Should Britain's race-hate laws be changed??

Question

I see that Nick Griffin, the BNP leader has been acquitted on race-hate charges. His no-doubt well-paid defence solicitor successfully argued that he was just exercising his right to freedom of expression; what say you???

Answer 1

All race-hate, political correctness, anti-blasphemy and similar regressive and primitive laws should be abolished or ignored: "I care not for what they say, but I will lay down my life in defence of their right to say it" (Dickens 'A tale of two cities') People must be free to say what they think: no one can be made to listen to or agree with them and I will not be told by a bunch of politicians, religious crackpots, 'do gooders' or any other self- interest group or cardboard 'little Hitler' what I should think!
Censorship of any description is nothing more than an attempt by one group of biggots to forcibly foist their jaundiced views on the rest of us. Remember 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' when the publishers were hauled before the courts because 'they' claimed that it would 'deprave and corrupt' - but failed to produce a single example of one such? But what about those who had read it in order to object to it's content - surely they must have been 'depraved and corrupted' themselves in order to recognise the symptons - isn't there a parallel here somewhere?

Answer 2

No they should NOT be changed!!!!! Nick Griffin was acquitted at his 1st trial by a majority of 75%...In normal circumstances that would suffice....but not to this 'Racist' government (Racist against the very people they are meant to represent.....the British people)! So they demanded a retrial.....(In a way I'm pleased they did because the 'left wing poof's' would always have harped on that it was only 75% innocent)! This time the verdict was unanimous!!! Free Speech has won the day!!!! Deal with it!!!!
Now of course after trying to shut the Biggest growing party down, the government is thinking of changing the laws again (in the hope of succeeding at the 3rd attempt I guess). Bad losers or what???? I have a suggestion to 'New Labour that will prove absolutely foolproof. Why not make it an offence to vote for any party other than Labour?????.......Or would that be too extreme even for this dictatorship?!?!?!!

Answer 3

For the benefit of US readers Nick Griffin is English and was prosecuted in an English Court. Nick is on the extreme right wing of UK politics, sort of a moderate slightly right of centre by US standards and was dragged through the courts because his party won a few seats on local councils and scared Tony Blair and his disciples shitless, as he was attracting votes from Blairs working class core vote,
In an entirely different scandal, New Labour accepted Loans from people whom they later made Lords or led the lenders to believe that they would become Lords...now my answer.......
Nick Griffin was not stirring up Racial Hatred of Religious from the TV show footage, I understand Nick is an ordinary working class bloke and from the TV clip was explaining Islam and the Koran to a bunch of his mates.
Nick was charged for being a member of a political party opposed to New Labour policy, not for any evidence base crime.
Nick simply explained the meaning of some chapters of the Koran as translated by some pretty dodgy Muslim Scholars,
Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, all men are equal you wont find these phrases in Islam, yet most white people do not realise this and the national curriculem fails to address these differences.
Personally I think Nick owes the BBC a great debt of gratitue for the free publicity as when featured in the same news bulletin as Jack Straw, Blair and Brown he came across as the most honest, believeable and charismatic of the three, at least no one could accuse Nick Griffin of accepting cash for peerages.

Answer 4

Even if you do not agree with Nick Griffin and the BNP, you can not deny that even moderate right-wingers feel that their views are being stifled by this neo-marxist bunch of tossers in government. This government's obsession with political correctness, multi-culturalism and diversity is trying desperately hard to criminalise right-wing views equating them with nazism. I think there have been far more crimes commited in the name of communism throughout the world, but the loonie lefties would rather deny this. It is regarded almost as a crime to deny the holocaust ever happened, but on that scale, it should equally be considered a crime to deny that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao-Tse-Tung, and other communist leaders commited atrocities "in the name of socialism".

Political extremism is deplorable be it far-left or far-right. You don't have to agree with my views, but I defend the right to free speech and I will not be intimidated into silence.

Answer 5

It seems to me that 'Minorities' can do no wrong while the 'Majority' can do no right and get vilified for standing up to racist attacks on themselves.
Race hate cuts both ways. Why should hook hand Hamsa be allowed to preach encouraging attacks on non-muslims or crowds carry banners vowing death to non-muslims yet Nick be arrested for stirring up 'hatred'?
Let's have a bit of equality here folks.
RoyS

Answer 6

we at the instant are not calling you racist, we are asserting that the regulation in certainty demands racial profiling and discrimination. How precisely does one advance a genuine looking suspicion that a guy or woman is an unlawful alien? possibly the guy is working from the police? confident, i will decide for that. different than that even with the undeniable fact that, except somebody is leaping a fence, crawling out of a trunk or another extremely suspicious habit, the only thank you to be "extremely suspicious" is to choose with the help of race and with the help of occupation. i understand for a actuality that if I, a white male, have been status exterior a house depot offering day hard work, no cop might inquire from me for my papers. hence I truthfully have eradicated even the occupation objection and left in basic terms one differentiating function: is this guy or woman Mexican? (or any non-white Hispanic or Latino guy or woman) If i become walking down the line next to a Mexican and a cop pulled over to ask one human beings to instruct our papers showing we are legal electorate, i might understand indubitably that he become not chatting with me. The regulation demands racism, and that's the difficulty. additionally, the fourth modification of the form of usa - component of the bill of Rights ideas you - protects us from unreasonable seek and seizure. this suggests that requiring a guy or woman to hold identity is unconstitutional as though your in basic terms reason to ask for identity is race. he regulation demands unreasonable seek and seizure. For the record, racism would not recommend HATE, it potential discrimination. unlawful immigration is a difficulty and we would desire to proceed to do what we can to resolve it, yet this regulation isn't the respond. undergo in ideas, we used to require black human beings to hold papers to instruct they don't seem to be escaped slaves and the Nazi's required Jews, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypsies and different communities to positioned on seen identity in any respect circumstances as nicely. This regulation is a nasty thought with good intentions. we would desire to repair it.

Answer 7

I think the guy doesn't deserve to keep the job. Even if he was just exercising his right to freedom of speech, he should have known that what he was doing could stir up race-hate problems, and that was not at all a right thing to do especially for someone with his position. But his lawyer argued it off. I think the law needs to be changed.

Answer 8

If nick is guilty of this so called crime then what about blair and bush,how much racial hatred have they stirred up with the invasion of muslim countries,it seems that words are more offensive than bombs and bullets

Answer 9

Did we not fight at some point for FREEDOM OF SPEECH...Now with all this PC bollocks looks like we shot ourselves in the foot..What more do people want...

Answer 10

People have a right to believe what they want to believe and say what they want to say. If it offendes some one, too bad.