Muslim woman first to be convicted under Terrorism Act: Now find the other 1,999...

[dong20]

We don't have freedom of speech, there have been laws enacted to prevent the freedom to say anything which may incite racial hatred.

We do. Have a look at clause 1 of article 10 of the European convention on Human rights to which the UK is subject. Though it's not unqualified as it is in the US it's quite clear. We also have a right of freedom of assembly under article 11. The latter has been curtailed in some areas since 2005.

Human rights nothwithstanding, the concept of freedom of speech has been embedded within English constututional law for centuries, the precedent being set by the Magna Carta, and more clearly codified by the Bill of Rights in 1689 although the speech element was aimed at Parliament.

The crime of incitment isn't new, and the RR&H act of 2006 isn't intended to restrict the right to freedom of expression so much as to enforce accountability as outlined in clause 2 of article 10. I suppose one could argue it's the same thing.

The specific crime of inciting racial hatred was (along with other new crimes) introduced in the 1986 Public Order Act. The 2006 Religious and Racial Hatred Act amends the 1986 act by broadening the scope for incitement and defining the offence with more clarity. It's so full of exemptions, based on free speech it's a tough law under which to obtain a prosecution. It was originally more draconian (ridiculously so) but was de-scoped by the Lords.

That said, at face value I think this prosecution was railroaded to make political point. But of course I didn't see all the evidence, nor I suspect did those also commenting here, so it's hard to render an informed opinion.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

When there are laws against what we can say we clearly don't have freedom of speech. As you said, it's qualified.

 

[dong20]

When there are laws against what we can say we clearly don't have freedom of speech. As you said, it's qualified.

If you mean it may come with consequences when used for the sole purpose of incitement then yes. But then, isn't all (free) speech so qualified? The UK isn't unique in that regard. The US may not spell out the qualifications, but they exist nonetheless.

Personally, I'd rather know up front where the boundaries lie, at least that way when I ignore them, it's an informed decision!

 

[ClaireTalon]

When there are laws against what we can say we clearly don't have freedom of speech. As you said, it's qualified.

Freedom of speech is allowed as far as it doesn't interfere with the democratic principles of a country, ask countries who have made their experience with radical administrations, and I think that is a good way of handling this freedom. There are too many extremist loonies who see their views protected by freedom of speech, ironically something they would prefer to see abolished.

 

[chico8]

The signers of the Constitution were almost all local boys - born, raised, and educated in the Americas.

The exceptions were one, a native of Liverpool, and another from St Croix; both emigrated as children. A third had been an officer in the British army, and a fourth was born and educated in Scotland.

In my book that makes the Constitution an almost entirely, and uniquely, American creation.

The Constitution was based on the French model. To claim that it was an American creation simply because the "boys" were born in the US is incredibly naive. Jefferson thought himself a citizen of the world, Franklin also.

All these "boys" education was based on the European model.

What makes the Constitution unique is that it was a compromise between extremist viewpoints. The fact that so many men from so many disparate backgrounds were able to come up with something so relatively solid is amazing.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

Samina Malik appeared today for sentencing, and, predictably, she was spared jail, despite being found guilty.

I use the word 'predictably' because the political climate in the UK means that we must delicately tiptoe around offending the Muslim 'community' despite the fact that they are extremely vocal in their hatred of the indigenous population, incite and often practise terrorism, and want Sharia Law in this country.

Not jailing this vile individual sends out a signal to all the other Islamists here that incitement is perfectly acceptable as long as one does not get caught, and will not be taken seriously if one does.

Another small step on the road to civil war that must inevitably ensue if radical steps are not taken by the authorities.

 

[odd_fish_9]

The Constitution was based on the French model. To claim that it was an American creation simply because the "boys" were born in the US is incredibly naive. Jefferson thought himself a citizen of the world, Franklin also.

Hogwash. "French model"? France was an absolute monarchy at the time.

"Citizen of the world" is a rhetorical flourish, without any meaning. Jefferson and Franklin served as ministers to France. That hardly made them citizens of France.

The man conventionally conceded to be the primary architect of the Constitution was James Madison. He never set foot outside the country.

All these "boys" education was based on the European model.

So? The language in which America's founding documents is written was based on a European model as well. That in no way makes those documents European.

What makes the Constitution unique is that it was a compromise between extremist viewpoints. The fact that so many men from so many disparate backgrounds were able to come up with something so relatively solid is amazing.

Twaddle. They weren't all that disparate. By modern standards they were damn near identical. They were all Americans, almost all born and educated in the Colonies, though obviously almost entirely of English or Scots ancestry. There were of course schisms; the Quaker and Puritan merchants of New England vs. the plantation squires of the South; the vaguely Anglophile vs. Francophile factions; and the federalists (promoting the virtues of strong central government) vs. the anti-federalists. Part of the schism between New England and Virginia, the traders vs. the planters, was, of course, the slave question, which proved intractable, so was put off for a later occasion.