NEWS: Religious Hatred Law Gets Backing (UK)

Today the government defeated a Liberal Democrat-led amendment to the Serious and Organised Crime Bill that would have forced a tightening of the definition of "racial and religious hatred". The amendment - backed by Labour and popularized by the comedian Rowan Atkinson - was defeated by 291 votes to 191 after the government made a minor concession by changing the proposed offense of causing "racial or religious hatred" to "hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds".



Many see the legislation as a "populist" move, being cynically introduced just prior to a general election, but I tend to support the government on this issue. There is no reason to suppose that people engaging in genuine debate, or people like comedians or playwrights, will be targeted by the new law. As long as its use is reserved for cases involving deliberate attempts to spread racial or religious hatred, it can only be a good thing.

What is the current law on this in other countries, like the US and Canada?


Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk

If memory serves, the key word in the Canadian law is 'willfully'. You have to have the intention of promoting hatred, not just have someone offended by what you say. They must prove that you intended harm. I believe this only refers to the spoken word, in public. Of course, like all laws, they are complicated and subject to interpretation.

Subsection (2) makes it an offence to willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating statements, other than in private conversation. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the meaning of "willfully," "promote" and "other than in private conversation" in R. v. Keegstra. The court held that "promotes" involves the active support or instigation of hatred; a simple encouragement or advancement of hatred is not enough. With respect to "willfully, " an accused needs both to intend, in the sense of desire, and to foresee the stimulation of hatred as a certainty. Neither recklessness nor the mere fact that the accused was aware of the risk of stimulating hatred are sufficient to convict under s. 319(2). A conversation or communication intended to be private but which was accidentally or negligently made public also does not fall under s. 319(2).

Overview of Applicable Law on Hate Propaganda - Canada

I do believe we in the United States still have the Constitutionally protected Right to Freedom of Speech. As long as speech is not intentionally misleading, we are still allowed to publically oppose anyone we want. I consider anything less, tyranny.

Originally posted by Chakotay
I do believe we in the United States still have the Constitutionally protected Right to Freedom of Speech. As long as speech is not intentionally misleading, we are still allowed to publically oppose anyone we want. I consider anything less, tyranny.

I agree.

Unless you are plotting to kill or cause violence against people, you pretty much have the freedom to believe and print whatever you want, and speak out about it. You wont get any public airplay, mind you, but you still have the right to print and speak whatever you believe.

But if its deliberately a lie, you can get busted for libel. But if its just opinion and belief, you can do it.

Lets say I hated gay dyslexic eskimos, and wrote a book claiming that they are going to take over the world and kill everyone, and produced my own "proofs". I can do that. Now lets say, I write a book telling people to go out and bomb and kill gay eskimos with dyslexia, and even show them how, then im breaking the law.

I also believe that any "hate crimes" legislation is thought tyrnany. Crime is crime, regardless of your motive. It should not be a crime to hate other people and say so.

My believe and love of freedom of speech means I defend ALL speech, especially speech I hate. I hate Nazis. I hate Christians. I hate religous nuts of any organization. I hate commies and socialists. I hate pinko sissies.

But I shall defend to the death their right to exist, believe, and spew their crap, because if I do not defend their right to believe and say, then my own beliefs are worth little more.

IMO, the hate crime laws in Canada are for decoration only. Various groups use them to threaten each other, but it is very close to impossible to prove so authorities go for the regular law that would cover the crime. You would almost have to get them to sign a notarized statement before they commit the act stating that they are going out to commit a hate crime, and intend to incite and cause violence against (insert group here).

The only person I can remember these laws being used somewhat effectively on was Ernst Zundel, and you know what, I'm OK with that.

boy that name's familiar. Who is he?

Ernst Zundel, is a holocaust denier, with a publishing company. He is a main supplier of several neo-nazi groups.

I'm glad we used the laws on him.

edited to add that my skin is actually crawling just thinking of this man.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Duzey]

Originally posted by Duzey
IMO, the hate crime laws in Canada are for decoration only.

I predict this new UK law will prove to be the same, just window dressing. Otherwise, I'd be inclined to agree with some of the others here and oppose it, but as it stands it's hard to see what harm it will do.

Also - and I'm sure it's the same in the US, Canada & elsewhere - there are already other "normal" laws that can deal with serious hate crime. But measures like this make many on the Left feel good.

I oppose this law on the grounds of free speech and respect for the fact that just as love cant be legislated for or against, neither can hate....

I also oppose hate crime laws because they create special classes of protections for people when in reality a crime is a crime.

Dont let government force everyone into the same homogenized politically correct box. You dont have to like anyone and indeed should have the right to feel aversion to some...even if this attitude makes YOU the social misfit.

You do NOT have the right to take your feelings and cause harm to others however...if you break the law, you broke the law and you deserve the punnishment, regardless the reason you did it.

Of course, I happen to be very fond of gay dyslexic Eskimos.

It's one-armed Bulgarian transvestite potato farmers that I can't stand.

Originally posted by CazMedia

I also oppose hate crime laws because they create special classes of protections for people when in reality a crime is a crime.

I agree, it doesnt matter if you murder someone because they are gay, jewish or dont like the T shirt they are wearing.

The crime is no different and the same sentence should apply to all.

A bit of timely news from Canada on this issue.

Back in 2001, a group of drunk men drove to Stanley Park in Vancouver, a well-known location for gay 'activity', armed with baseball bats, pool cue and a golf club, specifically for the purpose to beat someone up. Aaron Webster emerged from the bushes naked, and was beaten to death.

In sentencing Ryan Cran, Justice Mary Humphries of the B.C. Supreme Court said there was no evidence that the attack on Aaron Webster in November 2001 was motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred. But she said the willingness by a group to inflict such "terrifying pain" on someone is an expression of some kind of hate.

"What is so chilling about his case is this group seems to have done this for some reprehensible and almost inconceivable concept of entertainment," Humphries said.

www.recorder.ca...

I used to live about 5 blocks from the park, years ago. The only thing you are going to find in Stanley Park at night are raccoons and gay men. I don't think they were hunting raccoons.

But, how can you prove someones intentions? Like I said, our laws are decoration only. I would be surprised if they weren't stricken down the first time the provision is used.

I would prefer they just start handing out longer sentences and enforcing the existing laws.