Geeklawyer is glad that the ultra right wing extremist British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin was acquitted of charges of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred. He is of the view that only speech which incites, or is genuinely immediately likely to do so, violence & discrimination should be unlawful. If hating $(todays_unpopular_group) is lawful, and even this government is not proposing to make it illegal to hate Muslims, then inciting hatred should not be an offence either. Inciting violence yes, inciting opinions no. Criminalising incitement because it makes it easier to prevent violence is not the answer since it has knock on effects on free speech.
Griffiths described Islam as a “wicked, vicious faith” and said Muslims were turning Britain into a “multi-racial hell hole”. Co-defendant Mr Collett in turn said: “Let’s show these ethnics the door in 2004.” Frankly some of the more bigoted and intolerant native born Muslim extremists deserve a little hatred contempt & discrimination. Those who, for example, target gays free speech democracy, who promoting execution and mutilation as punishment; and who most repellently and sickeningly of all criticise the consumption of alcohol, deserve a little hatred. Other aspects of Muslim culture opinion deserve support and many Muslims are reasonable fair and balanced people who don’t deserve the vilification and harassment inflicted on them by the BNP and also the government and police.
Geeklawyer marches alongside those with the wisdom to accept his view that the best cure for bad ideas are stronger competing ideas.
Gordon Brown is displaying worrying symptoms of cretinocity caught, one imagines, from sitting in the Cabinet room with Tony Bliar for too long. He thinks that unreasonable juries acquitting those he dislikes have erred and that the law should then be ‘adjusted’ to require juries to deliver the results he wishes. In one sense this is the purview of politicians - to set policy, but when juries deliver clear and frequent verdicts politicians should count to 10 before reaching for a gimmick.
This government seems to see the curtailing of free speech that offends Muslims as recompense for an illegal war. And thereby to shore up their collapsing vote in those communities. In other words a naked cynical political calculation of their own interest: plus ca change.
(Geeklawyer realises at the last moment that this is a duplicate topic posting since Ruthie also comments on it - mortifyingly he also realises that they largely agree.)
[…] Interesting article by Geeklawyer - worth a read. […]
Could the BNP, or indeed any other group King Tony tries to persecute, not get round any restrictions by simply locating their servers in the US and then directing people to such a website? Surely not even His Arrogance could block access to all overseas servers of which he disapproves.
If this soluton is needed, t’would be more than ironic that, yet again, The Constitution were needed to protect the political freedom of British subjects from the excesses of their own (British) Government.