred is not one of them. The way forward would be to jump off the 'freedom of speech' bandwagon and attack the laws that are just plain barmy.

But they are plain barmy as they restrict freedom of speech and expression, because otherwise where does it end? I can't offend gays but I can offend gingers? (ban on incitement of hatred towards gingers) I can't offend gingers but I can offend bald men? (ban on incitement of hatred towards bald men) and so it continues and continues until eventually you can't offend or disagree with anybody without fear of being taken to court. Besides, if you were after complete 'equality' surely all insults towards all sorts of peoples should be banned?

My opinion is that; that is a ridiculous notion and is similar to communism in which is it nothing more than a utopian dream - so instead of picking one or two out, do not restrict any of it as there is no need to restrict any of it. There should be no right to not be offended and if there is, well it goes back to my example above. Freedom of speech and expression are absolute or they are nothing.

This isn't about what I agree/disagree with, its about allowing people to disagree and agree with one another - the keystone of liberty. The concept that somehow people need 'protecting' against the thoughts of one another is utter nonsense; progress is only ever made when all sides of an argument are heard. Afterall, why do regimes/did the medieval religions ban any alternative thoughts? because it risked the status quo.

[Slowpoke]

Sorry but this is simply ridiculous - if you disagree with somebody you either ignore them or debate them, you do not take them to court for their opinions. Popular speech doesn't need protecting, its unpopular speech that needs protecting.

So you think this is ok?

So it would be alright to go around giving out leaflets calling for all people of, for example, dark skin to be executed?

Would it hell, and these kinds of leaflets are sick. The world is only just beginning to accept homosexuals and if the impressionable youths got hold of these then we'd be right back to square one, "follow the crowd"

[-:Undertaker:-]

So you think this is ok?

So it would be alright to go around giving out leaflets calling for all people of, for example, dark skin to be executed?

Would it hell, and these kinds of leaflets are sick. The world is only just beginning to accept homosexuals and if the impressionable youths got hold of these then we'd be right back to square one, "follow the crowd"

Yes I do think it is ok, why do you disagree? you disagree because like most of us we don't agree with that opinion, but why should the people who consider that to be a valid view be thrown in jail for having that view? if you disagree with a view you debate it just as you can debate on the European Union, the economy, immigration right down to what tree you plant in your front garden - you do not need to ban the view outright because whats the need?

'People could be offended' in that case then, why not make it a criminal offence outright to offend anybody or anything? because that is the logic you are using and you can see just how ridiculous it is. The leaflets may be 'sick' but I also find the 'justification' [the lies in my opinion] of the two main parties over the Iraq war downright disgusting yet I would never ever consider banning them as political parties/points of view.

The homosexuality point, young people can make their minds up themselves i'm sure - they don't need outlets of thought censoring. If an argument is so strong then you don't need to censor the other side as the other view will simply crumble under your points of debate.

[Conservative,]

Essentially Undertaker's point is that you have NO RIGHT NOT to be offended. In other words - just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is wrong or an invalid opinion. It may be wrong, it may be illegal, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's an invalid opinion.

[Catzsy]

But they are plain barmy as they restrict freedom of speech and expression, because otherwise where does it end? I can't offend gays but I can offend gingers? (ban on incitement of hatred towards gingers) I can't offend gingers but I can offend bald men? (ban on incitement of hatred towards bald men) and so it continues and continues until eventually you can't offend or disagree with anybody without fear of being taken to court. Besides, if you were after complete 'equality' surely all insults towards all sorts of peoples should be banned?

My opinion is that; that is a ridiculous notion and is similar to communism in which is it nothing more than a utopian dream - so instead of picking one or two out, do not restrict any of it as there is no need to restrict any of it. There should be no right to not be offended and if there is, well it goes back to my example above. Freedom of speech and expression are absolute or they are nothing.

This isn't about what I agree/disagree with, its about allowing people to disagree and agree with one another - the keystone of liberty. The concept that somehow people need 'protecting' against the thoughts of one another is utter nonsense; progress is only ever made when all sides of an argument are heard. Afterall, why do regimes/did the medieval religions ban any alternative thoughts? because it risked the status quo.

Yes but Dan, the laws against homophobia have been in place for a long time. You can't just revoke all laws in name of 'freedom of speech'. That's a utopian idea and unrealistic to preserve any modern society otherwise there would complete anarchy. The way this country is run has nothing to do with communism - you seem to have a problem with understanding that just because somebody has left wing views doesn't make them a communist or marxist or someone has right wing views does not make them a facist. It is not that black and white. History should be remembered when expressing this viewpoint especially the McCarthy era. If these laws if revoked would really effect people's lives for the worse. We should progress and not regress
to a time when intolerance of 'differences' were rife.If you are talking about bureaucracy then rant against the stupid bylaws brought in by local goverment. They are the 'big brother' of this country.

Essentially Undertaker's point is that you have NO RIGHT NOT to be offended. In other words - just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is wrong or an invalid opinion. It may be wrong, it may be illegal, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's an invalid opinion.

Of course you have a 'right to be offended'. Everyone does. That's freedom of speech.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes but Dan, the laws against homophobia have been in place for a long time. You can't just revoke all laws in name of 'freedom of speech'. That's a utopian idea and unrealistic to preserve any modern society otherwise there would complete anarchy.

So you're suggesting that nearly everyone in this country is just waiting to walk around the streets giving out leaflets such as 'we hate homos' and so on? the vast majority are fine, and even in that vast majority there is 'homophobia' just as there always will be homophobia in our lifetime. Homophobia is a dislike of gays which I can see no problem with as many people dislike differing things; some people may dislike goths, some may dislike emos and it goes on and on just as is the case with gingers, bald men and tramps.

It isn't unrealistic at all, all homophobia laws and so on do is make an example of one or two people in the newspapers, so we can all pretend to be shocked that somebody still disagrees with homophobia - well i'm sorry but a heck of a lot of people disagree with it and I don't see what that has got to do with the state. What will it be next? my Dad doesn't accept it that i'm gay and I can take him to court for upsetting/offending me?

The way this country is run has nothing to do with communism - you seem to have a problem with understanding that just because somebody has left wing views doesn't make them a communist or marxist or someone has right wing views does not make them a facist. It is not that black and white. History should be remembered when expressing this viewpoint especially the McCarthy era. If these laws if revoked would really effect people's lives for the worse. We should progress and not regress

If you believe communism/socialism are dead, then seriously you do need to read 'The Cameron Delusion' by Peter Hitchens. Most Labour frontbenchers still remember and sing the red flag at party conferences, many ministers of the Labour cabinet were 'ex-communists' - just look at their policies; CCTV/large state/expanding the powers of the unelected courts and EU/a large healthcare system/comprehensive schools; when the Berlin Wall fell, one of the first things East German parents did was to bring back the grammar schools.

Policing of thoughts is a authoritirian/socialist stance;- this is what these laws are.

to a time when intolerance of 'differences' were rife.If you are talking about bureaucracy then rant against the stupid bylaws brought in by local goverment. They are the 'big brother' of this country.

And laws haven't changed that - whats changed is the viewpoints of people themselves, not down to the laws but down to themselves. Its like saying, if Dave Cameron made supporting Labour illegal tommorow - would you instantly stop believing in the Labour Party because its illegal? no you wouldn't and the same goes for all these minority laws.

The more these laws are shoved down peoples throats the more people will get pissed off and direct it at minorities.

Of course you have a 'right to be offended'. Everyone does. That's freedom of speech.

But you've just said you support laws against intolerance of 'differences' - what do you want? it's either you ban all insults outright or you do not ban any at all? why should a gay guy be exempt from being insulted over his sexuality but a ginger kid can't be exempt from any insults directed towards his hair colour?

If you truly believed in this stuff, you'd outright just say that nobody should be allowed to offend one another.

[Catzsy]

So you're suggesting that nearly everyone in this country is just waiting to walk around the streets giving out leaflets such as 'we hate homos' and so on? the vast majority are fine, and even in that vast majority there is 'homophobia' just as there always will be homophobia in our lifetime. Homophobia is a dislike of gays which I can see no problem with as many people dislike differing things; some people may dislike goths, some may dislike emos and it goes on and on just as is the case with gingers, bald men and tramps.

It isn't unrealistic at all, all homophobia laws and so on do is make an example of one or two people in the newspapers, so we can all pretend to be shocked that somebody still disagrees with homophobia - well i'm sorry but a heck of a lot of people disagree with it and I don't see what that has got to do with the state. What will it be next? my Dad doesn't accept it that i'm gay and I can take him to court for upsetting/offending me?



If you believe communism/socialism are dead, then seriously you do need to read 'The Cameron Delusion' by Peter Hitchens. Most Labour frontbenchers still remember and sing the red flag at party conferences, many ministers of the Labour cabinet were 'ex-communists' - just look at their policies; CCTV/large state/expanding the powers of the unelected courts and EU/a large healthcare system/comprehensive schools; when the Berlin Wall fell, one of the first things East German parents did was to bring back the grammar schools.

Policing of thoughts is a authoritirian/socialist stance;- this is what these laws are.



And laws haven't changed that - whats changed is the viewpoints of people themselves, not down to the laws but down to themselves. Its like saying, if Dave Cameron made supporting Labour illegal tommorow - would you instantly stop believing in the Labour Party because its illegal? no you wouldn't and the same goes for all these minority laws.

The more these laws are shoved down peoples throats the more people will get pissed off and direct it at minorities.



But you've just said you support laws against intolerance of 'differences' - what do you want? it's either you ban all insults outright or you do not ban any at all? why should a gay guy be exempt from being insulted over his sexuality but a ginger kid can't be exempt from any insults directed towards his hair colour?

If you truly believed in this stuff, you'd outright just say that nobody should be allowed to offend one another.

Seriously, Dan this is 'pie in the sky' stuff and a totally unrealitic and unrepresentative of society as it is today in the UK. It is just scare mongering. Just because the labour party prefers public to private on some things does not make it anywhere near communism and never will be. Also the 'red flag' represents left wing views and not just communism. Again it is a case of all or nothing with you as you write here. I am sure you have a much more broad and common sense attitude in real life to be able to make a judgement as to what is important and what is not? To bully somebody and say they 'ginger' is a lot different to publishing and handing out leaflets saying that homosexuals should be executed. So did you agree with the extreme curbing of 'right to strike' and secondary picketing - people may say that was resticting freedoms?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Before I stay on the topic;- the Labour Party point; again I can only advise you to read the Cameron Delusion which will throw some genuinely shocking facts at you about the Labour Party and its pale-blue twin the Conservative Party. If you think marxism is dead and that somehow Tony Blair and New Labour are somehow to the 'right' then read the book and I can gurantee you'll think otherwise.

Seriously, Dan this is 'pie in the sky' stuff and a totally unrealitic and unrepresentative of society as it is today in the UK. It is just scare mongering. Just because the labour party prefers public to private on some things does not make it anywhere near communism and never will be. Also the 'red flag' represents left wing views and not just communism. Again it is a case of all or nothing with you as you write here. I am sure you have a much more broad and common sense attitude in real life to be able to make a judgement as to what is important and what is not? To bully somebody and say they 'ginger' is a lot different to publishing and handing out leaflets saying that homosexuals should be executed. So did you agree with the extreme curbing of 'right to strike' and secondary picketing - people may say that was resticting freedoms?

It is only unrealistic to you because you have grown so used to the state and the government providing all the answers and money for you that you have become 'nannified'. When somebody says something you do not like, you now have the mindset that 'well thats terrible, i'll pick up the phone and see what the police can do about this'.

It is a case of 'all or nothing' because otherwise you simply do not have a case, as shown by the examples of trying to now use extremes with the homosexual part but not with the ginger part. Now the impression I get is that you want homophobia outlawed and the same goes for racism - ok, so why not outright ban all insults towards all sorts of people? you know aswell as I do thats wrong and unworkable, so why single out a few groups and not everybody.

A man can't call for homosexuals to be executed.. but a man can call for Tony Blair to be hung for war crimes? how does that make any rational sense at all? again you refuse to answer the most important point of free speech in the fact that free speech means hearing things you may not want to hear. Homosexuals may not want to hear 'homosexuals should be executed' - I may not want to hear the Labour Party which I regard as a terrible organisation filled with malice; but why not ban the Labour Party? and most of all, who decides what is allowed to be said/what is not allowed to be said?

The case you are putting across is essentially 'why should homosexuals have to hear/read this opinion?' - well in that case, why should anyone have to read or listen to an opinion they may not like in which I ask, why not just ban all insults/offensive opinions outright?

So did you agree with the extreme curbing of 'right to strike' and secondary picketing - people may say that was resticting freedoms?

Mhmm well its a double sword, I believe if you are going to have it as fully blown rights to strike for the workers then you should give the business fully blown rights to fire workers for striking in the first place. But of course you don't agree with that, you want it one way [on the workers side] as opposed to fair across the board.

[Catzsy]

Before I stay on the topic;- the Labour Party point; again I can only advise you to read the Cameron Delusion which will throw some genuinely shocking facts at you about the Labour Party and its pale-blue twin the Conservative Party. If you think marxism is dead and that somehow Tony Blair and New Labour are somehow to the 'right' then read the book and I can gurantee you'll think otherwise.


It is only unrealistic to you because you have grown so used to the state and the government providing all the answers and money for you that you have become 'nannified'. When somebody says something you do not like, you now have the mindset that 'well thats terrible, i'll pick up the phone and see what the police can do about this'.

It is a case of 'all or nothing' because otherwise you simply do not have a case, as shown by the examples of trying to now use extremes with the homosexual part but not with the ginger part. Now the impression I get is that you want homophobia outlawed and the same goes for racism - ok, so why not outright ban all insults towards all sorts of people? you know aswell as I do thats wrong and unworkable, so why single out a few groups and not everybody.

A man can't call for homosexuals to be executed.. but a man can call for Tony Blair to be hung for war crimes? how does that make any rational sense at all? again you refuse to answer the most important point of free speech in the fact that free speech means hearing things you may not want to hear. Homosexuals may not want to hear 'homosexuals should be executed' - I may not want to hear the Labour Party which I regard as a terrible organisation filled with malice; but why not ban the Labour Party? and most of all, who decides what is allowed to be said/what is not allowed to be said?

The case you are putting across is essentially 'why should homosexuals have to hear/read this opinion?' - well in that case, why should anyone have to read or listen to an opinion they may not like in which I ask, why not just ban all insults/offensive opinions outright?



Mhmm well its a double sword, I believe if you are going to have it as fully blown rights to strike for the workers then you should give the business fully blown rights to fire workers for striking in the first place. But of course you don't agree with that, you want it one way [on the workers side] as opposed to fair across the board.

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?

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?

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?