Talk:Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred

This article desperately needs attention from a true expert. Example: It was once explained to me by an Englishman (NOT a lawyer/barrister) that whether or not the speech is true is irrelevant to the law as practiced. Even if provably true, the presiding judge decides whether or not you are to be punished. If true, this judicial standard is COMPLETELY at varience w the standards of the US (the only system w which I am familiar) where the truth of a statement is an absolute defense.Aaaronsmith (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone notice (as of 8/26/09) the Irish have just reenacted their laws against blasphemy? Fine is about two years pay (before taxes) for the average Irishman. Never before enforced if the victim was a Protestant. Not enforced for about 100 years if the victim is a Catholic. About to be enforce to protect "others". And NO, the truth will not be an acceptable defense.Aaaronsmith (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems biased against liberals. Citing sources would help; removing or changing certain phrases could also help. --Super Aardvark 21:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was biased, and I've taken out the POV and put some real information in there. XYaAsehShalomX 12:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

right of free speech

Is there, in Britain, actually a right to free speech? PeteVerdon 23:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, I'm not Brittish.--58.104.120.128 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's a common misconception that the UK has no legal freedom of speech, but it's actually covered by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

OK, yes, that seems obvious now I come to think of it. On looking at that article I also see that the Convention has been around for a lot longer than I thought; I suppose the change allowing people to go to the Court directly (Protocol 11) probably brought it into greater prominence, and to someone not paying attention might well look like its creation.

Don't suppose you know anything about the situation pre-1950? PeteVerdon 22:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wat bout the sikhs—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.8.175.26 (talk • contribs)

Dunno, I'm not a Sikh.--58.105.6.21 02:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may have freedom of speech in writing but I'd like to direct you to my section below, if we had freedom of speech I could say what I pleased, this is disgusting.

82.3.82.59 12:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning (actually just a comment, but it might avoid misunderstandings): Most of the world which claims to have free speech DOES NOT BY THE STANDARDS OF THE US. Most of the rest of the free world (and that includes little places like England and France) think Americans are stupid for being so unlimited in their freedoms. In America, I can call a convicted baby raper a baby raper to his face at a public envent and he can do nothing. In most countries that have the (not totally unreasonable but distortable by the powers that be) that such would be hate speech/harrassment since I did not have a good and sufficient REASON (in the judgement of the presiding authority) for refering to him as a baby raper no matter how true or correct the statement may be.Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, you likely got this from some rightist demagogue you listen too much to.108.131.83.202 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is convicted of a crime, I'm unaware of a country where mentioning that would be considered defamation. Sure, there may be, but it's unlikely to be 'most'. In the US, however, speech often is allowed without consequences; IE Joe should be killed; someone kills Joe; this can only be held if you were directly or financially involved. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not entirely true. America has defamation laws, as does the UK. There is more press freedom in the UK than in the USA. The US has massive official and media boss censorship, which doesn't occur in the UK. The so-called Patriot Act (actually more like the Gestapo Act) heavily restricts the freedom it is supposed to protect.124.197.15.138 (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britian effectively has a great deal of freedom of speech, however, due to their doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, it is not entrenched constitutionally the way that it is in the US. However, whether entrenchment really does any good, or simply shifts the issue over to the arbitrary caprice of unelected judges, is a matter of debate. 108.131.83.202 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this only about the UK ?

I find it strange that this article only deals with British law. I know for sure that "incitation à la haine raciale" is illegal in France, and it would be strange if these were the only two countries to disallow it. Recently, nationalist politicians such as Jean-Marie Le Pen and Bruno Gollnisch have been condemned for that, as well as the humorist Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. I've looked for such an article in the French wiki, but there isn't one yet. I'd love to help on that topic but my knowledge in laws don't go further than that. --Rell Canis 12:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be a law anyhow.

82.3.82.59 15:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to include more countries, I propose that the article covering this in Germany - Volksverhetzung - be merged into here. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 13:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not just about the UK at all! However if it were it would make a refreshing change from all the articles which are only about the US.124.197.15.138 (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inciting Racial Hatred In Australia

This page incorrectly cites the Racial Hatred Act 1995 as a source of law prohibiting incitement to racial hatred. There is no reference to incitement in the Act whatsoever. The Act is concerned with racial harrassment rather than incitement to racial hatred. The title of the Act is indeed a misonomer.

Freedom of speech, LOL!!!

I'm personally in awe of the fact that supposedly a civilised and western government can so plainly lie, of freedom of speech existed I wouldn't be in trouble for showing support for a legalised organisation, recognised globally as a law- abiding, Christian organisation. I support it, I won't at this stage name it but people can probably guess right, and yet I got suspended from school for merely saying, "Yes I sympathise with them".

Also I was in trouble for placing a video on youtube of performing a Sieg Heil salute, although I put at the beginning a warning that it didn't advocate violence, that people 'chose' to watch it and that I was merely showing my beliefs and not actively encouraging anyone to join me and I was still in trouble and what's worse I did it in private, at home and my school punished me, please tell me how there's some relation between freedom of speech and this law. I didn't hurt any ethnic group, I supported an organisation who had persecuted another ethnic group but wasn't myself doing it, yes. It's just disgraceful, please tell me what law I violated, because otherwise I'm getting those teachers' fired for putting a black mark on my record. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.82.59 (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group, specifically made to protect Jews and Sikhs who were being targeted. distributing racist material to the public making inflammatory public speeches creating racist websites on the Internet inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent

Right I didn't provoke anybody else into hating Jews, if I want to hate them I can. It was public but you'd have to search hard to find it. I made no speeches, I made no rumours, so what exactly did I do that warranted a whole host of detentions and a suspension?

82.3.82.59 12:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm assuming you're a Nazi or BNP supporter. In which case, I think you're legally allowed to say so - you're just not allowed to promote it in any way. I think it may be something to do with school rules rather than law.

Jews and Sikhs

With regard to the line: "deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group, specifically made to protect Jews and Sikhs who were being targeted". This line is wrong. I have no idea where the writer got the idea that it was for jews and sikhs. The bill was to protect all races, pakistani, indian, afro caribbean, african, chinese, (even white) all of whom were being targeted. Maybe they got the idea from discussion of the "religious hatred bill" where it was argued that jews and sikhs had an extra protection of their religion because they are seen as both a race and a religion. But that doesn't change what this bill was about. I am removing the last part of this line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.102.21.213 (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Other crimes

The editors should maybe look up whether it is forbidden to incite to other crimes. For instance, if any notable media began to promote pedophilia and rape, would there be laws against that ? It would still be forbidden, even though there are maybe no specific laws on this. ADM (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarianism and Northern Ireland

It might be worth pointing how these acts relate to NI, since there is a known history of religious hatred and incitement in the last century - The article gives me the impression that the act is solely related to immigration, integration and multiculturalism - the United Kingdom has struggled to deal with sectarianism in parts for much of the last century, as well as the aforementioned difficulties with the large scale immigration of the post-WW2 years. Just a thought 90.200.58.32 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

500 Years

The documentary 500 Years Later claims that the first person convicted under some British law was a Caribbean man. Does anyone know what they're referring to? Most of their claims seem more verifiable. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]