Munich

[DRM]

Looks like you would have to go as far as this to end up being sent to prison in this country.


Does religious or faith hate crime happen here?

Yes, it does…

A man was sent to prison for 70 days after he shouted abuse about Muslim

people as he set fire to a copy of the Koran in the centre of Carlisle.

The judge told him ”This is a case of theatrical bigotry, pre-planned by you”.

“You stole the book and went out with the deliberate aim of causing

maximum publicity, and the maximum distress for people of the Islamic

faith.”

“People are entitled to protest in this country, it is a free country, but you are

not entitled to do it in such a way as it will inflame”.

The man had pleaded guilty to racially/religiously aggravated intentional

harassment and the theft of the Koran from Carlisle library at an earlier hearing.

Religious Hate Crime Leaflet

Good job we don’t live in Holland

 

[Gerrydelasel]

The PC left would have us believe that words themselves are as violent, painful and victimising to person and property, as actual violence. This suits the government of course, since it equates protesting to rioting, and therefore justifies the same restrictions and punishment for both.

 

[handyjack]

“People are entitled to protest in this country, it is a free country, but you are not entitled to do it in such a way as it will inflame”.

Does not apply to Islamic protest.

 

[blightymam]

The PC left would have us believe that words themselves are as violent, painful and victimising to person and property, as actual violence. This suits the government of course, since it equates protesting to rioting, and therefore justifies the same restrictions and punishment for both.

Actually sorry, I do disagree. Vocal racism can have an affect on a person, it doesn't have to be physical violence. You don't have to be physical to be a bully and it can have a lasting impact on the mentality of the victims.

Hate crime is up. Hate crime can involve just passing someone on the street and saying something negative. It can have an impact and some folk it can cause lasting damage if they felt intimidated or frightened. If it was deemed harmless, it wouldn't be a crime.

However, I do dislike the terms racist and especially Islamophobia. It's used by Himmy to try and silence or shame someone who speaks out about religious ideology in a negative way. Sorry, if the interpretation of a religion equals to harm, terrorism or human rights abuse then it should be able to be discussed without being shut down - I would say we have a duty to talk about it and challenge. The UK is a tolerant country, am proud of that and I never want that to change but it would be a sad day if nobody is allowed to talk about what is going on without being branded.

Saying that, it is possible to talk about this without saying things like shoot Merkel, chuck out all Muslims etc etc! It will encourage labeling as racists etc. I think that we should be responsible, as we are part of a very good country, very civilized and forward thinking - I would hate us to become as intolerant as the people we are discussing. We are much better than that. I do believe personally to say such things is to show a more (understandably) knee-jerk reaction to a problem which is incredibly hard to fix - I am not even sure we are going to be able to fix it now no matter what we do.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Actually sorry, I do disagree. Vocal racism can have an affect on a person, it doesn't have to be physical violence. It can have an impact and some folk it can cause lasting damage if they felt intimidated or frightened.

Words can have a bullying effect, yes of course, but they are not violent, i.e. physical, and therefore should not carry the same weight of punishment as actual physical violence. Words are open to interpretation, and there should be at least some expectation for the 'victim' to just deal with it independently as an ordinary part of the adult human life experience, and not to expect the government to protect their feelings through the architecture of law. But the PC culture is trying to erode this sense of personal responsibility and proportion, and make even the most trivial ligual transgression a crime worthy of formal legal process. A crime that may sometimes haunt and ruin the perpetrator even more than the victim.

Hate crime can involve just passing someone on the street and saying something negative.

By that metric, every insult ever uttered was a crime, deserving of lawful punishment. Such a notion seems to me as ludicrous as it is sinister. There is a scale of severity in things that are said, but they are beginning to be treated as all equally damaging.

 

[handyjack]

Sticks and stones...

 

[blightymam]

Words can have a bullying effect, yes of course, but they are not violent, i.e. physical, and therefore should not carry the same weight of punishment as actual physical violence. Words are open to interpretation, and there should be at least some expectation for the 'victim' to just deal with it independently as an ordinary part of the adult human life experience, and not to expect the government to protect their feelings through the architecture of law. But the PC culture is trying to erode this sense of personal responsibility and proportion, and make even the most trivial ligual transgression a crime worthy of formal legal process. A crime that may sometimes haunt and ruin the perpetrator even more than the victim.
.

I agree that people shouldn't expect the government to protect their feelings - to an extent. Depends really on the circumstances. If someone is a victim of verbal hate crime on many occasion then they have every right to expect the police to step in. In all honesty tho, why do people bother to say such things? It's such a shame and show's little intelligence and certainly no 'personal responsibility'!

By that metric, every insult ever uttered was a crime, deserving of lawful punishment. Such a notion seems to me as ludicrous as it is sinister.

No, not every insult, just those that are based on race, sexuality, religion or disability. I also don't think that many people are punished for saying the odd comment but it's good to have those laws in place to protect those who are the victim of a bullying campaign.

 

[blightymam]

Sticks and stones...

Which is a rhyme said to children... don't you think it's sad that it has to apply to adults?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

No, not every insult, just those that are based on race, sexuality, religion or disability.

Apparently misogyny is now going the same way. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36775398 Interestingly no such provision has been made for misandry. So if a man says "bloody woman driver!" he will be investigated, but if a woman says "bloody white van man!" she won't. This is a persistent theme with the current PC obsession with minority labelling and protection of 'feelings': one rule for some, another for everyone else.

How long with your list of thought crimes get? I can see an objective argument for race, sex, sexuality or disability, because those are things you cannot change about yourself. But religeon? Religion is a choice, so I don't think it deserves the same level of protection, and certainly not the level of protection it currently receives. Should I not be allowed to say "bloody Muslim" with the same impunity that I can say "bloody Conservative" ?

(I just learned that Jean-Paul Sartre is credited with calling social conditions he didn’t like “violence,” as a prelude to justifying real violence as a response to those conditions.)

 

[Himaginn]

The proponents of racism, islamophobia and other such verbal hate crimes are examples for our children to follow.
They are learned patterns of behaviour. Often it is a learned behaviour from our parents and other peers.
It encourages and perpetuates such hateful behaviour with each iteration becoming more hateful and spiteful, as per the examples on this forum, each iteration trying to hurt the other party.

Those who defend it or excuse it are condoning it.
Is it any wonder that it eventually breeds violence. They are illegal for a purpose.

 

[blightymam]

No, not every insult, just those that are based on race, sexuality, religion or disability.

Apparently misogyny is now going the same way. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36775398 Interestingly no such provision has been made for misandry. So if a man says "bloody woman driver!" he will be investigated, but if a woman says "bloody white van man!" she won't. This is a persistent theme with the current PC obsession with minority labelling and protection of 'feelings': one rule for some, another for everyone else.

How long with your list of thought crimes get? I can see an objective argument for race, sex, sexuality or disability, because those are things you cannot change about yourself. But religeon? Religion is a choice, so I don't think it deserves the same level of protection, and certainly not the level of protection it currently receives. Should I not be allowed to say "bloody Muslim" with the same impunity that I can say "bloody Conservative" ?

(I just learned that Jean-Paul Sartre is credited with calling social conditions he didn’t like “violence,” as a prelude to justifying real violence as a response to those conditions.)

I don't think saying 'bloody woman driver' is a correct example of misogynistic behaviour!! As for misandry, am sure if it was common then there would be a rule in place to protect....

Religion, yes you could argue that it's choice but I could argue that it shouldn't be acceptable to be ****ty to someone purely because of their religion either. We are better than that surely? If we start to judge people on their faith or become abusive then we are becoming very intolerant which is one of the aspects hated here about the Islamic faith. By the way, I don't think 'bloody Muslim' is really a hate crime or you'd get locked up over it!

 

[handyjack]

I refuse to tolerate the intolerant.

 

[woodbine]

It encourages and perpetuates such hateful behaviour with each iteration becoming more hateful and spiteful,

Ah, diddums.

Of course, those lovely immigrants and lefty progressives never hate anyone or do anything spiteful.

 

[blightymam]

The proponents of racism, islamophobia and other such verbal hate crimes are examples for our children to follow.
They are learned patterns of behaviour. Often it is a learned behaviour from our parents and other peers.
It encourages and perpetuates such hateful behaviour with each iteration becoming more hateful and spiteful, as per the examples on this forum, each iteration trying to hurt the other party.

Those who defend it or excuse it are condoning it.
Is it any wonder that it eventually breeds violence. They are illegal for a purpose.

Fine - I hope you're saying the same thing to the Muslim communities too about learned behaviour and defending or excusing it.
Or is that too balanced for your little brain?

 

[DRM]

The proponents of racism, islamophobia and other such verbal hate crimes are examples for our children to follow.
They are learned patterns of behaviour. Often it is a learned behaviour from our parents and other peers.
It encourages and perpetuates such hateful behaviour with each iteration becoming more hateful and spiteful, as per the examples on this forum, each iteration trying to hurt the other party.

Those who defend it or excuse it are condoning it.
Is it any wonder that it eventually breeds violence. They are illegal for a purpose.

Looks like you are talking about how Islam is learned here, but you haven’t mentioned the Mosques and the Imams.