I know one of the Fox News presenters. He's a local boy, moved to the USA some years back but comes into our pub when he's home for Christmas.
Jonathan Hunt.
Englishman.
has anyone else been looking a fox news' coverage of katrina?.
all morning it's been showing some idiot standing in the middle of the street getting pummelled by debris.
how is this news?
I know one of the Fox News presenters. He's a local boy, moved to the USA some years back but comes into our pub when he's home for Christmas.
Jonathan Hunt.
Englishman.
i'm not a medical professional - but i feel very strongly about this issue and want to pass it along.. why are so many witnesses so sick?
why do they often seem to be plagued by strange, chronic illnesses - that often appear.
to have a strong psychosomatic element?
Mental health revolves around 3 key issues.
1. How you view yourself.
2. How you view the world around you.
3. How you view your future.
There's the problem!
Englishman.
i'll be off to england for a while, somewhere in the south.
anything i shouldn't miss while being there?
is it true they don't serve beer after 10:00 pm anymore?
Devon is nice. Very rural. I live in Somerset, the County next to it.
Englishman.
your opinion, please......the publications emphatically state that not only are we supposed to hate the wickedness of a sin---but actually hate the person!!!
does this not violate the law??
?
Here's some details of the proposed new UK laws regarding Religious Hatred:
1. What is the Government doing?
2. Why is new legislation necessary?
3. Why is this measure in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill?
The proposed offence of incitement to religious hatred is included alongside other offences, all of which the Home Secretary has said the Government will legislate for as soon as possible. The provision is within the scope of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill which provides this opportunity during this Parliamentary session.
4. What would be caught by the new incitement offence?
5. What will the new offence not cover?
Of themselves, the following would not be caught by the offence:
6. Would the play “Behzti” by Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti which was being shown in Birmingham or “Jerry Springer the Opera” which was broadcast by the BBC be covered by the new offence of incitement to religious hatred?
The Government upholds freedom of expression, provided this does not stir up hatred or violence. Neither “Behzti” nor “Jerry Springer the Opera” would fall foul of the proposed or existing incitement to hatred offences. Although it is clear that the opera and the play have caused offence, there is no evidence that they have stirred up hatred against any religious group and they would not be caught by the proposed incitement to religious offence. It is already an offence to stir up hatred against Sikhs, under the current incitement to racial hatred offences, whether because of their race or religion. The police have decided that there are no grounds for action against the play Behzti, which some Sikhs felt targeted their community. The proposed offence of stirring up religious hatred, which will extend the same legal protection to other faith communities, is not a blasphemy law and will not penalise criticising articles or symbols of faith or causing offence. It will not therefore interfere with freedom of expression any more than the existing offence on inciting racial hatred has done.
7. Will the new legislation only protect Muslims? What about individuals with no religious beliefs? Are they protected?
The new legislation will protect people of all religious beliefs, applying equally to incited hatred against Muslims, or Christians, or any other religious group. It will also protect people targeted because of their lack of religious beliefs or because they do not share the religious beliefs of the perpetrator.
8. Will religion be defined? Will the definition include cults?
In keeping with similar legislation, the proposals do not define the meaning of religion. “Religious hatred” is defined as “hatred against a group of people defined by their religious beliefs or lack of religious belief”. Explanatory notes have been published which provide a non-exhaustive list of widely practised religions and clearly explain that the protection also covers people identified with a particular branch of a religion. They also stress that the protection of the offence covers Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics. When the circumstances are unclear, the courts will decide whether a particular group of people is protected, in the wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered. If the courts ruled that a new religious movement qualified as a religion for the purposes of the new offence, that would not prevent criticism of the practices of that movement.
9. What about protection for other at risk groups such as those with disabilities or those who suffer because of their sexual orientation? Why isn’t the incitement to racial hatred provisions being extended to protect those groups?
The extension of the incitement provisions to cover people identified by their religion as well as race, is the closing of an unacceptable loop-hole that mono-ethnic religious groups (such as Jews and Sikhs) are covered by the existing offence whereas multi-ethnic religious groups (such as Muslims and Hindus) are not. The Government keeps provisions under constant review and is open to considering whether further extensions are needed.
10. What measures have been put in place to ensure that provisions for freedom of speech and/or freedom of religion will not be abused?
These measures accord with, and will operate in the light of, the guarantees afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. In fact in its latest report, published on 2 March, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has stated that it considers that the measures on incitement proposed in the SOCAP Bill are unlikely to give rise to any violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.
The Government is determined to protect both the rights of free speech, which have been long respected in this country, and the right to lead a life in which one can peacefully practise one’s own religion without fear. The Government is confident that this can be reconciled with protecting people against incited hatred. The new legislation will provide protection from the activities of extremists who stir up hatred against people because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs, whilst also safeguarding the right to engage in free and vigorous debate about religion, including the right to criticise religious beliefs and practices.
The proposed and existing offences both carry a high threshold in order to protect freedom of speech. Words, behaviour or material used must be threatening, abusive or insulting and must either be intended to or likely to stir up hatred. The hatred must be aimed at people who are members of that group, not ideologies. Hatred is a strong term; which goes beyond ridicule, prejudice, dislike, contempt, anger or offence. A further safeguard in the legislation is that a person who does not intend to stir up hatred is not guilty of an offence if they did not know that their words, behaviour, written material, recording or programmes were threatening, abusive or insulting. Furthermore the offences do not apply to anything that takes place in one’s own home. All prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney General, which will prevent the offences being misused through private prosecutions. We believe the wording of the offences, the public interest test applied by the CPS, and the veto of the Attorney General are sufficient to safeguard freedom of speech.
This provision will protect people’s freedom to practise their religion without fear, not restrict it. Proselytism is recognised as an integral activity for many faith communities. The new provision would make it an offence to stir up hatred, not to practise one’s religion or proselytise.
Jews and Sikhs are protected by the existing offences regardless of whether threats, abuse or insults made against them are religiously or racially motivated. This hasn’t stopped people criticising Judaism or discussing alleged human rights abuses perpetrated by the Jewish community in Israel because this offence does not prohibit criticism of religious beliefs.
Article 9 of the European Convention states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and that this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. It also states that freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject to limitations prescribed by law and necessary in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order and the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10 of the European Convention states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and that this includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas. Similarly it also states that the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to restrictions prescribed by law that are necessary in the interests of public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the reputation or rights of others.
These offences are justifiable, necessary and proportionate measures for the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights of others; the need for which is reflected in these articles. Indeed because these provisions protect groups from hatred directed against them because of religious belief, they safeguard the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Writers are rightly concerned about freedom of expression. The government’s prime concern is the safety and security of our communities. The aim of this legislation is to protect people from the hatred stirred up against them on the basis of their religious beliefs that prepares the ground for dangerous violence.
Our proposal puts boundaries on free speech that permits artists to offend, criticise or ridicule but which will protect people from the sort of hatred that has a very real and corrosive effect on our communities. We are confident that this offence places boundaries in the right place.
11. What does the Government think about the case of two Australian pastors who have been found guilty of vilifying Islam?
There are a number of differences between section 8 of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, under which the defendants have been found guilty, and the incitement to religious hatred offence we propose.
Section 8 of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act makes it an offence for a person to engage in conduct which incites not only hatred against, but also serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, another person or class of persons on the ground of the religious belief or activity. The threshold for the incitement to religious hatred offence we propose is substantially higher and will only capture those who knowingly use words or behaviour or to publish or distribute material that is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention or likelihood that religious hatred would be stirred up.
Another difference is that, under our existing and proposed offences, prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney General, which prevents the legislation being misused by feuding religious groups.
There is a distinction between criticising a religion and the inciting hatred against its followers. The Government is confident that the new legislation prohibits the latter without interfering with the former.
12. Has the Government carried out a consultation on this issue?
The issue has been explored in depth by the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences in 2003 and has also been considered as part of the Strength in Diversity consultation in 2004. Following the then Home Secretary’s announcement on this issue on 7 July, the Home Office undertook a further targeted consultation with a variety of organisations representing different religions and beliefs, civil liberties groups, trade unions, enforcement agencies and others.
13. Will the government repeal/extend existing blasphemy laws?
14. Will the government be doing anything to address the general issue of discrimination on religious grounds?
Yes. As the then Home Secretary outlined in his speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research on 7 July 2004, the Government knows that people can be and are discriminated against because of their religion, and that people of faith cannot have full access to jobs, careers and services if their religious needs are ignored or overridden..
In December 2003, the Government implemented the EU regulations against religious discrimination in employment and training. We have funded ACAS and community organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain to help employees as well as employers understand their rights and obligations
The Government has responded to calls from faith communities, as well as from BME and anti-racism organisations, for legislation to tackle religious discrimination in other areas. The Prime Minister announced the Government’s intentions on this at the 2004 Labour Party Conference. The Equality Bill, introduced into Parliament in March 2005, includes provisions which will make unlawful discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, in the delivery of goods, facilities and services, and the exercising of public functions. This will afford all religious communities the protections currently enjoyed by Jews and Sikhs, who are deemed ethnic groups under the Race Relations Act.
15. Are the incitement to religious hatred proposals the same as the religious discrimination proposals?
No. Stirring up hatred against people because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs is a criminal matter whereas religious discrimination comes under civil law. The Government’s religious discrimination proposals are being taken forward as part of the Single Equality Commission Bill. They will afford protection from discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services or premises for followers of all religions. The new provisions on religious discrimination are intended to close a loophole where case-law has extended the protections of the Race Relations Act to followers of some religions, namely Jews and Sikhs, as they are recognised as mono-ethnic groups, but followers of other multi-ethnic religions are not equally protected.
16. How will the new provisions be enforced? Will there be a high number of convictions obtained?
The Government is working with the Police, the CPS and other key agencies, to ensure that the new provisions make a full and effective contribution to our work against hate crime.
We do not expect a large number of prosecutions, just as there have not been a large number of prosecutions under incitement to racial hatred.
The offence has however provided a powerful deterrent to the conduct of racist and other extremist organisations and individuals.
17. Why don’t you extend the existing incitement to racial hatred offence to make clear that insults using religious words cannot be used as a proxy for racism?
Oh Yes!
Great fight-back attempt, you Aussies. But England win.
Englishman.
is any one informing the press in the uk, ie bbc, itv, sky, etc and papers, about the anti jw protests in new york and canada on the 13th october?.
they may be interested!.
perhaps simon is the right person to do the informing as he has this web site to back up his own interest in the topic!
Really?
What, where?
Englishman.
.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/a30439-2004dec27.html.
They're very popular in the UK. Easy to park anywhere too, you just point the nose into the space and park crossways.
Englishman.
.
england 179-8. australia 79 all out in 14 overs.
bring it on
Good grief..England have 477 all out and it's already Australia 58 for 4!
What's happened to the Aussies?
Englishman.
there was so much hoo-hah prior to the films release, that i became ever determined to see it as soon as it hit town!.
the church leaders were up in arms about it, mary whitehouse became almost apoplectic, it was almost the end of civilisation as we knew it!.
well, we duly toddled off to see it.
There are some great clips from the Life of Brian here:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2322878?htv=12
The Miracle section shows just who is in the hole! Brian before Pilate (Biggus Dickus bit) is particularly funny too.
Englishman.
there was so much hoo-hah prior to the films release, that i became ever determined to see it as soon as it hit town!.
the church leaders were up in arms about it, mary whitehouse became almost apoplectic, it was almost the end of civilisation as we knew it!.
well, we duly toddled off to see it.
You can laugh yer tits off
Here's a joke that'll make you laugh your tits off...hold on, I see you've heard it already. Englishman.