Religions > Atheism > OT: Proposed UK proposed "incitement to religious hatred leslation".
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2004 10:37:03 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Proposed UK proposed "incitement to religious hatred leslation". |
Go this from the Home Office today. Quite interesting, I thought....
Dear Therion Ware,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 7th July 2004 about the proposed
incitement to religious hatred. I have been asked to reply.
The form that this legislation will take is still under consideration.
However, I can say that when the Government proposed introducing an
incitement to religious hatred measure as part of its Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Bill 2001 'religious hatred' meant hatred against a
group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of
religious belief.
The Government did not believe that it was necessary in this context
to define religion in the legislation. The Government believed this
to be a matter which could be left to the courts to interpret in the
wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered.
The Government held that in this context we should not making value
judgements about the nature of a particular religion. It was a
question of deciding whether a criminal offence has been committed
against a person because of, or aggravated by, the perpetrator's
hatred for their religion or belief.
Yours Sincerely
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Proposed UK proposed "incitement to religious hatred leslation". |
06 Aug 2004 11:33:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 16:37:03 +0100 in episode
<hi87h01b5dac2q7pilnjr8dgvr4cplca6n@4ax.com> we saw our hero Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com>:
The Government did not believe that it was necessary in this context to
define religion in the legislation.
Erm... that's a cute tactic.
Is Blair taking lessons from us again?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Proposed UK proposed "incitement to religious hatred leslation". |
06 Aug 2004 11:33:56 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
Go this from the Home Office today. Quite interesting, I thought....
Dear Therion Ware,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 7th July 2004 about the proposed
incitement to religious hatred. I have been asked to reply.
The form that this legislation will take is still under consideration.
However, I can say that when the Government proposed introducing an
incitement to religious hatred measure as part of its Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Bill 2001 'religious hatred' meant hatred against a
group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of
religious belief.
The Government did not believe that it was necessary in this context
to define religion in the legislation. The Government believed this
to be a matter which could be left to the courts to interpret in the
wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered.
The Government held that in this context we should not making value
judgements about the nature of a particular religion. It was a
question of deciding whether a criminal offence has been committed
against a person because of, or aggravated by, the perpetrator's
hatred for their religion or belief.
Interesting. Would it be "incitement to religious hatred" if an atheist
told a theist to bugger off and take his religious idiocy with him? Would
it be "incitement to religious hatred" if a preacher condemned atheists to
hell? What about if the preacher used the Bible to condemn gay people or
order women to be subservient to their menfolk?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Proposed UK proposed "incitement to religious hatred leslation". |
06 Aug 2004 11:50:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:33:56 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
Therion Ware wrote:
Go this from the Home Office today. Quite interesting, I thought....
Dear Therion Ware,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 7th July 2004 about the proposed
incitement to religious hatred. I have been asked to reply.
The form that this legislation will take is still under consideration.
However, I can say that when the Government proposed introducing an
incitement to religious hatred measure as part of its Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Bill 2001 'religious hatred' meant hatred against a
group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of
religious belief.
The Government did not believe that it was necessary in this context
to define religion in the legislation. The Government believed this
to be a matter which could be left to the courts to interpret in the
wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered.
The Government held that in this context we should not making value
judgements about the nature of a particular religion. It was a
question of deciding whether a criminal offence has been committed
against a person because of, or aggravated by, the perpetrator's
hatred for their religion or belief.
Interesting. Would it be "incitement to religious hatred" if an atheist
told a theist to bugger off and take his religious idiocy with him?
Which is what the Liars For God assume is "aggressive atheism". Which
wouldn't happen if the theists showed common sense or courtesy.
Would
it be "incitement to religious hatred" if a preacher condemned atheists to
hell? What about if the preacher used the Bible to condemn gay people or
order women to be subservient to their menfolk?
Both should be. Even the theist pushing his theism where it is neither
wanted nor needed is "incitement to religious hatred" because there
would otherwise be no reaction.
.
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|