[Closed] Is this actually racial hatred?

[img] [/img]

Oi

No being apeist How dare you compare and innocent ape to the shitflinging elf!

Why does this subject come up over and over again on STW ?

The pattern it follows is [i]always[/i] the same. The racists and bigots take one position, and the more enlighten forum users take the opposite position......nothing ever changes.

.

I thought one of the great things about living in the UK is that we can do this sort of thing if we want to.

Well you were wrong............hopefully.

It is no different to pissing on a war memorial.

It has absolutely f##kall to do with freedom of speech or freedom of expression.

The individuals concerned are perfectly entitled to have their opinions.

No one is denying them that right.

Said nazi c0ckmonkeys will have been charged with an offence involving stirring up hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds. The 'inciting' bit would be the filming (presumably for some sort of distribution), IIRC

amzed the thread has not been closed might just risk a gypsy thread

Islam isn't a race, but arabic certainly is, and when you get a braindead qu'ran burner most likely you'll find they don't like arabs much, or other races- how many people object so strongly to egyptian muslims, or british muslims? In the mind of the halfwit the 2 go together, muslims are towelheads and ****s.

Or so it seems to me anyway, in this country. I guess in the states islam = black in the minds of boneheads.

Presumably they're not being prosecuted for the burning, but rather the filming and posting it which might reasonable considered some form of encitement? (I wrote excitement there first but that was Kylie's fault)

Very interesting thread.

An Islamic scholar appeared on Radio 4 recently stating that in many muslim countries, it is perfectly acceptable to burn copies of the Koran - for example if they have become old, damaged and no longer readable.
Common practice apparantly.
I can't remember exactly which programme this was on (possibly 'Beyond Belief') but it was in the run up to the 11/9 anniversary.

Find it very alarming that this case has been brought, TBH.
I was very worried when this act was brought in and wondered how long it would be before something like this happened.

IMO, incitement to racial hatred is a crime wholly deserving of prosecution, but incitement to religious hatred is a very grey area:
We cannot choose our race. We can however choose to follow a religion.

We do not have a right not to be offended. Religious belief is an opinion and should be subject to the same questioning as any other opinion. If this questioning spills over into ridicule (as in accordance with human nature, it inevitably will), then so be it - nasty people will be nasty, it's what they do.

This particular law legitimises the right for the religious to be offended and raises religious opinion above all other forms of opinion.

Personally, I have nothing against Muslims, Christians, Jews, Scientoligists or followers of any religion.
They are entitled to their beliefs and freedom to worship, as am I.

However, I personally belive faith in a god (or gods) to be irrational.
I hesitate to use the words pureile, stupid, childish and incomprehensible when referring to faith, as personally I'd rather have engage in debate than be offensive, but others do and it amounts to the same thing:
I do not belive in your invisible friend and consider you irrational for doing so.

Many people would be offended if I said this to them, and the grey area between this offence and 'incitement to hatred' is a very dubious one.
It's going to be very interesting to see on exactly which grounds a presecution is brought. If a racial element is present, then they are deserving of punishment. If not, a very dangerous precedent will have been set.

Being stupid (as these people obviously are) is not a crime.
Offending someone's religious opinion should not be a crime either.

Religious belief is an opinion and should be subject to the same questioning as any other opinion.

Why the **** should it be ?

You have absolutely no right to question other people's religious beliefs.

Mind your own ****ing business and just get on with your own sad little life.

🙄

Why the **** should it be ?

You have absolutely no right to question other people's religious beliefs.

Mind your own ****ing business and just get on with your own sad little life.

Rusty - it is nothing to do with the muslims being offended - that is no grounds for prosecution.

They are going to be prosecuted for "inciting racial hatred". Its not tha same thing at all.

Merely offending the religious is no grounds for prosecution - encouraging people to express racism is.

Why do you always respond with abuse when questioned?

You were totally insulting about people with religious views.

I felt you were fair game.

😆

You were totally insulting about people with religious views.

But you've chosen to taken unnecessary and disproportionate offence with regards to my opinion - which was the point I was trying to make 😀

Oh, and please answer the question as to which other opinions are beyond debate.

TJ, as I said in my post, if a racial element is present, then they are entirely deserving of punishment.

Rusty - waht you fail to grasp is the offence for which they are being prosecuted is not " offending the religious" - that is perfectly acceptable

The crime is "inciting Religious hatred".( not racial my mistake)

Its not the same thing. Its a huge gulf.

Its not the effect on the religious person that counts - that is irrelevant. its the effect on others by encouraging them to express racial hatred.

Its not the effect on the religious person that counts - that is irrelevant. its the effect on others by encouraging them to express racial hatred.

Did you mean religious hatred?

If so, it again raises the grey are regarding the hatred of an opinion, a belief, as opposed to hatred of the followers of that particular belief.
I hate some of the things religions promote. I don't hate the
individuals who chose to follow those beliefs.

Rusty - its INCITING OTHERS TO HATE thats the crime. hating is no crime, offending people is no crime, inciting others to hate is.

Ther is no grey area - its teh incitement

Yes TJ, I get it.

But the distinction is a real one:
Should it be a crime to incite others to hate an opinion?
Are we not capable of separating the individual from the belief?

"bangs head"

religion is not an opinion - its a belief system.

I think all religions are for the feeble-minded and gullible. However I do not want to live in a country where people are free to stir up hatred of people for any reason - and given that people use religion as an excuse for their racist behaviour then I bleive this law is just and right.

I think the case against these guys is a bit thin tho and I bet they get off.

"bangs head"
religion is not an opinion - its a belief system.

A 'belief system' is just an opinion in a pointy hat and robes.
There's often a book involved as well. 😀

A 'belief system', whether philosophical, political or religious is just a collection of opinions. No more, no less.
If others wish to imbue these opinions with greater significance, then that is their right. They can choose to worship at whichever church, football ground or political event that they wish.
Still opinion, still open to question and debate.

I think all religions are for the feeble-minded and gullible.

Rusty Spanner - Member

"An Islamic scholar appeared on Radio 4 recently stating that in many muslim countries, it is perfectly acceptable to burn copies of the Koran - for example if they have become old, damaged and no longer readable."

Um, so what? Context is everything.

Its not racial but i would call it religous excitment.

I thought the first post by rusty was very well worded and even handed on the issue not really sure why he was flamed for it. I agree we can question and ridicule them but there is a line of common decency that should not be crossed. Burning their book is on the other side of that line.

We do not have a right not to be offended. Religious belief is an opinion and should be subject to the same questioning as any other opinion.

Junkyard, I agree, we [b]should[/b] all show common decency when criticizing others opinions, but sadly, not everyone is capable of this.

Doesn't mean we should let others offence stifle debate though.

Reading threads like this, it strikes me that few people on here really have any experience of the effects of racism, first hand. The fact that people are banging on about 'freedom of speech' shows they really are missing the point of why anti-hate laws exist. 'Oh well if people choose to be offended then it's their own fault and they should MTFU'. Please.

It's only the religious who claim the right not to be offended

Eh? What are you on about?

Do you have any understanding of anti-hate and anti-discrimination Law? It applies to everyone; a person should be able to enjoy their lives free from sexism, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance and prejudice against their physical or mental abilities. Which is why we have laws regarding the employment of people of all colours, creeds, gender, sexuality and ability. It's called the Equal Opportunities Act. Do you not agree with that? Let's hear your thoughts. Maybe women shouldn't get decent jobs? Maybe people with disabilities should accept that they will have the piss taken out of them? Maybe Gay people should be abused publicly?

Come on. Exercise that muscle inside your skull a little more. Have a think about things.

We live in a very open and tolerant society, in many ways. We are relatively free to express our views whatever we think. But we are also entitled to live without fear, threat or being made to feel inferior.

Freedom of Speech: Do you think the neanderthals who thought it was a good idea to film themselves burning Korans believe in others having freedom of speech?

Its not racial but i would call it religous excitment.

Can I laugh at this? Is it ok? Will anyone be offended?

I have given examples of where others would want this as well. What about protesting at wootton bassett we weren't keen on freedom of expression then iirc.
Try going to the kop or old trafford and mocking Munich /Hillsborough they may ask you not to as it is offensive. They may have a point.
I think the speaker might have a word for unparliamentary behaviour if they try and burn the manifesto of the coalition but it would be entertaining.
Thought we also had to enshrine that you cannot be offensive to gays and black people as well. Well you can but within limits as the odious
BNP prove on a regular basis.
I get your point they do seem to want more. I recall the catholic church wanting the right to discriminate against gay people in adoptions but I suspect they dont want us to have the right to discriminate against catholics in housing or employment.
Criticise them [anyone at all and their beliefs and values] by all means but there is still a line where what you say/do will actually be offensive.
EDIT: Rusty you edited whilst I was replying now it just looks like random warblings ...bet no one would have noticed if I had stayed quiet 😉
yes I agree with you but I dont think this action adds anything to a debate anymore than burning an american flag adds anything to the debate about american expansionist foreign policy.

How dare you compare and innocent ape to the shitflinging elf!

Eh?!?! Look at the little bastard; call that innocent???

[img] [/img]

(Is very hurt and offended. Cries. 😥 )

Rusty Spanner - Member

It's only the religious who claim the right not to be offended, enshrined in law.

Bullshit FFS - offending the religious is no crime - can you not understand this? The crime is incitement to religious hatred.

You can offend the religious all you like. Call the pope a nazi cockweasal. It is no frikkin crime. Call the Koran a book of lies. say the jews murdered jesus.

Can you not grasp this basic point!

And you need to check the dictionary for the meaning of opinion.

Elf, wind your neck in!

I agree with all anti-discrimination law and the Equal Opportunities act.
I despise prejudice and intolerance regarding race, gender, sex, sexuality, colour, disability - any non elective state.

However, religion is different:
It's a choice. An opinion. A preference. It should, for the good of our society, be subject to the same criticism and question as any other opinion. Within this spectrum of critisism and question will be offensive idiots such as those in question.
Again, do we stifle all debate because some idiots choose to join in?

Oh, and by the way, I work for disabled people, of all colours, creeds genders and sexuality, every day.
If you're ever up this neck of the woods I'll introduce you to some people who'll redefine your preconceptions of dignity, offence and how to deal with it.

EDIT: That last paragraph is properly arrogant. I've no idea what prejudice or offence you've suffered in your life. Apologies.

Elf, wind your neck in!

What do you mean, 'wind your neck in'? What, I'm not allowed to express my opinion now, but you are? Eh? How does that work?

You're the one getting all worked up over religion. I'm just stating things as the Law sees them. Wether or not you agree with what the Law says is up to you, but you, I and everyone else has a legal duty to obey it.

This case isn't about the ins and out of religion; it's about a bunch of bigoted knobs trying to stir up hate.

Funny, but I can't find the bit where this case has only come about because some religionists were offended. Can you?

It's you who's chosen to try to turn it into a debate about the rights of religious people and why they, in your opinion, should be prepared to face abuse and hate. No-ones saying we shouldn't debate issues of faith or culture at all.

I agree with all anti-discrimination law and the Equal Opportunities act.

It seems you don't actually. For the Act includes religion, which you wish to see excluded from such protection.

It should, for the good of our society, be subject to the same criticism and question as any other opinion. Within this spectrum of critisism and question will be offensive idiots such as those in question.

It is. That the point you seem unable to understand. You can question, you can offend, you can be as controversial as you like. Have you not heard of Richard Dawkins? He has made a career out of offending the religous

Are you really that hard of thinking?

You can be as questioning and offensive about religion as you want - same as yo can be as racist as you want - what you cannot do is discriminate or incited hatred!

I don't remember anyone being arrested for burning copies of the Satanic Verses or American flags.

Sorry Elf, but I've got to say it again:

Should it be a crime to incite others to hate an opinion?
Are we not capable of separating the individual from the belief?

If I say that I despise a religion (any one, it doesn't matter which) am I commenting on the religion or those who believe in it?

I'm commenting on the religion, the belief system, the opinion. NOT the individuals involved.

TJ, I know it's a subtle point, but it's important. I'm not claiming that inciting hatred against people is justifiable, I'm defending the right to hate an opinion.

I'm trying to highlight the fact that this law embraces a massive grey area which has the potential to damage the very freedoms which our socity promotes.

Unfortunately you have invented a new crime of "offending the religous" to make your argument which does not exist.

There is no grey area here at all. You cannot discriminate or incite hatred . Yo can offend. Thats what the law says.

Crossed posts

TJ, I know it's a subtle point, but it's important. I'm not claiming that inciting hatred against people is jutifiable, I'm defending the right to hate an opinion.

You have the right to hate the religious belief. I hate Catholicism. No one can stop you hating.

You really need to go and have a think about this as you are labouring under a basic misapprehension. Hating muslims is not illegal. incitement to hatred is.

Should it be a crime to incite others to [b]hate[/b] [s]an opinion[/s]?

Yes.

I'm commenting on the religion, the belief system, the opinion. NOT the individuals involved.

You're 'commenting' on their freedom of choice. You're attacking what they believe to be an intrinsic part of themselves. You're belittling their faith, and by association, them. If you attack Islam, you attack Muslims. If you attack Judaism, you attack Jews. Etc.

You can't just choose what bits suit you; the Law is the Law. For good reason.

You have every right to question. But do you think hate gets us anywhere?

And you're telling me to 'wind my neck in'? 😯

And stop calling religious belief an opinion - it is not the same thing

Jeezo - is this just a successful troll or are you really that hard of thinking

personally i think the point here is that thes 6 muppets have been arrested
if im honest i dont really care that what they are charged with
they were doing it to deliberately offend muslims, a definate race or not as others have said their aim was to offend non-white people

the reason i want them charged is because the video is probably going to make it that much easier to radicalise for example afgahn muslims to go and take a pop at the nearest british soldier

i suspect that any al-qaeda recruiter worth his salt has downloaded that video and put it in his terrorist recruitment powerpoint

I'll fetch the bamboo canes shall I?

And stop calling religious belief an opinion - it is not the same thing

Well, this is obviously where we differ. I'm happy to continue this debate (probably tomorrow now), but please define the difference.

You're 'commenting' on their freedom of choice. You're attacking what they believe to be an intrinsic part of themselves. You're belittling their faith, and by association, them. If you attack Islam, you attack Muslims. If you attack Judaism, you attack Jews. Etc.

Elf, all my beliefs/opinions are an intrisic part of myself as well.
You can critisise or denegrate them as you see fit. They do not define me as an individual however and are subject to change based upon experience.

Does 'hate' get us anywhere?
Interesting question - completely depends on the circumstances:
Hatred of inequality certainly leads us to a fairer and more equitable society. As does hatred of poverty, racial & sexual discrimination.

You cannot discriminate

Unless you are a religious school, in which case discrimination laws seem to be suspended.

let's be honest it doesn't take a lot to offend someone someware
this day and age dose it.

A religious belief is not an opinion. Go have a read of a dictionary

There is nothing more to debate - you are muddled up and what you are complaining about only exists in your head. It is no crime to hate, ridicule or debate religion. It is no crime to offend the religious. It is a crime to discriminate or incite hatred.

grum - Member

You cannot discriminate

Unless you are a religious school, in which case discrimination laws seem to be suspended.

They have recently been told to clean their act up on this

What about protesting at wootton bassett we weren't keen on freedom of expression then iirc.

I thought that was a particularly selfish, thoughtless, stupid, and immoral thing to do - but I defend their right to do it. It is the cornerstone of what I was brought up to believe is right.

It was a sad day that they were blocked by law from going ahead. I'd have had no objection to them trying it and having the shit kicked out of them by the locals of Wooton Bassett, but using the legal system to block protest is the start of a very long and slippery slope.

A religious belief is not an opinion. Go have a read of a dictionary

Please provide (non theological) evidence. Nothing I read contradicts my point that religious belief IS an opinion.

but using the legal system to block protest is the start of a very long and slippery slope.

And so to bed.

Happy to continue tomorrow afternoon?

I hate Kylie.

Gimme Dani, she's hot!

yeah that Aussi b#tch

It was a sad day that they were blocked by law from going ahead. I'd have had no objection to them trying it and having the shit kicked out of them by the locals of Wooton Bassett,

See, imo, the best response is to just ignore people like that, don't give them the publicity and attention they crave. When they see that no-one's listening, then they'll give up.

Same in this situation really. But the original daftie in America who dreamt up this wonderful idea; why the f did they give him the publicity to begin with?

Because it stirs up emotions and sells newspapers/tv airtime, that's why.

I hate Kylie!

I'm sure she's devastated.

[img] [/img]

let's be honest it doesn't take a lot to offend someone someware
this day and age dose it.

I'd say society is probably more open and tolerant than it's ever been, tbh.

Is there not also an offence of inciting religious hatred? If so, the fact that they were charged with the racial offence rather than the religious one would imply that there's more to this than is at first evident.

Sorry to resurrect this, but in an attempt to shed some light on molgrip's post, I'll just point out that the six are members of the English defence league, which is (possibly) why charges of racism were sought.

It's just utter stupidity, boredom or drunkeness. Kinda like posting on stw!

Seriously though, I feel sorry for those people, There is a world out there to learn and explore, and they are burning books? sad, sad, sad.

Only on here looking for the 'Tollah of Niche and came across this thread.

I have two things to add:

1) I spend my days dealing with some rather upsetting stuff which largely revolves around people who say "do this *amazingly unpleasant / wasteful / nasty thing* because *insert name of invisible friend* said so in a book written thousands of years ago"

and

2) Marcus Brigstock has it spot on:

Sam Harris - The End of Faith is a really good book to read to, definately not in the Dawkins vein but on the same path.

Love each other

SSP

yes that Brigstock link [ i assume from radio 4 now show] is spot on.

They do not define me as an individual however and are subject to change based upon experience.