Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

Not really. It was an attack against the church. Not one pro atheism. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Still not seeing it. Stalin did what he did to destroy all apparatuses of power besides the State and ensure the loyalty of the people to it alone. I don't think atheism really factored into it.

Please read my post more carefully. I am sure I have already made it clear that regardless of the real reasons Stalin had for crushing the church, the actions were committed in the name of Atheism. The terror campaign against the Orthodox church was part of a wider promotion of state Atheism. That's what he passed it off as.

[Sheb]

My point was that despite a very low number of Islamist terrorist attacks (around 1-2 years, counting foiled and failed attacks), a lot of Muslims are arrested for terrorism-related offense. It's all in the Europol reports. Islamists account for less than 1% of attacks, but 40% of arrests in Europe. So yeah, some Muslims that would have posted that kind of bull**** would have been arrested for terrorism, not some lesser offense like "inciting racial hatred".

[XXSockXX]

My point was that despite a very low number of Islamist terrorist attacks (around 1-2 years, counting foiled and failed attacks), a lot of Muslims are arrested for terrorism-related offense. It's all in the Europol reports. Islamists account for less than 1% of attacks, but 40% of arrests in Europe. So yeah, some Muslims that would have posted that kind of bull**** would have been arrested for terrorism, not some lesser offense like "inciting racial hatred".

The more interesting thing here is not the number of arrests, but the number of convictions (which is quite a bit lower). If someone is suspected to have connections to a terrorist cell he is probably charged with something else than "inciting racial hatred", but if he was just talking bullshit, he probably won't be convicted for anything. "Inciting racial hatred" is usually only used against right-wing extremists, as far as I am aware. Don't know how that is in the UK, that whole "common law" thing seems pretty vague to me, but there are probably regulations who can be charged with / sued for what.
That scotsmen example from above is some form of libel, but I guess you have to sue first before someone is charged for insulting you.

[Sheb]

Actually, in Belgium Muslims extremists have been charged with the equivalent offense. It also happens often when they start ranting about Jews.

Now, I cannot find numbers on the exact nature of the convictions, but the Europol reports give several example of people being prosecuted as terrorists for spewing Islamist propaganda. Interestingly, suspects of Islamists terrorism have an higher acquittal rate than other suspects of terrorism (35 vs 30%). Could indicante a tendency to press terrorism charges more often against Muslims, or could be a random fluke.

[Loud Whispers]

The one and only example I saw in this thread was a clear threat of violence, not merely an anti-Muslim statement.

People will go to prison as a result of posting things on facebook in their reactionary hatred, and I would defend their right to say so, as much as I would defend those who say homosexuals are going to hell, British soldiers are baby killers and even the Muslims who go around calling people degenerates and slags.
The UK's free speech laws are a joke, abused so easily for political censorship.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

[Literally, anything deemed insulting, abusive or harassment].

(4)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.”.

And then you've just sent a bunch of people to prison where they will eventually meet extremists with whom they share common ideals.
How on earth could that go wrong.

[Sheb]

While the UK's libe laws are both extremely abusable and abused, notably against activists and the press, I'm not sure defending any speech is a good idea. Calling for violence against a group shouldn't be legal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Just calling for violence isn't that much. People have a tendency to exaggerate their displeasure and shouldn't be legally sanctioned for that. Most "calls for violence" are hyperbole.

[WealthyRadish]

In a free and educated society, enforcement of laws like that shouldn't be necessary. Speech based in hatred serves as a good example to most people of how some of their own ideals may lead to a slippery slope of extremism, drawing a line that most are mortified to cross (if only for social reasons). In the United States, letting the KKK hold rallies and marches reminds people of our backwards and racist past, and prevents such a movement from being taken seriously by the vast majority of people.

If they take action or infringe on the rights of others, then it becomes a problem. Inciting violence is a gray area, and thus liable to be abused, but I feel it's necessary wiggle room for law enforcement to have in order to break up assemblies before things turn violent (but not grounds for an arrest, which seems to be the case in the UK).

[Loud Whispers]

While the UK's libe laws are both extremely abusable and abused, notably against activists and the press, I'm not sure defending any speech is a good idea. Calling for violence against a group shouldn't be legal.

I think it's a perfectly good idea for a democratic society. Acting out on violence and speaking of it are very different things. So far humanity has shown itself of being incapable of deciding what speech is acceptable and what speech is violent.
If all of these numpties involved want to make death threats, let it be. When people are moved to take violent action, intervene.
Would you send 10 year olds to prison for 6 months for squeaking down some microphone?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Remember these guys? They were better dealt with by the Muslim community itself than Scotland yard.
Society upholds morality, laws uphold liberty. Laws should not be what upholds morality - and it's ineffective when attempted.

[XXSockXX]

Most "calls for violence" are hyperbole.

If a call for violence is associated with an ideological group that is known to follow up on their threats it does not seem very hyperbolic to me. Planning a crime with the intent to go through with it should be punishable.

It would be nice to see extremists use other means to get attention. So more like this instead of this.

[Scoops Novel]

I still don't approve of arresting people for speech, their stupidity aside. Especially with Islamists making similar statements and not getting arrested.

In fact, it'll probably only make the EDL act more crazy if they have proof that they're being "suppressed" by the government.

What's the law in America? I'm uncertain as to the legal status of hate groups there. Personally, i prefer not having open bigotry which i can do nothing about. True, the laws should be better defined, but hate speech is not something i appreciate going unpunished.

[Nadaka]

In the US the only illegal speech are terroristic threats, threats with intent to harm, speech by military members prohibited by their chain of command, dissemination of classified material by a cleared individual, or most importantly violating the trademark/copyright of a major US corporation.

[Scoops Novel]

On a different topic, despite living here, I'm think it's worth repeating what i asked in the American thread, which is that I'm uncertain as to what the ethereal average person thinks of the current state of affairs. As far as i can tell, they dislike it, but as to whether they're incensed and determined enough to do anything is a different question.

In the US the only illegal speech are terroristic threats, threats with intent to harm, speech by military members prohibited by their chain of command, dissemination of classified material by a cleared individual, or most importantly violating the trademark/copyright of a major US corporation.

I doubt confrontational hate groups are in the clear. Does that come under slander?

[Nadaka]

Slander is not a crime. It is a civil matter.

"Confrontational hate groups" are in the clear as long as they do not resort to the above threats. This is why the Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to exist, they very carefully make no actual threats except for damnation.

[Sheb]

How do you prove intent to harm?

I was once arrested for "being suspected of having the intention of committing a misdemeanor". (Only an administrative arrest where they hold you for a maximum of 12h, nothing serious). How can I prove I didn't have the intention of committing anything?