Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Blair outvoted on religious hatred
Herald Sun ^ | 1 February 2006

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: defeated; dhimmi; dhimmitude; england; eurabia; fakehatecrimes; freespeech; libertarians; poms; religion; speechgestapo; thoughtpolice; tonyblair; uk; vilification
Nice to see the Poms showing some common sense!
1 posted on 01/31/2006 2:36:45 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Don't you have to have free speech before you can infringe on it?


2 posted on 01/31/2006 2:45:35 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Free speech is still alive in the Mother Country!

The Magna Carta glows a little bit brighter today.


3 posted on 01/31/2006 2:46:19 PM PST by CondorFlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

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!


4 posted on 01/31/2006 2:54:42 PM PST by gary_b_UK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gary_b_UK

How sore is the Whip's bum going to be? LOL!!!


5 posted on 01/31/2006 2:57:22 PM PST by Aussie Dasher (The Great Ronald Reagan & John Paul II - Heaven's Dream Team!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Aussie Dasher

Does this mean Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) is happy now???


7 posted on 01/31/2006 4:09:35 PM PST by Kommodor (Is it just me or has the Fourth Estate become the Fifth Column?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
But an alliance of religious leaders, humanists, artists and comedians opposed it.

Ah, yes...the groups who benefit the most from "religious hatred"...

8 posted on 01/31/2006 4:44:48 PM PST by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
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.

Bump

9 posted on 01/31/2006 5:16:26 PM PST by A. Pole (Joanne Senier-LaBarre: "We Wish You a Swinging Holiday!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
ban incitement to 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."

10 posted on 01/31/2006 7:38:22 PM PST by Alouette (Please pray for Israel: Psalms of the Day: 10-17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant; Aussie Dasher

<< 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"


11 posted on 01/31/2006 9:58:09 PM PST by Brian Allen (How arrogant are we to believe our career political-power-lusting lumpen somehow superior to theirs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kommodor; Aussie Dasher

<< 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.


12 posted on 01/31/2006 10:01:01 PM PST by Brian Allen (How arrogant are we to believe our career political-power-lusting lumpen somehow superior to theirs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
re :Don't you have to have free speech before you can infringe on it?

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.

No profanity

13 posted on 02/01/2006 5:31:16 AM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
re :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."

LOL you have to be a Mother In Law always ready to find fault

14 posted on 02/01/2006 5:32:54 AM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh

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.


15 posted on 02/01/2006 5:48:21 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
re :I read about British libel lawsuits because someone said something nasty about someone.

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.

16 posted on 02/01/2006 8:01:46 AM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh

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.


17 posted on 02/01/2006 8:18:25 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
But an alliance of religious leaders, humanists, artists and comedians opposed it.

Comedians? It is hard to imagine that comedians would have formed a major part of this alliance.

18 posted on 02/01/2006 8:35:18 AM PST by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh

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?


19 posted on 02/01/2006 1:21:09 PM PST by protest1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alouette

I think you have it right. This law would be turned against Christians and Jews.


20 posted on 02/01/2006 1:27:22 PM PST by protest1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: protest1

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.


21 posted on 02/01/2006 2:09:37 PM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh

I figured as much


22 posted on 02/01/2006 2:57:08 PM PST by protest1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: protest1
LOL what a great come back.

I have a feeling I was defending Queen and Country while you were just a glint in your dads eye

23 posted on 02/01/2006 11:15:57 PM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh

I doubt it, and this Queen is not worth defending in any case.


24 posted on 02/02/2006 10:36:31 AM PST by protest1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: protest1

LOL Ah are you a English Republican, a former lefty turned right, a Right Wing anarchist


25 posted on 02/02/2006 11:09:26 PM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh

LOL, do you begin all your posts with LOL?


26 posted on 02/03/2006 8:18:28 AM PST by protest1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: protest1

No only when someone cracks a joke or makes me laugh.


27 posted on 02/03/2006 8:23:25 AM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh

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.


28 posted on 02/03/2006 8:47:44 AM PST by protest1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: protest1
re :Oliver Cromwell had the right idea.

Actually Oliver Cromwell is one of my Great British Heroes

29 posted on 02/03/2006 9:50:29 AM PST by tonycavanagh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tonycavanagh

Good, then we agree on something.


30 posted on 02/03/2006 11:08:41 AM PST by protest1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson