I don't agree with David Davies's (no, not that one...) proposal to ban demos against returning soldiers, but I had to laugh at Liberal Conspiracy's attempt to spin it as a return to Tory authoritarianism. How exactly is it more authoritarian, that, well, say a law which prevents people from insulting religion?
Davies's proposal is a mirror image of the law on religious hatred. In fact, it uses the exact wording of the Act. It's a clever move, and while I don't agree with him, he has been very clever to use it to highlight the hypocrisy of some on the left on this issue.
19 comments:
I agree with every word of that.
On a side note, I think that it's time we called David Davies something else. It's too confusing having two on the political scene. Perhaps you, Iain, could do a poll where we vote for the name we'd like him to change it to... ;-)
Such a law is too specific in my book. It would be too similar to those loony laws we had in the 17th century that referred to crimes against a particular thing or person.
What I would like to see, however, is the government and the police understand that someone standing there - complete with burning flag and amusing beard - and shouting "death to those who insult Islam", and things of that ilk, is inciting religious hatred in itself. At the moment, neither the police, nor the legislators, seem to think that qualifies.
Iain - if you want to write about politics it would help to know more about the laws you're criticising.
there is no law, especially not one supported on the left (given how anti-religion people on the left are) to shield religion from criticism. The Religious Hatred law doesn't do that.
I was always opposed to that proposition anyway:
http://www.asiansinmedia.org/news/article.php/law/998
(so I don't know what lefties you're referring to.)
If you want a better explanation of what the law actually did up entailing, read this criticism of my article above:
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2005/7/5/more-nonsense-about-the-racial-and-religious-hatred-bill.html
Next time, please read up a bit more before you attempt to spin something.
A few of us remember a funny blogger who called himself "Peter Hitchens".
He turned up all over the place and it got so bad (or funny) that the "Real" Peter Hitchens turned up at his house to plead with the usurper to stop taking his name in vain.
Is the real David Davis going to sort the putative one out?
“How exactly is it more authoritarian, that, well, say a law which prevents people from insulting religion?”
Ha-ha. Very good. The religious provision of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is one of the most illiberal pieces of legislation of the past decade.
So what chance of a repeal, eh?
Being as inciting religious hatred is my hobby and all. (Are you going to get me voting Tory?)
We should stop these parades of soldiers returning from the front line. It's something Gordon decided we should do because America does it. The military don't want such public displays, they only want to be with their friends and family and a decent night's sleep in their own beds.
I do hope the tories allow them just to fade away.
The sign "Butchers of Basra"; was trying to stir up Religious hatred. Easily a false statement designed to cause a breech of the peace. Again there must have been orders from somewhere not to arrest the demonstrators. I overall agree that there are too many laws in this country and the more we have the more we seem to need to balance up the silly laws we already have. Use the ones we have already!
Nah, it ain't a matter for statute just a bit of sensible policing instruction - time and a place what what?
I think it was the nature of the demonstration that bloody aggravated people.
It was an act of political pantomime by a vain glorious and ambitious idiot with as much wit as a peanut.
Like the rally on 1/4/9 - i'd love to go but the level of fruit cakes and utter ejeets would have me knocking on the boozer's door before opening.
There are already provisions in the Public Order Act to cover this - 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace' being the first that springs to mind.
What is needed is for whichever police force involved to enforce the law, and keep the Queen's Peace as they are mandated to do.
No need for more muddle-headed legislation.
Dick the Prick said... “I think it was the nature of the demonstration that bloody aggravated people. ”
Erm. Not to defend nor condone etc; but isn’t that rather the whole point of any demo?
David Davies is quite wrong, freedom of speech involves allowing people to say things that you find offensive.
Although as the demonstration demostrably caused a breach of the peace (see the footage that was posted on Old Holborn's blog and others) there were presumably ground for arrests - but anything more than a minor public order offence is over the top.
David Davies is quite wrong, freedom of speech involves allowing people to say things that you find offensive.
Although as the demonstration demostrably caused a breach of the peace (see the footage that was posted on Old Holborn's blog and others) there were presumably ground for arrests - but anything more than a minor public order offence is over the top.
Simon - I dunno. I guess we've got used to provocative demonstrations but I kinda thought demonstrations were a mechanism to say 'I don't agree with x or y' rather than being aggresive about it.
I guess it's easier and cheaper to shout at perceived opposition rather than be calm, measured and respectful and lobby the correct office. People seem too willing to conflate things these days - the rise of the amateur, mediocre generalist - gggrrreeaaatt!
You can demonstrate without being offensive surely.
This demo did what it set out to achieve,stir up more anti moslem sentiment.They then get more recruits too.They do not care who hates them,they happily kill each other let alone non believers,just look at the suicide bombings in the muslim countries.They have 2 million potential suicide bombers living here too.
Dick the Prick said... “I kinda thought demonstrations were a mechanism to say 'I don't agree with x or y' rather than being aggresive about it.
”
If the point in this 24/7 meeja age is publicity, then there’s little point in being anything other than aggressive about it. Otherwise, you’re rather wasting your time.
“I guess it's easier and cheaper to shout at perceived opposition rather than be calm, measured and respectful and lobby the correct office.”
I don’t think “lobbying” any office or being “calm, measured and respectful” ever got the powerless anywhere - ever.
Simon - yeah, I concede that you're probably right. It's a damn shame. The more this government treats people as scum, the more it becomes a reality. There used to be a code of honour required of office but now dishonour, tactics, triangulation and deceit.
The meeja thrive on detritus and slurry and standards are measured by what can be gotten away with. No wonder the MSM is in freefall and the BBC held as a publicly funded farce.
Dick the Prick said... “There used to be a code of honour required of office...”
If that were ever true in those halcyon days. They are very long gone. I’m not convinced it was ever true. Most of the freedoms and progress we have made over centuries in our nation have been fought for in the teeth of stiff establishment opposition. They were never given because someone asked nicely.
(Again, not to make any excuse for the particular case in point.)
There are professional paid lobbyists who are listened to - but for the unorganized ordinary person - they are paid scant regard.
Certainly now, if your demo doesn’t make the news, you’ve failed. Clearly, this one succeeded big time with very small numbers involved. Other much bigger demos in the past are very often completely ignored unless there’s some degree of violence.
I think it disingenous, rude, disrespectful and vengeful to hold our troops in such acrimony. I adore their freedom of speach - they can come round my house and we'll talk about it.
It can be seen that the middle east and all areas of conflict would be better served if the driving factor is truly Islam to unite and support each other. I find no truck with negotiating with hypocrites who haven't got game.
We do not elect our leaders - they adtapt themselves to be in the arena of clerical, poltical and judicial appointability and then ride the wave.
I think my major beef is that it was just bloody rude. There are ways to unite and ways to divide. I think a lot of radical Islam is alright (but I'm a whiskey priest)as long as it's done somewhere else; but not educating girls & women and accepting, applauding and thanking God for their brilliance is outrageous.
The Iraq war is problematic but if it has prevented them all nuking each other then I guess we're quids in. Plus, evryone's against it now - this is a time to rebuid, an Inquiry has been asked for and refused. The MOD has already prepared the documents and Parliament's authority will shift back to the chamber. Iraq was a mistake but they haven't nuked each other for another year.
Pakistan is problematic. Whilst we all proper hate lawyers and their evil collusion - they do keep accurate notes if you go to the right firm. It's really funny watching incredibly middle class people getting thrown in the back of vans. I think they're just angry that nutters stopped the cricket.
I wonder if these beards actually DO want tougher laws. They can then hide behind them to stop any criticism of their hatstand beliefs.
Post a Comment