Islamaphobia Legislation (UK)

[Thecaferacer]

well in an ideal world, the woman would have had the manners to not post the quote with the pigs in the first place, but as that didn’t happen; an appropriate response would have been to try and engage the woman in conversation, understand what she was trying to achieve by posting the quote with the pigs and explain why it was potentially offensive to Muslims (and correct the misquote ).

If that didn’t work then some form of escalation, possibly asking the police to have a word (but nothing more) might be appropriate depending on the tone and nature of the initial conversation.

Unfortunately, it seems that this ‘reasonable conversation’ scenario is just wishful thinking. It does feel like a lot of people missed out on the ‘basic manners’ lessons at primary school.

Basic manners doesn't come in to it. In a free society people have the right to hold views and articulate them, regardless of how blunt or unsophisticated they are. She is allowed to hold views and communicate them and she is under no obligation to listen to the other side. Just as nobody is forced to look at her window.

And no, there is no escalation to police "having a word" as that's using an instrument of the state to coerce somebodies opinion. They are there to uphold and enforce the law. If no laws are broken then it's not a police matter. The only reason for police to be involved would be to prevent a breach of the peace, which would involve arresting those who sought to cause harm to the lady with the pigs

The only appropriate response, if she wasn't willing to engage, is to publically show something with a counter argument. Something like a poster saying "bigots with porcelain pigs can't hurt me"

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

If you had read my earlier comments, you would see that I don’t agree with the police response, I don’t believe she should be prosecuted and I don’t believe that what she did should be made illegal.

Freedom of speech doesn’t absolve you of responsibility or the consequences of that speech. Those consequences shouldn’t be a criminal record (unless as you say, it’s a call to violence) but if you’re going to be a ****, don’t be surprised if people respond accordingly.

It does resolve you of any consequences, what other people do is not your responsibility. Calls to violence are already covered in law (including in America). What other legislation are you suggesting for hate speech? Being a **** is a choice, being prosecuted for someones interpretation of you being a **** is not something anyone should be advocating for.

 

[sinwave]

Time to go down the rabbit hole, i highly recommend everyone here see this 3-part documentary of what could happen when you let the inmates take over the asylum:

The point where Bret Weinstein was accused of racism, then told not only he can't defend himself, but asking for evidence itself is racism was just jaw dropping.


The thought police is coming for most of us, make no doubt about it, they want to completely control our thinking, we've already have thin end of the wedge with transphobic hate speech being targeted, and propaganda being peddled in schools. They see how well it's going so now they are expanding it to other areas. Before long it's be dangerous to hold any opinon at all

fascinating, disgusting, and terrifying. I'd heard about Weinstein, but hadn't seen this documented in depth.

thanks.

Basic manners doesn't come in to it. In a free society people have the right to hold views and articulate them, regardless of how blunt or unsophisticated they are. She is allowed to hold views and communicate them and she is under no obligation to listen to the other side. Just as nobody is forced to look at her window.

And no, there is no escalation to police "having a word" as that's using an instrument of the state to coerce somebodies opinion. They are there to uphold and enforce the law. If no laws are broken then it's not a police matter. The only reason for police to be involved would be to prevent a breach of the peace, which would involve arresting those who sought to cause harm to the lady with the pigs

The only appropriate response, if she wasn't willing to engage, is to publically show something with a counter argument. Something like a poster saying "bigots with porcelain pigs can't hurt me"

not in australia or the UK apparently. the police prevent a breach of the peace by neutralising the easiest target.

In Denmark where the police protect a man throwing the quran about in a public space from violent muslims, yes.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

For the record lads, this article is from 1998, so 21 years ago.

Well in an ideal world, the woman would have had the manners to not post the quote with the pigs in the first place, but as that didn’t happen; an appropriate response would have been to try and engage the woman in conversation, understand what she was trying to achieve by posting the quote with the pigs and explain why it was potentially offensive to Muslims (and correct the misquote ).

If that didn’t work then some form of escalation, possibly asking the police to have a word (but nothing more) might be appropriate depending on the tone and nature of the initial conversation.

Unfortunately, it seems that this ‘reasonable conversation’ scenario is just wishful thinking. It does feel like a lot of people missed out on the ‘basic manners’ lessons at primary school.

Yea she was obviously on the wind up. I do think it's not right that police intervened by removing her personal property from her home because it offended someone. This is dangerous ground in itself.

 

[Thecaferacer]

not in australia or the UK apparently. the police prevent a breach of the peace by neutralising the easiest target.

In Denmark where the police protect a man throwing the quran about in a public space from violent muslims, yes.

In the UK it's pretty clear as it's a common law offence. The person arrested for breach of the peace is the person likely to commit an act, not the person causing the insult/offence

 

[sinwave]

In the UK it's pretty clear as it's a common law offence. The person arrested for breach of the peace is the person likely to commit an act, not the person causing the insult/offence

and they tend to decide the act to arrest for is provoking the mob.

path of least resistance.

 

[Thecaferacer]

and they tend to decide the act to arrest for is provoking the mob.

I don't know where you have seen examples of that. People may be arrested for other offences relating to public order, but nobody has been attested for breach of the peace (at least legally) if they aren't committing any offences.

 

[sinwave]

I don't know where you have seen examples of that. People may be arrested for other offences relating to public order, but nobody has been attested for breach of the peace (at least legally) if they aren't committing any offences.

i'll give you that i've stretched on saying that they do arrest. I only mentioned arrest in reflex response to your post mentioning arrest.

they imply a threat of arrest on the basis of breach of the peace in Australia, see lauren southern. Whether the police man would have genuinely resorted to arrest or done it for breach of the peace as he said he would, we will never know because the threat was heeded.

in the case of pig lady they dont' appear to have arrested anyone but instead confiscated property to neutralise the easiest target.

splitting hairs here. they'll use whatever is in their power to be lazy or cover their arses

 

[Thecaferacer]

Australia is different as they don't adhere to PACE 1984.

The reality is these kinds of cases make up a percentage so small of overall jobs that it's almost impossible to register the percentage. When police do attend they try and deal with what is an unwinnable situation with the least fuss possibly. Refusing to deal because it's not the polices job or delving into the realms of thought crime causes enormous issues for them with those from above wanting action

 

[enkoda]

I don't know where you have seen examples of that. People may be arrested for other offences relating to public order, but nobody has been attested for breach of the peace (at least legally) if they aren't committing any offences.

Really?

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/20...s-street-preacher-police-arrest-the-christian

"A man with a hoodie was trying to humiliate, to be aggressive towards this Christian street preacher," Ambrosine says. "I could see that he was a Muslim man because he was talking about. 'No. Allah is the right way'."

But London police didn't arrest the Muslim man for threatening a Christian preacher -- instead, they arrested Preacher Olu.

I wonder why they didn't arrest the potentially violent aggressor who was intimidating the preacher?

 

[sinwave]

Australia is different as they don't adhere to PACE 1984.

The reality is these kinds of cases make up a percentage so small of overall jobs that it's almost impossible to register the percentage. When police do attend they try and deal with what is an unwinnable situation with the least fuss possibly. Refusing to deal because it's not the polices job or delving into the realms of thought crime causes enormous issues for them with those from above wanting action

i'm not saying i envy their jobs or would do better.

i'd also like to say I don't want to accuse police officers of individual laziness. The system would tie their hands even if they wanted to do better.

 

[Thecaferacer]

Really?

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/20...s-street-preacher-police-arrest-the-christian



I wonder why they didn't arrest the potentially violent aggressor who was intimidating the preacher?

Didn't you see my quote "legally"

There's no such offence as "breaching somebody's peace" which leads on to preacher Olu potentially being illegally detained.

I would be happy to argue his arrest was a serious breach of procedure.

 

[Irish_Tom]

In a free society people have the right to hold views and articulate them, regardless of how blunt or unsophisticated they are. She is allowed to hold views and communicate them and she is under no obligation to listen to the other side. Just as nobody is forced to look at her window.

This is very true, but I’d argue that basic manners absolutely come into it. Why be a **** to your neighbours like that?

And no, there is no escalation to police "having a word" as that's using an instrument of the state to coerce somebodies opinion. They are there to uphold and enforce the law. If no laws are broken then it's not a police matter. The only reason for police to be involved would be to prevent a breach of the peace, which would involve arresting those who sought to cause harm to the lady with the pigs.

Why wait for something bad to happen before intervening if a simple conversation could have averted it? Prevention is better than a cure after all. The police and other social services often perform community support work so that they don’t have to deal with criminal activity in the future (or at least they did before their budgets were cut…) Maybe the police aren’t the right instrument, but so often these days they become the arbiter of disagreements because we’ve lost the social structures we once had that used to deal with these kinds of things.

The only appropriate response, if she wasn't willing to engage, is to publically show something with a counter argument. Something like a poster saying "bigots with porcelain pigs can't hurt me"

That’s certainly one response.

It does resolve you of any consequences, what other people do is not your responsibility. Calls to violence are already covered in law (including in America). What other legislation are you suggesting for hate speech? Being a **** is a choice, being prosecuted for someones interpretation of you being a **** is not something anyone should be advocating for.

Not sure how many times I have to repeat myself but I am not advocating for anyone to be prosecuted.

 

[sinwave]

This is very true, but I’d argue that basic manners absolutely come into it. Why be a **** to your neighbours like that?

ASBO situation?

am not familiar with the criteria for ASBO.

 

[EvilSooty]

Irish_Tom:

"Not sure how many times I have to repeat myself but I am not advocating for anyone to be prosecuted"

Yet you do advocate the police being set upon people (to have a friendly discussion about their thought crime) for having views you find unacceptable.

"If that didn’t work then some form of escalation, possibly asking the police to have a word (but nothing more) might be appropriate depending on the tone and nature of the initial conversation."

 

[Irish_Tom]

Irish_Tom:

"Not sure how many times I have to repeat myself but I am not advocating for anyone to be prosecuted"

Yet you do advocate the police being set upon people (to have a friendly discussion about their thought crime) for having views you find unacceptable.

"If that didn’t work then some form of escalation, possibly asking the police to have a word (but nothing more) might be appropriate depending on the tone and nature of the initial conversation."

It’s not about thought crime.

She can continue to be bigoted all she likes. I’m not suggesting the police force her to change her views, but maybe suggest she take down the quote (not the pigs) from her window to keep the peace in her neighbourhood. That would seem like a reasonable compromise for all involved and would avoid the situation getting any worse before the police really do have to intervene. It’s hardly 1984 is it?

If not the police or a community support officer (or whatever they’re called), then what other form of arbitration is there for neighbourly disputes after initial conversations have failed to reach an adequate conclusion?

Let’s use a hypothetical alternative example away from religion:

If I moved to Liverpool and stuck a LFC scarf in my window, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with it (except maybe Everton fans). If I then added a copy of The Sun’s infamous ‘The Truth’ front page (I could even change it to ‘The Facts’ so it wasn’t a direct copy) I think my neighbours would take issue with it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the police came around and asked me to take it down (if they could get there before I got a brick through my window).

It’s quite a simple premise — treat your neighbours in a civilised manner and don’t make an effort to antagonise each other. I’m not sure why that is so hard to understand.

 

[enkoda]

It’s not about thought crime.

She can continue to be bigoted all she likes. I’m not suggesting the police force her to change her views, but maybe suggest she take down the quote (not the pigs) from her window to keep the peace in her neighbourhood. That would seem like a reasonable compromise for all involved and would avoid the situation getting any worse before the police really do have to intervene. It’s hardly 1984 is it?

If not the police or a community support officer (or whatever they’re called), then what other form of arbitration is there for neighbourly disputes after initial conversations have failed to reach an adequate conclusion?

Let’s use a hypothetical alternative example away from religion:

If I moved to Liverpool and stuck a LFC scarf in my window, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with it (except maybe Everton fans). If I then added a copy of The Sun’s infamous ‘The Truth’ front page (I could even change it to ‘The Facts’ so it wasn’t a direct copy) I think my neighbours would take issue with it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the police came around and asked me to take it down (if they could get there before I got a brick through my window).

It’s quite a simple premise — treat your neighbours in a civilised manner and don’t make an effort to antagonise each other. I’m not sure why that is so hard to understand.

I would expect reprisals in your analogy above because it's a real event where people died.

Respecting someone's right to a belief is perfectly fine, but the moment that person expects compliance with their beliefs from other people, then absolutely no, regardless of how offended that person feels.

 

[Irish_Tom]

I would expect reprisals in your analogy above because it's a real event where people died.

Respecting someone's right to a belief is perfectly fine, but the moment that person expects compliance with their beliefs from other people, then absolutely no, regardless of how offended that person feels.

So it’s not a free speech issue at all - it’s a ‘free speech only when it relates to religion’ issue. Got it.

As I keep coming back to; it’s not about the pigs themselves. By all accounts no one complained when it was just the pigs on display.

The issue arose when the woman deliberately and overtly added a message to the pigs which targeted her Muslim neighbours. The consequence of her action was that she had her pigs confiscated.

Now I’ve already said that I think the response was heavy-handed. However, she only has herself to blame. If she hadn’t gone out of her way to upset other people she would still be the proud owner of her stupid pig collection.

So it’s not about the Muslims ‘expecting compliance with their beliefs’ at all - it’s about not being a **** to others - as per my Liverpool analogy.

 

[Thecaferacer]

Your analogy isn't appropriate though. Hillsborough was a tragedy not a belief system. That would be like somebody posting a sign up saying "the Manchester victims deserved it" or "the Holocaust was a lie". Both are on par with outraging public decency offences and constitute the section 5 public order offence

A correct analogy would be Christians getting offended by somebody pitting a Bad Religion band poster in their window or a Star Trek poster with "more realistic than Scientology"

 

[James_Duncan_Smith]

I reckon Neo didn't have to do as much dodging as some people here in trying to justify why certain groups have to be placated.

Then again I reckon long ago a decision was made in the higher echelons to bow down to the ideology. The percentage continues to grow, the supposed integration and liberalisation that we were promised hasn't happened. All we are doing now is waiting whilst greedy politicians start to solicit the vote. (And the police do what is easy for an easier life)