h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>If that isn't incitement, what is?

Dunno. Maybe the difference was they were inciting violence against *themselves*?












You'll criminalise S&M over 2Legs' cold, dead body.

What I call incitement is the perception that traditional freedom is being taken away. I'm not entirely sure it is..or if we ever really had it actually but the *perception* is that because of stuff like someone like a koran burner being put in prison for 2 months.

I still don't understand Ed's argument about one act being worse than the other. He keeps making me think that Muslims are like little kids to be incited, where as we 'Jolly Brits' are above that sort of thing.

When those Danish cartoons were published, British Muslims didn't react like some places where there were riots and violence. When 7/7 happened there weren't riots. When the IRA repeatedly did their stuff there weren't riots. When the UK went to war in Iraq we didn't have riots.

Maybe some people don't like the fact that we are so phlegmatic..and think to themselves...'Blimey what the do we have to do to get this lot manning the barricades and throwing bricks?...apart from a tiny group of laughed at extremists..what's wrong with these people?'

And before anyone shouts about the student and TU demos that was also a very *tiny* number of people.

The only thing I can recall was the poll tax thing and potentially Dianna week...to get the great unwashed riled

">>> I think the move toward equating offence with harm is a genuinely worrying trend in our society.<

I really have tried to do my best to knock this one on the head. Offence isn't the issue. It's incitement."

Ok I *get* that. But I do not think it is as clear cut as you are saying. I think there *is* a trend in our political discourse, public policy agenda and judicial process toward treating offense as "harm" and acting accordingly.

So for example I think it really say should not have mattered that someone was caught urinating on a war memorial and they got an extended sentance because of the offence caused. Similarly if Choudary's sorry lot brawled with Police then charge them with that. But the poppy burning oughtened be a crime because no one was harmed.

I don't know the details of the case in question so little point in debating it exactly but how exactly can a case like this incite anyone specifically? What harm specifically is likely to be caused.

If he had done it in front of a mosque, or if he was specifically calling on others to not only burn Korans but attack Muslims then yeah that is incitement. But literally nothing I have read suggests anything like that was happening in this instance.

Dealing with free speech, and how to protect minorities is a delicate balancing act. There are respects of mutual exclusivity at times and it is entirely appropriate to consider how these things impact upon one another.

FB

>>What I call incitement is the perception that traditional freedom is being taken away.

Fair enough. But what everyone else - and, crucially, the law - calls incitement is encouraging others to commit unlawful acts, including harming others.




And I&#39;ve already pointed out repeatedly that I have not said and do not think ~that Muslims are like little kids to be incited~ - and why. Do you think if you keep repeating the silly slur it will become true?

Penny drops. OFFS, Frs. I&#39;m talking about *others* being incited *against* Muslims. How was that not clear?

FB:

>>If he had done it in front of a mosque, or if he was specifically calling on others to not only burn Korans but attack Muslims then yeah that is incitement. But literally nothing I have read suggests anything like that was happening in this instance

Well in your Grauniad link it says he was shouting anti-Muslim slogans. At what stage are we entitled to deduce evil intent and impose a legal deterent?

Each case has to be judged on its own merits, obviously. But if we accept *in principle* that behaviour in this broad class should be detered (don&#39;t we?), then I find it hard to see a clear cut, a priori argument against Ryan&#39;s sentence.

Oh right you think 'jolly Brits' will be incited..so that's what the prison sentence is meant to prevent and as the judge said,

"You went out to cause maximum publicity and to cause distress."

Maybe I'm thick but I don't understand how this law is meant to prevent WhiteE being incited, because,

1. It creates non Muslim martyrs
2. It gives maximum publicity to their acts of martyrdom.
3. It suggests English law is an ass.

And you can argue to the cows come home about the technical validity of the case, but as we know it isn't only that justice is done, but is that it is *seen* to be done.

One thing the masses hate is the perception of unfairness. The Poll tax was profoundly unfair...


Anyway am off for my tea now.

Seriously Ed it's great your back. I really have missed you..

so if hatemongers have big mates who&#39;ll kick up a stink if they&#39;re convicted, they should be let off? Is that what you&#39;re saying? Or should they be let off if the case is likely to be misreported? That would be damned odd system of justice.

*I&#39;m not saying that such cases aren&#39;t difficult*. But I see nothing in this one that is a priori silly...and *certainly* not unfair.



Hell - there were idiots who saw Raoul Moat as a hero. Should that have affected his treatment?

"Each case has to be judged on its own merits, obviously. But if we accept *in principle* that behaviour in this broad class should be detered (do't we?), then I find it hard to see a clear cut, a priori argument against Ryan's sentence."

I guess that is where we differ. The kind of behaviour being talked about (and the wider anti minority stuff) does need to be deterred. But I am unconvinced that criminalising behaviour where there is no specific harm is the best way to do this.

Firstly because it involves a compromise on important free speech related stuff. And secondly because I dont think it will work, if anything I think it is likely to have the opposite affect.

FB

I sort of see your point, FB - but don&#39;t agree with it. Perhaps a particular sentencing decision may be ineffective or counter-productive in wider terms - but I still think we should ask no more of courts have to apply the law to individual cases. I think the laws relating to racial aggravation are reasonable. Because of the nature of the offence it should not be necessary to demonstrate direct harm to an individual: by its nature, racial aggravation is about excusing or encouraging offences against a whole group of unknown third parties.

But in practice there is a risk that to apply the law is ineffective and counter-productive. I don&#39;t think we can or should expect courts to quantify that risk.

To take a wholly unrelated analogy - the jailing of IRA terrorists was ineffective and counter-productive. It did not act as a deterrent and, in fact, created martyrs of &#39;The Boys Behind the Wire.&#39; The British government were the IRA&#39;s best recruiting sergeant, and all that.

*So what should the law have done?*

No, the law will not solve the EDL problem any more than it defeated the IRA. Those are both wider problems. All the same - sometimes a line has to be drawn.

anhaga's effort to bring attention to the X-Position
at the Alberta Art Gallery needs to be acknowledged.

He (and the art show he is particpating in) raises the
question of how far we can go in offending Christian
traditions without fear of legal prosecution.

There is nothing there that offends me and nothing that
would offend any real Christians of my acquaintance. But
there are some interesting abstracted visualisations of
the classic crucifix iconography including anhaga's own
piece in etched steel:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fLnCkABgkA0/TZ31bbnWp3I/AAAAAAAAAJw/yhZFRlNrego/s1600/richardson.jpg

Is anyone offended by it?
Or by anything else in the X-Position show?

http://www.visualartsalberta.blogspot.com/

And is that because we are quite used to seeing a wide range
of crucifix and other religious art in all the modern styles?
(I personally find many classic Catholic crucifix wall hangings
to be obscenely gory and/or pornographically homo-erotic.)
Perhaps an upside down crucifix is the only thing that offends
most, not because its Art but is rather a well established badge
of the Evil Ones.



~jwf~

PS:
On the original subject of 'books' as sacred objects imbued
with holy values I'm dying to quote from HGWells on the decline
of wisdom in Alexandria and the rise of ritualised 'book worship'.
So stand by. I'll succumb soon.

Offended? No.

I quite like Cricifixa 1 but my favourite is Ascent Study
(sorry, Anhaga)

I found more of the Alberta X-Position pieces
and still nothing offensive... unless you want
to consider garlic breath offensive:

http://visualartsalberta.blogspot.com/2011/04/anonymous-device-2011.html

Oo-oo, a visual pun!
How radical.

~jwf~

Keeps mean spirits away

Just as an aside really but, as the Guardian pointed out, the Koran-burner was convicted of a *religiously* aggravated crime, not a racial one.

It's this comfortable crossover between religion & race that the Islamists use to shout down criticism.

Christianity is ritually abused in certain quarters, its' symbols literally pissed on as some kind of pseudo-art. That's fine in a way. Not so long ago in this country it would have led to prosecution and a few centuries ago probably execution. So if we as a society have matured to the point where we can be relaxed about causing offence to the many Christians in our neighbourhoods, why are we seemingly going in the other direction with Islam? We are pretty relaxed about picking on Jews nowadays (Holocaust aside) - Jewish jokes and caricatures proliferate in the media.

Why do we give Islam such respect?

I suspect it's as Ed says - they have some scary, uber-violent mates. People die because of films, cartoons and implied slurs towards Islam.

Of course, and we have gone over this about a trillion times before on various threads, part of the crossover is because racists deliberately conflate the two issues, and use religion as a proxy for race.

The BNP are quite open about this.

FB

FB. Quite agree.

It's completely tiresome for its disingenuousness, and it gets people scared to really confront issues for fear of being thought racist.

I'm not sure I am that worried from that angle. I think it is a myth that people can't/won't talk about Islam. The gutter press talk about little else and have a constant stream of lies, distortion and propaganda on the topic.

I think the view that you cannot discuss Islam for fear of being branded a racist is in the main in a similar category to the organised PC Brigade banning christmas. Namely the facts just don't bear it out....

FB

I do think it hangs like a pall over ordinary discussion between people. And you get it around here to do with Christianity because 99% of bornagain Christians are black.

I never look at tabloids apart from the ocassional link here or a visit to the takeaway so I don't know much specifically about Islam with them.

It's just my experience..and indeed dear Ed will bring up the 'fellow traveller' stuff on occasion here. I daren't mention Halal ever again

swl:

>>Just as an aside really but, as the Guardian pointed out, the Koran-burner was convicted of a *religiously* aggravated crime, not a racial one.

Noted and understood - but there is sufficient crossover to place them in the same heading. The law is phrased that way to prevent criticising Muslims as a proxy for brown-skinned people. It does not prevent sincere criticism as individual religious views.


>>It&#39;s this comfortable crossover between religion & race that the Islamists use to shout down criticism.

Maybe. But does the law (or anyone) listen much to these Islamists?

>>So if we as a society have matured to the point where we can be relaxed about causing offence to the many Christians in our neighbourhoods

Firstly, we really are not talking about &#39;Offence&#39; here. Nobody has been prosecuted because Muslims were or might have been offended by a Qur&#39;an burning. Please let&#39;s get the grounds for prosecution straight here. (I shall keep banging on about it until people listen, you see if I don&#39;t.) Secondly, while we might tolerate offence to Christians, we would not tolerate nail bombs being targeted at Christians of a particular sect. To chose a non-hypothetical example. Would it not be reasonable to consider religious aggravation in that case?

(slightly moot, maybe: a nail bomb is already approaching an asymptote of seriousness)