Free Speech in the UK

[Big War Bird]

Imagine being such a bell end that you could look at this and think, if I whinge enough I can get someone thrown in jail for this.

Then imagine being the mouth breather carrying out the arrest.

Then imagine being the lick spittle cheering it all on.

[Kyffhäuser]

Makes me wonder if Arthur returned, but he was imprisoned for improper pronouns toward a (ze/zer).

[PointOfViewGun]

You do realize that tweets are just social media posts, right? You can't "harass" anyone with those, since you can, you know, not look at them.

You're basically emptying the concept of harassment. That's a really bad defense. It's natural that the media and some people use sound bites and focus on Scottow wanting to refer to Hayden as a man, however, the real issue is of Scottow creating extra accounts with the purpose of harassing Hayden through various means. It's not a simple case of someone identifying as a woman being called a man. I know, I know, world isn't such a nice place when you consider the facts like that... So... You can't harass anyone with words, just don't listen to them... You can't harass anyone with physical violence, just don't walk in that street... You can't harass anyone using threats, just don't care about them... Sounds extremely stupid, don't they? Yup. If you're against harassment laws all together argue that. You don't need to re-frame reality like that...

[Big War Bird]

the real issue is of Scottow creating extra accounts with the purpose of harassing Hayden through various means.

Tell me more about how alt account on Twitter are crimes. I know Twitter might kick you off for it, don't you think its remarkable that Twitter's TOS is being turned into law?

[mongrel]

Imagine being such a bell end that you could look at this and think, if I whinge enough I can get someone thrown in jail for this.

Then imagine being the mouth breather carrying out the arrest.

Then imagine being the lick spittle cheering it all on.

But you haven't targeted any individual. If you spammed twitter and facebook whilst naming someone and added random slander and libel to boot at some point you will get a lawsuit. If you continue after a judge tells you to cease, you are doomed. Babies can figure this out, why can't you?

Why should I have to obey a law on compelled speech that a man is a woman?

I posted the law, has nothing to do with someone 'being a man' as you well know, it is about harassment.

Her Majesty commands that you do not harass her subjects. That is sufficient reason. If you cannot obey the Queen's laws may I suggest that a regime like Zimbabwe's is more accomodating for people with anti-trans views.


Quote me

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents


1' person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

Clearly someone who has received an interim court order to cease harassing an individual and continues such behaviour can justifiably be thrown into the cells. Obviously bang to rights. Now I have explained this to you, shall we consider your next defence of this criminal act a breach of TOS?

[PointOfViewGun]

Tell me more about how alt account on Twitter are crimes. I know Twitter might kick you off for it, don't you think its remarkable that Twitter's TOS is being turned into law?

Being turned into law? Are you suggesting that no harassment law already exists in the UK?

[Big War Bird]

Update, Britain takes another step into dystopia.

Grenfell Tower: Man pleads not guilty over effigy burning video

Paul Bussetti also pleaded not guilty to causing footage of a "menacing character" to be uploaded on YouTube.

Britain, you have a problem

Harassment is when someone behaves in a way which offends you or makes you feel distressed or intimidated. This could be abusive comments or jokes, graffiti or insulting gestures. Harassment is a form of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. If you’ve experienced this kind of behaviour you may be able to do something about it.

Read this page to find out more about harassment.

What’s meant by harassment?
Harassment is a form of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Discrimination which is against the Equality Act is unlawful. This means you can take action in the civil courts. If you’ve been treated badly, but it’s not unlawful discrimination there may be other things you can do.

Harassment is unwanted behaviour which you find offensive or which makes you feel intimidated or humiliated. It can happen on its own or alongside other forms of discrimination.

Unwanted behaviour could be:

spoken or written words or abuse
offensive emails, tweets or comments on social networking sites
images and graffiti
physical gestures
facial expressions
jokes
You don’t need to have previously objected to something for it to be unwanted.

When is harassment unlawful discrimination?
Harassment is unlawful under the Equality Act if it’s because of or connected to one of these things:

age
disability
gender reassignment
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation
The Equality Act calls these things protected characteristics. Harassment because of one of these characteristics is called harassment related to a protected characteristic.

What’s the effect of or the intention behind the harassment?
The Equality Act says it’s harassment where the behaviour is meant to or has the effect of either:

violating your dignity
creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment

This means it’s harassment even if the person harassing you didn’t mean to offend or intimidate you, as long as the harassment has one of the above effects.

[Aexodus]

The new proposed definition of Islam could prohibit criticism of Islam and Sharia and pose a threat to counterterror powers and tactics according to experts.

Terror police warn against new rules on Islamophobia - full paywalled article

Anti-terrorist operations would be hampered if Theresa May bows to pressure to create an official definition of Islamophobia, the leader of Britain’s police chiefs has warned.Martin Hewitt, chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said that the reform, proposed by backbench MPs and peers, risked exacerbating community tensions and undermining counterterrorist policing powers and tactics. His intervention comes in a letter to the prime minister, seen by The Times.

Ministers will respond in parliament tomorrow to a backbench debate on the definition. It states: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

The wording has been accepted by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London.
The Commons debate was proposed by the Labour MP Wes Streeting and the Change UK MP Anna Soubry who chair the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims. The group proposed the definition and has been concerned about rising hostility towards Muslims, including violent attacks on mosques.

The adoption of the definition, which could, in effect, make it racist to criticise Islam or “Muslimness”, would clash with existing equality law, which defines racism more narrowly in terms of colour and ethnicity. Critics fear that the reform would amount to a blasphemy law by the back door.

Anti-Islamophobia campaigners believe that, armed with a government-approved definition, they could bring complaints of discrimination to court.
Public authorities could be expected to follow the definition or risk judicial review, under which judges could be asked to rule on whether their actions amount to unlawful discrimination.

Mr Hewitt wrote to the prime minister on Friday detailing police concerns about the damage that could be caused by the definition.
He told Mrs May that he and Neil Basu, the assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard who speaks for police chiefs on terror, were concerned about the potential to “undermine many elements of counterterrorism powers and policies”.

Mr Hewitt said that the definition posed a threat to terror laws, stop-and-search at ports, the outlawing of terrorist groups, and the ban on possessing or distributing extremist material. It could also undermine the Prevent duty, which requires schools, universities, councils and the NHS to protect people vulnerable to extremism.

Mr Hewitt wrote that the term Islamophobic was “perhaps misleading in the context of hate crime . . . hate crime seeks to protect Muslims and not Islam.” A leaked Whitehall memo reveals that the government’s equality advisers believe the proposed new definition is “not in line with the Equality Act”.
Baroness Warsi, the Conservative peer who chaired the group which developed the definition, told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, however, that Mr Hewitt’s concerns amounted to “irresponsible scaremongering”.

She said the proposal would not inhibit officers in their work as it was “a non-legally binding working definition”, and accused Mr Hewitt of not engaging with the process to produce the guidance.

Officials from the Equalities Office have advised ministers that the law “defines ‘race’ as comprising colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins, none of which would encompass a Muslim or an Islamic practice”.

On Islamophobia, a report by the Policy Exchange think tank said that criticism of Sharia and Islamic traditions could be forbidden in Britain under the definition. Its lead author is Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It says the definition might have prevented the government investigating allegations of an intolerant Islamic ethos in some Birmingham schools.

“Any criticism of standard Sharia rulings which are at odds with our laws and customs . . . will become unexaminable,” it says.
The authors call for the term Islamophobia to be replaced by “Bias against Muslims” as used by the Office for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

A government spokesman said: “This matter needs careful consideration.”

The new definition states:

Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness

There’s two main problems with this.

1. Islam is a religion practiced by all ethnic groups, British Muslims can be Turks, Pakistanis, Arabs, Britons, Indonesians, and more.

2. The burqa is an expression of Muslimness. This definition would make it not only Islamophobic to criticise the burqa, but racist, which is ridiculous.

It’s a backdoor blasphemy law, as the Times says:

The adoption of the definition, which could, in effect, make it racist to criticise Islam or “Muslimness”, would clash with existing equality law, which defines racism more narrowly in terms of colour and ethnicity. Critics fear that the reform would amount to a blasphemy law by the back door.

The chairman of the national police chiefs council wrote to the prime minister:

Mr Hewitt wrote to the prime minister on Friday detailing police concerns about the damage that could be caused by the definition.

He told Mrs May that he and Neil Basu, the assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard who speaks for police chiefs on terror, were concerned about the potential to “undermine many elements of counterterrorism powers and policies”.

Mr Hewitt said that the definition posed a threat to terror laws, stop-and-search at ports, the outlawing of terrorist groups, and the ban on possessing or distributing extremist material. It could also undermine the Prevent duty, which requires schools, universities, councils and the NHS to protect people vulnerable to extremism.

Mr Hewitt wrote that the term Islamophobic was “perhaps misleading in the context of hate crime . . . hate crime seeks to protect Muslims and not Islam.” A leaked Whitehall memo reveals that the government’s equality advisers believe the proposed new definition is “not in line with the Equality Act”.

However well intentioned, the proposed definition would do more harm than good.

Counter-extremism activists from Quillam have also spoken out against the new definition. I reccomend you read this article.

The guidelines continue: it is apparently “Islamophobic” to deny “Muslim self-determination”, whatever that means, when it doesn’t mean a sharia-enforcing state.

The document cites Palestine and Kashmir as examples of “Muslim self-determination” but when did Parliament endorse terrorist groups Hamas’ and LET’s worldviews that these national struggles should be viewed as religious struggles?

To preempt this criticism, the document provides the example that considering those “Muslim” states as terrorist states is “Islamophobic”. But Hamas controls Gaza, and is indeed a terrorist group.

What’s so “Islamophobic” about saying that?

The examples also conveniently leave out internal independence movements, like the secular Kurds.

The letter from the NPCC chair also said:

“We are concerned that the definition is too broad as currently drafted, could cause confusion for officers enforcing it and could be used to challenge legitimate free speech on the historical or theological actions of Islamic states.

Theresa May is reportedly going to reject the definition on freedom of speech grounds. Which is funny because normally she doesn’t give a rat’s ass about free speech.

[Axalon]

Personally, I think that...

Islamophobia is a BS-term, built on a BS-premise, devised to provide a BS-excuse, for a BS-movement. Its a poorly disguised propaganda-term that aims to shield and protect Islam from any valid, rational and warranted criticisms. The term of "Islamophobia" was crafted out of a blatant misuse of the meaning and context of "phobia". Its devised to suggest to us that Islam is something supposedly "rational" and/or "natural" - while any criticism of the same would thus be supposedly "irrational" and/or "unnatural". In short, the concept of "Islamophobia" is a construct, devised to serve a lie while dressed up and sold to the world as a truth. The term as such makes as much sense as "Naziophobia" or "Communistophobia" would do - and has as much credibility as any such terms would have... Yup zero.

Just saying...

- A

[PointOfViewGun]

Personally, I think that...
Islamophobia is a BS-term, built on a BS-premise, devised to provide a BS-excuse, for a BS-movement. Its a poorly disguised propaganda-term that aims to shield and protect Islam from any valid, rational and warranted criticisms. The term of "Islamophobia" was crafted out of a blatant misuse of the meaning and context of "phobia". Its devised to suggest to us that Islam is something supposedly "rational" and/or "natural" - while any criticism of the same would thus be supposedly "irrational" and/or "unnatural". In short, the concept of "Islamophobia" is a construct, devised to serve a lie while dressed up and sold to the world as a truth. The term as such makes as much sense as "Naziophobia" or "Communistophobia" would do - and has as much credibility as any such terms would have... Yup zero.
Just saying...
- A

Well, pretty much nothing you said is grounded in reality. People often whine about the usage of the term before its use in a medium. We had many threads here where people started making statements like "you're gonna accuse me of Islamophobia, won't you?" before anyone actually uses the term. Hence, much of the objection against the term is people trying to shut down criticism of their criticism of Islam. In time, it took a life of its own which prompts comments such as yours.

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, pretty much nothing you said is grounded in reality. People often whine about the usage of the term before its use in a medium. We had many threads here where people started making statements like "you're gonna accuse me of Islamophobia, won't you?" before anyone actually uses the term. Hence, much of the objection against the term is people trying to shut down criticism of their criticism of Islam. In time, it took a life of its own which prompts comments such as yours.

You didn't really address anything he said in the part you quoted, nor have you proved that his statement "isn't grounded in reality", you just seem to be upset that he deubnked the whole "islamophobia" myth in a few sentences.

[PointOfViewGun]

You didn't really address anything he said in the part you quoted, nor have you proved that his statement "isn't grounded in reality", you just seem to be upset that he deubnked the whole "islamophobia" myth in a few sentences.

What did I address then?

[Axalon]

Well,...

Obviously, you are free to believe whatever you want. As for me, I am not interested
in any further discussions or interactions with you, here or elsewhere...

- A

[Aexodus]

Well, pretty much nothing you said is grounded in reality. People often whine about the usage of the term before its use in a medium. We had many threads here where people started making statements like "you're gonna accuse me of Islamophobia, won't you?" before anyone actually uses the term. Hence, much of the objection against the term is people trying to shut down criticism of their criticism of Islam. In time, it took a life of its own which prompts comments such as yours.

Do you agree or disagree with the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia? That is to say, anti-muslim sentiment

[PointOfViewGun]

Do you agree or disagree with the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia? That is to say, anti-muslim sentiment

Sure. I don't see much of a problem with how they described it. Islamophobia is a form of bigotry that often leads to discrimination.

[Aexodus]

Do you believe that it should include denying Muslim self determination or calling Palestine a terror state? That’s Islamophobic under the definition.

[PointOfViewGun]

Do you believe that it should include denying Muslim self determination or calling Palestine a terror state? That’s Islamophobic under the definition.

Denying Muslims self-determination? What you mean? Calling Palestine a terror state is a political statement just like how some call USA a terror state. I don't see how that falls within that definition.

[Aexodus]

Me neither. But the it falls within the definition the APPG came up with.

[Basil II the B.S]

https://order-order.com/2019/05/16/s...ia-definition/
Public figures make an appeal to govt to reject Islamophobia definition.

This includes one of my favourites, Maajid Nawaaz.

Good occasion for Sharia May to show which side is she on.

[PointOfViewGun]

Me neither. But the it falls within the definition the APPG came up with.

You don't think it falls within that definition? Then you say it falls within that, which is APPG's definition, definition. Does not compute.