Do you consider this a "faith crime"?

Yes, but the eye of the beholder is just as likely to consider criticism or ridicule as hate, so who judges? "Faith Crime" still sounds like a bad cartoon joke to me......Seen any good Faith Based cartoons lately?:boggled:
Well, ultimately a Jury will decide if something incites racial hatred or not, the interesting thing about the legislation is that it's not about how the "offended" group will feel about the speech which is important. And I think many of us over here do feel that this legislation is a bad cartoon joke, and no as far as I am aware no Uk papers published those cartoons, but anyway, this legislation was not in force at that time, it is very new.
 
Really! That explains why I have never heard of it, not that we had such issue in the news when I lived there.

So what prompted this "law" if not something like the cartoons? Sniping between Sikhs and others, or what?
A crude generalization would be that the Muslims where annoyed that if they or the BNP marched down the street chanting "death to the Jews" then they cold be prosecuted, but if Jewish Groups or the BNP marched down the street chanting "death to the Muslims" then that would be be a lesser crime. When the BNP started their "all Muslims are pedophiles" campaign the idea of extend the scope of the incitement laws gathered significant momentum.
Of course we already had anti religious hatred laws in force in Northern Ireland, but that's an entirely different kettle of Semtex.
 
I thought that thread title was a joke at first. I've heard that there are laws against "blasphemy" in Europe, but I always thought they were kind of like laws against sodomy (any sex will do) in the US. Not applied for a long time.
Go nuts. Oh, look, you just did. "Laws against blasphemy"? Hey, why didn't you bother to read the thread you were posting on?

"Faith Crime" just sounds so silly and holier than thou politically correct.
Hurrah! It sounds politically correct.

Unfortunately, reciting this holy right-wing mantra about "political correctness" does not affect the facts.
 
Now, can you answer me, who is on the list?

It is not a matter of answer dear Dr. A.

For the benefit of any who may not recognize your games; I never talked about lists. I chuckled at an ethnic joke.

You
"asked" for a list of ethnic joke scenarios. I see no reason to respond to such a demand, which is totally irrelevant but which you now seem to have made into an example of avoiding a discussion.

We have never had any exchange that approximates discussion and I try hard to avoid trolls, particularly those with inadequacy complexes, but I admit I have sometimes wished you would give just a little post that warranted inclusion in a sig. So far no such luck.

Cheers
 
That's fine, when the laws are written so as not to sound as ridiculous as "faith crime".

But the actual text of the law doesn't use the term "faith crime." I'm not really familiar with the case, but my suspicion is that "faith crime" is a nomiker probably assigned by the press.
 
Leif - in this case I used it in the title because it was the police spokesperson called it "Scotland Yard said the inquiry 'centres on whether the advert constitutes a faith crime.'"- it struck me as very inane description of the current legislation but then it's a darn sight more concise then saying "centres on whether the advert constitutes a crime under the 2006 blah blah act."
 
There is an anti blasphemy statute on the books, but this only applies to blasphemy against the doctrine of the Church of England, you're doing well if you can find out what the doctrine of the Church of England is, let alone blaspheme against it.

Actually, there is no anti-blasphemy statute in the UK. The last one was the Blasphemy Act 1697, which was finally repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967.

The offence of blasphemy, however, does still exist as part of the common law of England and Wales (and as Darat said, the last prosecution was Whitehouse v Lemon in 1979.).

Interestingly, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act is descended from the 2002 Religious Offences bill, which originally included provisions to repeal the law of blasphemy, at the same time as bringing in the new provisions regarding incitement to religious hatred. That would have made very good sense. However, for reasons beyond comprehension, the former provisions were removed, :confused: while the latter were taken forward.

So, the offence of blasphemy still hangs around like an embarrassing skeleton in the cupboard - never likely to be used again (for all the reasons you point out) but technically still there, and still available for the likes of Christian Voice to bleat about every time they don't like something on tv.:rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom