Has Labour abolished freedom of speech?
Discussion
There are an ever growing number of subjects that Labour deems a 'crime' to discus.
Telegraph said:
Muslim leader faces police questioning about 'homophobic' remarks
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
(Filed: 12/01/2006)
A British Muslim leader is being investigated by the police for allegedly homophobic remarks made during a radio interview.
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that homosexual practices were "harmful" and civil partnerships "not acceptable" last week.
Sir Iqbal defended his comments in a statement on his website
Interviewed on BBC Radio Four's PM programme on Jan 3, Sir Iqbal said: "If you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the various forms of other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that, where homosexuality is practised, there is a greater concern in that area."
Asked if homosexuality was harmful to society, he said: "Certainly it is a practice that doesn't, in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society - it is. It is not acceptable."
Peter Rippon, the programme's editor, was telephoned by an officer at West End Central police station in London yesterday, who said that he was investigating a homophobic incident under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
This makes it an offence for a person to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words" within the hearing of "a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" as a result.
The prosecution must also establish that the defendant intended his words to be threatening, abusive or insulting or that he was aware that they may be.
It is a defence for the accused to prove that his conduct was reasonable. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000.
There is no suggestion that the BBC is facing prosecution and it rebroadcast Sir Iqbal's remarks in full on yesterday's PM programme.
Sir Iqbal declined to comment further, saying he had not yet been contacted by the police.
The investigation follows a letter in The Daily Telegraph on Jan 6, pointing out that Christians who expressed negative views of homosexuality had previously been contacted by the police and warned against their behaviour.
Neil Addison, who wrote the letter, argued that if the police took no action against Sir Iqbal the Churches would be entitled to ask why Muslims were being treated differently from Christians.
Sir Iqbal defended his comments in a statement on his website last week. "What I said was only to reiterate the well-known Islamic position that the practice of homosexuality is not acceptable," he wrote.
"It is a sin. This view is shared in other scriptures, such as those of Christianity and Judaism."
wolves_wanderer said:
Wasn't there someone on here who said that they could (or would) take legal action against people who expressed a negative opinion on gay adoption? Freedom of speech only seems to exist on any subject as long as you are going with the prevailing PC view.
Indeed they did
Thankfully most PH's are more sensible, which is why I spend far too much of my time here
Jaglover said:
There are an ever growing number of subjects that Labour deems a 'crime' to discuss.
Telegraph said:
...under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
This makes it an offence for a person to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words" within the hearing of "a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" as a result."
It has been a crime to make public proclamations of homophobia for twenty years, so I don't see how this is tied particularly to Labour.
Ecks Ridgehead said:
It has been a crime to make public proclamations of homophobia for twenty years, so I don't see how this is tied particularly to Labour.
I don't agree with what he said
But, he didn't use inflammatory language and merely reiterated what his religion claims, that such acts are a sin.
Aren't people allowed to read or interpret their own religious texts now?
said:
Peter Rippon, the programme's editor, was telephoned by an officer at West End Central police station in London yesterday, who said that he was investigating a homophobic incident under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
This makes it an offence for a person to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words" within the hearing of "a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" as a result.
That puts stand up comedians out of business then
>> Edited by Swilly on Thursday 12th January 11:19
Jaglover said:
It has been a crime to make public proclamations of homophobia for twenty years, so I don't see how this is tied particularly to Labour.
I don't agree with what he said
But, he didn't use inflammatory language and merely reiterated what his religion claims, that such acts are a sin.
Aren't people allowed to read or interpret their own religious texts now?
Ironically using the same legislation - He could claim that he is now the victim of religious discrimination, by being unable to express his religious views about what he believes to be sinful (some Jews and Christians would hold similar views on homosexuality ).
IMHO - there is a difference between "homophobia" and epxressing moral views on certain lifestyles.
Ecks Ridgehead said:
There are an ever growing number of subjects that Labour deems a 'crime' to discuss.
Telegraph said:
...under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
This makes it an offence for a person to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words" within the hearing of "a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" as a result."
It has been a crime to make public proclamations of homophobia for twenty years, so I don't see how this is tied particularly to Labour.
The comment was not "threatening, abusive or insulting", it was merely an opinion. I think this ever-increasing clamping down in many aspects of our lives can be put fair and square onto Labour.
They have managed changes by stealth such that many people don't notice small incremental changes until it's too late.
alfaman said:
Ironically using the same legislation - He could claim that he is now the victim of religious discrimination, by being unable to express his religious views about what he believes to be sinful (some Jews and Christians would hold similar views on homosexuality ).
IMHO - there is a difference between "homophobia" and epxressing moral views on certain lifestyles.
As the old saying goes "I don't agree with what you have to say but I shall defend your right to say it". I don’t think he was using emotive language to say what he did, expressing his own views and beliefs.
I believe him misguided but sure as hell I don't think that the way he expressed his views was worthy of condemnation.
interesting labour tell off a muslim for what he has said.
would a homosexual be allowed to slander or libel a muslim religion?
just wondering if the labour rules are like paper, scissors, stone, or if there is a top trump and the mythical one legged, black, lesbian, single mother of three, would be able to get away with almost anything.
would a homosexual be allowed to slander or libel a muslim religion?
just wondering if the labour rules are like paper, scissors, stone, or if there is a top trump and the mythical one legged, black, lesbian, single mother of three, would be able to get away with almost anything.
james_j said:
The comment was not "threatening, abusive or insulting", it was merely an opinion. I think this ever-increasing clamping down in many aspects of our lives can be put fair and square onto Labour.
They have managed changes by stealth such that many people don't notice small incremental changes until it's too late.
In my opinion, all the
blacks should be dragged out into the street and shot. Lucky for me that's just my opinion, eh?
I think having your sexual preference described as "harmful to society" could be construed as being insulting.
(NB I should point out that I believe that people should be allowed to say what they like - I am just playing Devil's advocate here in the interests of fairness)
Ecks Ridgehead said:
In my opinion, all the
Lucky for me that's just my opinion, eh?
I think having your sexual preference described as "harmful to society" could be construed as being insulting.
(NB I should point out that I believe that people should be allowed to say what they like - I am just playing Devil's advocate here in the interests of fairness)
That is inciting violence, which might cause Public disorder. I am not saying there should be no constraints on free speech whatsoever. Only that reasoned argument should never be prohibited.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff