[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... rning.html



They get arrested, the Muslim gets 50 pounds.


Oh, and andy, here is your redistribution ideas at work:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12664346

$1:

He said his wages were £480 a month, on top of which he recieves a monthly £792 in benefits from the state.

Choudhury must pay a £15 victim surcharge on top of his fine.

Guess he will use the state money to pay the fine, how nice.

First point - don't agree with that arrest either. Freedom is freedom. I wonder if somebody burned a bible in UK, would they get arrested either? Or, is the whole thing a red herring, because besides burning the Koran, did they also advocate racial hatred? (Actually I would get rid of hate laws too - just expressing hate against a race shouldn't be illegal, just advocating violence should be)

Second point - you have me confused with Lemmy. That is what he's arguing for, we pay people shit wages and then manifest all sorts of govt munificence on them. I'm more for paying people good wages in the first place.

Guess he will use the state money to pay the fine, how nice. [/quote]

Third point - he apparently made hundreds of pounds from his actions, guess he'll pay the fine out of that. Do you really think a 1000 pound fine would have deterred him?

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

Third point - he apparently made hundreds of pounds from his actions, guess he'll pay the fine out of that. Do you really think a 1000 pound fine would have deterred him?

Probably not, considering there were 20 there.

If it was up to me, a charge of sedition.

[Yogi]

The ONLY reason that people 'burn symbols' is to get attention and incite/insult a specific group. More often than not, this leads to violent reaction from the offended group.
Any person or persons taking part in such activity should be charged with inciting violence whether 'violence' actually takes place or not, because they have knowingly created the potential!

[andyt]

Yogi Yogi:

The ONLY reason that people 'burn symbols' is to get attention and incite/insult a specific group. More often than not, this leads to violent reaction from the offended group.
Any person or persons taking part in such activity should be charged with inciting violence whether 'violence' actually takes place or not, because they have knowingly created the potential!

So you would restrict free speech quite a bit. One problem I see is that just about anything can be a symbol to somebody. Say somebody burning some lawn clippings and the Irish get upset because there's some clover leaves in there. Or burning a bed sheet and the KKK gets their panties in a knot.

[Yogi]

andyt andyt:

Yogi Yogi:

The ONLY reason that people 'burn symbols' is to get attention and incite/insult a specific group. More often than not, this leads to violent reaction from the offended group.
Any person or persons taking part in such activity should be charged with inciting violence whether 'violence' actually takes place or not, because they have knowingly created the potential!

So you would restrict free speech quite a bit. One problem I see is that just about anything can be a symbol to somebody. Say somebody burning some lawn clippings and the Irish get upset because there's some clover leaves in there. Or burning a bed sheet and the KKK gets their panties in a knot.

I'd expect nothing less/more as a reply from you!

[Khar]

There is no malicious intent in those actions you describe, andyt. As defined numerable times around the world for things like hate crimes, an action like this requires intent for it to be considered a crime against another person. If he had simply burned the poppy, he likely would have gotten away with it -- it was his announcement that British soldiers should burn in hell and other such lines that showed his intent was, in this case, malicious. His intentions were, in this case clear, as he well recognized what he was doing in a ceremony important to people of a specific nationality.

I can mow a lawn with clover in it with no concerns about repercussions because the cutting of clover has no malicious intent behind it. In a similar way, if someone was cutting poppies to sell opium, we would not consider the cutting of it a malicious act in the way this happened, as it was not intended as such.

I can definitely see why Eyebrock, Yogi and martin have both come forward to state that this disgusts and concerns them. There was an attempt to incite hatred against a nationality/social status beyond reasonable discussion or debate by what was said and what was burned at this demonstration. Just as that other group martin cited was arrested for inciting racial/religious hatred. I'm no expert, but there is a difference between "damaging a symbol," and damaging an internationally recognized symbol on a day it is used at a ceremony it is being used at in a way which was constructed to be offensive, insulting and hateful in the extreme to what it represents in my mind.

The symbol in this case represents respect. What was said by these protesters was a direct attack on that respect in addition to the symbol itself. Do not forget the meaning of the symbol and what else was said there. There are lines to freedom of speech, ranging from libel through. Hate crime law might not exist in Canada, but it does in England, and this was incredibly disrespectful.

EDIT: Typos

[EyeBrock]

Too right Khar and well said. Tried to rep ya!

[SprCForr]

Personally, I don't care if he burns poppies on Remembrance Day. Generating anger was his aim, I'd rather the crowd pointed at him and laughed at the fool.

That's what he is, a fool seeking attention and the media gave it to him.

[martin14]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Too right Khar and well said. Tried to rep ya!

I agree, and repped him for you.

[EyeBrock]

You are a gent Martin. Well mostly........that's why I like ya!

[andyt]

Khar Khar:

I can definitely see why Eyebrock, Yogi and martin have both come forward to state that this disgusts and concerns them. There was an attempt to incite hatred against a nationality/social status beyond reasonable discussion or debate by what was said and what was burned at this demonstration. Just as that other group martin cited was arrested for inciting racial/religious hatred. I'm no expert, but there is a difference between "damaging a symbol," and damaging an internationally recognized symbol on a day it is used at a ceremony it is being used at in a way which was constructed to be offensive, insulting and hateful in the extreme to what it represents in my mind.

I share their disgust. Just not their eagerness to make it illegal. Restrictions on free speech should be carefully weighed before they are invoked. Would you also fine people who expressed sentiments such as this dickhead in print or just to a group of people? I go more with the US on this one, where protesting soldier's funerals was deemed free speech. Deal with it, if you can think of legal ways to retaliate, do it. But don't ban it. I'm against the hate speech laws we have in Canada as well, and I'm not sure, but think Brock might have expressed similar sentiments. Maybe he only feels differently when it's his ox that's being gored.

And, the outrage seems to be that he didn't get the maximum fine. Would that 1000 pound fine really have made a difference?

***just read SprCForr's response, and it's good to see at least one military person sees it the same way. Derision would be the best response here.

[gonavy47]

What this piece of shit did was a racist hate crime. His ass should be in jail.

[martin14]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

You are a gent Martin. Well mostly........that's why I like ya!

And to you, sir....mostly







a thousand pounds make a difference ?

Probably not, but 50 quid is a real joke, you could spend that on dinner.
At least a 1000 would affect the guy for a few weeks.


The Muslim radicals will be most pleased, the average Brit will be
pissed but to afraid to really say anything,
and I think the EDL will benefit.

But I would not want to be in England next November, and I really hope
this kind of shit doesnt start in Canada. I am not optimistic.

[Khar]

Derision can come on top of other things, like ramifications. Treat them derisively all you want. Personally, if I see one of the guys from the church, I plan to brazenly and mockingly flirt with him, and ask if he would like his sister/wife/cousin to join us, and if she's not available, maybe his brother/cousin/uncle.

There's a few problems here which I think need to be exemplified. This is a case where a person was convicted within the restraints of the law with the minimum sentencing, but similar other instances discovered via video rather than taking place at a ceremony were met with a much more strict response. Asymmetric rulings in cases with remarkably symmetry should and do cause concerns amongst people, especially in the wake of the Koran burning threat.

The man charged here takes in the majority of his income from the state. His attack on a portion of the British national identity reflects various concerns many of our posters have brought up in other threads, including potential failures in multiculturalism and the ramifications it can have.

I strongly disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court in the States. The Westboro church escaped prosecution due to special protection under the first amendment. The issue they are picketing is a public issue and hence is on the public domain for debate. Personally, I feel actions used by this group fall under harassment or even assault and should be treated as such.

In my mind, the rhetoric being used by this group such as "You're all going to hell" for homosexuality does fall under hate speech, but unfortunately the overall theme of the campaign (god kills soldiers because of homosexuals in the ranks) is far enough from the line to be considered alright due to the open forum that debate is in. For me, that feels like a cop-out, but I can understand the point of view of the Supreme Court in upholding that law. There is a slippery slope with the loss of free speech, but there is also a slippery slope for accommodation and appeasement. People should have the right to live their lives free of hate needlessly directed at them.

I would like to point out, however, that it is illegal for the Westboro Baptist Church to actually picket at a funeral for a solider -- they must do so from a good distance away from any facility having a funeral, for times from an hour before to an hour after the ceremony. In the recent case of Arizona, protesting at any funeral was recently banned within 300 feet of any ceremony because of the Tucson shooting. In other words, the poppy burning event occurred within the ceremony, but Phelps and his followers are not actually allowed to protest in funerals. Indeed, the fact they are not allowed to picket AT the funeral made all the difference for the Westboro Church when facing prosecution.

Some church members are barred from the UK for hateful speech already. In other words, for your example, there are already extensive barriers to their message.

In any case, if he had written it and promoted it? Yes, I feel he should be fined for inciting hatred, but I do not view it in the same manner as this event (which included harassment, insults, verbal abuse, and such already unlawful acts) as bias is an aggravating factor. If you want to use Phelps as a comparison, the man who burned poppies should not be allowed to travel to England (if he wasn't a resident), and should not have been able to burn a poppy within 300 feet of any ceremony respecting the poppy at the very least. This was hateful, with hateful intent. People were forced to watch on as a national symbol representing the fallen dead was desecrated in a hateful fashion. I don't think that is the same as writing something online. There is a difference between being hateful and inciting hatred, especially through potentially unlawful acts.

[EyeBrock]

andyt andyt:

Khar Khar:

I can definitely see why Eyebrock, Yogi and martin have both come forward to state that this disgusts and concerns them. There was an attempt to incite hatred against a nationality/social status beyond reasonable discussion or debate by what was said and what was burned at this demonstration. Just as that other group martin cited was arrested for inciting racial/religious hatred. I'm no expert, but there is a difference between "damaging a symbol," and damaging an internationally recognized symbol on a day it is used at a ceremony it is being used at in a way which was constructed to be offensive, insulting and hateful in the extreme to what it represents in my mind.

I share their disgust. Just not their eagerness to make it illegal. Restrictions on free speech should be carefully weighed before they are invoked. Would you also fine people who expressed sentiments such as this dickhead in print or just to a group of people? I go more with the US on this one, where protesting soldier's funerals was deemed free speech. Deal with it, if you can think of legal ways to retaliate, do it. But don't ban it. I'm against the hate speech laws we have in Canada as well, and I'm not sure, but think Brock might have expressed similar sentiments. Maybe he only feels differently when it's his ox that's being gored.

And, the outrage seems to be that he didn't get the maximum fine. Would that 1000 pound fine really have made a difference?

***just read SprCForr's response, and it's good to see at least one military person sees it the same way. Derision would be the best response here.

You are so off base on this it's not worth discussing it any further with you.