Torchwood Posted March 24, 2018 #26 Share Posted March 24, 2018 Guilty of a hate crime? Mocking Nazi's is now a hate crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandias Posted March 24, 2018 #27 Share Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Torchwood said: Guilty of a hate crime? Mocking Nazi's is now a hate crime? He wasn't just mocking Nazis, he was also being offensive to Jews and their experience of the holocaust by asking a dog if it wanted to gas the Jews. If ALL he wanted to do was mock Nazis then ALL he had to do was get the dog to raise its paw to 'Sieg Heil' and put an SS cap on it. He went much further than that. Edited March 24, 2018 by Ozymandias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV-426 Posted March 24, 2018 #28 Share Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Ozymandias said: No. The man was convicted for misusing the internet under the Communications Act 2003 by posting and publishing offensive material online. The dog was blameless; the man was guilty of a hate crime. He could teach the dog to raise its paw to any number of offensive cues and get the dog to do it in private in front of his girlfriend if all he wanted was to show her that her dog wasn't as cute as she thought it was. It could be argued that the teaching the dog to raise its paw was just an excuse to put offensive anti-Semitic material into the public domain. He chose to be offensive. Misusing the internet and publishing offensive material online? Half of the material on the internet is offensive to people who allow themselves to be offended. How on earth can you legislate against what is subjectively offensive? In the article... "Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities added: "To regard the meticulously planned and industrialised murder of six million people solely on the grounds of their ethnicity as a joke is outrageous, and for someone who does so to claim not to be racist, beggars belief." Well, I guess I'm an evil racist too then, having enjoyed clips such as this one from Father Ted... What happened to the Jewish people during WWII was abominable. That doesn't mean that any reference to events in and around that era, that isn't treated with utmost sobriety, can be considered criminal. Should we just outright ban humour? Humour is often a theraputic mechanism for coping with the seriousness of events. If we didn't laugh, we'd probably cry... This was reflected in an update to guidelines for the Communications Act... "On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate." This highlights the problem with the Communications Act, and the whole issue we're discussing here; you can't legislate against subjectivity. It's all pretty immaterial though, as, if you stand by your last statement... 3 hours ago, Ozymandias said: I think people should be allowed to say as they please so long as they are not being threatening, aggressive, or inciting crime against the person. ...I'm not sure what we disagree on? It's the fundamental principal regarding freedom of speech. Edited March 24, 2018 by LV-426 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliss Posted March 24, 2018 #29 Share Posted March 24, 2018 Wonder how many years in jail the group Monty Python would have been given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted March 26, 2018 Author #30 Share Posted March 26, 2018 But... but..... Definitions of a crime are supposed to be clearly defined, objective, and understandable. The statement from the Met police, however, implied an "arbitrary, open-ended, subjective" definition of a crime. Whilst I grant you that determination of GUILT can sometimes involve subjective judgement, the determination of whether any given action constitutes a crime surely can NOT ? Am I the only one who is worried about this ? Can't anyone see where this can lead ? How long is it before a political party decides that certain voters where voting for the opposing political party (which is legal), but in a hateful way ? (and thus they can be detained for questioning until the election is safely over). That is a reducto ad absurbum, but laws are supposed to be fashioned to resist such extrapolation. The police involved in the web-page should be suspended pending review and/or re-training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted March 27, 2018 #31 Share Posted March 27, 2018 you know with all that liberal idiocy in uk, it may actually not be a bad thing if uk becomes Islamic country, they do not tolerate liberal idiocy. wow i'd never thought it would come to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnchorSteam Posted March 30, 2018 #32 Share Posted March 30, 2018 On 3/24/2018 at 8:19 AM, Torchwood said: Guilty of a hate crime? Mocking Nazi's is now a hate crime? The UK Gov.t is more fascist than the fascists were - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted March 30, 2018 #33 Share Posted March 30, 2018 On 3/27/2018 at 4:22 PM, aztek said: you know with all that liberal idiocy in uk, it may actually not be a bad thing if uk becomes Islamic country, they do not tolerate liberal idiocy. wow i'd never thought it would come to that. I beg to differ It would be a very bad thing if the UK became an Islamic country but short sighted politicians looking for quick fix vote counts might lead us down that path..... (from all side of the political spectrum) - for example Sadiq Khan the muslim mayor of London was put there by the Labour Party and when David Cameron (Conservative) was campaigning to be re-elected in the last but one General Election there was footage of him addressing a Muslim Group and saying cheerfully (to get votes)......in so many words.... "the first future Muslim Prime Minister of the UK could be in this room......" The main concern isn't about the actual individuals but who their primary loyalty is to.... and issues about the separation of religion and state.... I believe there is major concern in the US of an unholy alliance between the Liberals and Islam....? Liberal alliance with Islam not a joke any more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted March 30, 2018 #34 Share Posted March 30, 2018 On 3/24/2018 at 4:48 PM, Ozymandias said: He wasn't just mocking Nazis, he was also being offensive to Jews and their experience of the holocaust by asking a dog if it wanted to gas the Jews. If ALL he wanted to do was mock Nazis then ALL he had to do was get the dog to raise its paw to 'Sieg Heil' and put an SS cap on it. He went much further than that. to be fair --- I think you do have a point .... if he hadn't kept repeating stuff about gassing the Jews on the video to get the dog to do the little Nazi salute he might not have got into the trouble he's in.... hopefully this is the case anyway because it's a slippy slope otherwise... but for it to go as far as the courts is unnecessary IMO - YouTube has no qualms about censoring and removing videos and banning people and channels -- so why didn't they just take the video down if there were complaints..... The ambiguity and potential political misuse of 'Hate Crime' Laws is what bothers people and although it is in very bad taste to make a joke publically about gassing Jews ---- legal cases like this set a precedent - I actually thought it was amusing under the circumstances that the little dog's name was Buddha - but this isn't an issue and Buddhists aren't rioting in the streets about a dog called Buddha doing a Nazi salute when asked if he wanted to gas the Jews... At the end of the day...... this Hate Crime stuff is soooooo subjective... For example it seems to be ok for any Tom Dick or Harriet (or top politicians and Speaker of the House) to make public hate comments and displays about Donald Trump --- but presumably this isn't against the law..... ? Would the same level of animosity be tolerated if it was against Sadiq Khan...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted March 30, 2018 #35 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) On 3/26/2018 at 0:45 PM, RoofGardener said: But... but..... Definitions of a crime are supposed to be clearly defined, objective, and understandable. The statement from the Met police, however, implied an "arbitrary, open-ended, subjective" definition of a crime. Whilst I grant you that determination of GUILT can sometimes involve subjective judgement, the determination of whether any given action constitutes a crime surely can NOT ? Am I the only one who is worried about this ? Can't anyone see where this can lead ? How long is it before a political party decides that certain voters where voting for the opposing political party (which is legal), but in a hateful way ? (and thus they can be detained for questioning until the election is safely over). That is a reducto ad absurbum, but laws are supposed to be fashioned to resist such extrapolation. The police involved in the web-page should be suspended pending review and/or re-training. get this one...... Tommy Robinson... political activist and citizen journalist...... has been banned by Twitter Twitter declined to comment, but it is understood the decision was taken after Mr Robinson was judged to have breached its "hateful conduct" policy. but Hamas has a Twitter account -- https://twitter.com/HamasInfoEn?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author Edited March 30, 2018 by bee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted March 30, 2018 #36 Share Posted March 30, 2018 10 hours ago, bee said: I beg to differ It would be a very bad thing if the UK became an Islamic country but short sighted politicians looking for quick fix vote counts might lead us down that path..... (from all side of the political spectrum) - for example Sadiq Khan the muslim mayor of London was put there by the Labour Party and when David Cameron (Conservative) was campaigning to be re-elected in the last but one General Election there was footage of him addressing a Muslim Group and saying cheerfully (to get votes)......in so many words.... "the first future Muslim Prime Minister of the UK could be in this room......" The main concern isn't about the actual individuals but who their primary loyalty is to.... and issues about the separation of religion and state.... Do you have an inherent problem with a Christian Prime Minister then? And what's the problem with that quote exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoofGardener Posted March 30, 2018 Author #37 Share Posted March 30, 2018 10 hours ago, bee said: get this one...... Tommy Robinson... political activist and citizen journalist...... has been banned by Twitter Twitter declined to comment, but it is understood the decision was taken after Mr Robinson was judged to have breached its "hateful conduct" policy. but Hamas has a Twitter account -- https://twitter.com/HamasInfoEn?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author Twitter HAS been frequently accused of having a strong "progressive" left-wing bias. HAMAS is acceptable because they fight for The Palestinians, who are Gods in the left-wing pantheon, and can do no wrong. The "anti-hate" policy has - thus far - really been "anti" anyone who objects to Islamofascism or Jihadi Terrorism. Mind you, that's kinda wandering off-topic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted March 31, 2018 #38 Share Posted March 31, 2018 15 hours ago, Setton said: Do you have an inherent problem with a Christian Prime Minister then? And what's the problem with that quote exactly? so..... do you agree with the remark in the quote..... that..... On 3/27/2018 at 4:22 PM, aztek said: it may actually not be a bad thing if uk becomes Islamic country, it sounds like you're not really bothered.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted March 31, 2018 #39 Share Posted March 31, 2018 10 hours ago, bee said: so..... do you agree with the remark in the quote..... that..... it sounds like you're not really bothered.... I would disagree with that. Now, perhaps you could answer the questions I asked? Since I have answered yours,even though you ignored mine. On 30/03/2018 at 6:49 PM, Setton said: Do you have an inherent problem with a Christian Prime Minister then? And what's the problem with that quote exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali smack Posted April 6, 2018 #40 Share Posted April 6, 2018 absolutely ridicilous tbh. i am all for investigating genuine hate crimes but this is getting silly now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now