UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws

[idb]

You make too many assumptions.
Take some time to step back and think critically and maybe give some room for nuance.

OK. Let's shift gears. Do you think that the UK does not prosecute people for saying things that would barely raise an eyebrow in the States? Do you think that they are not prosecuting people just for give their opinions. Because it is happening. In fact, as someone just posted, the "victim" gets to decide if someone's speech is hurtful or threatening. Say WHAT?

"In fact"?
Is it a fact?

I don't know that they're prosecuting people for giving their opinions.
I believe they're prosecuting people for threatening language or inciting violence...is that what you call 'opinion'?

You just don't get it. Several countries have made it illegal to criticize Islam in any fashion, or even to disagree with it. That is where the UK is heading. Muslims are taking over. That's a fact.

I don't believe that any countries - outside of Muslim countries - "have made it illegal to criticise Islam in any fashion, or even to disagree with it".
Care to link to any with such a law?

Here ya go. And all he did was Quote Winston Churchill.

UK: Man Arrested For Criticizing Islam

Did he just get up there and quote Churchill?
Really...is that all he said?

In any case...where is it illegal to criticise or even disagree with Islam?
After all...the charges were dropped and he wasn't prosecuted.
According to your logic...if he wasn't prosecuted then he wasn't doing anything illegal...just like the guy on Facebook.

So, this isn't really the example of a law that "made it illegal to criticise Islam in any fashion, or even to disagree with it" that you're looking for...is it?

 

[Tilly]

This is why I hate liberals. They wish to label anything they disagree with as hate speech. There is a name for this. It's called TYRANNY.

UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws

So, stopping racism is tyranny?

So you don't like Human Rights huh?

This is why you hate the Founding Fathers, bunch of fucking Liberals who decided to stop anything they didn't like from happening.... except slavery of course.

Hate laws are used to silence critics of Islam, that is all they are for now and everyone knows it.

UK adopts antisemitism definition to combat hate crime against Jews

Once again you show your ignorance.

This is what happens when you willfully flood nations with anti Semites from Islamic countries. And since muslims have their very narrow and ridiculous definition of what constitutes ‘islamophobia’, I guess it was only a matter of time.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So, stopping racism is tyranny?

So you don't like Human Rights huh?

This is why you hate the Founding Fathers, bunch of fucking Liberals who decided to stop anything they didn't like from happening.... except slavery of course.

Hate laws are used to silence critics of Islam, that is all they are for now and everyone knows it.

UK adopts antisemitism definition to combat hate crime against Jews

Once again you show your ignorance.

Bullshit. It is just smoke Jews are assaulted physically, they do not respond to insults violently. On the other hand Muslims are such wicked victims that people who only quote them their own scriptures are charged with hate speech.

Nazi supporter of National Action convicted for stirring up anti-Semitic hate | The Crown Prosecution Service
Here is one from last week.
Reflect on that you hate crazed troll.

That looks like a personal attack, let's hope the mods delete it. That is what they did to my posts.

Nope, its me disproving your ignorant bullshit.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are a whopper. I guess it " doesnt matter what he wrote" if you dont actually know what he wrote.
Come back when you find a brain cell.

If you are going to claim that a specific instance of someone's right to free speech being suppressed was justifiable, then it is wholly on you to be able to cite what speech was being suppressed, and to make a very strong case why it was necessary to suppress that particular expression.

Otherwise—especially given your country's long, shameful history of such abuse—there is no reason why any sane person ought to assume anything other than that this was an entirely unjustifiable, brutal violation of one's most basic human rights to free though and free speech. It all goes to show that your society has not advanced very much at all, in the two centuries since my nation rebelled against it. You remain the same backward, brutal, ignorant savages now that you were then.

So I need to prove that a speech is hateful when you wont tell me what it is ?

What court does that work in friend ?

Speech is not free when the law is Ambiguous.. Fix the damn law. Because it and Wikipedia contradicts your assertions.. Where is the link for this court expression??? Where are the cases that CONTRADICT what the law actually says?

 

[flacaltenn]

This is why I hate liberals. They wish to label anything they disagree with as hate speech. There is a name for this. It's called TYRANNY.

UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws

May and her cronies would be appalled at being described as liberals. They are a bunch of right wing shits.
However your ignorance of the UK cannot be calculated by any method known to mankind.

Take a moment and tell me what you are not allowed to say in the UK.

Hate speech - Wikipedia

Gee, that took no time at all for me to find them and don't even live there. It would seem you are being deliberately misleading.

Well thank you for that.

Free speech has its limits.

"Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence."

Does that seem unreasonable to you ?

Depends how you define imminent. The UK seems to think if it is possible that is enough, I find that unreasonable.

Thats a shame. Its a quote from a US Supreme Court ruling. Sort your own "FREEDOM" out before worrying about us.

You're trolling the thread. You mentioned that Supreme Court phrase 10 times without clarifying it's origins as the USA Supreme Court. Not a British court of law. It's seems it's up to you to CORRECT the actual WORDING of your law, the precedents that have been over-turned in YOUR courts, and the Wiki entry.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You are a whopper. I guess it " doesnt matter what he wrote" if you dont actually know what he wrote.
Come back when you find a brain cell.

If you are going to claim that a specific instance of someone's right to free speech being suppressed was justifiable, then it is wholly on you to be able to cite what speech was being suppressed, and to make a very strong case why it was necessary to suppress that particular expression.

Otherwise—especially given your country's long, shameful history of such abuse—there is no reason why any sane person ought to assume anything other than that this was an entirely unjustifiable, brutal violation of one's most basic human rights to free though and free speech. It all goes to show that your society has not advanced very much at all, in the two centuries since my nation rebelled against it. You remain the same backward, brutal, ignorant savages now that you were then.

So I need to prove that a speech is hateful when you wont tell me what it is ?

What court does that work in friend ?

Speech is not free when the law is Ambiguous.. Fix the damn law. Because it and Wikipedia contradicts your assertions.. Where is the link for this court expression??? Where are the cases that CONTRADICT what the law actually says?

I do not know what you are driving at here. I do not have to prove anything.

The OP made the claim that someone was being persecuted. To make that claim he should have knowledge of what was written, or said, and be able to explain why he was being persecuted.

He could do neither and so the whole OP is just a load of crap.

Tyranny was the word used but he could not back it up with evidence.

Still waiting for that evidence.

 

[Darkwind]

This is why I hate liberals. They wish to label anything they disagree with as hate speech. There is a name for this. It's called TYRANNY.

UK: May government rejects petition for Free Speech Act and end to “hate speech” laws

May and her cronies would be appalled at being described as liberals. They are a bunch of right wing shits.
However your ignorance of the UK cannot be calculated by any method known to mankind.

Take a moment and tell me what you are not allowed to say in the UK.

So, you are telling us that the United Kingdom has no hate speech laws at all?

Or don't you understand the concept?

 

[flacaltenn]

You are a whopper. I guess it " doesnt matter what he wrote" if you dont actually know what he wrote.
Come back when you find a brain cell.

If you are going to claim that a specific instance of someone's right to free speech being suppressed was justifiable, then it is wholly on you to be able to cite what speech was being suppressed, and to make a very strong case why it was necessary to suppress that particular expression.

Otherwise—especially given your country's long, shameful history of such abuse—there is no reason why any sane person ought to assume anything other than that this was an entirely unjustifiable, brutal violation of one's most basic human rights to free though and free speech. It all goes to show that your society has not advanced very much at all, in the two centuries since my nation rebelled against it. You remain the same backward, brutal, ignorant savages now that you were then.

So I need to prove that a speech is hateful when you wont tell me what it is ?

What court does that work in friend ?

Speech is not free when the law is Ambiguous.. Fix the damn law. Because it and Wikipedia contradicts your assertions.. Where is the link for this court expression??? Where are the cases that CONTRADICT what the law actually says?

I do not know what you are driving at here. I do not have to prove anything.

The OP made the claim that someone was being persecuted. To make that claim he should have knowledge of what was written, or said, and be able to explain why he was being persecuted.

He could do neither and so the whole OP is just a load of crap.

Tyranny was the word used but he could not back it up with evidence.

Still waiting for that evidence.

The "whole OP" is not in question because YOU demanded examples. What matters is what the LAW ACTUALLY says and does. And you've done NOTHING to refute the WIKI or the UK legal precedents by repeatably quoting the USA Supreme Court and getting personal about it.

The law AS WRITTEN -- is obvious tyranny. And if it's enforced some other way -- than the law needs to CHANGE. That's the ENTIRE POINT of the OP -- isn't it pal??

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You are a whopper. I guess it " doesnt matter what he wrote" if you dont actually know what he wrote.
Come back when you find a brain cell.

If you are going to claim that a specific instance of someone's right to free speech being suppressed was justifiable, then it is wholly on you to be able to cite what speech was being suppressed, and to make a very strong case why it was necessary to suppress that particular expression.

Otherwise—especially given your country's long, shameful history of such abuse—there is no reason why any sane person ought to assume anything other than that this was an entirely unjustifiable, brutal violation of one's most basic human rights to free though and free speech. It all goes to show that your society has not advanced very much at all, in the two centuries since my nation rebelled against it. You remain the same backward, brutal, ignorant savages now that you were then.

So I need to prove that a speech is hateful when you wont tell me what it is ?

What court does that work in friend ?

Speech is not free when the law is Ambiguous.. Fix the damn law. Because it and Wikipedia contradicts your assertions.. Where is the link for this court expression??? Where are the cases that CONTRADICT what the law actually says?

I do not know what you are driving at here. I do not have to prove anything.

The OP made the claim that someone was being persecuted. To make that claim he should have knowledge of what was written, or said, and be able to explain why he was being persecuted.

He could do neither and so the whole OP is just a load of crap.

Tyranny was the word used but he could not back it up with evidence.

Still waiting for that evidence.

The "whole OP" is not in question because YOU demanded examples. What matters is what the LAW ACTUALLY says and does. And you've done NOTHING to refute the WIKI or the UK legal precedents by repeatably quoting the USA Supreme Court and getting personal about it.

The law AS WRITTEN -- is obvious tyranny. And if it's enforced some other way -- than the law needs to CHANGE. That's the ENTIRE POINT of the OP -- isn't it pal??

No. the entire point of the OP was to promote some bogus vision of the UK where Islam is above criticism and any contrary view is crushed by the state.

If that were the case I could agree that it was tyranny.

The problem being that the OP failed to back up his assertions. Not one shred of evidence. Doesnt even know what this character wrote.

So the law stands. And the OP criticism is "fake news" because he cant explain why the law is wrong. Pal !!

 

[flacaltenn]

If you are going to claim that a specific instance of someone's right to free speech being suppressed was justifiable, then it is wholly on you to be able to cite what speech was being suppressed, and to make a very strong case why it was necessary to suppress that particular expression.

Otherwise—especially given your country's long, shameful history of such abuse—there is no reason why any sane person ought to assume anything other than that this was an entirely unjustifiable, brutal violation of one's most basic human rights to free though and free speech. It all goes to show that your society has not advanced very much at all, in the two centuries since my nation rebelled against it. You remain the same backward, brutal, ignorant savages now that you were then.

So I need to prove that a speech is hateful when you wont tell me what it is ?

What court does that work in friend ?

Speech is not free when the law is Ambiguous.. Fix the damn law. Because it and Wikipedia contradicts your assertions.. Where is the link for this court expression??? Where are the cases that CONTRADICT what the law actually says?

I do not know what you are driving at here. I do not have to prove anything.

The OP made the claim that someone was being persecuted. To make that claim he should have knowledge of what was written, or said, and be able to explain why he was being persecuted.

He could do neither and so the whole OP is just a load of crap.

Tyranny was the word used but he could not back it up with evidence.

Still waiting for that evidence.

The "whole OP" is not in question because YOU demanded examples. What matters is what the LAW ACTUALLY says and does. And you've done NOTHING to refute the WIKI or the UK legal precedents by repeatably quoting the USA Supreme Court and getting personal about it.

The law AS WRITTEN -- is obvious tyranny. And if it's enforced some other way -- than the law needs to CHANGE. That's the ENTIRE POINT of the OP -- isn't it pal??

No. the entire point of the OP was to promote some bogus vision of the UK where Islam is above criticism and any contrary view is crushed by the state.

If that were the case I could agree that it was tyranny.

The problem being that the OP failed to back up his assertions. Not one shred of evidence. Doesnt even know what this character wrote.

So the law stands. And the OP criticism is "fake news" because he cant explain why the law is wrong. Pal !!

Tell me where the LETTER OF THE LAW doesn't prohibit "hateful speech" and why the Wiki Page is wrong.

Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5]

In England and Wales 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) they 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 Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 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.

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.[7]

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.[8]

The Football Offences Act 1991 (amended by the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999) forbids indecent or racialist chanting at designated football matches.[9] For a normative critique of prison being used to regulate hate speech, see Dennis J. Baker and Lucy X. Zhao, The Normativity of Using Prison to Control Hate Speech: The Hollowness of Waldron's Harm Theory (October 17, 2013). (2013) 16(4) New Criminal Law Review 621-656; Buffalo Criminal Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 3,

2013; King's College London Law School Research Paper No. 2013-2. Available at SSRN: The Normativity of Using Prison to Control Hate Speech: The Hollowness of Waldron's Harm Theory by Dennis J Baker, Lucy Zhao :: SSRN or doi:10.2139/ssrn.2341559

THEN ---- read these and tell me the law is not abusive to free speech and Civil Liberties.

U.K. Criminalization of Speech Is Really Starting to Scare Me

The Slow Death of Free Speech in Britain (America, You're Next!)

 

[flacaltenn]

The distinction between "threatening and abusive" is an affront to all who use the English language. Any good lawyer can make the threaterning merely abusive. And the abusive clearly threatening.. It STINKS. It needs repeal or rewriting. THAT is the point of the OP...

 

[Tilly]

This is no longer an unusual occurrence:

Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
Tweet from Matthew Doyle following bomb attacks in Belgium sparked furious response from other Twitter users

A man who sparked an outcry on Twitter after tweeting about confronting a Muslim woman on a street in Croydon, south London, and challenging her to “explain Brussels” has been arrested by police.

The Metropolitan police confirmed that a 46-year-old man had been arrested on Wednesday evening in Croydon on suspicion of inciting racial hatred via social media.

He is understood to be Matthew Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, who tweeted earlier in the day: “I confronted a Muslim women [sic] yesterday in croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me” a mealy mouthed reply.”....


Later he tweeted:
Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31)

Who cares if I insulted some towelhead ?? Really.


One of his last tweets on Wednesday evening was to say: “Thanks all you tweeters for proving I can still do PR.”

Officers for the Metropolitan police in Croydon tweeted on Wednesday that a suspect had been arrested for inciting racial hatred.



March 23, 2016
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I take this passage to protect my rights to free speech.

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

It seems quite clear to me.

Just read a bit further down the points and you will come to this.

The Football Offences Act 1991 (amended by the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999) forbids indecent or racialist chanting at designated football matches.[9] For a normative critique of prison being used to regulate hate speech, see Dennis J. Baker and Lucy X. Zhao, The Normativity of Using Prison to Control Hate Speech: The Hollowness of Waldron's Harm Theory (October 17, 2013). (2013) 16(4) New Criminal Law Review 621-656; Buffalo Criminal Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 3,

British football grounds in the 70s and 80s were horrible places. Black players were subject to monkey chants and even had bananas thrown at them. Black football fans did not attend because of the toxic atmosphere.
The laws brought in made this an offence. No decent people objected to this and the only people upset were knuckle dragging right wing racist trash.

Its a public order issue. Rights come with responsibilities.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

This is no longer an unusual occurrence:

Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
Tweet from Matthew Doyle following bomb attacks in Belgium sparked furious response from other Twitter users

A man who sparked an outcry on Twitter after tweeting about confronting a Muslim woman on a street in Croydon, south London, and challenging her to “explain Brussels” has been arrested by police.

The Metropolitan police confirmed that a 46-year-old man had been arrested on Wednesday evening in Croydon on suspicion of inciting racial hatred via social media.

He is understood to be Matthew Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, who tweeted earlier in the day: “I confronted a Muslim women [sic] yesterday in croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me” a mealy mouthed reply.”....


Later he tweeted:
Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31)

Who cares if I insulted some towelhead ?? Really.


One of his last tweets on Wednesday evening was to say: “Thanks all you tweeters for proving I can still do PR.”

Officers for the Metropolitan police in Croydon tweeted on Wednesday that a suspect had been arrested for inciting racial hatred.



March 23, 2016
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested

Why would he ask a woman in Croydon to explain the Brussels attack ? I think we know why.

 

[Tilly]

If you are going to claim that a specific instance of someone's right to free speech being suppressed was justifiable, then it is wholly on you to be able to cite what speech was being suppressed, and to make a very strong case why it was necessary to suppress that particular expression.

Otherwise—especially given your country's long, shameful history of such abuse—there is no reason why any sane person ought to assume anything other than that this was an entirely unjustifiable, brutal violation of one's most basic human rights to free though and free speech. It all goes to show that your society has not advanced very much at all, in the two centuries since my nation rebelled against it. You remain the same backward, brutal, ignorant savages now that you were then.

So I need to prove that a speech is hateful when you wont tell me what it is ?

What court does that work in friend ?

Speech is not free when the law is Ambiguous.. Fix the damn law. Because it and Wikipedia contradicts your assertions.. Where is the link for this court expression??? Where are the cases that CONTRADICT what the law actually says?

I do not know what you are driving at here. I do not have to prove anything.

The OP made the claim that someone was being persecuted. To make that claim he should have knowledge of what was written, or said, and be able to explain why he was being persecuted.

He could do neither and so the whole OP is just a load of crap.

Tyranny was the word used but he could not back it up with evidence.

Still waiting for that evidence.

The "whole OP" is not in question because YOU demanded examples. What matters is what the LAW ACTUALLY says and does. And you've done NOTHING to refute the WIKI or the UK legal precedents by repeatably quoting the USA Supreme Court and getting personal about it.

The law AS WRITTEN -- is obvious tyranny. And if it's enforced some other way -- than the law needs to CHANGE. That's the ENTIRE POINT of the OP -- isn't it pal??

No. the entire point of the OP was to promote some bogus vision of the UK where Islam is above criticism and any contrary view is crushed by the state.

If that were the case I could agree that it was tyranny.

The problem being that the OP failed to back up his assertions. Not one shred of evidence. Doesnt even know what this character wrote.

So the law stands. And the OP criticism is "fake news" because he cant explain why the law is wrong. Pal !!

No. the entire point of the OP was to promote some bogus vision of the UK where Islam is above criticism and any contrary view is crushed by the state.

Actually there are numerous incidences of people being arrested for just that, using the nebulous claim that such people are inciting racial or religious hatred. You MUST be aware of this but you are denying it because you secretly applaud the erosion of freedom of speech.
I suspect you’ll be much less thrilled when this totalitarian crap starts to be as vigorously applied to those mosques where preaching hatred is commonplace.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The distinction between "threatening and abusive" is an affront to all who use the English language. Any good lawyer can make the threaterning merely abusive. And the abusive clearly threatening.. It STINKS. It needs repeal or rewriting. THAT is the point of the OP...

That is your opinion on the OP. But the OP is fact free and as such is just a standard Islamophobic rant.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So I need to prove that a speech is hateful when you wont tell me what it is ?

What court does that work in friend ?

Speech is not free when the law is Ambiguous.. Fix the damn law. Because it and Wikipedia contradicts your assertions.. Where is the link for this court expression??? Where are the cases that CONTRADICT what the law actually says?

I do not know what you are driving at here. I do not have to prove anything.

The OP made the claim that someone was being persecuted. To make that claim he should have knowledge of what was written, or said, and be able to explain why he was being persecuted.

He could do neither and so the whole OP is just a load of crap.

Tyranny was the word used but he could not back it up with evidence.

Still waiting for that evidence.

The "whole OP" is not in question because YOU demanded examples. What matters is what the LAW ACTUALLY says and does. And you've done NOTHING to refute the WIKI or the UK legal precedents by repeatably quoting the USA Supreme Court and getting personal about it.

The law AS WRITTEN -- is obvious tyranny. And if it's enforced some other way -- than the law needs to CHANGE. That's the ENTIRE POINT of the OP -- isn't it pal??

No. the entire point of the OP was to promote some bogus vision of the UK where Islam is above criticism and any contrary view is crushed by the state.

If that were the case I could agree that it was tyranny.

The problem being that the OP failed to back up his assertions. Not one shred of evidence. Doesnt even know what this character wrote.

So the law stands. And the OP criticism is "fake news" because he cant explain why the law is wrong. Pal !!

No. the entire point of the OP was to promote some bogus vision of the UK where Islam is above criticism and any contrary view is crushed by the state.

Actually there are numerous incidences of people being arrested for just that, using the nebulous claim that such people are inciting racial or religious hatred. You MUST be aware of this but you are denying it because you secretly applaud the erosion of freedom of speech.
I suspect you’ll be much less thrilled when this totalitarian crap starts to be as vigorously applied to those mosques where preaching hatred is commonplace.

And yet you cannot produce one such case.

 

[Tilly]

This is no longer an unusual occurrence:

Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested
Tweet from Matthew Doyle following bomb attacks in Belgium sparked furious response from other Twitter users

A man who sparked an outcry on Twitter after tweeting about confronting a Muslim woman on a street in Croydon, south London, and challenging her to “explain Brussels” has been arrested by police.

The Metropolitan police confirmed that a 46-year-old man had been arrested on Wednesday evening in Croydon on suspicion of inciting racial hatred via social media.

He is understood to be Matthew Doyle, a partner at a south London-based talent and PR agency, who tweeted earlier in the day: “I confronted a Muslim women [sic] yesterday in croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me” a mealy mouthed reply.”....


Later he tweeted:
Matthew P Doyle (@MatthewDoyle31)

Who cares if I insulted some towelhead ?? Really.


One of his last tweets on Wednesday evening was to say: “Thanks all you tweeters for proving I can still do PR.”

Officers for the Metropolitan police in Croydon tweeted on Wednesday that a suspect had been arrested for inciting racial hatred.



March 23, 2016
Man who confronted Muslim woman to 'explain' Brussels attacks arrested

Why would he ask a woman in Croydon to explain the Brussels attack ? I think we know why.

You think he should have been arrested?

 

[Tilly]

Speech is not free when the law is Ambiguous.. Fix the damn law. Because it and Wikipedia contradicts your assertions.. Where is the link for this court expression??? Where are the cases that CONTRADICT what the law actually says?

I do not know what you are driving at here. I do not have to prove anything.

The OP made the claim that someone was being persecuted. To make that claim he should have knowledge of what was written, or said, and be able to explain why he was being persecuted.

He could do neither and so the whole OP is just a load of crap.

Tyranny was the word used but he could not back it up with evidence.

Still waiting for that evidence.

The "whole OP" is not in question because YOU demanded examples. What matters is what the LAW ACTUALLY says and does. And you've done NOTHING to refute the WIKI or the UK legal precedents by repeatably quoting the USA Supreme Court and getting personal about it.

The law AS WRITTEN -- is obvious tyranny. And if it's enforced some other way -- than the law needs to CHANGE. That's the ENTIRE POINT of the OP -- isn't it pal??

No. the entire point of the OP was to promote some bogus vision of the UK where Islam is above criticism and any contrary view is crushed by the state.

If that were the case I could agree that it was tyranny.

The problem being that the OP failed to back up his assertions. Not one shred of evidence. Doesnt even know what this character wrote.

So the law stands. And the OP criticism is "fake news" because he cant explain why the law is wrong. Pal !!

No. the entire point of the OP was to promote some bogus vision of the UK where Islam is above criticism and any contrary view is crushed by the state.

Actually there are numerous incidences of people being arrested for just that, using the nebulous claim that such people are inciting racial or religious hatred. You MUST be aware of this but you are denying it because you secretly applaud the erosion of freedom of speech.
I suspect you’ll be much less thrilled when this totalitarian crap starts to be as vigorously applied to those mosques where preaching hatred is commonplace.

And yet you cannot produce one such case.

Duh I have done so in this thread. Do a search and you will see for yourself there is no shortage of such examples, and they often increase after Islamist atrocities, for example after the slaughter of Fusilier Lee Rigby. Quit whitewashing - we all already know you DESPISE freedom of speech.

 

[flacaltenn]

The distinction between "threatening and abusive" is an affront to all who use the English language. Any good lawyer can make the threaterning merely abusive. And the abusive clearly threatening.. It STINKS. It needs repeal or rewriting. THAT is the point of the OP...

That is your opinion on the OP. But the OP is fact free and as such is just a standard Islamophobic rant.

Oh there it is.... Perfect example of danger and capriciousness of letting Tommy interpret Hate Speech.. Case closed huh?

I take this passage to protect my rights to free speech.

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

It seems quite clear to me.

Just read a bit further down the points and you will come to this.

The Football Offences Act 1991 (amended by the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999) forbids indecent or racialist chanting at designated football matches.[9] For a normative critique of prison being used to regulate hate speech, see Dennis J. Baker and Lucy X. Zhao, The Normativity of Using Prison to Control Hate Speech: The Hollowness of Waldron's Harm Theory (October 17, 2013). (2013) 16(4) New Criminal Law Review 621-656; Buffalo Criminal Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 3,

British football grounds in the 70s and 80s were horrible places. Black players were subject to monkey chants and even had bananas thrown at them. Black football fans did not attend because of the toxic atmosphere.
The laws brought in made this an offence. No decent people objected to this and the only people upset were knuckle dragging right wing racist trash.

Its a public order issue. Rights come with responsibilities.

First paragraph "Nothing in this part" ONLY protects the RELIGION, not the culture or character of "those people". So berating Muslim CULTURE or practice is NOT exempted by those weasel words...

Your problem with Sports incivilities won't be fixed by putting 421 chanters in cuffs. If there is a toxic atmosphere, then if all the "decent" folks stayed home, the LEAGUES would fix the problem without guys/gals with guns and cuffs. Oh well at least they have the cuffs right?? LOL...