Neo Nazi father bans black nurse from looking after his baby

[yewchapel]

Burris, I'm only talking specifically about the UK re writing in a newspaper and hate speech laws. Our hate speech laws have been clearly defined to protect the freedom of the press and we have strong press freedoms here. And as has been ALREADY pointed out countless times, our hate speech laws would NOT put someone in jail for just calling someone a slur. Someone who called a gay man a faggot wouldn't be prosecuted, someone who said that gay men deserve death could be. There is a clear aspect of violence there. So, when you talk about hate speech, you are not actually talking about what I am talking about.

And I don't think people should be able to speak their minds if it puts people in danger - what if people wanted to shout 'bomb!' in an airport just for fun? That's speaking their mind, right? According to you, the UK has lost liberty because we have hate speech laws but if being able to say whatever you want regardless of who you hurt is what liberty means then I'd just rather not have it anyway. Sorry.

[yewchapel]

I'm writing this as someone who was actually working for years to SUPPORT anti-hate laws. I can't dismiss freedom of speech as something that's not really important, or that just serves the majority.

You say that you are a socialist. Guess what? If you had openly admitted to that in the 1950s in Quebec, you could have had your business padlocked and found yourself on a blacklist preventing your from crossing the American border. My grandmother had friends who, over 30 years later, STILL couldn't cross the border, because they had once belonged to a left-wing organization or received a left-wing magazine.

"Public order" and "safety of others" can be a code word for "we will ban you from saying or doing anything that might upset people and make them violent, instead of enforcing laws that against people who resort to violence." If you need proof that this can be a bad thing, I'll point out that the Israeli law against women wearing prayer shawls or reading from the Torah at the Western Wall was upheld on the basis of preventing threats to "public order and safety".

You know how our resident communist activist JFC tells us that she supports the idea of a revolution, which she expects will be violent? Well, she is able to post that on an American-based website like this because of freedom of speech.

By definition, laws get passed by majorities. It is speech which is unpopular that will need protection.

No, I don't like the WBC. I know, however, that laws restricting free speech have not traditionally been kind to the gay community. I remember when my school board put out a gag order, preventing teachers or student from even mentioning anything about homosexuality in schools. I also remember when gay book stores were the prime targets for police enforcing obscenity laws.

I like that a snark site can legally exist, and that people who are religious can learn to put on big girl panties and either respond to or ignore what offends them. Do we want to see people facing the risk of censorship if they point out problematic religious texts or refer to a deity as a "sky fairy"?

After 9/11, don't you think that there was a backlash against Muslims in the United States? Can you appreciate the role of the Bill of Rights in ensuring that mosques were still able to function? Do you think that the ACLU was really trying to uphold majority privilege when it challenged certain government security measures during that time?

Have I said, at all, that I support any of those kinds of political restrictions on free speech? No. Hate speech laws that stop people from inciting racial violence are not in the same ballpark as internet censorship or protecting religious freedoms. Hate speech laws protect vulnerable groups, the examples you point out hurt them. They are obviously different for that reason. I think personal liberty is LESS important than the welfare of society as a whole - that is kind of the definition of socialism, but nowhere have I said that I believe in absolutely no personal liberty whatsoever.

[meda]

Have I said, at all, that I support any of those kinds of political restrictions on free speech? No. Hate speech laws that stop people from inciting racial violence are not in the same ballpark as internet censorship or protecting religious freedoms. Hate speech laws protect vulnerable groups, the examples you point out hurt them. They are obviously different for that reason. I think personal liberty is LESS important than the welfare of society as a whole - that is kind of the definition of socialism, but nowhere have I said that I believe in absolutely no personal liberty whatsoever.

But who gets to decide what speech incites racial violence and what speech is valid political and social protest? In the example above, women are prevented from participating in religious worship at the Western Wall, all in the name of preventing violence and preserving the greater public good. Is this right? Are you the person who should decide which groups cant be exposed to speech they dont like and which groups can? What governing body do you trust to make such decisions?

[yewchapel]

If a woman were to participate in religious worship at the Western Wall, she would not be calling for violence against a minority group just by doing that. It's not the same as someone publishing a leaflet calling for the death of all black people. As has been repeated ad nauseum, it's not about exposure to 'speech they don't like', it is speech that actually causes harm. As with all other laws, it should be decided on by elected representatives eg MPs, with assistance on policymaking from committees with particular expertise in this area, and voted on by all the elected representatives and any other legislative body eg the House of Lords in the UK.

[meda]

If a woman were to participate in religious worship at the Western Wall, she would not be calling for violence against a minority group just by doing that. It's not the same as someone publishing a leaflet calling for the death of all black people. As has been repeated ad nauseum, it's not about exposure to 'speech they don't like', it is speech that actually causes harm. As with all other laws, it should be decided on by elected representatives eg MPs, with assistance on policymaking from committees with particular expertise in this area, and voted on by all the elected representatives and any other legislative body eg the House of Lords in the UK.

You keep refering to speech that causes harm. Again in the above example the actions of women at the Western Wall has casued "harm", since violence and disruption to society has resulted. Violence and disruption are fairly common definitions of harm. Isreal is also a parlamentary democracy, and presumably that regulation was put in place by all the appropriate government representatives. So by your own criteria, a law that prevents women from engaging in a peaceful expression of religious observance, some thing that rather obvously curtails their individual liberties, is prefectly fine becasue it prevents "harm". Do you not maybe see how such laws could possibly be misused?

[2xx1xy1JD]

Have I said, at all, that I support any of those kinds of political restrictions on free speech? No. Hate speech laws that stop people from inciting racial violence are not in the same ballpark as internet censorship or protecting religious freedoms. Hate speech laws protect vulnerable groups, the examples you point out hurt them. They are obviously different for that reason. I think personal liberty is LESS important than the welfare of society as a whole - that is kind of the definition of socialism, but nowhere have I said that I believe in absolutely no personal liberty whatsoever.

No, you haven't said that you support THESE particular restrictions, but you have said that you are opposed to American-style constitutional protection for freedom of speech.

The question is, if you erode freedom of speech protection in general (which will mean freedom of unpopular or minority speech, because those in power aren't going to restrict themselves), what protection is there against the Powers that Be making laws like the ones that I mentioned? I didn't mention outrageous examples from dictatorships. I gave examples from democracies that consider themselves to value freedom, and these are real examples that have affected people I know.

You mentioned the rules about what you can say at football games to provide violence between mad fans. The justification for that was public order and safety - which is exactly the same justification that the Israeli government used to defend the arrests of the Women of the Wall.

Now, even in the United States, freedom of speech is not absolutely unlimited - you can't joke about having a bomb in your bag at an airport or threaten to kill anyone, for example. I do think that we can have a discussion about where the line is drawn. I'm saying, though, that the discussion needs to include an awareness of the full importance of the right to free speech and the dangers of tampering with it.

[OkToBeTakei]

I still think people are talking at cross purposes as to what is meant by 'free speech' 'hate speech' and discrimination laws.

Just observing on my phone instead of working which I should be lol

[Burris]

Burris, I'm only talking specifically about the UK re writing in a newspaper and hate speech laws.

The UK doesn't exist in a bubble: Precedents set elsewhere – or more accurately, lessons learned elsewhere – do matter.

Our hate speech laws have been clearly defined to protect the freedom of the press and we have strong press freedoms here.

Judging by what you have said of UK hate speech laws, you actually don't have a free press. When Don Imus is allowed to air his bullshit in the UK, then you have a free press.

[snip crap we've already covered]

And I don't think people should be able to speak their minds if it puts people in danger - what if people wanted to shout 'bomb!' in an airport just for fun?

You know, I think you're being deliberately disingenuous.

That's speaking their mind, right?

First of all, no; it's lying and it's a deliberate attempt to put people at risk by causing panic. It's also illegal both here and in the US. Secondly, that had precisely nothing to do with hate speech laws.

According to you, the UK has lost liberty because we have hate speech laws but if being able to say whatever you want regardless of who you hurt is what liberty means then I'd just rather not have it anyway. Sorry.

According to me? No; I just think you have a serious reading-comprehension problem, coupled to a gross disregard for liberty. And, right now, I don't have the patience to continue this bootless 'argument' with someone as committed as you are to missing the point. You want to give up your freedom for a false sense of security? Fine. I'm keeping mine.

[Burris]

I didn't mention outrageous examples from dictatorships.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, except this. Those outragous examples started small - just like so many other examples of when the powerful try to limit freedom for minorities, whether to control alleged "hate speech" or for some other reason.

The worst examples of freedom denied don't just crop up out of nowhere. They grow large from something small.

[yewchapel]

I think there is such a thing as too much freedom, and it's why classical liberalism and libertarianism are so flawed. Individuals having unrestricted liberty hurts others, which isn't fair. Also, I'm not sure why hate speech laws are about the powerful limiting freedom for minorities, unless straight white men are a minority all of a sudden.

An example - recently a journalist had an article published on a national newspaper website generally considered to be left-leaning and in favour of LGBT rights. Said journalist is notorious for controversial views, but this article was basically a transphobic rant in defence of a colleague who had made some transphobic remarks on twitter. Many people complained to the newspaper and to the UK Press Complaints Commission, and the article was taken down and the editor of the newspaper published an apology. Now, the journalist had her liberty limited but it didn't harm her to have her article taken down - but leaving it up would have caused more harm in promoting a really horrible viewpoint. That is the kind of thing I mean by limiting liberty. That's not really heading into fascism, is it? Just caring about others and how our actions effect others.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, except this. Those outragous examples started small - just like so many other examples of when the powerful try to limit freedom for minorities, whether to control alleged "hate speech" or for some other reason.

The worst examples of freedom denied don't just crop up out of nowhere. They grow large from something small.

I get that. My point with that statement was simply that I wasn't pulling the worst cases - where someone could think "oh, that's a totally different situation in a backward country with a repressive government" - but was specifically mentioning situations that actually occurred in democratic countries not unlike the UK.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Here's another point: Are laws against hate speech actually effective in preventing the promotion of hatred?

They can target some of the worst outliers, who come across as violent and insane to most people. I know that it's really difficult to get a conviction under Canada's criminal laws against hate speech for any but the worst of the worst, most obvious hate mongers.

What about those that are one notch below that? Who are more effective at spreading hatred precisely because they are seen as more respectable, have access to people through mainstream media outlets, and who spread misinformation in a way that has the power to influence far more people and cause more harm? I'd argue that they pose a much bigger threat, but would never face legal consequences.

[OkToBeTakei]

burris said

According to me? No; I just think you have a serious reading-comprehension problem, coupled to a gross disregard for liberty. And, right now, I don't have the patience to continue this bootless 'argument' with someone as committed as you are to missing the point. You want to give up your freedom for a false sense of security? Fine. I'm keeping mine.

It is strange but I feel actually to an extent it is you that is missing the point. I believe people are talking from two very different cultural and political spectrums. I do live in the UK so clearly will identify with that type of society. I have grown up with free healthcare, education including in Scotland University. A benefits system, social housing for a small example of differences. We all see our own society through that view of familiarity and when looking at other systems of society or government through those glasses of our own culture. I often think on seeing differences, 'I wonder how that would work here.'

As I said up thread and prior to this and also reading what meda and others have said there is actually very few differences to actual discrimination between the UK and the USA it is just called something different and enacted differently.

In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.[6]

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Part 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Part 4A states:

(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.

Strong words. Harrassment. Threatening. Hatred. Insulting. Abusive. Distress. I fail to see how this is 'a gross disregard for liberty.' I find it the opposite.

Crimes committed against someone because of their disability, gender-identity, race, religion or belief, or sexual orientation are hate crimes and should be reported to the police.

Hate crimes can include:

threatening behaviour

assault

robbery

damage to property

inciting others to commit hate crimes

harassment

https://www.gov.uk/report-hate-crime

Hate Crime would be more an accurate description than hate speech.

Discrimination and who it protects.

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

age

being or becoming a transsexual person

being married or in a civil partnership

being pregnant or having a child

disability

race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin

religion, belief or lack of religion/belief

sex

sexual orientation

These are called ‘protected characteristics’.

You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

at work

in education

as a consumer

when using public services

when buying or renting property

as a member or guest of a private club or association

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... onths.html

Man who refused to be treated by black doctor jailed for six months

A man with a head injury who refused to be treated by a black casualty doctor was jailed for six months.

By Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent 4:06PM GMT 23 Jan 2009

George Dillon, 37, walked out of Stirling Royal Infirmary after telling a charge nurse: "I'm sorry, I can't stay here to be seen by a black. I want to be seen by a white doctor."

Keri Marshall, prosecuting, told Stirling Sheriff Court that the doctor who was about to treat Dillon was from "a minority ethnic group".

She added that the initial incident happened when Dillon walked out of a treatment room and returned to the reception area of the accident and emergency department.

When a staff nurse later called his name he again stated that he wanted to be seen by a white doctor.

Miss Marshall added: "The nurse informed him his comments were inappropriate and racist.

"She felt the accused was coming across as aggressive and felt threatened and intimidated by him.

"By this time the accused was irate, his face was red, and he was clenching his fists. He said, 'I want to be seen by a ----ing white doctor'."

Dillon, from Alloa, Clackmannanshire, left when the nurse told him she was calling the police. He was arrested at his home a few days later.

He pleaded guilty to the racially-aggravated breach of the peace in November last year and appeared in court from jail, where he is serving a sentence on another matter.

Jim Savage, defending, said his client had a substantial record and became aggressive and unreasonable when he was under the influence of alcohol.

Sheriff Charlie Macnair told Dillon: "Hospitals are there for the treatment of sick and injured people and the staff and other patients are entitled to the court's protection from behaviour of this sort."

I did post some of these links earlier. But it appears now to be a 'you can prise my liberty out of my cold dead hands' type of turn of events which appears to totally miss the point of what the original discussion was about. Interesting as that is, to me it is not about whose system or whose beliefs are superior, rather a learning experience. An exchange of views on the differences.

Sorry about the length ...I had so much more to say about minorities and CCTV yikes!

[JesusFightClub]

To be fair, 2XX (since I have been invoked) I can and have posted on UK based websites that I support the idea of a socialist revolution and I expect it will be violent. This was before the ConDems went mental about people posting daft shit on Twitter/Facebook*, (which is why I no longer use either) but I have.

And I think in the UK we are not (yet) so much of a police state** and am inclined to agree with OKToBe that we're all talking past each other and some of us are discovering hidden wellsprings of patriotism within our souls. Not possessing a soul, I have mercifully been spared this ;)

*I don't think they represent the UK though, and neither did the electorate

** It gets worse before it gets better

[lilith]

It is strange but I feel actually to an extent it is you that is missing the point. I believe people are talking from two very different cultural and political spectrums. I do live in the UK so clearly will identify with that type of society. I have grown up with free healthcare, education including in Scotland University. A benefits system, social housing for a small example of differences. We all see our own society through that view of familiarity and when looking at other systems of society or government through those glasses of our own culture. I often think on seeing differences, 'I wonder how that would work here.'

As I said up thread and prior to this and also reading what meda and others have said there is actually very few differences to actual discrimination between the UK and the USA it is just called something different and enacted differently.

Strong words. Harrassment. Threatening. Hatred. Insulting. Abusive. Distress. I fail to see how this is 'a gross disregard for liberty.' I find it the opposite.

https://www.gov.uk/report-hate-crime

Hate Crime would be more an accurate description than hate speech.

Discrimination and who it protects.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... onths.html

I did post some of these links earlier. But it appears now to be a 'you can prise my liberty out of my cold dead hands' type of turn of events which appears to totally miss the point of what the original discussion was about. Interesting as that is, to me it is not about whose system or whose beliefs are superior, rather a learning experience. An exchange of views on the differences.

Sorry about the length ...I had so much more to say about minorities and CCTV yikes!

All that legislation uses subjective language. I don't like subjective language in any legislation, especially that which is intended to limit people's rights.

I'm sure most of us here would agree that racial abuse, homophobia etc are bad things. We tend to be a rather liberal bunch, and I think that we are part of the current majority. So we're fine with that - we have no desire to say negative things about people of another race or sexual preference.

A conservative Christian or white nationalist, however, would have their freedom of speech curtailed by those rather broad definitions. These people hold opinions that would have been majority opinions 60 or so years ago, and as abhorrent as we may find them, they should have every right to express them. The legislation that you cited does not restrict prosecutable hate speech to incidents where actual harm results, it uses vaguer terms like:

displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

and

"In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins

and

if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.[6]

They are all subjective calls that the police have to interpret in order to charge someone and the courts have to interpret in order to prosecute. The line is not "causing actual harm" and that is my issue with these laws (and we have similar here, so I don't have a cultural bias against them).

If words lead to a crime then there is a crime to prosecute, and the words can be used as an aggravating factor if they were racist, sexist, homophobic etc. If, however, they don't lead to a crime, then I don't see a reason to limit the free speech of an individual.

As I said earlier, we here on FJ tend to be the liberal educated mainstream, similar to the people who create legislation. We are not the people who are likely to be hurt by current limits to free speech, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be protected. The opinions of the dominant political classes can change very quickly, and if we don't protect free speech now it may not be available when we personally need it.

[OkToBeTakei]

All that legislation uses subjective language. I don't like subjective language in any legislation, especially that which is intended to limit people's rights.

I'm sure most of us here would agree that racial abuse, homophobia etc are bad things. We tend to be a rather liberal bunch, and I think that we are part of the current majority. So we're fine with that - we have no desire to say negative things about people of another race or sexual preference.

A conservative Christian or white nationalist, however, would have their freedom of speech curtailed by those rather broad definitions. These people hold opinions that would have been majority opinions 60 or so years ago, and as abhorrent as we may find them, they should have every right to express them. The legislation that you cited does not restrict prosecutable hate speech to incidents where actual harm results, it uses vaguer terms like:

displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

and

"In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins

and

if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.[6]

They are all subjective calls that the police have to interpret in order to charge someone and the courts have to interpret in order to prosecute. The line is not "causing actual harm" and that is my issue with these laws (and we have similar here, so I don't have a cultural bias against them).

If words lead to a crime then there is a crime to prosecute, and the words can be used as an aggravating factor if they were racist, sexist, homophobic etc. If, however, they don't lead to a crime, then I don't see a reason to limit the free speech of an individual.

As I said earlier, we here on FJ tend to be the liberal educated mainstream, similar to the people who create legislation. We are not the people who are likely to be hurt by current limits to free speech, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be protected. The opinions of the dominant political classes can change very quickly, and if we don't protect free speech now it may not be available when we personally need it.

I am not sure what you are trying to say _lilith. It appears that you are saying 'actual harm' must occur before a crime is committed? Also I do not understand why subjective language in statute law can be anything other than subjective. Law is subjective.

In the prosecuted case I posted there was no incident of actual harm. Do you think therefore this man should not have been prosecuted or that his right to free speech was compromised?

Now bearing in mind this just an overview of the legislation covering hate crime and discrimination in england and Wales, trust me there are sub-section upon sub-section.

Strangely what you see as interpretive in the negative I see as not just protecting the minority but also the 'accused' for a better word.

I would be really interested to hear views on the bolded not just from yourself.

[Burris]

It is strange but I feel actually to an extent it is you that is missing the point. I believe people are talking from two very different cultural and political spectrums. I do live in the UK so clearly will identify with that type of society. I have grown up with free healthcare, education including in Scotland University. A benefits system, social housing for a small example of differences.

I live in Canada. With the exception of having to pay for my own university, there's little difference in the sense that we too have free healthcare and other social benefits - and I'm grateful for them. Our two cultures stem from the same root - and unlike the United States, Canada never really broke with the Commonwealth.

And and we do have anti-hate speech laws. I even agree with some of them.

But, unlike the UK, we also have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms - a concept I think we borrowed, to our advantage, from the United States. Our Charter defends free speech, and our courts must uphold the Charter.

As I said up thread and prior to this and also reading what meda and others have said there is actually very few differences to actual discrimination between the UK and the USA it is just called something different and enacted differently.

Hate is hate. Whether it be Catholics versus Protestants or Muslims versus Jews or Christians versus other Christians or whites versus blacks or, as we've seen a lot here, even men versus women.

One of the biggest problems with criminalizing non-violent hate speech is that such will merely drive it below ground where the disenchanted will go looking for it because its hidden nature imbues it with the mystique of secret truth: "What the government doesn't want you to hear."

In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

That's vague, and open to all manner of government abuse: Your law essentially says people have a right not to be offended, and that if someone prints material that picks at other people based on ethnicity - regardless of whether the communications were designed to incite violence or not - then the author is guilty of a crime. And this crime is essentially that he expressed an opinion, based on racial stereotyping, that someone found offensive.

Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment...

Okay, so if I were a citizen of the UK and I printed a leaflet claiming black people are less evolved than white people - a claim that is as offensive as it is spurious - than I could, for expressing a non-violent opinion, end up in prison for seven years.

You don't think that's just a tad frightening?

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.

Distress? So, no, I'm not actually missing the point: The UK legal system allows the police to arrest someone for causing another person distress. The police can arrest someone for insulting someone else.

That's just plain frightening, frankly.

Strong words. Harrassment. Threatening. Hatred. Insulting. Abusive. Distress. I fail to see how this is 'a gross disregard for liberty.' I find it the opposite.

I just insulted someone on this very board. I also insulted that neo-Nazi, for his beliefs, in a way he might find distressing. Hell, over the last six years, I have had a metric fuckton of hate-mail insulting me - some of it based on gender or disability.

Would I expect our government to waste our money dumping all those guys in prison for a maximum of seven years? No! That's not only wrong-headed, but a precedent that could reach back to me - and to you.

Crimes committed against someone because of their disability, gender-identity, race, religion or belief, or sexual orientation are hate crimes and should be reported to the police.

Hate crimes can include:

threatening behaviour

assault

robbery

damage to property

inciting others to commit hate crimes

harassment

https://www.gov.uk/report-hate-crime

Hate Crime would be more an accurate description than hate speech.

[lilith]

No, I certainly don't think that man should have been prosecuted.

He shouldn't have been catered to, and should have either walked away without treatment or been found unfit to make his own medical decisions, sectioned, and forced to receive treatment, but the fact he was prosecuted is, in my opinion, absolutely appalling.

Law should not be subjective. The elements of a crime that need to be proved should be very clear. There is room for subjectivity in interpretation of testimony and upon sentencing, but actual law needs to be written in the clearest of terms.

The "man on the Clapham omnibus" is a phrase often referred to in the common law of Britain and countries whose justice system is derived from the British system. Here's a definition:

The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted in the way that a reasonable person should - for example, in a civil action for negligence. The man on the Clapham omnibus is a reasonably educated and intelligent but non-specialist person, against whom the conduct of the defendant can be measured.

It means that there is a hypothetical average person that laws and verdicts relate to. It doesn't mention his race, sexuality, religion or personal views because these things can't be legislated for and are so variable that they make case law impossibly unwieldy.

I am very much of the opinion that if a crime (apart from a speech crime, which I don't think should exist) hasn't been committed and quantifiable damage hasn't occurred then there should be no penalty for words. Incitement to violence is and should be a crime. But actual people should need to have been incited to actual violence for it to occur.

[OkToBeTakei]

Burris I think you over-simplified the law. As I said that is just an overview of a particular piece of legislature.

Obviously if you can find a case where somebody was jailed in the Uk for being insulting. That a pamphlet expressing a view although not inciting violence resulted in a criminal conviction. A person who was jailed for seven years for saying black people are less evolved. Then I will gladly stand corrected.

It was and still is unless it has been changed illegal and used to carry the death sentence to kill a Swan. Because they belong to the Queen :lol:

It is legal to charge for a glass of tap water in England but illegal in Scotland. I have yet to see a case in court.

BUT if I do want to exert my right to free water, I can.

I do see that you are coming from this from a totally different perspective (I suspect) from yewtree who appears to post from a very socialist left point of view. I could be totally making an assumption on both of you. If so advanced apology. Polarising views indeed. I tend not to be so emotionally invested nor am I particularly patriotic. I'm willing to see all views. From my first post on this thread for example to reading others my knowledge and opinion can shift.

But I do think that you have taken that post and picked out the most extreme examples of what could happen. Sensationalised it to an extent. I only see that as a rather poor way of trying to further your own views or beliefs. I don't find it a good way to debate.

As to our racist patient in the A&E (ER) No he did not refuse treatment. He was refused treatment.

I do wonder though. I did ask before that I was interested in all views. Do you think this case compromised his right to 'free speech?' Because for me that is the crux of the discussion.

[JesusFightClub]

Yeah, but look at this bloke. First of all, he's in the jail already for an "unrelated matter" and has "a substantial record". I'm guessing that means he has a record of violence as long as your arm for stupid (and possibly racist) shit he did when he was drunk. That's going to influence the sentencing. If you keep landing up in the jail, you've not got the benefit of tabula rasa when you commit another crime.

His main crime was breach of the peace, which can be whatever a copper wants it to be, really. Overenthusiastic copper, look at them funny and it's breach of the peace. However in this case he was clenching his fists, shouting racist abuse and probably scaring not only the nurse but the sick patients in A&E. So, bloke with a record as long as your arm, scaring nurses and sick people, breach of the peace, main crime. Shouting racist abuse, racial crime penalty on top of it. That's why he got a jail sentence, not for being a racist. It's like the Darwin Awards, if they had anything to do with breach of the peace.

[OkToBeTakei]

Same law but used in a slightly different way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... anner.html

Andy Stephenson, 35, and Kathryn Sloane, 19, both committed Christians, were detained after a peaceful protest outside a publicly-funded abortion clinic.

The Crown Prosecution Service will decide next month whether to press charges against the pair for causing 'harassment, alarm or distress' under the Public Order Act.

Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane are both members of Abort '67, an organisation which uses shocking images to try to deter women from going through with terminations.

They believe the use of graphic imagery is critical in trying to shape public opinion and to reduce the 200,000 abortions taking place in the UK every year.

The images, obtained in America are, according to the group, perfectly lawful there and in most other countries across Europe.

The link itself is longer that is a snip.

[Mama Mia]

I don't think that man should have been jailed for what he said. If he had been loudly disruptive and refused to leave -At the most I could see possibly a small fine or community service for creating a disturbance, but that would apply to whatever he was screaming about, it would be the disturbance, not the content, that I think should be the only possibly illegal action.

Since he left before the police came it doesn't seem like something that should of been pursued at all.

Also, agree with what JFC just posted above, it seems very much related to him being a general out-of-control jerk in public situations.

[OkToBeTakei]

Yeah, but look at this bloke. First of all, he's in the jail already for an "unrelated matter" and has "a substantial record". I'm guessing that means he has a record of violence as long as your arm for stupid (and possibly racist) shit he did when he was drunk. That's going to influence the sentencing. If you keep landing up in the jail, you've not got the benefit of tabula rasa when you commit another crime.

His main crime was breach of the peace, which can be whatever a copper wants it to be, really. Overenthusiastic copper, look at them funny and it's breach of the peace. However in this case he was clenching his fists, shouting racist abuse and probably scaring not only the nurse but the sick patients in A&E. So, bloke with a record as long as your arm, scaring nurses and sick people, breach of the peace, main crime. Shouting racist abuse, racial crime penalty on top of it. That's why he got a jail sentence, not for being a racist. It's like the Darwin Awards, if they had anything to do with breach of the peace.

Exactly JFC. But that was obvious if you read the article in full. The race crime was value added if you like. Why I do not disagree with it although I totally agree with you about the police, IS because I am OK with the Doctor not being subjected to that, to satisfy a right to 'free speech.'

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)

It was and still is unless it has been changed illegal and used to carry the death sentence to kill a Swan. Because they belong to the Queen :lol: (snip)

Only applies in England. They don't belong to her up here, so feel free to defend yourself against the snowy basterds. Swans are e-e-evil.

[OkToBeTakei]

Only applies in England. They don't belong to her up here, so feel free to defend yourself against the snowy basterds. Swans are e-e-evil.

:lol: I did not know that! Not that I have the urge to kill one. But I agree they are some seriously evil ANGRY birds :shock: