If at first you don't succeseed - Change the freaking law.

[A_Wanderer]

Ministers are considering whether race hate laws should be revised after BNP leader Nick Griffin was cleared of charges relating to speeches he made.

A jury decided speeches by Mr Griffin and party activist Mark Collett in 2004 had not incited racial hatred.

Home Secretary John Reid said he would consult ministers after Gordon Brown said current laws may need reviewing.

Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said Muslims were offended and must be sure that the law would protect them.

But Lib Dem MP Evan Harris said tighter laws could create "extremist martyrs".

Mr Griffin, 46 and from Powys, had denied at a retrial two charges of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred .

link

If having fascists being allowed to go around stiring up hate is the cost of free speech then so be it.

And on the front of forfeiting secularism to give legal protection for fantasy

Lord Falconer later told BBC Radio 4's Any Questions? that the government had to show young Muslims that Britain was not anti-Islamic.

"We should look at them in the light of what's happened here because what is being said to young Muslim people in this country is that we as a country are anti-Islam, and we have got to demonstrate without compromising freedom that we are not," he said.

He said there should be "consequences" from saying Islam is "wicked and evil".

What sort of doublespeak is that, show that the country isn't anti-Islam without compromising freedom and then turn around and punish people for saying that Islam is a wicked and evil faith.

 

[vaz02]

British law is in desperate need of reviewing. AS A WHOLE.

 

[anitram]

British law is in desperate need of reviewing. AS A WHOLE.

How so?

 

[zepher25]

to say that british law needs reviewing as a whole is saying that many other countries laws also need reviewing. almost all the concepts of common law used today are from British law and many western countries based their laws on britan ie. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I think it's reasonable to expect laws be reviewed. Hell, I hope laws be reviewed, as anyone should hope. This is reminding me of an assignment I just finished.

 

[LJT]

They charged him under race law, which was a bit stupid considering he made the remarks against a religion.

Last time I checked Islam was not a race.

There is no doubt in my mind that Nick Griffin is a racist but he did not insult a race, it should not be wrong to hold a belief that any religion is wrong, bad for the world, stupid etc it should be wrong to say 'go out and kill everyone of that faith' or to discriminate against them.........

But common sense rarely applies to the law.

 

[vaz02]

How so?

Aint you been watching the news for the past 10 years ?

 

[yolland]

The article was confusing to me as an American with no extensive knowledge of current UK politics, as the sidebar discusses the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006--which to me creates the impression that that is what Griffin was charged under. But checking some other news articles, I see the charges did have to do with race hatred specifically. Also, I gather this Act is not per se in force yet, as it lacks a Statutory Instrument--can someone confirm that, and perhaps explain what the legal or political implications of not having an SI are? I am not really familiar with this concept.

I did find this part of the article interesting with reference to the race/religion distinction:

...Mr Griffin...said Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole".

Mr Collett addressed the audience by saying: "Let's show these ethnics the door in 2004."

So, in fact, although their target was technically "Muslims" generically, it would seem that they themselves associate whatever it is they find repugnant about Islam with race and/or ethnicity. In my impression, this is characteristic of a lot of anti-Islam rhetoric--it very often seems to have a quite explicit racist tinge to it.

I appreciate the need for legal purposes to articulate a distinction and understand that one can exist in practice as well, however, I often find it disingenuous when people argue that prejudicial attitudes towards Muslims, by definition, could not possibly be racist in nature.

 

[A_Wanderer]

This was racist; the BNP hates South Asians and in this case it was against Pakistanis and Bangladeshies but even if thats the case charging somebody for their speech is wrong; it should be judged in the marketplace for what it is, the ramblings of racist statists who want to carve out a political niche.

 

[LJT]

What were the actual phrases he used in the speech, which he was charged for? I thought it was only what he said about Islam, being 'wicked, vicious faith' in the speech that was recorded that the charges were brought against.

I'm generally with A_Wanderer on this, and I do agree Yolland that there is usually a racist slant on any prejudice towards muslims, and in the UK I think that is generally against Pakistani and Bangladeshies people whom roughly make-up 70% of the Islamic population of the UK.

Legislating against speech apart from an actual call to inflict harm or to actively discriminate i believe is wrong.

Yolland my understanding of Statutory instruments is that they are the finer details of a law, the rules and regulations under which the law can be applied. The law is in force, but only as a very general statement, the nuances of it are still being worked out by parliament, as in what conditions and ways it can be applied. Its in effect, but hard to interpret what it relates to specifically at the moment, which probably aided in getting Nick Griffin off the charges.

So the government's statement of tightening up the race laws, may just mean working out the detail of the law a bit faster.

 

[anitram]

Aint you been watching the news for the past 10 years ?

Well what kind of an answer is that? What do you think needs reviewing, exactly? The concept of common law (should we move to civil, like France, etc), the court systems, appointment of judges, judicial review, etc? I just don't understand your comment.