DMB

I am horrified by <a href="http://www.secularism.org.uk/newsline.htm" target="_blank">this case.</a>

edited to remove copyrighted story, click on link and then click on link about exeter man.

I apologise if someone has already started a thread on this. I did not see any press accounts of this and have only just seen the NSS newsletter.

I think the Blair Government, despite having incorporated human rights legislation into UK law, seems to have nor real sense of basic rights.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: dangin ]</p>

Toto

<a href="http://www.secularism.org.uk/news13oct2t.htm#two" target="_blank">EXETER MAN FACES 7 YEARS IN PRISON FOR ARGUMENT IN STREET THAT "OFFENDED" MUSLIM </a>

Seven years is the maximum under religious hatred laws passed as part of Britain's Anti-Terrorism Act. It seems unlikely that these facts deserve that sentence.

It also appears that Scott pled guilty to the offense on his lawyer's advice.

It looks like two neighbors had a verbal fight using political incorrect terminology, but for some reason Scott was charged, and his Muslim neighbor was not.

Feather

Wait a minute. I thought there were a couple of Brits around here vocalising how much more accepting of the non-religious population Europe in general is than the US.

Hmmmm.

Toto

Atheism is more socially acceptable in Britain, but has less legal protection. It is a paradox.

Alonzo Fyfe

I don't think it is a paradox at all.

Because there is no legal protection, Britains discuss these laws on their merits, and thus have a better understanding of the merits and demerits of such laws.

But we, in America, get much less of this type of discussion. We fill the gap with "quote wars" from factions trying to prove that their view was shared by Jefferson or Madison or Washington. We minimize discussion on the merits or demerits of different views, and seem to work on the unquestionable assumption that "whatever the founding fathers believed, that is what we should believe as well." Questions of merit are subordinate to questions of historic relevance.

DMB

I would urge anyone who is interested in this sort of thing to sign up directly for the NSS free electronic newsletter. The NSS has been campaigning against these awful religious hatred laws.

The UK already has adequate legislation to deal with threats, violence and incitement to violence. It is not at all clear that we need specific protection for religious groups.

Rusting Car Bumper

That may be how you preceed but certainly isnt how I proceed.

DC

Toto

I hope you realize that we do this in large part because the legal interpretation of the Bill of Rights depends in part on the intent of the authors of the language, and the strategy of the ACLU and other defenders of liberty has been to depend on Supreme Court interpretations.

This strategy has been reasonably successful for most of the last half century or so. People who could not agree on the details of writing a new constitution have tended to agree that the system we have works, so let's keep it. This has kept us from another civil war. But it depends on the Supreme Court treating the Constitution as a living document and making accomodation at the edges for new situations.

Born Free

Consider it done DMB this case is so sickening I had to refrain from posting to it earlier for fear of swearing like a trooper and getting myself into trouble

Albion

Well, between this stuff and Blair going full tilt for faith-based welfare and faith-based schools and refusing to criticise the teaching of creationism in school after the Emanuel College fiasco, it's beginning to sound exactly like here. Apparently it doesn't matter if the CofE is falling apart; the government is providing an effective replacement and it can back its activity with laws.