What is wrong with some of you? I have a right to be offensive, much as you have a right to be offen, page 3

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
My take on this here in the UK is that we have 2 freedoms of speech, one Muslim and one Anyone else.

The Muslim / Radical version goes like this: SAY ANYTHING YOU LIKE AND BE AS INSULTING AND THREATENING AS YOU LIKE AND RUBBISH ANY RELIGION YOU LIKE.

And the Anyone else is like this: Say what you like as long as you don't mention Islam, if you do then apologists for Islam and Radical Islamics will call you what they like and be as threatening as they like. And of course from out of the wood work will come the oh so PC floaters looking to seem intelligent and not the spoon fed saps they are.

This is the UK. We have no legally enshrined right to free speech at all. If someone doesn't like what you are saying, and they have the money to do it, they can apply to a Court for a gagging order. Then, unless you successfully challenge the ruling, you will be imprisoned if you breach the ruling.

As for the bogus jingoism of "Hatespeech" and "Hatecrimes", there was no need whatsoever to roll out a raft of new legislation to cover any so called "hatecrime". We already had perfectly workable legislation to cover anything like that. If a white man gets beaten up by a white man, then we had laws to cover it. Depending on the seriousness of the attack, there is the Criminal charge of "Common assault occasioning Actual / Grievious bodily harm.". But the way the law was enforced by the Police, (low priority, and too much bother to vigorously pursue in most cases) meant that the chance of an appropriately robust conviction was minimal.

So in order to take the onus of effectively implementing the Law away from the Police, and allow them to continue treating assault as "low priority", the "Hatecrime" legislation meant they could selectively use their resources on
crimes that are more politically sensitive, and then make them "target crimes"..

So for instance, in scenario 1/ A white man gets beaten up by 3 other blokes on his way home from the Pub, and suffers a broken rib, and concussion, and spends 2 nights in hospital. This will not be investigated, or pursued with much vigour or zeal on the part of the Police. A low priority crime. Take statements, make a few enquiries, and if if there's nothing much to go on, then shelve it.

Scenario 2/ A Black man is attacked by 3 white blokes, who are heard to call him a a "'n-word'" during the course of the attack, in which he suffers a split lip and a black eye. In this case, the Police will be right onto it. They will put the time, manpower, and resources into investigating this one simply on account of it being a "hatecrime". Two men getting assaulted, one quite seriously, should merit the same level of Police response, regardless of race, or motivation. In fact, due to the seriousness of the injuries, scenario one should get more manpower. But it wont.

This leads to headlines like "A sharp rise in the number of hatecrimes being brought before the Courts", making the Police seem more efficient, and less institutionally racist. But it's at the cost of redirecting resources away from every other equally deserving Assault. Both crimes are equally unacceptable. Both are adequately covered by existing legislature. But only one is deemed worthy of investigating properly, and this only for political reasons. .

Do you see Russian embassies attacked worldwide? No, because they haven't been starting foreign battles all over the world and staging coup's etc etc. Sure, Russia deals with terrorism but mostly "blow back" because of what happened in Chechnya .

Do you see Russian embassies attacked worldwide? No, because they haven't been starting foreign

battles all over the world and staging coup's etc etc. Sure, Russia deals with terrorism but mostly "blow back"

because of what happened in Chechnya .