Law criminalizing denying things...
Discussion
s2art said:
Depends. If I was to say that I am skeptical that the Nazis actually managed to kill as many as claimed, would you say I was denying the holocaust? There has to be room for free speech to enable historical debate and research. Ultimately free speech is more important than not offending someone.
Within a sensible context this is logical. Discussing the accuracy of the data amongst non politicised people should be a matter of academia.
Unfortunately, it is all to often a discussion that involves one element claiming the accurate number is zero etc.
There is also a kind of tipping point where the number is so vast that it is moot. And whatever the true figure is for the Holocaust it is way above that level.
To the OP, there are several reasons why mainland Europe must have different laws to us. They are as a whole far less tolerant than we are. there are still huge right wing populations. And they also have the guilt of a nation which partook in the genocide rather than tried to protect people from it.
Mainland Europe has a far more complicated and unpleasant relationship with the far right than we have.
Denying that the slaughter of hundreds of thousands to millions of fellow Europeans took place on an industrial basis with many Europeans being paid to round up humans that were once their neighbours like cattle is something that only the mentally deranged or politically motivated could do.
The mentally ill can be treated but those with a political agenda must be prevented by other means.
It is important to understand how Natzism spread through Europe and just how many people adopted/embraced its ideals and how these views still reside in quite large elements of these populations so as to understand just how fine a line it is over there between malicious intent and free speech.
We look upon our public right wing figures as almost comedy characters. Theirs are in far greater numbers, far more intent and with far greater followings.
Europe is in economic crisis. All members are technically broke or close to broke.
Populations turn to right wing views and seek scapegoats only in times of economic hardship. The writing is on the wall.
Look how quickly our government looked to pass 100% of our crisis onto a small, affluent group of our society a group that was historically the Jews, so as to avert blame for their actions.
Economic hardship inspires many social changes. Many are good such as a shift back to relying on family etc but there are the guaranteed insidious changes that come about through a human need to blame others for our woes.
In times of hardship the two groups who are focussed upon are the wealthy and the culturally different. Jews are the Holy Grail of both and for thousands of years have born the brunt.
DonkeyApple said:
Denying that the slaughter of hundreds of thousands to millions of fellow Europeans took place on an industrial basis with many Europeans being paid to round up humans that were once their neighbours like cattle is something that only the mentally deranged or politically motivated could do.
But they should still be allowed to do so.In the same way you are free to call them mentally deranged or politically motivated when they do.
Freedom of speech can NOT be only for those views with which you agree, for who is to decide what we may or may not say? To seek to stifle others is an arrogance which ought not to be tolerated or accepted in a free society.
Thousands of people fought and died so that we could enjoy the very freedom of speech which would be constrained!! Those who seek to so constrain are no better than those whom they seek to constrain.
TheHeretic said:
So how does that explain the Armenian genocide, or the suggestions that climate denial should be made criminal? As I said earlier, this is not just a nazi issue.
Governments have set themselves a precedent - they are willing to make value judgements about certain beliefs. They've almost done it by accident, as the beliefs that have been popular (sexual and racial equality) are shared by pretty much everybody who isn't mental. After that, we get to more contentious issues.Jasandjules said:
But they should still be allowed to do so.
In the same way you are free to call them mentally deranged or politically motivated when they do.
Freedom of speech can NOT be only for those views with which you agree, for who is to decide what we may or may not say? To seek to stifle others is an arrogance which ought not to be tolerated or accepted in a free society.
Thousands of people fought and died so that we could enjoy the very freedom of speech which would be constrained!! Those who seek to so constrain are no better than those whom they seek to constrain.
Indeed. If someone says they are a denier that is one thing. There is no logic, reason or evidence to support their view, in fact the opposite. They are demonstrably wrong in their belief. In the same way you are free to call them mentally deranged or politically motivated when they do.
Freedom of speech can NOT be only for those views with which you agree, for who is to decide what we may or may not say? To seek to stifle others is an arrogance which ought not to be tolerated or accepted in a free society.
Thousands of people fought and died so that we could enjoy the very freedom of speech which would be constrained!! Those who seek to so constrain are no better than those whom they seek to constrain.
However, the majority of people who publicly state denial to an audience do have a clear agenda of gain. They are seeking numbers in order to assist them to make the structural social changes they desire.
The proof will be in the definition of the proposed law. Discussing events like te Holocaust are essential rights. Being a Denier is wrong but like believing in Scientology or Creationism not a crime in itself. Actively promoting your belief with the intent of change is a different matter.
Without looking at the minutae of this law or seeing test cases it is hard to establish what exactly we are debating.
In earlier posts there seem to have been arguements as to whether incitement is a crime. The key is to use the law to determine whether the person inciting others intended for those others to act in their wishes or not. And obviously whether those actions are illegal.
Standing in public and inciting people to go and hug a stranger and showing them how to do it and for some people to actually go ahead and do it is very different from standing in public and inciting people to go and kill or hurt others. Especially if someone has already subscribed to a belief system which can then be used as the bedrock to steer that person to your bidding.
The cases brought by the law should define whether there was 'intent' and whether the actions incited were detrimental to society as a whole.
DonkeyApple said:
The cases brought by the law should define whether there was 'intent' and whether the actions incited were detrimental to society as a whole.
And you're happy for a 60 year old, public school educated man who holds a peerage to decide what's good for society? Again, it's a value judgement, and I don't think government should do that.My name is David. And I agree with Ron Paul.
Derek Smith said:
That said, a chap standing on street corner has a limited audience, not something one could say about a political party, a major religion, a newspaper, a television company, or a website host.
Rights are all right but there is a balance. If we go along the route of no intervention by the judiciary then, history shows, groups and individuals will be persecuted. I agree that each individual has a responsbility and is the master of their own will but the unfortunate fact is that the majority of people can be affected by such 'encouragement'. Some research suggests that everyone has a 'trigger'.
I'm not sure which history books you read Derek, but most of mine tend to show that when the state and the courts start telling people what they can read, who they can vote for and what they can believe then persecution is a much more likely outcome. Where has ever had significant persecution due to a lack of legislation?Rights are all right but there is a balance. If we go along the route of no intervention by the judiciary then, history shows, groups and individuals will be persecuted. I agree that each individual has a responsbility and is the master of their own will but the unfortunate fact is that the majority of people can be affected by such 'encouragement'. Some research suggests that everyone has a 'trigger'.
Derek Smith said:
You ask how far back incitement can go. This is a matter for the courts.
You suggest that there is a difference between inciting an offence and inciting an offence where it is not committed. Many feel that this is the same as someone throwing a punch which misses (an assault). Everything was present but accuracy. Give a man a gun in order to shoot someone and your liability should not be limited by how experienced a marksman he is.
In that case I think 80% of PH are guilty of inciting the murder of every paedophile, benefit scrounger and rioter who has got their face in the Daily Mail. You suggest that there is a difference between inciting an offence and inciting an offence where it is not committed. Many feel that this is the same as someone throwing a punch which misses (an assault). Everything was present but accuracy. Give a man a gun in order to shoot someone and your liability should not be limited by how experienced a marksman he is.
Derek Smith said:
There is no hate in a lot of 'hate' crimes. In my experience (so to speeak) a man does not strike his wife out of hate. The motivation is complex, much too much so for clarification by one word. It is just an easy word to use, giving the utterer some legitimacy not present in all such offences had they been described accurately. I do not believe you hate middle lane drivers. They may well irritate you, enrage you, but hate?
Nor do I hate black people, gays or any other group, really. But that's all academic because I'll never kick someone to death, brick their windows in or shoot them. Even the occasional person who I have hated for whatever reason I have never dealt with by way of violence, because fundamentally I don't believe violence solves problems. I could sit here seething away hating every group in the world and it would never boil over to so much as giving someone a bit of a shove. The problem is not hatred, it's mistaking violence for a solution.
Derek Smith said:
Everyone has, it would appear, inalianable rights. Hand in hand with the organisation which defines and protects these rights should be obligations. One of those obligations is to live and let live. The difficult bit is in the balance between the state's demand that you leave others alone and the right to do as you wish.
There is no line in the sand as such. It depends on individual interpretation. On the one hand you are suggesting people should be allowed to say anything even if it encourages others to commit offences. I disagree. However, given the OP's first comment, I also believe that there should be no offence of denying accepted history. Part of my reasoning is that if the denial encourages others to commit offences then the legislation exists to protect those individuals/groups. If there is no such encouragement then the state should wind its neck in.
No line? So what if the government could read and modify thoughts? Would you be happy to have your hating capacity removed if it stood some chance of preventing a crime? After all it's your mind that would incite you to make the speech that incites someone else to commit a hate crime.There is no line in the sand as such. It depends on individual interpretation. On the one hand you are suggesting people should be allowed to say anything even if it encourages others to commit offences. I disagree. However, given the OP's first comment, I also believe that there should be no offence of denying accepted history. Part of my reasoning is that if the denial encourages others to commit offences then the legislation exists to protect those individuals/groups. If there is no such encouragement then the state should wind its neck in.
I know that's a far fetched example, especially now that Labour are not in power, but the principle is the same to my mind.
As I see it, there definitely is a line in the sand, and the line is at the point where the government dictates what opinions I can express. How people react to my opinions is their business.
Edited by AJS- on Tuesday 27th December 13:23
TheHeretic said:
So how does that explain the Armenian genocide, or the suggestions that climate denial should be made criminal? As I said earlier, this is not just a nazi issue.
The Turks exterminate over 1m Christians. It's a pretty big holocaust. So understandable that they make turn to lawmakers to curb inciteful public speaking on it. The current relevance is probably solely being spoken of now because Turkey is joining the EU so the preparation of this is throwing up lots of issues. I suspect that if Turkey were not looking to join and the EU didn't want them in there would have been no mention of it.
The climate deniers scenario is simply bonkers. There is no way you could create a similarity between climate change and a holocaust. If people wish to argue that climate change will lead to millions dying because of the inaction of governments they need to find a different term.
My suspicion is that an element of the climate change lobby are actively looking to associate their cause to the various genocides of recent memory for political gain and to elevate the perception of their argument and desires.
It reminds me of the active and successful process in the 70s by Isreal to have their modern actions linked (and therefor accepted/forgiven) to the Jewish Holocaust. They were successful in their mission and they achieved the status that to criticise Isreal was to be seen as being anti Semitic. A shift which has permitted Isreal to carry out many actions that would otherwise have been condemned by the outside world.
There is a famous quote in regard to this but I can't remember it or who said it but I would make the assumption that the climate change lobby are looking to emulate this action and result so that by legal affiliation to genocides they can be increasingly more aggressive in achieving their goals.
Yes indeed, increasingly desperate zealots seeing their myths exploding and the associated goals failing week by week must resort to ever more ridiculous nonsense including the lunacy of the proposed ecototalitarianism. It has no chance of succeeding but may make then feel good. There are parallel calls for democracy to be set aside more generally in pursuit of similar baseless ecohype and associated control freakery.
DonkeyApple said:
The Turks exterminate over 1m Christians. It's a pretty big holocaust. So understandable that they make turn to lawmakers to curb inciteful public speaking on it.
The current relevance is probably solely being spoken of now because Turkey is joining the EU so the preparation of this is throwing up lots of issues. I suspect that if Turkey were not looking to join and the EU didn't want them in there would have been no mention of it.
The climate deniers scenario is simply bonkers. There is no way you could create a similarity between climate change and a holocaust. If people wish to argue that climate change will lead to millions dying because of the inaction of governments they need to find a different term.
My suspicion is that an element of the climate change lobby are actively looking to associate their cause to the various genocides of recent memory for political gain and to elevate the perception of their argument and desires.
It reminds me of the active and successful process in the 70s by Isreal to have their modern actions linked (and therefor accepted/forgiven) to the Jewish Holocaust. They were successful in their mission and they achieved the status that to criticise Isreal was to be seen as being anti Semitic. A shift which has permitted Isreal to carry out many actions that would otherwise have been condemned by the outside world.
There is a famous quote in regard to this but I can't remember it or who said it but I would make the assumption that the climate change lobby are looking to emulate this action and result so that by legal affiliation to genocides they can be increasingly more aggressive in achieving their goals.
Yes, it was a pretty big genocide, but that is beside the point. People are talking about how denial The current relevance is probably solely being spoken of now because Turkey is joining the EU so the preparation of this is throwing up lots of issues. I suspect that if Turkey were not looking to join and the EU didn't want them in there would have been no mention of it.
The climate deniers scenario is simply bonkers. There is no way you could create a similarity between climate change and a holocaust. If people wish to argue that climate change will lead to millions dying because of the inaction of governments they need to find a different term.
My suspicion is that an element of the climate change lobby are actively looking to associate their cause to the various genocides of recent memory for political gain and to elevate the perception of their argument and desires.
It reminds me of the active and successful process in the 70s by Isreal to have their modern actions linked (and therefor accepted/forgiven) to the Jewish Holocaust. They were successful in their mission and they achieved the status that to criticise Isreal was to be seen as being anti Semitic. A shift which has permitted Isreal to carry out many actions that would otherwise have been condemned by the outside world.
There is a famous quote in regard to this but I can't remember it or who said it but I would make the assumption that the climate change lobby are looking to emulate this action and result so that by legal affiliation to genocides they can be increasingly more aggressive in achieving their goals.
There has been plenty of talk of climate change denial being similar to holocaust denial, as well as it being made a criminal offense. It is not a nutty fringe group saying this, but an ex-VP of the United states, as well as others. I am not trying to equate the holocaust with climate change, but this type of law could well be used for this type of thing. If academics, (and Irving was considered quite the academic), cannot discuss these things, then where does that leave simple academic discourse, and who makes the decisions as to what is, and is not allowed to be spoken about?
I've said before that there is, in relation to Israel, a certain type of person who will shout 'anti-Semitic' whenever they feel there is criticism. I do think that this is along the same lines. Others have said as much on this thread, but if your opinion does not stand up to scrutiny, then it will not be taken seriously. There is no need for laws to govern these things. Holocaust deniers are speaking to their choir, as are the religious nuts, and the politicians, etc. each has an agenda, and each aims to spread their 'word' to other people. What will be banned next?
TheHeretic said:
DonkeyApple said:
The Turks exterminate over 1m Christians. It's a pretty big holocaust. So understandable that they make turn to lawmakers to curb inciteful public speaking on it.
The current relevance is probably solely being spoken of now because Turkey is joining the EU so the preparation of this is throwing up lots of issues. I suspect that if Turkey were not looking to join and the EU didn't want them in there would have been no mention of it.
The climate deniers scenario is simply bonkers. There is no way you could create a similarity between climate change and a holocaust. If people wish to argue that climate change will lead to millions dying because of the inaction of governments they need to find a different term.
My suspicion is that an element of the climate change lobby are actively looking to associate their cause to the various genocides of recent memory for political gain and to elevate the perception of their argument and desires.
It reminds me of the active and successful process in the 70s by Isreal to have their modern actions linked (and therefor accepted/forgiven) to the Jewish Holocaust. They were successful in their mission and they achieved the status that to criticise Isreal was to be seen as being anti Semitic. A shift which has permitted Isreal to carry out many actions that would otherwise have been condemned by the outside world.
There is a famous quote in regard to this but I can't remember it or who said it but I would make the assumption that the climate change lobby are looking to emulate this action and result so that by legal affiliation to genocides they can be increasingly more aggressive in achieving their goals.
Yes, it was a pretty big genocide, but that is beside the point. People are talking about how denial The current relevance is probably solely being spoken of now because Turkey is joining the EU so the preparation of this is throwing up lots of issues. I suspect that if Turkey were not looking to join and the EU didn't want them in there would have been no mention of it.
The climate deniers scenario is simply bonkers. There is no way you could create a similarity between climate change and a holocaust. If people wish to argue that climate change will lead to millions dying because of the inaction of governments they need to find a different term.
My suspicion is that an element of the climate change lobby are actively looking to associate their cause to the various genocides of recent memory for political gain and to elevate the perception of their argument and desires.
It reminds me of the active and successful process in the 70s by Isreal to have their modern actions linked (and therefor accepted/forgiven) to the Jewish Holocaust. They were successful in their mission and they achieved the status that to criticise Isreal was to be seen as being anti Semitic. A shift which has permitted Isreal to carry out many actions that would otherwise have been condemned by the outside world.
There is a famous quote in regard to this but I can't remember it or who said it but I would make the assumption that the climate change lobby are looking to emulate this action and result so that by legal affiliation to genocides they can be increasingly more aggressive in achieving their goals.
There has been plenty of talk of climate change denial being similar to holocaust denial, as well as it being made a criminal offense. It is not a nutty fringe group saying this, but an ex-VP of the United states, as well as others. I am not trying to equate the holocaust with climate change, but this type of law could well be used for this type of thing. If academics, (and Irving was considered quite the academic), cannot discuss these things, then where does that leave simple academic discourse, and who makes the decisions as to what is, and is not allowed to be spoken about?
I've said before that there is, in relation to Israel, a certain type of person who will shout 'anti-Semitic' whenever they feel there is criticism. I do think that this is along the same lines. Others have said as much on this thread, but if your opinion does not stand up to scrutiny, then it will not be taken seriously. There is no need for laws to govern these things. Holocaust deniers are speaking to their choir, as are the religious nuts, and the politicians, etc. each has an agenda, and each aims to spread their 'word' to other people. What will be banned next?
The issue with vocal/public deniers is that many will be doing so to aid in recruitment, just like other fringe groups use inciteful speeches that ate tailored to target a specific group and hit their weaknesses so as to attract new members. And new members equate to a strenghtening of the cause as well as usually increased funding.
But it is the context of the proposed law which is of interest. Can you tell me specifically what the law is and what areas it is intended to cover and what types of actions it is intended to criminalise?
This could all be a froth about nothing. A denier who sits at hope spouting their unfounded garbage amongst friends for example is very different from say someone in public actively promoting an eroneous ethos for purpose of recruitment or hatred etc.
But, as I mentioned earlier, do not under estimate how culturally different Europe is from Britain. For example, wandering around Southall is a very different experience from wandering around one of the Parisian ghettos.
AJS- said:
Derek Smith said:
That said, a chap standing on street corner has a limited audience, not something one could say about a political party, a major religion, a newspaper, a television company, or a website host.
Rights are all right but there is a balance. If we go along the route of no intervention by the judiciary then, history shows, groups and individuals will be persecuted. I agree that each individual has a responsbility and is the master of their own will but the unfortunate fact is that the majority of people can be affected by such 'encouragement'. Some research suggests that everyone has a 'trigger'.
I'm not sure which history books you read Derek, but most of mine tend to show that when the state and the courts start telling people what they can read, who they can vote for and what they can believe then persecution is a much more likely outcome. Where has ever had significant persecution due to a lack of legislation?Rights are all right but there is a balance. If we go along the route of no intervention by the judiciary then, history shows, groups and individuals will be persecuted. I agree that each individual has a responsbility and is the master of their own will but the unfortunate fact is that the majority of people can be affected by such 'encouragement'. Some research suggests that everyone has a 'trigger'.
In discussions with Jews in and around Middlesex Street suggest that this was, whilst infrequent, not unknown.
We have Germany of course. I'm unfamiliar with pre war legislation in the country but I feel certain that Kirstallnacht was against a law or two.
And then we have another time, another place, the other people:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078771/Is...
"The blonde, blue-eyed child told Israel's most popular weekend news show that she was spat on and verbally abused by ultra-Orthodox men who thought she was immodestly dressed.
"They wanted her 'to dress like a Haredi', she explained - the Hebrew term for strict, black-coated Jews who are in 'awe' of God.
"'I'm afraid I might get hurt or something,' she added.
"Naama's mother Hadassa, an American immigrant who dresses in headscarf and skirt out of respect for Jewish tradition, said the abuse included spitting, cries of 'w
es' and 'bds' and being told to 'clear out of here'. "'If that's what happens now, and they [the authorities] don't do anything, what will happen in another few years?' she said on Israel's Army Radio yesterday. 'This is a terrorist group.'
While his conservative government insists such incidents are rare in a mostly secular country, Mr Netanyahu's many statements on the issue reflect concern about widening religious and political divisions in Israel."
I'm not supporting anything other than offences of incitement to commit offences. It is only a slight step back from conspiracy, which I assume you support as you haven't mentioned it. I'm against the offence of Holocaust denial, or rather I'm against any offence which sticks to a specific interpretation of history, or indeed science, and makes it an offence not to do so.
Despite crationism being risable and patently absurd, I would not condone any restriction of it being disseminated. I would object to it being taught in school in anything other than a religious class (presumably to show just how silly religions are) but if someone wants to believe in it, or rather purport to believe in it as I feel certain most of those who push it do so to prove their religious belief and not through being convinced it is anything other than a child's story, then I pity them but they are adults and are hurting only themselves.
This does, of course, open up the worm can of them being allowed to teach it to their children but that is probably another thread.
DonkeyApple said:
But, as I mentioned earlier, do not under estimate how culturally different Europe is from Britain. For example, wandering around Southall is a very different experience from wandering around one of the Parisian ghettos.
I wonder if you could, for the likes of me who has only experienced one of the locations, explain the difference?Derek Smith said:
I wonder if you could, for the likes of me who has only experienced one of the locations, explain the difference?
One is wealthy, safe, clean, civilised and lived in out of choice and whites are welcome. The other is a ghetto. A hideous collection of self oppressed and oppressed backward people where you would be extremely foolish to go anywhere near.
Then you can contrast how indigenous Londoners treat people from Southall versus our Parisian counter parts.
2 different worlds with next to nothing in common. You can look at Brick Lane and many other ethnic communities in the UK. Not even Tower Hamlets or Thamesmead get close to their mainland counterparts.
DonkeyApple said:
Derek Smith said:
I wonder if you could, for the likes of me who has only experienced one of the locations, explain the difference?
One is wealthy, safe, clean, civilised and lived in out of choice and whites are welcome. The other is a ghetto. A hideous collection of self oppressed and oppressed backward people where you would be extremely foolish to go anywhere near.
Then you can contrast how indigenous Londoners treat people from Southall versus our Parisian counter parts.
2 different worlds with next to nothing in common. You can look at Brick Lane and many other ethnic communities in the UK. Not even Tower Hamlets or Thamesmead get close to their mainland counterparts.
It seems odd though to someone like me who's only been to the touristy areas. I've seen blacks and whites intermingling with no apparent problem - just like here. We have lots of schools come over to Brighton before the summer holidays and the blacks and whites dress identically. There doesn't seem to be the different racial based subculture that is presumed to be a problem in this country.
I've always harboured the hope that they did things differently and well.
Ah, well. Another dream shattered.
Derek Smith said:
Thanks for that. I've been spared the experience.
It seems odd though to someone like me who's only been to the touristy areas. I've seen blacks and whites intermingling with no apparent problem - just like here. We have lots of schools come over to Brighton before the summer holidays and the blacks and whites dress identically. There doesn't seem to be the different racial based subculture that is presumed to be a problem in this country.
I've always harboured the hope that they did things differently and well.
Ah, well. Another dream shattered.
All kids dressing identically is not a healthy sign It seems odd though to someone like me who's only been to the touristy areas. I've seen blacks and whites intermingling with no apparent problem - just like here. We have lots of schools come over to Brighton before the summer holidays and the blacks and whites dress identically. There doesn't seem to be the different racial based subculture that is presumed to be a problem in this country.
I've always harboured the hope that they did things differently and well.
Ah, well. Another dream shattered.
I've spent about half my life outside of the UK and quite a lot now in Europe. There is no doubt in my mind that elementary racism runs much deeper in Europe than here.
Derek,
Violence has pretty much always been illegal. If you're talking about enforcement of laws then I suppose calling something a "hate crime" might make some initial difference in bringing the issue to the fore, however in my view it might just as easily make the issue seem even more trivial and irrelevant after the hysteria has died down, or might make perfectly reasonable people, which I don't claim to be, feel that the area is over legislated.
The Human Rights Act is a good example of this. I think nearly everyone thinks human rights are in essence a good thing. It's good not to be persecuted and victimised. It's right that people have certain inalienable rights beyond the reach of the government, but what the legislation has actually given us is a field day for lawyers and million wriggle outs for those who engage them, while having no impact on the rest of us beyond higher taxes and a stream of piss boiling articles in the Daily Mail.
Conspiracy is different because there is a concrete plan to actually do something. As usual the line between conspiracy and idle chatter is something to be decided case by case in the courts, but in it's simplest terms I see a world of difference between saying "let's go kill a Jew" and "I think you should go and kill a Jew."
Violence has pretty much always been illegal. If you're talking about enforcement of laws then I suppose calling something a "hate crime" might make some initial difference in bringing the issue to the fore, however in my view it might just as easily make the issue seem even more trivial and irrelevant after the hysteria has died down, or might make perfectly reasonable people, which I don't claim to be, feel that the area is over legislated.
The Human Rights Act is a good example of this. I think nearly everyone thinks human rights are in essence a good thing. It's good not to be persecuted and victimised. It's right that people have certain inalienable rights beyond the reach of the government, but what the legislation has actually given us is a field day for lawyers and million wriggle outs for those who engage them, while having no impact on the rest of us beyond higher taxes and a stream of piss boiling articles in the Daily Mail.
Conspiracy is different because there is a concrete plan to actually do something. As usual the line between conspiracy and idle chatter is something to be decided case by case in the courts, but in it's simplest terms I see a world of difference between saying "let's go kill a Jew" and "I think you should go and kill a Jew."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff