Criticism of Islam Is New Front in PC War, Media Expert Says

[Gerald]

The mere act of criticizing Islam has become an act of politically incorrect hate speech, a media analyst and free-speech advocate says, citing several incidents in recent weeks where people have been lambasted publicly for their remarks.

"We're living in a 'here and now' where no one's allowed to say anything bad about Islam, it seems," says Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture at the Media Research Center.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/24/criticizing-islam-harvard-professor-pc-war/?test=latestnews




Note:Published September 24, 2010

[Skybird]

As said before, in europe criticism of Islam now is a crime you can get sued over. It it happens. Currently there are such cases at trial in 7 european coutries, both againmst prominents and professionals, and against private persons. In all Europe, estimations of cases being filed but not - yet - negotiated, range from 300 to 500, all filed after the EU coup of Lisbon.

Not racism or offending or propaganda, but having stood up for a critical opinion on Islam is sufficient to constitute a crime. It can bring you into prison for longer time. whether you are right or wsrong, doe snot matter, and your arguments and their basis in fact and evidence does nto mattert, too. You are simply becoming crimional when thinking the wrong things.

It happens in the US, too, by the hands of CAIR, since years. Here, usually the victim is sued for paying high financial compensations.

The number of such attempts is in steep rise since roughly ten years. Critical opinion of Islam should be gagged and muzzled, references to unwanted truths should be suppressed.

So, it is not only a problematic symptom of a degenerating speech culture in the free world, but it is a symptom of a legal system having entered dangerous ground.

Early this year I heared a radio report on a small (? well, that'S what they said: "small") group at the EU that wants to criminalise unconstructive opinions and critical assessements of the EU's work, too, and put it under punishment to make such opinions known or report on them.

The West is jumping headfirst into a cesspool, and yells "Juchee!" while in midair.

[Tribesman]

As said before, in europe criticism of Islam now is a crime you can get sued over.
Really?:har::har::har::har::har::har:

[tater]

The UN has a resolution that the US has signed on to that makes defamation of religion a civil rights violation.

Insanity.

[JokerOfFate]

Just wait till steve sees your message Sky bird :DL

[tater]

BTW, I think all "hate crime" laws should be stricken. All of them. Crime is crime, and violent crime is not worse because of the perp having "hate" in his mind. It's thought-crime, plain and simple. What could possibly be more totalitarian that criminalizing thought?

Be as hateful as you like as long as it doesn't interfere with your neighbor. Harming someone physically, or other, already criminal action is none the less still criminal.

[Tribesman]

The UN has a resolution that the US has signed on to that makes defamation of religion a civil rights violation.

No it hasn't and no it doesn't.

[Skybird]

The UN has a resolution that the US has signed on to that makes defamation of religion a civil rights violation.

Insanity.
The insanity lies in making any form expressing a critical opinion or attitude a "defamation". You may only think what is legal to think, and you may only say what you are allowed to say. If you violate that regime of an enforced "consensus", you get witch-hunted to death in public media, and if that violation even is with regard to Islamic claims and demands and self-understandings, then you even get criminalised and possibly punished with jail.

That is dangerous a condition, and indeed a major signal for dictatorship.

I also fear this spreading attitude that tyranny in the name of political correctness, is pretty much okay, since it is not about facism, but political correctness. Or the rule of the EU elite. Or Islam.

I used to differ between legalising criticism, which I supported, and prohibiting defamation, which I also supported. But the PC brigade is going from bad to worse and the insanity does not stop and it becomes more and more extreme and absurd and more and more freedom gets annihilated by them, so that I now do no make that distinction anymore, but tend to legalise both in order to assure that free speech survives even at the price of legalising defamation, too. I do not like it that way, but it is the lesser of two evils.

It is a massive abuse of classic ideals of the tradition of humanism and an abuse of freedoms in order to destroy freedom, that takes place right now. All that in the name of an increasing totalitarianism a la EU and/or Islam, and leftist dysutopias.

[Tribesman]

The insanity lies in making any form expressing a critical opinion or attitude a "defamation".
Thats the non existant law you dreamt up isn't it.:yeah:

I also fear this spreading attitude that tyranny in the name of political correctness
Is that the tyranny where you were the one deciding what people were allowed to say?
Or was it the one where you were the one deciding which humans should be allowed to breed?
Oh no thats your tyranny out of the prison book again isn't it:doh:

[tater]

The US even being involved with the idiotic U.N. Human Rights Council the problem, along with our (US and Egypt) compromise wording to their resolution in 2009.

In part, " as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping." That replaced "defamation" but it's the same thing. The US should never have proposed any wording even suggesting that states should curtail any free expression.

[Tribesman]

The US even being involved with the idiotic U.N. Human Rights Council the problem, along with our (US and Egypt) compromise wording to their resolution in 2009.

Ah, so you mean the non binding thing that means nothing and makes nothing.
Thats rather different to signing up to something that makes criticism of religion a civil rights violation isn't it.

[tater]

Ah, so you mean the non binding thing that means nothing and makes nothing.
Thats rather different to signing up to something that makes criticism of religion a civil rights violation isn't it.

Everything at the UN is non-binding (or effectively non-binding since the only way to enforce is to threaten). They are useless. So "binding" is meaningless. If we ever signed a binding agreement, who would enforce it? Go ahead, invade and try (that applies equally to any country, BTW, the only real enforcement requires the credible threat of being ended as a country (have UN sanctions ever worked? What % of the time?).

What the administration did there was to send a message. THAT is what the UN is really about. Signing on to even a non-binding resolution that harms free expression in the name of appeasing islamic sensibilities (that's what this resolution was really about, and has been about every time it has been done) sends a message that the US is now soft on freedom of expression (at least this admin is).

Sends the wrong message, which is exactly what I meant, and care about WRT the UN.

[Skybird]

Everything at the UN is non-binding (or effectively non-binding since the only way to enforce is to threaten). They are useless. So "binding" is meaningless. If we ever signed a binding agreement, who would enforce it?

Unfortunately, with the EU and it'S damn charta of human rights it is different. Individuals and states could become the target of sanctions and punishement for real. And that national states have to turn the charta'S demands into binding national laws, is mandatory, with no option of parliaments objecting to parts of it. Doing so would trigger even more sanctionising - so EU laws and EU treaties say.

The EU of the past 15-20 years , the way it reoriented itself since the cold war ended, beside the arrival of Islam in Europe is the biggest cultural disaster in Europe since WWII, and is one of the biggest cultural disasters in all European history alltogether. We overcame the inquisition and the medieval, we overcame the 30-years-war and the churches' tyranny, we overcame facism and stalinism and ultranationalism, but if we will overcome the consequences of the EU and Islam, I have my doubts. The rubble of the world wars was easy to just move away, clean it up, and then rebuild new over it. But the impact of the EU does a kind of damage that is not so easy to compensate and repair. I fear it is changing Europe for the worse for many centuries to come. It seems to rip the hearts out of people's chest, and circumcise them right between their ears, right where the brain is.

And many people even applaude this. This is when I sometimes loose all hope and courage and good will and in weak moments think I should enjoy to watch it all going to hell.

[Sailor Steve]

Just wait till steve sees your message Sky bird :DL
Why would that bother me?

[Dan D]

The insanity lies in making any form expressing a critical opinion or attitude a "defamation"

That would be insane indead.

The mistake here is that is that meaning of "defamation" in the general language use is different from the legal definition of "defamation" as a criminal offense according to the criminal code. In that sense a critical opinion can never be a "defamation". A defamation requires a statement of facts. Facts can be either true or false. A hearing of evidence will tell you if the fact is true or untrue.

Opinions in the sense of value statements on the other hand can not be measured as "right or "wrong", there are no "right" or "wrong" opinions because opinions are opinions, they make sense or no sense.

When you are making false statements of facts with the intent to defame someone, then you don't have the constitutional freedom of opinion on your side.

You have to check your facts carefully before you are ruining someone's reputation.

So to say that criticism of Islam is seen as a criminal offense is just plain ridiculous.

Same mistake here:

"We're living in a 'here and now' where no one's allowed to say anything bad about Islam, it seems," says Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture at the Media Research Center.

"No one's allowed to say" is meant the way that the author has the opnion that there are social norms, "Political Correctness", that do not "allow" to say something in the sense of "you can't/should not say that", "no one dares to openly discuss".

Skybird misunderstands Dan Gainor and thinks that Gainor is saying that there are actually legal norms that in a strict legal sense don't "allow" you to say something and make it a crime. You can even get punished for it!, "you get punished for criticising Islam".

Only that way you can come up with nonsense like "in europe criticism of Islam now is a crime you can get sued over. It it happens."

[Skybird]

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned of the slow drift from freedom to tyranny when he observed that “there are rights which it is useless to surrender to the government and which governments have yet always been found to invade. These are the rights of thinking and publishing our thoughts by speaking or writing.”[

http://www.hudson-ny.org/410/europes-war-on-free-speech

The Amsterdam Court of Appeals has ordered the criminal prosecution (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm) of a Dutch Member of Parliament for criticizing Islam.
(...)
In 2002, Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn) was assassinated for his views on Islam and Muslim immigration. In 2004, Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)) was stabbed to death for producing a movie that criticized Islam. In 2006, former Dutch lawmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali) was forced to flee the country after criticizing the mistreatment of women in Islamic societies.
What makes the Wilders case different, however, is that the Dutch state itself is now caving in to pressure from Muslim immigrants who seek to criminalize any opinions that could be deemed to insult Islam or criticize Muslim immigration.
But Holland is not the only European country at war with the exercise of free speech. In Austria, for example, Member of Parliament Susanne Winter (http://diepresse.com/home/politik/innenpolitik/446266/index.do) was convicted for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Prophet Muhammad would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to a six-year-old child. She was also convicted for “incitement” for warning that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.”
In Italy, the journalist and author Oriana Fallaci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriana_Fallaci) was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” She died in September 2006, two months after the start of her trial. In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Houellebecq) was taken to court for calling Islam “the stupidest religion.” He was acquitted in October 2002. More recently, animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Bardot) was convicted in June 2008 by a Paris court for “inciting racial hatred” for demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.
In Britain, the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060001_en_1), which creates a new crime of intentionally stirring up religious hatred against people on religious grounds, has led to zealousness bordering on the absurd. In Nottingham, for example, the Greenwood Primary School (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1091594/Primary-school-cancels-nativity-play-interferes-Muslim-festival-Eid.html) cancelled a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_ul-Adha). In Scarborough, the Yorkshire Coast College (http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk/news/College-in-Scarborough-axes-Christmas.4485873.jp) removed the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. In Scotland, the Tayside Police Department (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Apology-on-the-cards-as.4243889.jp) apologized for featuring a German shepherd puppy as part of a campaign to publicize its new non-emergency telephone number. The postcards are potentially offensive to city’s 3,000-strong Muslim community because Islamic legal tradition says that dogs are impure.
In Glasgow, a Christian radio show host (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4213994/Presenter-sacked-for-supporting-the-Bibles-teachings-on-radio.html) was fired after a debate between a Muslim and a Christian on whether Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life.” In Cheshire, two students at the Alsager High School (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html) were punished by their teacher for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their Religious Education class. In East London, all elected members of Tower Hamlets (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2638808/Councillors-told-not-to-eat-during-Ramadan-meetings.html) town council were told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Muslim month of Ramadan. Special arrangements were also made to disrupt council meetings to allow for Muslim prayer. Meanwhile, the council renamed a staff Christmas party as a “festive meal”
(...)
Nor are Muslims the only ones trying to restrict free speech in Europe. In Britain, for example, the government is facing pressure from homosexual rights activists to overturn a free speech protection amendment (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/009/2009009.pdf) added to a controversial “gay hate” law. The free speech protection clause, which states that criticizing homosexual practice or urging people to refrain from such conduct will not, in itself, be a crime, was added to the new offense of “incitement to homophobic hatred.” But now the government wants to remove that protection. The crime of inciting homophobic hatred includes any words or behavior which is threatening and intended to stir up hatred. It carries a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.

At the European level, meanwhile, government ministers from the 27 member states of the European Union are debating a draft EU Directive (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008PC0426:EN:NOT) that aims to outlaw discrimination and “harassment” in the provision of goods and services. The new legislation would, for example, shut down Christian adoption agencies if they refuse to provide same-sex couples with children. Indeed, the definition of “harassment” is so broad that even moderate explanations of Christian beliefs on sexual conduct or other religions could be considered a crime.

Not only are European elites using hate crime legislation to silence people with opinions that do not conform to official state policies. They are also dividing Europeans into two groups (the majority and the minority), each with different rights and responsibilities. The minority (Muslims, homosexuals, Socialists) is imposing its will upon the majority (non-Muslim, heterosexuals, non-Socialists) by aggressively prosecuting those who refuse to fall into line.
(...)
the Obama administration (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/) says it intends to “strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.” Some politicians have also expressed support for re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pelosi-support-return-of-fairness-doctrine/), which would effectively censor the opinions of tens of millions of Americans



http://www.hudson-ny.org/876/if-all-goes-as-planned


Octobre 2009:

If all goes as planned, the 27 member states of the European Union will soon have a common hate crime legislation, which will turn disapproval for Islamic practices or homosexual lifestyles into crimes. Europe’s Christian churches are trying to stop the plan of the European political establishment, but it is not clear if they will be successful.

Last April, the European Parliament approved the European Union’s Equal Treatment Directive. A directive is the name given to an EU law. As directives overrule national legislation, they need the approval of the European Council of Ministers before coming into effect. Next month, the Council will decide on the directive, which places the 27 EU member states under a common anti-discrimination legislation. The directive’s definition of discriminatory harassment is so broad that every objection to Muslim or homosexual practices will be considered unlawful.
(...)
Originally intended to serve as an equal treatment directive for the disabled by prohibiting discrimination when accessing “goods and services, including housing,” activist European politicians and governments had the directive’s scope expanded to include discrimination on the basis of religion, age and sexual orientation.

Under the directive, harassment - defined as conduct “with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment” - is deemed a form of discrimination.

Harassment, as vaguely defined in the directive, allows an individual to accuse someone of discrimination merely for expressing something the individual allegedly perceives as creating an “offensive environment.” The definition is so broad that anyone who feels intimidated or offended can easily bring legal action against those whom he feels are responsible. Moreover, the directive shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, who has to prove the negative, i.e. demonstrate that he or she did not create an environment which intimidated or offended the complainant. If the accused fails to do so, he or she can be sentenced to paying an unlimited amount of compensation for “harassment.”
(...)
Europe risks losing important fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of opinion, but does not seem prepared to fight and preserve these freedoms. Perhaps the lack of interest of the inhabitants of Europe for legislation concocted at a supranational level explains the lack of interest in this matter.
The same phenomenon, a lack of interest on the part of European and also American public opinion, is apparent with regard to the semi-legal initiatives taken at the level of the United Nations. On October 2nd, the UN Human Rights Council approved a free speech resolution, co-sponsored by the US and Egypt, which criticizes “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” American diplomats said the decision to co-sponsor the resolution was part of America’s effort to “reach out to Muslim countries.” The resolution passed unanimously, with the support of all Western nations. Though the resolution has no immediate effect in law, it provides Muslim extremists with moral ammunition the next time they feel that central tenets of Islam are being treated disrespectfully through the creation of what they perceive to be an ‘offensive environment.

People are not only in danger to be sued over charges of "hate crime" when not thinking the officially wanted/allowed and streamlined way of thought on issues like Islam, migration, religion, homosexuality - they already get and got convicted on the basis of the new legal standard in the EU. Check google, and the news. That is a fact.

Three days ago, the European court of socalled Human Rights in an implication of a sentence has ruled that the Catholic church has no more the right to demand people working in it to follow Catholic rules of conduct and moral values as represented by the Catholic church. This sentence could become the precedence for arguing that even Muslims, Jews, Protestants and atheists must be allowed by the church to work in its institutions. One is wondering what would make the Catholic church the Catholic church then anymore.

Strangely, Islamic organisations are not treated by the same standard.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/September/Austrian-Faces-Charges-for-Criticizing-the-Koran/


"I've read the Koran. I've studied the books from both sides -- the pro and the con. And I can tell you from what I've studied -- Islam is a political ideology disguised as a religion."
Back in her home country of Austria, Sabadistch-Wolff lectured on the subject and her comments on the Koran outraged a writer for a left-wing Austrian magazine.
"She took it to her editor and they apparently then decided they would take it to the lawyer and take it to the public prosecutor's office," Sabadistch-Wolff noted.
The Vienna prosecutor charged her with hate speech against Islam. She told CBN News she merely quoted directly from the Koran.
"I quoted the Koran. I told them even in the lecture, which Koran I used, which quote. Some of them even had their little Korans with them and they were flipping the pages, you know, checking on me," she said.
This is the latest case of a European charged with hate speech against Islam.
(...)
In addition to Austria and the Netherlands, hate speech charges have also been filed in the United Kingdom, Sweden, France, Denmark, Beligium and Finland -- all against critics of Islam.

Prosecuting free thought and free speech even when conducted on basis of constructive aegument and reason,is no possible future dysutopic perspective - it already is reality and takes place in Europe since quite some time. The legal basis for this is now established, and valid. People alrready got sentenced in several countries. The trend of Islamic lobby groups trying to gag and silence criticism of Islam and Islamic colonization in Europe by suing opponents and critics over "hate crimes", is steeply climbing.

The really discouraging thing is that in Europe, people even do not seem to care.

Leaves me with this scene from Star Wars on my mind: princess Amidala in the great assembly hall, saying in frustration and disbelief:
"This is how liberty dies - with thundering applaus."


I think our leaders intentionally sell us into Islam's dark slavery, attempting to appease our future thought masters so that they will carry on to supply us with what we crave for so desperately:

O I L

and I think that many Eurocrats and lefties hope that they will gain in power for their own idelogies if they ally with Islam and let it help to errect a new culture of obedience to authorities in Europe. Career politicians are of that character that is craving for own power and self-glorification. Their craving needs the weakness and submission of thjose they lead. Because no sane man or woman would voluntarily follow a dubious character who craves for power for the saake of power itself and his own personal motives. Except said man or woman thinkshe/she has no other choice, is unable to realise what is going on, or is kept busy in other ways. A variation of "divide et impera", this time not regarding natiosn and factions, but masses of individual private people.

The communists and socialists in Iran also thought that they would secure their own power if allying themselves with Khomenei when he returned from exile. After Khomenei had secured his own power, most of these idiots ended as bodies hanging from lightmasts and telephone poles. They too thought they knew Islam better than Islam knows itself.

[Tribesman]

So to say that criticism of Islam is seen as a criminal offense is just plain ridiculous.

Exactly Dan, which is why Sky then has to link to two stories where they are not actually getting prosecuted for criticising Islam at all as that isn't against the law.
But its pointless telling him that as he is away with the fairies where muslims are concerned.
In that first case that prick Wilders condemned himself with his own words, it was incitement, he was aiming to provoke a disturbance.
The fact that his film was just ridiculed as being pathetic is irrelevant, he wasn't being prosecuted for what he said but for what his stated intention was.

[tater]

While criticism is not now criminal (at least here in the US), extant hate-crime laws do in fact criminalize thought, which is a terrible mistake, IMO. It's certainly possible to see such existing law being pushed farther, when the proper thing to do would be to repeal any such laws.

WRT to Islam, what is usually seen is self-censorship. Many times it's because the violence which pervades Islam makes threats of violence in response to expression credible.

[Tribesman]

While criticism is not now criminal (at least here in the US), extant hate-crime laws do in fact criminalize thought
No they don't, only as much as it does with ordinary crimes where it relates to intent.
Like did you intend to kill your victim or did you not think what you were doing.

[JU_88]

:yawn: @ yet another Islam thread
GT is like the f**king twilight zone.

[Sailor Steve]

It also seems to be "Let's ignore all the rules" zone.

[tater]

No they don't, only as much as it does with ordinary crimes where it relates to intent.
Like did you intend to kill your victim or did you not think what you were doing.

Intent is already there in the law. Murder requires intent, for example. Being punished more because of your thoughts is totalitarianism---with a smiley face on it for "good intentions."

Murder or assault are bad enough as it is, I'd hate to see some victims have their peeps get better treatment for beating them to a pulp without a hateful heart.

If you did not intend to kill them, it is unfortunately a lower crime. Manslaughter, 2d degree murder, etc. In the US hate crime laws bump penalties. BTW, without "hate crime" the hate is still evidence of intent, so it could be the difference alone—without any special thought crime laws.

[Tribesman]

Intent is already there in the law. Murder requires intent, for example
Exactly.

Being punished more because of your thoughts is totalitarianism
like the murder example?

If you did not intend to kill them, it is unfortunately a lower crime.
So you think the law is at fault already as it considers intent?

without any special thought crime laws.
You mean without anything resembling existing laws?

[tater]

You really don't understand that the intent included in existing law is already enough? It's enough, no arbitrary "hate" needs to be added. I the prosecution can show a pattern of, say, hatred of gays, that goes to establish motive—even with no "hate crime" laws on the books. Intent is very important, but there is no reason to single out certain motives as somehow worse. If you are murdered, or assaulted, the heinousness of the crime is in the ACTION.

Since existing law allows for "hate" to help determine motive, which speaks to what they get charged with. Murder vs manslaughter, etc. If the crime is premeditated, it's murder, for example. Say some scumbags were out to go kill a "fag" and planned and prepared to do so. That's murder (intent, and premeditation). The perp yelling "faggot" while he murders the poor guy doesn't make the murder any more heinous than another perps someplace else yelling "cheeseburger" while brutally murdering someone else in the same way. The victim is just as dead, just as brutally. There is no reason that the one murderer should get off easier for yelling "cheeseburger." Execute BOTH murderers. That's the end result of hate-crime laws, some who are convicted of the same crimes get off easy because they didn't throw an epithet while committing the crime.

Existing criminal law is just fine, thank you, it can deal with so-called "hate crimes" without the litmus test of reading people's minds.

[antikristuseke]

I am with tater on this one, if you assault someone because they are black it should be the equivalent to if you assault someone for being fat. in the eyes of the law at least.

[tater]

What is "hateful," anyway?

Racially motivated? OK.

HAte gays? OK, that's a hate crime.

What about a guy that hates women? Does that count?

If a guy hates his wife and kills her? Not hate, unless maybe she became a lesbian, then he kills her?

Hating people with german surnames? Hate crime?

Might be easier to see which crimes are NOT hate related. So there are 2 identically brutal crimes. One is against a race that is officially protected by hate crime, the other is a random, brutal crime. The guy that randomly brutalizes people is "better" than the hateful one...

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Crime is crime. If there is an increased punishment proposed for "hate" crimes, then simply increase the punishment for that crime PERIOD.

[Bilge_Rat]

There is a lot of misinformation out there about what is a "hate crime". Most criminal law statutes put the bar very high, for example, here is the Canadian statute:


Public incitement of hatred (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319)
319. (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319) (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_2_)
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_3_)
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_4_)
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_5_)
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Consent (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_6_)
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_7_)
(7) In this section,


“communicating”
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_7_-df:CODECOMMUNIQUER-m1)« communiquer »
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_7_-df:CODECOMMUNIQUER-m1)“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;


“identifiable group”
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_7_-df:CODEGROUPEIDENTIFIABLE-m1)« groupe identifiable »
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_7_-df:CODEGROUPEIDENTIFIABLE-m1)“identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;


“public place”
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_7_-df:CODEENDROITPUBLIC-m1)« endroit public »
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_7_-df:CODEENDROITPUBLIC-m1)“public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;


“statements”
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_7_-df:CODEDECLARATIONS-m1)« déclarations »
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-6.html#codese:319-ss:_7_-df:CODEDECLARATIONS-m1)“statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.


The "criminal" intent is the intent to promote hatred towards an identifiable group. Its more than just making juvenile comments on an internet forum.

Private conversations are exempt, as are those covered by the defences in sub-section (3).

The prosecutor also has to show that the defendant committed all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[tater]

The canadian law looks like it would never pass US Constitutional muster (thankfully). Making the "hate" a crime unto itself is basically thought crime. Pretty terrible.

In the US it is used only to increase sentences for existing crimes. Ie: you assault someone without hate and you get XX years, and WITH "hate" you get XX+2 years (or whatever).

Free people have to live with the fact that people might incite "hate." Comes with liberty. Sucks, but there you go. The rest of us can hate the haters, then we're even.

Example for Canada... let's say you have an organization of like-minded people that think a few other groups should ideally be considered 2d class citizens. They need to identify, and even pay special taxes for being different. Same group might think a 3d group is even lower. Is that hateful?

I note that it immunizes religious hate as long as it's in "good faith" WRT the hateful scriptures in question. Great. So inciting desire for (but not actually doing it) an Inquisition would be "good faith" and OK, while a political group doing the same thing... hateful.

[Bilge_Rat]

here is an example of one of the few successful prosecutions:

http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/story.html?id=e2e1261e-dae0-4267-8454-a5c401a3a284


The question is always when does freedom of speech end and a "crime" begins.

example:

-If mr. A wilfully kills mr. B, he is guilty of murder;

-If mr. A attempts to wilfully kill mr.B, he is guilty of attempted murder;

How far back can you go back in the planning process before the attempt becomes mere thought?

Obviously, if you catch mr. A with a gun outside mr.B's house or in his car driving to the mr.B's house with a gun, the "attempt" has been committed.

But what if mr.A is just typing on an internet forum that he wants mr.B dead, is he exercising his freedom of speech or taking the first step in attempted murder?

[Tribesman]

You really don't understand that the intent included in existing law is already enough?
Yes it is.
Which is why Skys ongoing rubbish about new and secret laws as part of a global conspiracy is such tripe as in each case the ordinary laws are fully sufficient and they are what are being used.

[Skybird]

There is a lot of misinformation out there about what is a "hate crime". Most criminal law statutes put the bar very high,

People having done anything but a "hate crime", already get sentenced for having committed claimed "hate crimes", so obviously something is foul here.

And even if the standards for that term would be set so high indeed - that'S why the EU states have bypassed it almost completely, by charging people over "discrimination" or "defamation". These terms are legally defined (in Europe) by the likings and wishes of people claiming to be offended, which is nothing else but lobbyistic justice. But it becomes even better. By the meaning of the new legislation, the person claiming to have been offended or having been the target of a discrimination, must not bring by any proof or substantial evidence, in order for a critical commentator being charged. But the accused must prove by evidence that what he said was no offence in itself, and was not said in an intention to defame the other.

In Western legal system, usually the burden of evidence is such that the guilt of the accused must be proven in order to sentence him, if that evidence cannot be given or shown, then the accused is supected to be innocent (in dubio pro reo).
But now, the burden of evidence has been totally reversed by 180°, now the accused is assumed guilty becasue it is claimed by hear-say that he is, and he is assumed to be guilty and will get sentenced as long as he cannot prove his innocence.

This is a legal and cultural catastrophe of absolute top first grade. It means that you can get sentenced for just being accused by somebody who does not like your opinion on religion, Islam, homosexuality. And actually, every couple of days I fetch a new piece of news in german media that again somebody is being tried to get silenced and gagged by suing him over the hate crime/defamation/offence/discrimination that he said somethign critical about Islamic migration.

Assumed guilty as long as innocence is not proven. Hear-say taken as evidence legal valid to be used in court. That are terrible new standards. That is behavior you usually only expect to see in policestates and dictatorships with an alibi-justice that is anything but just, or basing on law and order. This is totally insane, and irresponsible. One of the co-owners of the house where I have my flat, is a now retired judge. He directly compares it to the Nazi's understanding of "justice" and "laws".

This new legal rules are serving one purpose only: to criminalise all not-agreeing with Islamic migration sponsored by the EU, and to criminalise all non-compliance with Islam's claims and demands in Europe. People do not want Islam in Europe, a majority does not want it at all, so nopw they are being made to like it and not to object to it nmeverthelss. The state knows what is good for you. Be thankful. That the EU and the Islamic Arabic countries will form one big block in the near future, already is decided fact in Brussell. Now they work on destroying the freedom that would allow people to object to it, like they also deleted the freedom of the people to object to Lisbon and the EU constitution after it became clear to them leaders that the people do not follow them. Freedom only when it is in conformity with the political dogma by the leaders. If it is no supporting that (could happen if it is a free place, couldn'T it), then it is "game over" for freedom.

The indoctrination now gets more and more often started even in early childhood. The demand to have small children beeing taken out of their families even at the age of under 2 years and have them mandatorily raised by state-run kindergarten, is nothing else but this. The social core cell of the core family is a very strong institution, forming loyalties and motivations that are beyond control by the supergovernment. That'S why so much effort is being spend on trying to erode this core cell by endlessly relativising it'S meaning and status, and upgrading social constellations that have nothing to do with it. In principal it is the same pattern that already was successfully tried by the youth organisation of earlier regimes, or the Hitler Jugend in Germany. Just that it is not about loyalty to one Führer, and sitting by the campfire in the woods, but about being politically correct, featureless, spnbeless, and without a clear hierarchical understanding of what is right and what is wrong, so to prevent forming of loyalties to values that are not the officially wanted ones.

Europe is destroying itself, and most people are applauding.

Europe is becoming a dictatorship slowly but surely. And nobody seems to care. Political correctness is a self-purpose only amongst the lower ranks in the hierarchy. Somewhere up higher in that hierarchy, it is the tool to enforce wanted agendas and to realise intended policies that lead beyond PC itself. That the EU tries to destroy the traditional role modelling of "father" and "mother " ("mother" now officially brandmarked by the EU gremium making this proposal as "sexual discrimination"), also has something to do with it. They try to copy the Swiss model here, and replacxe the terms with "neuter" terms, so they call them.

Sick.

[Bilge_Rat]

Just so I am clear, I am actually torn on this issue of "hate crime" laws, since it is subjective and gray.

In Canada, the rationale is that prosecutors will only use it in extreme cases, since the Canadian Constitution has an express garantee for "freedom of expression", but I am always wary of relying on the government's goodwill.

[Dan D]

...

People are not only in danger to be sued over charges of "hate crime" when not thinking the officially wanted/allowed and streamlined way of thought on issues like Islam, migration, religion, homosexuality - they already get and got convicted on the basis of the new legal standard in the EU. Check google, and the news. That is a fact....


No. That is opinion presented as fact.

[Tribesman]

No. That is opinion presented as fact.
Its just bull presented by Sky.

People having done anything but a "hate crime", already get sentenced for having committed claimed "hate crimes", so obviously something is foul here.
bull

But now, the burden of evidence has been totally reversed by 180°, now the accused is assumed guilty becasue it is claimed by hear-say that he is, and he is assumed to be guilty and will get sentenced as long as he cannot prove his innocence.

more bull

And actually, every couple of days I fetch a new piece of news in german media that again somebody is being tried to get silenced and gagged by suing him over the hate crime/defamation/offence/discrimination that he said somethign critical about Islamic migration.

bull, every couple of days you post some more bull and make another bull claim about what it is.

Just so I am clear, I am actually torn on this issue of "hate crime" laws, since it is subjective and gray.

True, which is why the legislation needs to be examined. The only problem with that is that sky has this fictional set of laws that no one can actually see

[Bilge_Rat]

True, which is why the legislation needs to be examined. The only problem with that is that sky has this fictional set of laws that no one can actually see

That is a different issue. There are many different discussions going on in this tread, which is SOP in the GT forum. :DL