Britain to ban criticism of religion

[AuH2O]

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4737391

Of course, in reality, this means criticism of Islam. Thus, it may be illegal to even say "Islamic terrorist" since that might incite hatred against Muslims.

Also Britain is doing away with jury trials in certain types of cases.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Old news Goldie

1. Criticism of religion is NOT going to be banned. Where on earth did you hear that rubbish from? Even plain old religious bigotry will remain legal. What's being banned is the extreme end of religious hatred; like calling for all Muslims or Methodists to be gassed. A similer law has been in operation in Northern Ireland for a long time for some funny reason.
All prosecutions must be approved by the Attorney General.
And yes you will still be able to say "Islamic Terrorist".

2. Jury trials MIGHT be scrapped in complex fraud cases. This is being considered due to the farce over the Jubilee Line (and similer cases) and is entirely understandable.

[AuH2O]

Actually, read the article. If you say something that MIGHT incite racial hatred-- not even violence-- you can be prosecuted.

So, saying Muslims are more likely to commit terror attacks is a crime.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually, read the article.

No need; I've read the proposed bill and the little note that comes with it

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, no it isn't.

[Joe Republic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks like Al is right on this one.  I don't think "saying Muslims are more likely to commit terror attacks" is really "nasty and extreme behaviour", which is what the whole bill is supposed to be about.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What the bill is supposed to stop, btw, is some of the stuff that happend across the Pennine belt a few years ago. Not nice. Not nice at all.

[AuH2O]

You mean things that were already illegal?

[The Dowager Mod]

I like how the fleets in the Trafalgar re- enactment are the "red" and "blue" fleets instead of British vs French,Spanish.
Just to keep from offending anyone.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A similer law has been in operation in Northern Ireland for a long time for some funny reason.

And yet Ian Paisley is still a free man. Pretty amazing.

[Emsworth]

I think that this bill is a terrible idea. Unless actual violence is being incited, freedom of speech should prevail.

Let us hope that the Lords delay this bill for as long as possible.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't agree with the bill either, but Goldie and other Europhobes just like to blow stuff out of proportion to cause a ruckus.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You mean things that were already illegal?

The BNP stirring up the riots was perfectly legal at the time

[minionofmidas]

A similer law has been in operation in Northern Ireland for a long time for some funny reason.

And yet Ian Paisley is still a free man. Pretty amazing.

Safe to say this bill is a waste of paper, then?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This note was published alongside the bill:

"the offences will not encompass material that just stirs up ridicule or prejudice or causes offence. Further, what must be stirred up is hatred of a group of persons defined by their religious beliefs and not hatred of the religion itself."

There's perfectly good reasons to oppose the bill and perfectly good reasons to be in favour of it (and personally I'm symphathetic to some arguements from both sides) but if you want to talk about it please don't misrepresent it and claim that it does something that it clearly doesn't do (I'm talking to you here Goldie).

[Peter]

Let us hope that the Lords delay this bill for as long as possible.

It was in the manifesto. Expect Government peers to invoke Salisbury Convention, and then the oppossition peers will probably tack a few amendments on it and stuff like that - they aren't going to be able to vote it down in full however.

[Emsworth]

Let us hope that the Lords delay this bill for as long as possible.

It was in the manifesto.

Ah, how unfortunate.

[Democratic Hawk]

Incitement to religious hatred should be a criminal offence; however, criticism should not

No creed, dogma, ideologically or religion is immune from criticism

Dave

[John Dibble]

Incitement to religious hatred should be a criminal offence

Please, elaborate what 'religious hatred' is to you, and the minimum of what it takes to be considered inciting it.

[jokerman]

What's Europe being so anti-religious freedom.  You'd think it was being ruled by the anti-christ already.

[Democratic Hawk]

Incitement to religious hatred should be a criminal offence

Please, elaborate what 'religious hatred' is to you, and the minimum of what it takes to be considered inciting it.

I take religious hatred as being rhetoric, intentionally designed to whip up prejudice and violence by one faith's adherents against another

I don't see criticism per se as being a precursor for either of those outcomes. Criticism should be taken as it is, if any one disputes it, then they can counter it in civil discourse

Dave

[Emsworth]

I take religious hatred as being rhetoric, intentionally designed to whip up prejudice and violence by one faith's adherents against another

I feel that inciting prejudice should be legal. I believe that inciting violence is already illegal under the common law, and should remain so.

[Democratic Hawk]

I take religious hatred as being rhetoric, intentionally designed to whip up prejudice and violence by one faith's adherents against another

I feel that inciting prejudice should be legal. I believe that inciting violence is already illegal under the common law, and should remain so.

Shouldn't your first statement read "illegal"?

Dave

[Emsworth]

Shouldn't your first statement read "illegal"?

No, I feel that inciting prejudice should indeed be legal. Freedom of expression should be paramount except in circumstances that threaten the rights of others. One has a right to be free of violence; thus, it is logical for inciting violence to be illegal. One does not have a right to be free from bias; thus, inciting prejudice should remain legal.

[John Dibble]

I take religious hatred as being rhetoric, intentionally designed to whip up prejudice and violence by one faith's adherents against another

I feel that inciting prejudice should be legal. I believe that inciting violence is already illegal under the common law, and should remain so.

Shouldn't your first statement read "illegal"?

Dave

I'm in agreeance with Emsworth. Making prejudice illegal is thought policing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyone actually bother to read this?

"the offences will not encompass material that just stirs up ridicule or prejudice or causes offence. Further, what must be stirred up is hatred of a group of persons defined by their religious beliefs and not hatred of the religion itself."

NO CAUSE EURRRROPE IS EVIILLLLL!!! LOL! MUSLIMS TAKING OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111 LOL!!!!!!!111111 THOUGHT POLICE!!!!!!!!!111111 LOL!!!!!!!!!!111