England Jails Homophobes

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

This is good. I wish we would do this to all the Christian ministers speaking out about gay marriage proposals, as a straight man speaking, they can all go F*** themselves with their 2000 year old out of date bull**** Besides they talk of Agape and love to all people, then why the hell do they think they have the right to judge other people.

I am absolutely baffled by the people who say this is a free speech issue. Look guys, your right to freedom of expression ends when you use said expression to say it's okay to kill a certain group of people. End. Of. Story.

And as for the bullshit argument that it's just like saying paedophiles should be killed, well, thanks so much for keeping the brain-dead medieval "all gay people are paedophiles" thinking alive. Way to go, equating being gay with molesting children. You obviously don't hate gay people at all.

Oh, and equating someone walking their dog to someone distributing leaflets advocating murder is a spurious analogy and you know it. I'm looking at you, Grey Day for Elcia.

Grow up, all of you.

PinochetIsMyBro:

pffh:
Oh god that beard! It's like a 'fro that has migrated down to his chin.

Also hatespeech is illegal in most of the western world and that certainly qualifies as hate speech.
They didn't go to jail because of their opinion, they were sent to jail because of hate speech. Just keeping it to themselves or in their social group would have been fine but they actively went out into the streets to spread hate and that is illegal.

That's what hate speech is. The prosecution of 'unacceptable opinions.' It being illegal in certain parts of the world isn't really an argument for or against it, by the way. Lots of things are illegal that shouldn't be, and vice versa.

My statement still stands. Hate speech is nothing but a thought crime law used to jail people who disagree with it. The only reason you're okay with it is because it's being used against people you don't like. If a "X-wing" (according to which side of the spectrum you dislike) government was in power prosecuting people with opinions like your own, you'd be frothing at the mouth. Don't be such a hypocrite.

If the pamphlets had just stated "homosexuality is wrong and here is why: Reason X, Y and Z" then nothing would have been done. What they did say was that a certain group of people should be killed and that's hate speech. Hate speech laws cover everyone and every opinion. They would also have been arrested if they went out into the streets with pamphlets saying "we should kill all BNP members".

MC K-Mac:
I am absolutely baffled by the people who say this is a free speech issue. Look guys, your right to freedom of expression ends when you use said expression to say it's okay to kill a certain group of people. End. Of. Story.

And as for the bullshit argument that it's just like saying paedophiles should be killed, well, thanks so much for keeping the brain-dead medieval "all gay people are paedophiles" thinking alive. Way to go, equating being gay with molesting children. You obviously don't hate gay people at all.

Oh, and equating someone walking their dog to someone distributing leaflets advocating murder is a spurious analogy and you know it. I'm looking at you, Grey Day for Elcia.

Grow up, all of you.

That is idiotic, they were proposing a change in the legal system. No matter how horrific and stupid the change they proposed was, they still should have a right to speak unless it reaches the point of actual conspiracy (in otherwise, they start planning the time and place specifics of committing a crime against a person).

If you do not have the right to lobby against laws, regardless of what the view you're trying to push is, then effectively you have no rights in society.

The law is a cudgel, not a scapel, you cannot create it with the necessary provisions to deal with all speech you find distasteful without banning necessary speech, that is why it is necessary to take the least possible restrictive measure.

I'd prefer they'd be able to talk about killing me and people like me then handicap the right of people to lobby for change in law.

AdumbroDeus:

That is idiotic, they were proposing a change in the legal system. No matter how horrific and stupid the change they proposed was, they still should have a right to speak unless it reaches the point of actual conspiracy (in otherwise, they start planning the time and place specifics of committing a crime against a person).

I want a source of that. The linked article never mentioned that they wanted to change something in the legal system.

"The first, entitled 'Death penalty?' proclaimed that 'Allah permits the destruction' of gay people and that 'the only question is how it should be carried out'."

Is the closest I can find but this is not wanting a change in the legal system. This is "ignoring the legal system" and going by the religious interpretations from some nutjobs.

Annnnnnnd Here is where the police in England get a bunch of protests and say they are sorry to offend the Muslim community

Liquidacid23:
to be honest you could remove the "homosexual" part and replace it with ANY group of people and they still would have been arrested

Which kinda fits with the topic title. It sounds like they just don't like gays, rather than what they actually were doing.

Free Speech ends when infringes on the basic human rights of another Person.

That is all that needs to be said. It is not a Free Speech Issue. They have asked, regardless of form, to be allowed, either legally, or if failing that, to simply illegaly kill a undetermined Number of People for their way of life.

There is no "fine line" in there.

AdumbroDeus:

That is idiotic, they were proposing a change in the legal system. No matter how horrific and stupid the change they proposed was, they still should have a right to speak unless it reaches the point of actual conspiracy (in otherwise, they start planning the time and place specifics of committing a crime against a person).

If you do not have the right to lobby against laws, regardless of what the view you're trying to push is, then effectively you have no rights in society.

The law is a cudgel, not a scapel, you cannot create it with the necessary provisions to deal with all speech you find distasteful without banning necessary speech, that is why it is necessary to take the least possible restrictive measure.

I'd prefer they'd be able to talk about killing me and people like me then handicap the right of people to lobby for change in law.

Try reading the article, jackass. The pamphlet said: "'Allah permits the destruction' of gay people and that 'the only question is how it should be carried out'". How in the holy hell is that 'proposing a change in the legal system'? Idiot.

"England Jails Homophobes"

Misleading title is misleading.

They were charged with certain crimes as it fit the wording, but what they were doing wasn't really about homosexuals, as they do this for anything their religion tells them is a bad thing.

Its about religion. They are all the same. The only reason the other major religions don't do stuff like this anymore is because they are based in parts of the world where they can't get away with it anymore.

There will likely be a very large increase of things like this happening with Muslims as they continue to expand into other parts of the world. It isn't going to end well for anyone.

Grey Day for Elcia:
At the end of the day, these guys didn't actually incite violence and they weren't convicted if that; they were convicted of spreading hate. I think that's pretty fucked up. I have no doubt at all that spreading hatred against neo-nazis and the KKK would be unpunished. It's 'okay' to hate them, it seems.

That's kind of a moot point since in a country where hate speech is illegal, neo-nazi organizations and the KKK wouldn't even be allowed to exist.

lemby117:
This is good. I wish we would do this to all the Christian ministers speaking out about gay marriage proposals, as a straight man speaking, they can all go F*** themselves with their 2000 year old out of date bull**** Besides they talk of Agape and love to all people, then why the hell do they think they have the right to judge other people.

Wouldn't it make sense to actually legalize gay marriage before jailing everyone who opposes it? Seems kind of ridiculous to make it illegal to speak out about a law that's not even on the books yet.

Brandon Killenbeck:
Annnnnnnd Here is where the police in England get a bunch of protests and say they are sorry to offend the Muslim community

Hopefully, before that happens they'll realize what a disgrace these guys are to the Muslim community. I think the guys in jail should be apologizing instead.

Personally, I am glad for this. I cannot stand people who discriminate against any group of people, due to religion, culture, or even something which I see as trivial as sexual orientation. Okay, so they're gay. So what? Here, they would be entitled to the pursuit of happiness same as anyone else.

Really, I don't think theres a place for this kind of bullshit anymore. Racism and Homophobia need to stop, though I can't see that happening anytime soon. The world needs to realize that people as a whole, generally suck regardless of culture, sexual orientation, skin color and so on. Its when you take a person, a singular person, on their own merits, thats when you should decide if you dislike them or not. Unless they have done something to offend you or put you off personally, such as being an idiot or a hateful asshole, then leave them alone. They're just doing their own thing, like you are. Every community has this, even the Gaming community, and again, it needs to stop.

And for those equating gay people to pedophiles and rapists, are WRONG. There is a huge difference between homosexuals, and convicted child molesters/rapists. As some have already obviously pointed out, one group, the rapists and molesters, have committed a crime, whereas homosexuals haven't. Not only that, but one of the most heinous crimes known to man: Under the right circumstances, theft can be justified. Under the right circumstances, even murder can be justified. But under no circumstances can rape or child molestation be justified.

So yes, while I support the right to make personal choices like that, I do not support hate-speech like that, or discrimination. Freedom of Speech should only go so far, hate-speech such as this, that calls for the deaths of a group simply because of the choices they make in life, yes, should be imprisoned. And to go further, yes, I think that convicted rapists and child molesters, those who without a doubt committed that crime, should be given the death penalty for it. The crime is harsh and brutal. I see no reason why something like that, that cannot be justified regardless of circumstances, shouldn't have an equally harsh punishment.

MC K-Mac:

Try reading the article, jackass. The pamphlet said: "'Allah permits the destruction' of gay people and that 'the only question is how it should be carried out'". How in the holy hell is that 'proposing a change in the legal system'? Idiot.

Because you didn't read closely enough and also didn't do your research. This story broke a while before and has been discussed at length.

Reread the article, it's about death penalty and opposing decriminalization.

"Method" refers to "method of execution", so stoning, hanging, etc. Not that normal civilians should perform it.

TheKasp:

AdumbroDeus:

That is idiotic, they were proposing a change in the legal system. No matter how horrific and stupid the change they proposed was, they still should have a right to speak unless it reaches the point of actual conspiracy (in otherwise, they start planning the time and place specifics of committing a crime against a person).

I want a source of that. The linked article never mentioned that they wanted to change something in the legal system.

"The first, entitled 'Death penalty?' proclaimed that 'Allah permits the destruction' of gay people and that 'the only question is how it should be carried out'."

Is the closest I can find but this is not wanting a change in the legal system. This is "ignoring the legal system" and going by the religious interpretations from some nutjobs.

You might wanna read the article in the OP more closely.

The first, entitled 'Death penalty?' proclaimed that 'Allah permits the destruction' of gay people and that 'the only question is how it should be carried out'. The second, entitled 'Turn or Burn', featured a burning figure in a blazing lake of fire and warned that the decriminalization of homosexuality was 'the root of all problems'.

The leaflets talk explicitly about decriminalization and capital punishment, the first one is entitled "death penalty", and "how it should be carried out" refers not to who should do it, since death penalty presumes government authorities. Instead it's discussing the methods to be used.

regardless, this goes a bit more into the specifics, the actual pamphlet doesn't seem to be online.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/god-abhors-you-uk-muslims-convicted-for-distributing-pamphlets-advocating-the-murder-of-gays/

A-D.:
Free Speech ends when infringes on the basic human rights of another Person.

That is all that needs to be said. It is not a Free Speech Issue. They have asked, regardless of form, to be allowed, either legally, or if failing that, to simply illegaly kill a undetermined Number of People for their way of life.

There is no "fine line" in there.

No they're asking the government to change the law so it kills us.

There's a difference.

hurrah! this country finally did something right!

Just a thought, but suppose they got a "cease and desist" order by the government and were asked to take down their website under penalty of imprisonment. They probably wouldn't listen, but it would seem a bit fairer than simply showing up without warning and arresting them. Perhaps we just need more details. Anyone know a news article where this is being posted?

lemby117:
This is good. I wish we would do this to all the Christian ministers speaking out about gay marriage proposals, as a straight man speaking, they can all go F*** themselves with their 2000 year old out of date bull**** Besides they talk of Agape and love to all people, then why the hell do they think they have the right to judge other people.

As someone who is both bisexual and transgendered, I do not wish to see people jailed for speaking out against gay marriage.

What they did here, with these guys saying gays should be hanged, that is a different offense.

Zachary Amaranth:

lemby117:
This is good. I wish we would do this to all the Christian ministers speaking out about gay marriage proposals, as a straight man speaking, they can all go F*** themselves with their 2000 year old out of date bull**** Besides they talk of Agape and love to all people, then why the hell do they think they have the right to judge other people.

As someone who is both bisexual and transgendered, I do not wish to see people jailed for speaking out against gay marriage.

What they did here, with these guys saying gays should be hanged, that is a different offense.

Yes, but they're not saying that private citizens should go out and hang them, they're saying the government should change it's policies and go out and hang us.

For obvious reasons I'm not a fan of this point of view, but it should be their right in a free society to petition for a change in the law.

SirBryghtside:

Grey Day for Elcia:

BathorysGraveland:
Wishing death on someone for whatever reason is a view best kept to yourself. I support freedom of speech, and that includes negative views on homosexuals, but asking (nay, telling) them to be killed is not something that can be tolerated in a modern, civil country.

If you really look at it, there is a, in my opinion, strong argument to not jail them over this. If they were inciting people to murder gay people, they need to be removed from society. But in this case they seem to have been campaigning for gay people to be executed under the law, and that would be as defensible as campaigning for, say, rapists to be executed.

The guys are wankers, of that I have no doubt, lol. But I'm not too keen on going down a road of "don't upset people".

There's a difference between free speech and death threats. If someone mailed me with a letter saying I was going to be murdered because I was white or something, I wouldn't shrug it off as 'freedom of speech'.

But this wasn't a death threat, this was a petition for change in laws. Granted the change they wanted was abhorrent, but that shouldn't change the legal nature of the petition itself.

Grey Day for Elcia:

ReservoirAngel:
I was expecting just "someone said they didn't approve of a gay person and they were hauled off by cops" and was all prepared with a "this is over-reacting" speech but this?

Yeah, I'm fully okay with these hateful pricks being in jail. You can't just call for a group of people to be violently murdered and expect to not catch shit for saying that openly and in public.

I'm actually not sure how okay with it I am. Obviously these guys are massive assholes, but they were campaigning for gay people to be legally executed, not for them to be murdered in the streets--the latter of which is inciting violence, the former more... a dick move, lol.

I don't care that they are in jail per se, but I dunno if it oversteps the boundaries a little.

I kinda agree with you but at the same time they could potentially be hit for premeditation for murder since they were planning to get people killed. I dunno but I know what you mean it is a slippery slope.

SirBryghtside:

AdumbroDeus:

SirBryghtside:
There's a difference between free speech and death threats. If someone mailed me with a letter saying I was going to be murdered because I was white or something, I wouldn't shrug it off as 'freedom of speech'.

But this wasn't a death threat, this was a petition for change in laws. Granted the change they wanted was abhorrent, but that shouldn't change the legal nature of the petition itself.

During the trial, the court heard how the group's activities intimidated residents and left gay people frightened to walk on the streets.

Something about the wording of that sentence makes me think it was a little more than just 'campaigning'.

If people were shouting "gay people deserve to be stoned, petition the government to execute them" would you feel comfortable around them?

Does it make it any less petitioning the government for a change in the law?

I wouldn't wanna be there, but as long as they don't actually attempt to attack me or plan an explicit attack on me, it should be perfectly legal.

Grey Day for Elcia:

image

I love the picture of the guy on the far left. He's got a look like "I gotta stop agreeing to shit while I'm drunk."

Guy the middle has a face that says "So everyone's straight in prison right?", and you can almost hear the cops snickering as they say "Sure dude, straight as Elton John in some cases"

Guy on the far right reminds me alot of Aziz Ansari's character "Ed" from Scrubs. Just kind of has a "Sup bitches?" look on his face.

i expect "4 lions" joke somewhere around here xD

What these men were doing was creating a hostile and hateful enviroment in their neighbourhood, making gay people intensely uncomfortable, attempting to incite hatred, intimidating gay people and generally making the world a worse place.

In this country at least, freedom of speech doesn't give you the freedom to do any of that shit.

Phasmal:

TheKasp:

Grey Day for Elcia:
You are trying to make an argument against free speech there. There is nothing wrong with wanting a law to be made, even if it asks for the death penalty. Just because YOU dislike the death penalty (as do I), doesn't mean it's not okay for others to want it.

You are walking down the path of making your own moral law. That's bad. That's what countries that KILL gay people have.

Free Speech does not protect you from consequences. Time people start to learn that. There are laws against "hate speech" or "incitement to crime" in about every country which values human rights.

So much this.

These guys were not meekly trying to change a law, they were intimidating and calling for the hanging, stoning and burning of people on the basis they didnt agree with their sex life.
That. Is. Not. Okay.

The convicted people have a right to propose a law.

peruvianskys:

Melon Hunter:
[This is why, unlike France, we allow multiculturalism and don't pass laws banning the hijab, because the British way is to tolerate differences.

"Our way is to tolerate differences, which is why we throw people we disagree with in jail."

First off, let me say that I'm a gay gay gay as balls gayster so I know what intimidation, prejudice, and outright physical violence feels like. I live in Idaho, which, in case you don't know, is the single most conservative state in America. Over a third of the Neo-Nazis in the entire country live here.

With that said, it is absurd to say that these people should go to jail. I think they're scumbags, but I don't see why the government has any right at all to decide what people can and can't say. So long as gay people are allowed to put out flyers demanding the death penalty for homophobia, then there's no problem here. Feeling attacked or hated is part of living in a free society; I get abused fairly often by white trash strangers and if someone from the fed came down and asked me whether or not I wanted to have a police escort throw them all in jail, I would say no in a heartbeat. So long as they aren't advocating non-judicial murder, it shouldn't be a crime. If I get to say what I want to say, then so should they.

Two mistakes. Firstly, as I pointed out in my original post, you are looking at this through the prism of the US Constitution, and the First Amendment. So there's half your answer; unlike America, Britain recognises the damage unlimited free speech can cause and has laws in place to deal with that. This is nothing short of culture shock.

Secondly, fighting intolerance is not inherently intolerant, which makes this:

"Our way is to tolerate differences, which is why we throw people we disagree with in jail."

utterly wrong. We tolerate differences, hence there are laws to stop intolerant speech getting out of control. These men were jailed not for being homophobes, but for encouraging behaviour and prejudices that were dangerous to society. I'm all for Far Right groups being allowed a platform, as it enables more sensible political parties to make them look absurd. However, the rights of the individual stop at the next person. If you've used your free speech to intimidate and/or oppress someone else, as these men have, then there will be repercussions for that.

If you honestly think this Government put laws in place to stop people espousing views they don't like, then you really have no idea what you're talking about. These laws are here to stop the expression of views that are utterly incompatible with a democratic society, such as calling for the execution of gays. That is aiding tolerance, not oppressing it.

horayyy, people got what they deserved

Am I the only one who has thought "why haven't we arrested Christians who have tried to pass similar legislation?".

FranBunnyFFXII:
Anyone who makes ANYONE ELSES community feel like this should be sent to jail.
PERIOD.

Now that brings a dilemma.

I tend to avoid groups of black people dressed like gangsters and with clothes baggy enough to hide sawn-off shotguns. Does that mean that every black man in a hoodie must be jailed?

What you said is reasonable because there was an active threat (or that's what I got from the post) but if implemented it would be extremely unfair. Innocent until proven guilty.

PinochetIsMyBro:

They were jailed for inciting hatred, not inciting violence. If they were running around yelling about how gays should be dragged into the streets and lynched then yes, I'd have no problem with them being arrested. When they say 'being gay should be made illegal and punishable by death' that is not the same thing. I just read the full article, and nowhere does it state that they were arrested for inciting violence.

Inciting hatred against people could just as easily lead to violence against them as directly inciting violence against them could.
People's right to live without fear of being attacked is greater than the right of extremists to call for their death.

What is and isn't allowed in a democracy has nothing to do with your opinion, and everything to do with the majority's opinion. What we're saying is that this SHOULDN'T be acceptable, according to how we view freedom of speech.

As Melon Hunter said, in Britain, we have different ideas about freedom of speech than you do in America. Does that make us wrong? It's not like America has total freedom of speech either, slander, libel and death threats are still illegal.
Thanks to British hate speech laws, we have never had a powerful far-right fascist political party and we have far fewer people like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church here, and that makes me happy.

That's what hate speech is. The prosecution of 'unacceptable opinions.' It being illegal in certain parts of the world isn't really an argument for or against it, by the way. Lots of things are illegal that shouldn't be, and vice versa.

My statement still stands. Hate speech is nothing but a thought crime law used to jail people who disagree with it. The only reason you're okay with it is because it's being used against people you don't like. If a "X-wing" (according to which side of the spectrum you dislike) government was in power prosecuting people with opinions like your own, you'd be frothing at the mouth. Don't be such a hypocrite.

But you believe that death threats should be illegal, which goes against freedom of speech. So you're the hypocritical one.

Am I the only one who has thought "why haven't we arrested Christians who have tried to pass similar legislation?".

FranBunnyFFXII:
Anyone who makes ANYONE ELSES community feel like this should be sent to jail.
PERIOD.

Now that brings a dilemma.

I tend to avoid groups of black people dressed like gangsters and with clothes baggy enough to hide sawn-off shotguns. Does that mean that every black man in a hoodie must be jailed?

What you said is reasonable because there was an active threat (or that's what I got from the post) but if implemented it would be extremely unfair. Innocent until proven guilty.

I've always had high regard for English police and law system, and now I'm even more pleased to hear this news.

Volf:
The convicted people have a right to propose a law.

Thats fine if thats what they were doing, but its not. They didn't go to any legal groups, they were not proposing we actually change the law, they were putting around fliers about how gay people should be killed. Which is hate speech. Even if they put this through law it would be dismissed for being hate speech.

The Plunk:
As Melon Hunter said, in Britain, we have different ideas about freedom of speech than you do in America. Does that make us wrong? It's not like America has total freedom of speech either, slander, libel and death threats are still illegal.
Thanks to British hate speech laws, we have never had a powerful far-right fascist political party and we have far fewer people like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church here, and that makes me happy.

I'm sorry, but:

-- KKK has committed far more crimes than hate speech. It's not the freedom of speech that protects them.

-- You basically said "I want freedom of speech to be restricted except to myself and people I agree with".

The Plunk:
As Melon Hunter said, in Britain, we have different ideas about freedom of speech than you do in America. Does that make us wrong? It's not like America has total freedom of speech either, slander, libel and death threats are still illegal.
Thanks to British hate speech laws, we have never had a powerful far-right fascist political party and we have far fewer people like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church here, and that makes me happy.

I'm sorry, but:

-- KKK has committed far more crimes than hate speech. It's not the freedom of speech that protects them.

-- You basically said "I want freedom of speech to be restricted except to myself and people I agree with".

Grey Day for Elcia:
[...] they seem to have been campaigning for gay people to be executed under the law, and that would be as defensible as campaigning for, say, rapists to be executed.

No it wouldn't. Rape is an offence punishable by law, therefore you can rightfully discuss what you think the punishment should be. Homosexuality is not an offence punishable by law, therefore asking for these people to be killed is utterly unacceptable.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked