Again, you're bringing emotion into it unnecessarily. Yes Blair's policies were arguably very poor and arguably he was a crap PM, criminal, Tory. Take your pick. None of it picks his arguments on Brexit apart IMO. You might enjoy this http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...migration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
So arguably what he said recently was sh2t? You could also let me know what part of his speech you believe was correct?
[ Who'd have thought you could miss John Major? A refreshing intervention I thought, and very welcome. He and Blair are right about to speak out against May's blinkered, unlistening approach.
No problem with you not agreeing with me, Ellers. I want the best deal out of Brexit. So do you. So does everyone else, I hope. Trouble is, we don't agree on what that might look like, and every time someone tries to discuss it they are told to shut up. I've done enough successful "win-win" negotiating to believe that the outcome won't be affected by Blair and his statements. I actually agree that he's not helping anyone - but just because it's him, not because someone, somewhere, wants to discuss the form our Brexit will take.
Still do. It was a hate crime - expressed by publicly distributing the video of burning a book that is sacred to the people that were the target. If the target had been Christians or Americans it could have been a hate crime expressed by burning a Bible or the US flag. Wouldn't everyone like to see hate and hate crimes stop? They just make the world a worse place. Some evenhandedness and consistency in applying the law wouldn't hurt, either.
Going back to the original post, the Danish alleged offender is being prosecuted, not for hate crime, but for blasphemy. That surely takes matters backwards to the Middle Ages
I'd say it was an important part of the picture - it goes to his judgement on matters European. He was clearly wrong on the Euro, and what he espouses now should be looked at in that light
Yeah, I know. I can only assume they don't have a "hate crime" category like we do and this is what they've come up with as the best they can do. Now for some evenhandedness with radical Islamists (if we're lucky).
It doesn't take things back to the middle ages Goldie - there are anti blasphemy laws in around half the EU. countries, including Germany, they are often now referred to as the crime of religious insult. In the middle ages they were used by oppressive clerical regimes to silence all dissention, now they are used to offer protection of the religious beliefs of minorities. They cover public scorn or mockery of religion - and could have been used against Charlie Hebdo if it had been in Germany. The thing was made public on the internet and so qualifies as both 'blasphemy' and hate crime.
I can just about live with a "hate" crime if it incites violence - but blasphemy is archaic. On that basis, Life of Brian should have been prosecuted too, or is mocking religion for the enjoyment of millions acceptable? Somehow, making a crime of insulting a medieval belief makes me feel we're going backwards. No one would have been prosecuted for blasphemy for burning a bible last century. The authorities are giving ground in the face of Islamic immigration, scared of another Charlie Hebdo
The actual law in Germany goes like this: 1. Whosoever publicly, or through dissemination of written materials (Section 11(3)) defames the religion or ideology of others in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine. The above is, naturally, translated from German (because I can't do it with the Danish version). Though broader than 'incitement to violence' laws, the emphasis is still very much on the motives behind an act - I do not think that 'hate' was the driving force behind 'The life of Brian'. Burning a book which is held as holy by others would not be a crime unless it were done publicly - in this case it was actually published in the internet, and so, does, qualify under existing laws protecting the beliefs of others. There have been cases of this sort protecting Christian sects and Jews - so it is not being applied in a one sided fashion.
A good answer, Cologne. But by the very nature of blasphemy, I doubt that in Denmark, courts would distinguish between a holy book burned in public and one burned in private. If one act is blasphemous, the other must be. That's what makes it more worrying than a "hate" crime inciting violence. And I somehow think that a "Frankfurt Koran and other book burning club - private conflagrations every Wednesday night" would soon find itself in trouble with the law in Germany.
I'll take it from another angle Goldie. If I were to have a bonfire in my back garden (having, naturally informed the fire brigade first !) and were to burn an effigy of a person of afro caribbean descent then it would become a crime to then publish photos of it - it would, very quickly, be covered by laws on racial incitement. Religious groups do not have the same protection as those protected by race relations laws, and so laws like this fill in the gap - that we use a word such as 'blasphemy' to describe them is not important - it's only a name.
If you grossly disrespect in public someone of another race, I can see it might lead to violence But blasphemy can creep behind closed doors, into the home, and be interpreted by religious bigots and thought police. It's several steps backwards, that's just my view. Have a look at what's happening in Pakistan, where defiling a book leads to a death sentence. Those practices are beginning to come to Europe
