Nonsense, as is being pointed out time and again, expressing an opinion is not in itself insulting......Section 5 deals with the Use of Insulting Words and Behaviour, not the expression of a legitimate opinion......I was not insulting to anyone, I was giving a legitimate opinion on what I consider the motivation of some people.
Just because you say you cannot insult someone without insulting words of behaviour, doesn't make it so. "Personally, I think black people are intellectually inferior to white men" is still an insulting sentance without any profanity, and you calling people underhanded racists is typically more insulting that me calling you a "big fat moron".
The latter insult there has been posted somewhere I can reasonably believe you're going to read it, it s fairly insulting, and if you happen to need an extreme amount of mollycoddling I suppose it could cause distress. That I can be fined £2000 for an off-the-cuff remark based on whether or not you can handle a little banter is ridiculous.
OK, sure, today I might not get prosecuted for such a thing, but that doesn't mean it won't be applied somewhere as equally ridiculous at another point in time, or as just yet another tool that can be easily used to abuse citizens when they can't get them for what they wanted to get them for.
If you are not within those groups or your motivations are otherwise, then you have no reason to be insulted, and if you are one of those groups then you shouldn't be insulted either as I have no used any insulting words or behaviour in expressing my opinion.....all the racist has to so is counter my opinion for example.
Actually I think if I were a racist, I wouldn't particularly be insulted by the term. I'm pretty sure branding an ordinary person a racist is pretty insulting, and you'd probably be the only person to disagree with that. The fact you can have a different opinion to what is normal, suggests that people applying the law can also have differing opinions, which is why we don't need laws such as this.
Thus the need for such laws.
Proving the necessity of laws, doesn't prove the need for laws, or a Government to control all aspects of our lives. Ideally what is and is not illegal should be explainable in a short pamphlet, otherwise ignorance of the law is a valid defence regardless of whether we accept it as one or not.
The point I was making is that you logic is entirely based on the reasonable demeanour of all involved to respect each others personal rights.....that is not based in reality...thus we have laws, such as S5.
Logic may vary from person to person, but that doesn't mean our current system has been planned from any logical perspective. Regardless, laws shouldn't rely on logic to interpret, they should be clear & concise, and there should be a lack of arguments on what can and can not be considered unacceptable, and if you can't write it that way, you need to stop writing laws.
Again you are making out I said something I did not.......I merely stated that a Governments job is to Govern....which includes maintaining law and order.....I made no reference to any specific type of Governance or the benefits or disadvantages thereof.
Then I fail to see why you even brought it up. You pulled that I didn't believe Governments should govern out of no where. How can I be faulted by reading more into that?
You appear to be creating an argument that no one is actually having.
Not really. What you feel the Government should and should not be doing is at the core of this debate. You seem to support a nanny state, and agree with the law in all but possibly the way it has been worded. I disagree with the law in favour of personal freedoms.
I have seen and experienced societies where effective Governance and the rule of law has broken down....unfortunately what invariably happens is that people quickly revert to their baser instincts.....some will try to band together and create smaller protective communities, create their own set of boundaries and laws, however some will simply ignore that and do whatever they wish, to whomever they want. These people are not swayed by public acceptance, they are motivated by their greed and lust for power and the ability to persecute whoever they like and take whatever they like.
Well thats sad for them, but I fail to see what direct correlation it has to my opinion that laws should be minimal as opposed to non-existent. There is a greater chances of our society crumbling because we do too much and can no longer afford to keep going the way that we do, than for everyone to go mad, because the police are going to mind their own business except when it's warranted.
You are being idealistic if you think that a fair and equal society comes without the need for imposing at least some rules on that society.
At no point did I say that, you're constantly twisting my argument to seem silly rather than come back at what I actually said. I know constant strawmans are your debating style, but why don't you try a different tactic for once?
Unfortunately we don't live in your idealistic, utopian world where everyone is reasonable and no one feels superior to another simply because of an inherent trait such as skin colour. I too would like to see the idea of minorities sweat away, and people see everyone as simply being one race, one people.
We don't no, but I do believe we live in a world, or at least a country, where the majority of people are inherently good, and I feel that legislation discrimination breeds the very contempt that we are afraid of.
We simply do not live in such a world.
I guess you have less faith in our country than I do.
Yet is it harassment if each time he is vilified by someone different.....what if 100 people call him "fatty" only once....by your logic, none of those people are doing anything illegal and thus it is ok for them to so so....yet is the child subject to any less harm?
By my logic, it shouldn't actually happen unless it's a conceited effot to actually bully. If a bunch of kids get together and decide to pick on someone, it's harassment. If a kid eats too many burgers and manages to invoke the same reaction in 100 seperate incidents, then he should consider a diet. Either way, you're not going to hunt down 100 seperate people no matter which way you spin it.
And Section 5 is quite clear that any insult must also fit into certain criteria as has been mentioned plenty of times, this included it being harassing or causing distress etc....
"(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
Opinion based.
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
Opinion based. Also, by extension should include online forums.
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
Opinion based.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible
representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
OK. So I can insult you in my own house?
(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
Opinion based.
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
Fair enough, in my own house I can be racist.
(c)that his conduct was reasonable."
Opinion based.
Because it isn't just about the individual, it is also about the wider society.....just because an individual cannot effectively be insulted, doesn't mean that society should allow such behaviour......the law should apply equally to everyone and the issue here is not the law itself, but the way it has been applied in very certain circumstances. The compromise would be to clarify the way in which the law is to be applied, not remove it or weaken it.
The law is **** in onto itself. Other laws should be able to deal with the real issue surroding the problem of harrasment. I don't believe clarifying how a law should be applied is a defence, it certainly won't be helpful when the next guys in power decide it should be applied differently.
I am not ignoring anything....I simply know that the world is not as reasonable as you suggest. Ask a homosexual how they feel about the casual insult or how often it occurs? I grew up in a community where it was acceptable behaviour to insult and demean me because of my mothers heritage...and again in another community where that heritage was the norm, but it was socially ok to demean my Father's heritage instead, there was little I could do about it simply because the protections did not exist in the laws of that society.....I was generally told to "take it on the chin, you'll get used to it, its just the way it is"......what may seem as trivial casual insults to some are not so trivial and casual to those that are subjected to them regularly, even if not by the same person.
And because you took it in the chin, you can actually take it. Not that I find that behaviour acceptable, I just don't feel it's done you enough damange to warrent the abusive nature of the law.
Everyone has a basic right to go about their business without being unreasonably insulted or subjected to unreasonable insulting behaviour, and society should enforce that right...that doesn't mean that all insults are illegal and the legislation doesn't say that they are either........which is something people cannot seem to grasp for some reason.
Because everyone besides you has a grasp of the idea that the interpretation of laws depends on a) whos reading it and b) the agendas of those enforcing it. For some reason, despite you mass of experince, you don't seem to have a healthy fear of Government.
(rolleyes directed at stupid laws rather than Castiel
