Re: OT: Religious Hatred

"Thanatos" <Thanatos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mm0su1pqkkm84v8npec01vk3d7tjgm0cpv@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:10:30 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
<dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Well, that's really at the core of a discussion isn't it?


Much of the discussion so far seems to have revolved around whether
saying things comes under freedom of speech.

Actually, a lot of the discussion so far has revolved around trying to
get across the fact that "freedom of speech" is about the freedom to
express your opinions and viewpoints *through* speech, rather than
your more literal "freedom to use any words anywhere in any context"
interpretation.


You're always asking me to provide proof, so this time YOU provide some
proof that conspiracy to murder isn't a freedom of speech issue.


Basically, you say that, say, conspiracy to murder isn't a freedom of
speech issue -- it is

No, it isn't. It's a conspiracy to murder issue.


Prove it.


but it's so indefensible that you think it is unreasonable for me to
use
it as an example of where our freedom of speech is curtailed.

I think it's unreasonable to use it because it's not a freedom of
speech issue. It's a conspiracy to murder issue.


Prove it.


We are either free to say anything we like or we don't have this total
freedom of speech that you seem to think we should have.

No, I think we should have total freedom of expression.


So you're in favour of scrapping ALL libel laws and you're therefore in
favour of the press being able to say anything about anybody
irrespective of the truth? Yeah, that woudl be great.


I think that
freedom of expression should encompass being able to express yourself
verbally. I call that "freedom of speech".

Conspiracy to murder isn't about expressing yourself.


Prove it.


Shouting
"Fire!" in a crowded theatre isn't about expressing yourself.


That was given as an example of limitations to freedom of speech by Anne
Leslie, who was in turn quoting an American politician. Are you
disputing that as well now?


Holding
up a placard saying "Westerners Should Be Beheaded!" *is* about
expressing yourself, however unpleasant we westerners may find the
sentiment. That's the true test of freedom of speech/freedom of
expression - tolerating viewpoints that you find unreasonable or even
abhorrent.


So you are in favour of abolishing all libel laws then.


It doesn't really work when you just keep saying "But it's the
law...but it's the law...but it's the law" over and over again. I
*know* it's the law. I happen to think it's a law we don't need.

No, you've tried to suggest that freedom of speech is about being able
to say anything we like, and I've been saying that we have always had
limitations to what we can say.

No, I've never said that.


Yes you have:

"Me >I do back free speech ****************within limits**************.

You: Then you don't believe in free speech. Free speech means exactly
that. It doesn't mean "freedom to say whatever you want, so long as
it's within the limits that I've set"."


I've said it's about expressing any opinion
or point of view that you like.


Make your mind up.


In hindsight it would've been better to simply use the libel laws as
an
example of our freedom of speech being curtailed yet it is still
accepted that we have freedom of speech, because it would've saved a
lot
of time arguing with you.

But do libel laws prevent us from stating an opinion?


Who cares, you originally said this:

"Free speech means exactly
that. It doesn't mean "freedom to say whatever you want, so long as
it's within the limits that I've set"."


I certainly
wouldn't claim to be an expert on libel law,


You do surprise me.


and I'm sure that they
*could* be used to suppress freedom of expression (especially if the
person claiming to have been libelled has deep pockets) but I think
the spirit of the libel laws is to stop someone making damaging but
false statements about others. And by statements, I mean statements
of fact, not mere opinion.


You can't just change your point of view because your point of view has
been shown to be totally wrong. This is what you originally said:

"Free speech means exactly
that. It doesn't mean "freedom to say whatever you want, so long as
it's within the limits that I've set"."




And if you are suggesting that we actually don't have freedom of
speech
in this country, then why did the muslim person that is organising
today's demonstration against the cartoons say that we DO have freedom
of speech in this country last night on BBC News 24?

Because he was expressing his opinion?


Free speech means exactly
that. It doesn't mean "freedom to say whatever you want, so long as
it's within the limits that I've set"."

Which do you believe in?


The Tory government, and then the Labour government apparently came to
an agreement with the extremists over a "covenant of security", where
they were allowed to spew their hate-filled rubbish so long as they
don't attack us in the UK. If that's not freedom of speech then I
don't
know what is. But that was also a ridiculously naive thing to allow
when
you consider what they were preaching about, and that's why the police
have come under fire in the last week for not stepping in sooner to
stop
Abu Hamza, because the security services and no doubt the police too
have known about what he's been preaching about for years, but they
let
him get on with it, presumably because of this ridiculous covenant of
security.

So this covenant of security was ridiculous, in your opinion?


Absolutely.


Well,
maybe it was, and maybe it wasn't, but surely it must have "been
scrutinised by the MPs and the MPs voted for it".


No you twat, it wasn't a law you ***. It will have been an agreement
between the government / security services / police and the extremists,
and certainly not open to scrutiny.


Surely MPs wouldn't
have agreed to it, unless they had good evidence and reasons, would
they?

If you are against any limitations on freedom of speech then you MUST
be
able to argue the case against there being ANY libel laws.

No, because if someone holds up a placard saying "X is a paedophile!"
without any evidence, then they're falsely stating something as fact
(not an opinion, so no freedom of expression is involved) which could
harm X's reputation, and X has every right to pursue them through the
courts over it.


Libel comes under freedom of speech. Sorry, you can't just alter the
definition to suit your argument. Your argument has been trashed. You
have no argument. You are clutching at straws and you are changing your
argument as you go along as each argument you put forward is trashed.


Conspiracy to murder is an extreme example of something that we
cannot talk about else we end up in jail

Wrong!


So it's legal to ask someone to murder another? You really do have ***
for brains, don't you?


We can discuss conspiracy to murder till the cows come home.
We can say whether we think it's a good thing or a bad thing.


Obviously. But that is not conspiracy to murder, you ***.


We can
discuss the penalties that should be involved for conspiring to
murder.


Obviously. But that is not conspiracy to murder, you ***.


We should even be able to express the opinion (though I'm
sure neither of us would) that conspiracy to murder is a wonderful
thing, and that everyone should try it at least once.


Obviously. But that is not conspiracy to murder, you ***.


What we can't do (without, as you say, ending up in jail) is actually
conspire to murder.


Yes, and that is curtailing your speech.


, but libel is a limitation on what we can and cannot
say, and if you are arguing for this black and white notion of freedom
of speech then you must be able to convince me that there should be no
libel laws, in which case, for example, someone could go around saying
in the papers that such and such a person is a racist paedophile even
though they knew that that person wasn't. Do you support that?

No, as I've pointed out above.


Then your speech is not free. And you were wrong when you said this:

"Free speech means exactly
that. It doesn't mean "freedom to say whatever you want, so long as
it's within the limits that I've set"."


You know, there's 3000 British-born muslims that have been to
Afghanistan, there's supposed to be 10,000 active Al Qaeda supporters
in
the UK, and 6% of muslims polled by YouGov said they supported the 7/7
bombings. And you want to allow these people to wave placards
encouraging this lunatic fringe to kill the infidel scum? I can see
you'd make a fine prime minister. Jesus Christ.

There's a big difference between supporting and doing.


I have NEVER said that they are all about to attack us.


If these
10,000 supporters were as keen to be "killing the infidel scum" as you
seem to think,


Do not put words into my mouth. I HAVE NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE YOU HAVE
JUST SAID YOU LYING TWAT.


then you and I would be quite aware of it. You'd have
an 8/8 and a 9/9 and so on to go with the 7/7.


Suicide bombings are and always will be rare events. But when they
happen they tend to kill a lot of people. And it is wise to reduce the
likelihood of them happening, such as by passing incitement to terrorism
and incitement to murder laws.


Typo. I meant "incitement to religious hatred".

How the *** can you explain away a totally different word as being a
typo you moron?

I meant to type "religious", but typed "racial" because the paragraph
I'd just been reading had been referring to racial hatred, and I had
that phrase in my head. My profound apologies.


Then you are extremely stupid.


Incitement to religious hatred would obviously be a good law,
because
without it there's *** all to stop people labelling millions of
people as "haters" based on the actions of a tiny minority who
happen
to share the same religion, but twist it to suit their own ends.


My God, you have been arguing AGAINST incitement laws and now you
stick
up for a law on incitement to religious hatred?

Um, no. I think most people would have been able to see that I was
using your own reasoning to defend "religious hatred" laws, the very
laws whose failure to pass you were happy with.


I am happy that that law didn't get passed. So fucking what?


IOW, I was demonstrating that, while my position on incitement is
constant, yours seems to change depending on the who the group being
incited against are.


No, it does not depend on the group being incited. It depends on what
the results of the incitement might be:

Incitement to murder could result in murder
Incitement to terrorism could result in a suicide bombing
Incitement to religious freedom could result in some religious types
getting hurt feelings, boo hoo, how sad for them, but they're still
alive, so I couldn't give a ***.

To you all these things are equal, no doubt, you utter ***.


Could I ask you, do you have a brain?

As I say, I'm able to maintain a consistent position on incitement
from one post to the next...unlike some.


I have never changed my mind on anything since the start of this thread.
My views have been constant that:

I am in favour of the incitement to murder law
I am in favour of the incitement to terrorism law
I am in favour of the incitement to racial hatred law
I am NOT in favour of the incitement to religious hatred law



Ah, so this incitement only works selectively.

I don't know, do you support incitement to religious hatred? It seems
you cannot make your mind up.

Oh, the irony! :-)


It might have been ironic if I had changed my mind, you ***.


It doesn't need to, because it's merely the action of incitement
that
matters.

But why???


Because that's what incitement actually means.

We know what it means. It means to urge or encourage. So, let me put
the question again, in an expanded form:

Why do we need a law to prevent people urging or encouraging hatred,
if there's no evidence that such urging or encouraging of hatred has
any effect?

(Note: "Because it's the law!" is not an acceptable response.)


It reduces the likelihood that terrorism acts are carried out. I've
already shown that 3,000 British born muslims have passed through Al
Qaeda camps.


If incitement doesn't have an effect on others,


3,000 British-born muslims passing through Al Qaeda camps in
Afghanistan
is good enough proof that it has an effect.

No, as I explained in great detail previously, it isn't proof at all.


Yes it obviously is you utter twat.


What on earth is the point in a law to
prevent people doing something, if that something *has no effect*?

As you're so keen on proof, provide some proof that incitement DOES
NOT
have any effect on people.

Your logic is faulty.


Oh, the irony.


We don't generally create laws on that basis.


Hoooooooooooooooooraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay,
he's finally got it. Laws are passed as a result of there being a
perceived benefit from that law being passed. In the case of incitement
to terrorism that benefit is that it makes it less likely that terrorism
is carried out in this country compared to if the law wasn't passed.
Simple.


Using your logic, we could pass a law banning muslim men from growing
beards.


And what, prey, would the benefit be from that?


After all, lots of mulsim men have beards, and I'm sure that
the majority who pass through these training camps in Afghanistan have
beards, so maybe it's the beards that are the problem. And we've no
proof that having a beard DOESN'T influence muslims to become
terrorists, so we'd better start drafting a law pretty sharpish....


Hence it would be a bad law to be passed. Hence laws that are passed
have some perceived benefit to the country. Hence the incitement to
terrorism law was passed because it reduced the likelihood of terrorism
acts being carried out.

QED.

I win.
You lose.


If incitement *does* have an effect on others, and *can* lead to
people committing acts that *they wouldn't otherwise have
committed*,
then there may be a case for such a law.


That was why the fucking law was passed you imbecile.

No, I've already pointed out that laws are not necessarily passed for
sound, valid reasons, so your assumption is incorrect.


And then you've just done a complete U-turn and said that laws ARE
PASSED for valid reasons only.

You're really not very good at this, are you? You tie yourself in knots
because you don't know what you're going on about.


But, before we can make that
determination, we need some evidence.


Who the *** are you, the prime minister?

No. I'm a UK citizen.

This law has gone through parliament; it has therefore been
scrutinised by the MPs and the MPs
voted for it to be passed.

Ah, these are the same MPs who thought the "covenant of security" was
a good idea, but which you were happy to dismiss as ridiculous.


No, they were a small number of MPs, and things aren't constant. 10
years ago there was no terrorist threat from Islamic extremists to speak
of. Now there just happens to be a threat.


They seem fallible enough when agreeing on things that you disapprove
of, and yet they are practically Pope-like in their infallibility when
it comes to passing laws that you do approve of. Odd that.


We're never going to agree on this: I support it, you don't. I will not
see your point of view. You will not see mine. End of.


If there was no evidence that inciting others
to commit terrorism actually had any effect then you would VERY
STRONGLY
expect that the law would not have been voted to be passed by MPs.

As I've pointed out (but will do so *yet* again) laws can be passed
for a variety of reasons, and those reasons are not always valid.


Laws are only put through if the people putting them through think there
is a valid reason.


Okay then: 3,000 British-born muslims going to Al Qaeda camps in
Afghanistan. That's proof enough IMO.

Proof that 3,000 British-born muslims have sufficient anti-western
feeling to undertake terrorist training? Yep. Absolutely. Agree
100%.

Proof that this anti-western feeling was a direct result of
"incitement"? Nope.


Yes, it is proof, because 3000 people actually went, and most of them
will have been recruited by people inciting terror.

ACCEPT THIS.


Right, this post has taken an age to write, and none of it is new
ground. I wish I'd have ignored your long post from the other day,
because you're just wasting my time with this.

When is this "discussion" going to end, exactly?

Probably about now, actually. Just to summarise my POV on this:

I'm in favour of freedom of expression, whether that be written,
spoken or through any other means of communication.


And you're in favour of scrapping all libel laws, shouting fire in
crowded cinemas, people discussing murdering others, etc.


When I say freedom of speech, I don't mean the freedom to say anything
under any circumstances,


"Me >I do back free speech ****************within limits**************.

You: Then you don't believe in free speech. Free speech means exactly
that. It doesn't mean "freedom to say whatever you want, so long as
it's within the limits that I've set"."


I mean the freedom to express your opinion or
point of view, however much it might be one that I disagree with.


"Me >I do back free speech ****************within limits**************.

You: Then you don't believe in free speech. Free speech means exactly
that. It doesn't mean "freedom to say whatever you want, so long as
it's within the limits that I've set"."


What you call "incitement", I would consider as being part of
someone's freedom of expression. If there is evidence that this
incitement/urging/encouraging has a *direct* link to people committing
the incited/urged/encouraged acts, then I would accept limitation of
freedom of speech for the public good.


3,000 British-born muslims passing through Al Qaeda camps. Presumably
you're in favour of that increasing to 10,000, or maybe 100,000?


The evidence I would require, would not be someone's opinion, or from
the "Well, stands to reason, dunnit?" school of thought.


The law requires "beyond reasonable doubt" is attained in order to find
someone guilty. 3,000 British-born muslims passing through Al Qaeda
camps is beyond reasonable doubt that at least some were incited to go.

Or have you ignored the Al Qaeda recruiters in the news?


There must
be actual proof that the overriding factor in turning a non-terrorist
into a terrorist was this "incitement" and not other factors.


If you asked the police or MI5 then I'm sure they could give you reams
of evidence. But the police being the police and MI5 being MI5, we
aren't usually party to this kind of information, ya naa wot a meen,
Harry?


I'm not
saying that this proof or link would be easy to establish, but I don't
think that's an excuse for laws being passed on a "just in case it
might have an effect" basis.


If you asked the police or MI5 then I'm sure they could give you reams
of evidence. But the police being the police and MI5 being MI5, we
aren't usually party to this kind of information, ya naa wot a meen,
Harry?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_radios.htm


.