Skip to comments.Blair outvoted on religious hatred
Posted on 01/31/2006 2:36:43 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
BRITISH Prime Minister Tony Blair was defeated today when parts of his government's plans to ban incitement to religious hatred were voted down in the House of Commons.
Amendments put forward by the House of Lords were accepted by narrow majorities of 10 and one, although the government has a theoretical majority of 65 over the opposition parties. The legislation had attracted criticism as muzzling free speech. It would have made incitement to religious hatred punishable by a jail term of up to seven years.
Junior Home Office minister Paul Goggins told the Commons: ``We are seeking to close a loophole in the law, which is not a huge loophole''.
It was designed to protect the Muslim community which cannot use existing legislation banning incitement to racial hatred because Muslims do not form a race.
But an alliance of religious leaders, humanists, artists and comedians opposed it.
It was the second time since taking office in 1997 that Blair has been defeated in the Commons.
In November parliamentarians refused to accept his call for a 90 day detention period for terrorist suspects. After the vote conservative opposition members called on Blair to quit.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government accepted the outcome of the vote.
Don't you have to have free speech before you can infringe on it?
Free speech is still alive in the Mother Country!
The Magna Carta glows a little bit brighter today.
On the second vote where the government was defeated by one vote, the Government Chief Whip had sent the Prime Minister back to Downing Street before it, telling him his vote was not needed. Whoops!
How sore is the Whip's bum going to be? LOL!!!
Does this mean Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) is happy now???
Ah, yes...the groups who benefit the most from "religious hatred"...
They have to figure out how to amend this law so that it only bans anti-Muslim "hate speech" but still allows anti-Jewish and anti-Christian "hate speech."
<< Don't you have to have free speech before you can infringe on it? >>
Special Branch! Get after and attach a D Notice to that man, to that Brilliant fellow, at once!
We'll soon show him who owns all of once-great britain's much vaunted "rights"
<< Does this mean Rowan Atkinson [Mr. Bean] is happy now??? >>
Rowan Atkinson is not Mr Bean.
Although Mr Bean sometimes does a bit of a Rowan Atkinson skit.
As a Brit freeper tell me what I cannot say and I promise to say it in my office. If its something I feel strongly about.
LOL you have to be a Mother In Law always ready to find fault
I don't know what the limits of your free speach are, but I'd be interested to know. I read things all the time that make me wonder. For example, I read about British libel lawsuits because someone said something nasty about someone.
Or maybe the media was banned from saying something bad about some politician.
Here in the US, just about anything goes. Of course, we have libel laws, but it's almost impossible to win a libel case. Dang... if you couldn't libel in the US, the entire media would be out of business.
Only if it was untrue, such as that someone stole money, or was gay or had a affair. I am sure its the same in America.
re :Or maybe the media was banned from saying something bad about some politician.
LOL that did make me smile, have you read our papers, especially the Sun, Star, Daily Express or Daily Mail.
The British Press have been described as the Rototillers of the international press pack.
If they gun for a politician that politician is dead career wise.
It has to be more than untrue in order to maintain a suit in the US.
You have to prove the other side knew it was untrue, it must be something that would naturally cause serious injury to the person's reputation, and even then, you can only recover if you can prove monetary damages to your reputation. For example, if someone knowingly spread the false rumor that a minister was an adulter, and he got fired as a result, etc. If he did not get fired, he probably would not have a case. And if he did get fired, the damages would be based on how much money he lost.
And some states have statutes that prevent you from suing unless you make a demand on the person making the statement for a retraction, and they refuse to retract.
And if you're a public figure, it's pretty damn near impossible to sue for libel and win. Chances are, the case would not even get to trial.
I seem to recall a case where some American tabloid got sued in Britain for slander. Apparently, the plaintiff realized that they could not sue in the US, so they sued in Britain.
Comedians? It is hard to imagine that comedians would have formed a major part of this alliance.
Would you speak out against homosexual "marriage" or gay "rights"? I used marriage not civil partnership as that is how Elton John's recent high profile "partnership" was repeatedly reported. Everyone in the media thought it was wonderful.
Would you speak out openly about Islam being a religion of hate and violence founded by a false prophet?
I think you have it right. This law would be turned against Christians and Jews.
re :Would you speak out against homosexual "marriage" or gay "rights"?As for Muslims they can worship what they want as long as they respect my rights I will respect there's.
I figured as much
I have a feeling I was defending Queen and Country while you were just a glint in your dads eye
I doubt it, and this Queen is not worth defending in any case.
LOL Ah are you a English Republican, a former lefty turned right, a Right Wing anarchist
LOL, do you begin all your posts with LOL?
No only when someone cracks a joke or makes me laugh.
Oliver Cromwell had the right idea and he could not be described as an anarchist. He founded the modern British Army (New Model Army).
Factoid; the famous "red coat" was seen for the first time under Cromwell. It was the cheapest dye available when they issued a standard uniform for all the troops.
Actually Oliver Cromwell is one of my Great British Heroes
Good, then we agree on something.