Should it be a crime to slur a “community”? David Irving went to jail for slurring the Jews via his Holocaust denial. I don’t think he should have done. The way to deal with despicable people is through reason and ridicule. If Willows had defamed one identifiable person or identifiable persons, then it would be deemed slander or libel. Punishing someone makes a martyr of them in the eyes of their supporters and effectively shuts down the debate. It won’t be Willows next time, but someone who makes a slightly lesser slur against gay people or Jews or an ethnic minority. He or she will be punished. Then it will need a lesser slur – hardly a slur at all, perhaps. When will they come for you and me?Yes, it rankles no end to hear these nutcases, and the religious nutjobs who bang on about gay marriage, adoption, merely being gay (look what’s happening in the C of E). But do we want to stifle debate? Do we want to end free expression, just because we don’t agree with it? I think we step on that old cliché, the slippery slope; or clutch that other cliché, the thin end of the wedge.
As we are in cliché city, why tar everyone with the same brush. One cannot deny that there are commonalities within ethnic or religious groups, races, countries or other collectives including gays and lesbians.Whether these differences are deemed complimentary or derogatory, the politically correct loonies feel that this is divisive, and should be prevented, as we are “all equal and all the same.”Utter crap! If I say that person has dark skin, curly hair and thick lips, am I being racist, or merely observational?At the end of the day, Peter Willows is misguided and ignorant, but I suspect not malicious. Had he been simply approached, talked to and shown the error of his ways, I suspect no more would have been said. The fact that his co-councillors dragged a 76 year old man over the coals, and had him arrested and taken to court of such a trivial matter shows why the country is in such a mess. People should get their bloody priorities right.
From the PinkNews article – ‘Mr. Ledward told the court that Paul Elgood asked Willows, “Why are you saying all gay men are paedophiles?”Mr Ledward said Willows replied “they are.”He then asked Willows, “You know Paul is gay, do you think he is a paedophile?”Mr. Ledward told the court that Willows replied, “I know he’s not, it’s all the other gays.”The reason this form of hate speech should be criminalized rests on the direct and unassailable linkage of hate speech and violence. “Paedophile” is an emotionally loaded charge. When it’s repeated endlessly and combined with other forms of prejudicial propaganda it invariably leads to harassment, abuse and often violence, even if not immediately. Hate speech emboldens the thugs and creates a political atmosphere that ends in violence. Although often masked by religious bigotry like that of Williams, Akinola, Der Pope Ratzinger, Paisley or Phelps both their bigotry and the violence it seeds are ultimately political acts and have political consequences. Bigotry is the ultimate divide and rule tactic of the ruling rich, and has many forms – gaybashing, misogyny, racism, and class prejudice. When their rule is questioned by approaching social crises’ reactionaries, conservatives and right wingers habitually haul them out and begin using them in earnest. My own opinion is that the penalties for hate speech should include harsh jail time and confiscation of all their assets without compensation to pay for antibigotry programs and to compensate the victims of bigots when it immediately inspires or accompanies violence. Examples would be the concerts of hatemonger’s like Jamaican reggae performers Beenie Man or Buju Banton, the BNP’s racist campaigns or Paisleys bigoted attacks on gays and the Irish. And for lesser criminals like Willows the penalties should include forced reeducation and confiscation of their assets. The beatings, murders and other kinds of abuse inspired by hatemonger’s are intolerable. These aren’t the Dark Ages and we shouldn’t have to live with that fear.
Bill: If I attack you in the street because I don’t like you, and get arrested for it, I will be sentenced to X.However, if I attack you and call you a “poof” , “nigger” or a “spastic” etc, I would most likely get X+, simply because of the motivation behind the crime. Personally, I think this actually nullifies the whole point of justice. Beating someone up is assault; whatever their age, ability, race, sexual persuasion, religion or the fact that they shop at Lidls.(Mind you, that’s a pretty good reason) ;o)Trying to bend laws to fit the crime is insidious and wrong. Nobody likes bigotry, but to paraphrase, “One man’s bigot is another man’s representative”. A case in point is the recent sacking of a Tory MP for saying Enoch Powell was right. Some say he was racist, but personally, I think he was smack on the nail. Like I said in a previous posting, it’s all about that ‘line in the sand’. Everyone has their own personally acceptable limits. It’s just when two peoples individual moral standards don’t coincide.
[...] Vía PinkNews [...]