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

No I don't really understand Ed's argument, but my possibly wrong understanding is partly due to the context of a long argument in the past, in which he argued that BNP should be given 'no platform'. I and some others argued that debate should always be aired. And I think again, it's to do with my generally high opinion of others in our society to be able to make up their own minds about what the BNP really are about and reject it. Gagging them just gives them more power and treats the electorate like children to be protected.

I do think there is a fundamental difference between myself and Ed about 'freedom' and trusting ones fellows to judge things. And also he seems to have no time for a sense of 'Britishness' ; he tends to sneer at it.

Frs:

>>I know Ed argues that it is to do with incitement..but that shows what an incredibly low opinion he must have of people that he thinks that other than a few irrelevant clowns anybody would be incited by such an act

But surely there must be *some* level of incitement that is unacceptable? Or should everything count as Free Speech?

No, in this case, I agree - the citizens of Cumbria were perhaps unlikely to set off for Lancashire and torch the nearest Mosque. In other cases (at an EDL rally in Luton?) similar entreaties may reach a more receptive audience - and possible spur them into action.

So. Should we expect a magistrate to weigh up all the whole socio-political context in which the offence occurred? That's a big ask. Instead we have a reasonably clear law that lays out the parameters of what constitutes racially aggravated harassment, no matter where or in front of whom it occurs*. Surely we should expect a certain objectivity from magistrates? Surely we don't expect them to say 'I don't reckon anyone was bovvered.'





*More or less. The sentencing guideline may well have considered the fact that it was witnessed by children - that's often the case - and maybe he'd have been given a stiffer sentence if had occurred at a meeting of men in hoods bearing flaming torches.

>>I know people who have [stolen books from libraries]...none of them expected to get banged up


Joe Orton did.

WG
>>If you steal a bible and burn it I suspect you'd get a less stringent punishment.

Is 'I suspect' the same as 'there is a legal precedent that'?

Talk me through it. What are the grounds for your suspicion?

Joe Orton returned the books with artistic additions. But yes having just looked it up the prison sentence was ludicrous and interpreted by the wider public to do with him being gay...he was viewed in a heroic way.

So are we to assume that the wider public will now also view this Koran burner as some sort of hero. I reckon they will.

As I argued earlier the judge imposing this sentence was a stupid old duffer.

monkey

so (?)
a) Burning the Quran can be viewed as an act of incitement - like
minded people being "inspired" by it to cause further acts against
the Muslim community - if he can "get away with it" that might
encourage others.

b) Burning the Poppys on Armistice day is not an act of incitement
(although highly offensive) - other like minded people (anti-"British
Army"?) would not be inspired to attack fields of poppys or "British
Army" related interests.

'Burning the Poppys on Armistice day is not an act of incitement
(although highly offensive) - other like minded people (anti-"British
Army"?) would not be inspired to attack fields of poppys or "British
Army" related interests.'

While true, this does not limit the possible targets of incitement. Perhaps the poppy burners where attempting to incite "British
Army" related interests to attack Muslims. Who knows to what lengths those who crave martyrdom will go?

Ed - I know you desperately, fervently want to link the Koran burning with racism, bless your cotton socks, but he wasn't convicted of a racially aggravated offence no matter how often you or the house journal say so. At least the Grauniad had the good grace to admit it -

"Hello all. We've changed the article to correct an error.

Ryan was convicted of religiously aggravated harassment, not racially aggravated harassment. Sorry about that."

swl - my understanding is that the law refers to both religious and racial aggravation to avoid doubt that they are both highly correlated and equally serious. Here's the important thing: both are covered by the same law, and with reason.

If I've inadvertantly failed to use one term rather than the other, this in no way affects the argument - but thanks for your pedantry in spotting the difference.

Incidentally - a more complete account here - http://www.emnnews.com/2011/04/19/religious-correctness-man-jailed-for-burning-the-koran/ including his criminal history - "Yesterday, the court heard the defendant had six public order convictions between 2002 and 2010 including racial chanting at a football match"

tarantoes:

If there was an argument that the poppy burners were inciting violence against soldiers, perhaps the court would have been the place to make it? It's definitely illegal!

Thing is Ed you carry on arguing stuff to the nth degree. But beyond a certain point we here, in the UK..yep our culture..I know that's a dirty concept to you...don't need Law to involve itself. Yes we may place that line differently. I'm sure swl sets the bar very differently to me.

But for goodness sakes sending someone to prison for such a thing...well I reckon 95% of people say that's *unfair*, whether its a gay man or veil wearer or a Koran burner.

It's hard to pin down Britishness/Englishness/Scottishness/ Welshness...yes its a nightmare..but I reckon what mostly binds us together is a sense of fairplay..and you can't ultimately legislate for that...you have to trust the people.

But not trust magistrates to apply British laws.

Well yes of course we usually trust them..but if they make gigantic boo boos in a heated climate, as things are at present...they'll be ridiculed and thought ridiculous. Hopefully the State will learn this lesson. Otherwise civil unrest will occur.

So the law should be determined by potential rioters?

Interesting idea since laws have historically been
determined by kinetic protesters.

~jwf~

Well, yes. There's a dialectic.

But I don't necessarily buy the idea that something is bad simply because a subsection of the population gets shouty about it. *Sometimes* that's true - Frs will mention the Poll Tax - but usually its better if civilised countries are governed in accordance with civilised principles. On the whole, mob rule ain't the way.

You use emotive language like 'mob rule'..and I'm talking about a fundamental sense of decency and fairplay from the *majority*. Yes we have our dark side like football hooligans, and in some parts of the UK there are particular sectarian problems.

Ultimately the State can only rule by consent or it uses the military in a heavy handed way to inflict rule and order.

Because you don't recognise this idea of 'Britishness' which I see as a sort of nugget thing that is based on the people wanting stability and a freeish society, fair play for all, a cultural thing...something to be proud of, I don't see how the discussion will make much sense.

You have some sort of internationalist Marxist view. We've been through all that 'a trillion times'

I'm not talking about mobs of people making law..but at the end of the day if the law is an ass, and keeps on being an ass, people won't accept it.

I expect this case will soon fall from memory..but bit by bit over time, people feel something fundamental is being eroded, there will eventually be trouble..but then you Marxists might welcome that?

>>Because you don't recognise this idea of 'Britishness'

Not true. I have a clear and simple definition of Britishness: Living in Britain. I'd hesitate to go any further than that and would certainly baulk at the idea of its being defined by a majority. Exclude me out of that one, please.

In the case we're discussing, I'm repelled by your attempts to define what 'The Majority' think and that it must (stands to reason!) align with your Stout Yeoman* opinions. Oi! I'm British too, and I disagree.


* I'm satirisng!

> Oi! I&#39;m British too, and I disagree.<

Absolutely. Free speech goes to the heart of it.