That is what Fascists say.Dipp, it may not be their job to support thr government but it is their job to support the country and should keep their mouths shut.
That is what Fascists say.Dipp, it may not be their job to support thr government but it is their job to support the country and should keep their mouths shut.
Wow, even Fascists want them to keep their mouths shut, amazing.That is what Fascists say.
Your quote 'History is irrelevant to this' demonstrates your inability and naivety to understand things (and we were told those that voted Brexit were thick)? He caused this mess FFS. 2004 he relaxed laws letting in many people. They estimated just 10K and at least 700K came from Poland alone. This influx of migrants has caused problems in this country. The knock on effect was that many people voted Brexit. So thanks to your mate Tony Blair a large number of people voted for Brexit. He then has the audacity to then try and derail the process for personal gain.
Seriously Watford, you should stick to thinking 'Clappy Mackie" is QPR's saviour.
So arguably what he said recently was sh2t?Yes Blair's policies were arguably very poor and arguably he was a crap PM, criminal, Tory. Take your pick.
Sir John Major has been showing why he is the only decent Prime Minister we've had in the last 35 years, by talking a lot of sense tonight.
Especially with his comments on Northern Ireland and our future dependence on a new unreliable and insular US president.
I suspect the papers will concentrate on him saying the British people are being sold unreasonable prospects with brexit - that's probably up for debate, but he's spot on about how Brexit cheerleaders have disregarded those that voted Remain.
As if to show his point, that upper class twit Rees-Mogg then pops up with a bitter little attack on him for supporting Remain, rather than answer his points.
Yes I know Major shagged edwina currie, but compared to Blair or Thatcher they ****ed the country.
Actually that is an incorrect statement. We want the best deal out Brexit and the country needs to stay united or it sends out the wrong messages especially when you are trying to make a deal like this.
sorry dipper, but you are wrong here.
I don't want to bring in unnecessary laws, BD. As a reminder, it was you who wanted to prosecute people for offending other people's sensibilities by burning a book
<snip>
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.
Again, not really relevant.
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
If fond guilty appantly he will be burned at the stake.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).
And then beheaded.If fond guilty appantly he will be burned at the stake.
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.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
That must be a new law in Germany!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.
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.
The actual law in Germany goes like this: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.
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.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.