FlibbyFlobby Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 SOURCE BBC FAQ If this Bill is passed it could mean many basic rights such as Freedom of Speech are curbed. Personally I see this bill as the next biggest threat to Britain alongside the ID card bill, Blairs bible is clearly G. Orwells 1984. I find it ironic how the people who are responsible for more wars, violence, acts in the name of 'God' and blatent discrimination on the grounds of sexuality or religious beliefs are getting a law to protect them. Faiths are allowed to voice their dislike or disgust toward homosexuality, but under this law it would be illegal for anyone do such towards them and their beliefs. If this isnt an insult to what the soldiers of WW2 fought for nothing is. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) is amended in accordance with the ? Schedule to this Act, which? ? (a)? creates offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on ? religious grounds, and 5 (b)? amends provisions relating to offences involving stirring up hatred ? against persons on racial grounds. There is a difference between voicing your opinion, and spreading or condoning hatred. And this bill prevents such acts that are vihatredtred towards religious groups and citizens of other ethnicities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlibbyFlobby Posted July 18, 2005 Author Share Posted July 18, 2005 There is a difference between voicing your opinion, and spreading or condoning hatred. And this bill prevents such acts that are viewed as hatred towards religious groups. 586232438[/snapback] It could still be misconstrewed and end up preventing artists, journalists and the general public from being able to say something. Its basically going to create fear of saying what you think. I have strong opinions on what I think about religions and how I would sort certain things out and I think I should be able to voice this to anyone and everyone. Its actions that should be under scrutiny. We need more common sense laws. Its common sense to allow someone their opinon, its also common sense to stop people like "The Hook" in Finsbury Park saying what he says. This law is vague enough to appear clear, yet clearly vague (If that makes sense), and I see the government abusing it in situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Interestingly, the majority of results when searching for Canada's hate law comes from religious groups condemning it for protecting homosexuals. That, and the inevitable comparision to pedophilia. Common sense to who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire Cat Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 over here the the UK the laws are gradually becoming stupidly politically correct and are protecting those that don't deserve protecting (Terrorists, chavs, robbers, killers), more than protecting the normal, hardworking people of the country. When anything tried to be done against all forms of scum in this country those damn "human rights" people turn up, i feel that if your intention is to rob, kill or damage people or property or break the law in any way, you no longer DESERVE human rights and should be punished to the full extent of the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.nudd Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 over here the the UK the laws are gradually becoming stupidly politically correct and are protecting those that don't deserve protecting (Terrorists, chavs, robbers, killers), more than protecting the normal, hardworking people of the country. When anything tried to be done against all forms of scum in this country those damn "human rights" people turn up, i feel that if your intention is to rob, kill or damage people or property or break the law in any way, you no longer DESERVE human rights and should be punished to the full extent of the law 586236432[/snapback] Yeah, I'd have to agree with your last line of thought. You're forfeiting human rights if you do something inhumane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Causas Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 well you just have to thing which idea is stronger: the freedom of speach or the right to remain silent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Douglas Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Once again, society treats the symptoms and let the problems run rampant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted July 21, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 21, 2005 Once again, society treats the symptoms and let the problems run rampant. 586246239[/snapback] I'm so thankful someone else actually gets this concept. It's like outlawing cancer, and not carcinogens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 21, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 21, 2005 Racial hatred and genocide is not natural, it must be taught. Put a toddler in a multicultural daycare and they'll play with any kid. They don't naturally know that skin colour is any more important than eye colour or hair colour. Assuming this UK law is like the Canadian hate law then this prevents people from spreading racial hatred that leads to racial violence and genocide. While you can't control what a parent does in their own homes, at least you can stop people from teaching others en masse. I think if you minimize the acceptance of racism that you won't just drive it underground and make it stronger but, instead, you will eventually eliminate it (given enough time over generations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 21, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 21, 2005 Racial hatred and genocide is not natural, it must be taught.Put a toddler in a multicultural daycare and they'll play with any kid. They don't naturally know that skin colour is any more important than eye colour or hair colour. Assuming this UK law is like the Canadian hate law then this prevents people from spreading racial hatred that leads to racial violence and genocide. While you can't control what a parent does in their own homes, at least you can stop people from teaching others en masse. I think if you minimize the acceptance of racism that you won't just drive it underground and make it stronger but, instead, you will eventually eliminate it (given enough time over generations). 586247215[/snapback] actually, a recent study was done that demonstrated a type of discrimination. young black girls chose to play with dolls representing white girls. the researchers theorized some psychological tendencies of these girls to cope with living in a white-dominated world. it's the whole sociocultural phenomenon that needs to be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 21, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 21, 2005 actually, a recent study was done that demonstrated a type of discrimination. young black girls chose to play with dolls representing white girls. the researchers theorized some psychological tendencies of these girls to cope with living in a white-dominated world.it's the whole sociocultural phenomenon that needs to be changed. 586247256[/snapback] That is still learned behavior then. In that case, it was likely learned from television. There is no doubt that TV is heavily segregated. There aren't many black characters on Seinfield or Friends. There are black characters on television but they are on "black" shows (i.e. Hangin' with Mr. Cooper). The most difficult thing to find is an asian man on a regular series. I can only think of VIP and that isn't exactly the cr?me de la cr?me. Before that there was ST:Voyager but you are not a Trek fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted July 21, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 21, 2005 That is still learned behavior then. In that case, it was likely learned from television. exactly. so even if we can teach the younger generation, we still have a lot of obstacles. The most difficult thing to find is an asian man on a regular series. I can only think of VIP and that isn't exactly the cr?me de la cr?me. Before that there was ST:Voyager but you are not a Trek fan. 586247294[/snapback] i didn't even know there were asians on star trek. were they aliens or whatever you call them? i'm so marginalized in american society:p:p well, there's john cho and mark dacascos (iron chef america), some asian comedians (very few). it's like the only thing asian guys do is martial arts films. but asian women are always newsanchors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 21, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 21, 2005 i didn't even know there were asians on star trek. were they aliens or whatever you call them? 586247372[/snapback] Okay, yes, I turn every thread in a Star Trek thing. I really must stop doing that. He was an asian playing just a regular person. I don't recall any token asian storylines or anything. No kung-fu whatsoever. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0910897/ http://www.osprey.net/~kira/ggallery.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted July 21, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 21, 2005 Lt. Sulu (Hosato "George" Takei) Garret Wang was hardly the premier Star Trek "asian guy", nor was he first by any imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
method Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Add B.D. Wong to the list of somewhat prominent Asian male actors. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000703/ Dang I forgot Daniel Dae Kim. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0196654/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 What do you think? its a complete waste of time. people will, and are allowed to, hate others if they wish. you cant stop it through laws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 (edited) Once again, society treats the symptoms and let the problems run rampant.I agree, this is another unnecessary governmental power. Is this really a fear over in the UK? That one man's media amplified comments may incite a group of people to start stringing up minorities?That is a funny word though minority, cause its so natural in dealing with these situations. Racial hatred and genocide is not natural, it must be taught. I disagree. I think we are naturally disposed to wariness to those not 'like us'. I would posit that only through communication and wisdom do we come to understand why racism is a wasted concept. That is why we must learn tolerance. I used to be racist but slowly over time I've learned that there are enough idoits of my own race so what gives me the right to look down on another? Plus, racism from what I've observed is generally a way for those weak of will to feel better about themselves. The object of their resentment fore these individuals is always arbitrary to their environment. That is where the 'nurture' side of things enters IMO but I'd love anyone with more than a cursory study of anthropology to set me straight. Put a toddler in a multicultural daycare and they'll play with any kid. They don't naturally know that skin colour is any more important than eye colour or hair colour. ..and yet kids will still tease each other about the latter, along with any other bodily irregularites with abandon. To say that a youngster just "doesn't notice these things" is absurd from my personal experience. Plus, eye and hair color are normally an extension of skin color anyway (except for the more rare cases). A good friend of mine in elementary school was albino (you guessed it, red eyes and white hair ;)) and was made fun of for it. Not necessarily to just be cruel, but just to jive him as most little boys (and men) do. prevents people from spreading racial hatred that leads to racial violence and genocide...I think if you minimize the acceptance of racism that you won't just drive it underground and make it stronger but, instead, you will eventually eliminate it (given enough time over generations). So given enough time, if people aren't allowed to talk about it racism will just go away? I do agree with you on one point though. We must minimize the acceptance of racism on the cultural level. Is government really the best way to accomplish this? This is where I see a great similarity between the liberal UK/Canadians here and the right wing Neo-con US guys. You both belive that government should regulate culture. That it should be given the power to decide what is and is not virtuous behavior and action. The even whackier part is that your solution is the same as well, just block it. If they can't hear hate speech (or see pornography) then eventually humans will no longer traffic in such behavior. I do have one big question though, if laws like this get passed what does that do to religion in your country? Does the Catholic church no longer have the right to say that homosexuality is a sin since some religious types are easy to rile up into a violent frenzy and may commit a violent action against said sinners? Or is the English government just more creative than I thought and this is just a step to isolate Muslim extremists? (Kinda like getting a mobster on tax evasion across the pond) Oh yea, how in the hell could you forget Sulu?! :) Edited July 27, 2005 by Dashel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranasrule Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 somewhere BUSH is smilin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 I'm afraid I'm painfully ignorent, what are the laws in Pakistan regarding the regulation of speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts