kai
ragamuffin
You know theres variuos arguments concerning the consumation of the marriage so its a contensious issue. and i am sure that has been debated before on RF but theres probably room for another thread on it.
The discussion point here is the arrest of someone who insults Muslims because as i think we all well know, to call the Prophet a rapist will be considered an insult. so what are we debating here?
is an insult a crime ?
when does an insult become a crime?
In my country it may be considered incitement to religious hatred and even inciting violence ( which i think it probably would) and would then be seen as breaking the law. So i have a feeling that he wouldn't have got away with this in the UK either.
Check out the UK Religious hatred law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3873323.stm
It seems i was wrong see here:
The first defeat, by 288 votes to 278, was aimed at ensuring the new laws would not affect the current racial hatred laws. The second vote, which the government lost by 283 votes to 282, said the law should only criminalise "threatening" behaviour, not things which were just "abusive and insulting". It also means people can only be prosecuted if they intend to stir up hatred - not if they are merely "reckless".
(my underlining)
Oh and lets keep it civil please!
The discussion point here is the arrest of someone who insults Muslims because as i think we all well know, to call the Prophet a rapist will be considered an insult. so what are we debating here?
is an insult a crime ?
when does an insult become a crime?
In my country it may be considered incitement to religious hatred and even inciting violence ( which i think it probably would) and would then be seen as breaking the law. So i have a feeling that he wouldn't have got away with this in the UK either.
Check out the UK Religious hatred law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3873323.stm
It seems i was wrong see here:
The first defeat, by 288 votes to 278, was aimed at ensuring the new laws would not affect the current racial hatred laws. The second vote, which the government lost by 283 votes to 282, said the law should only criminalise "threatening" behaviour, not things which were just "abusive and insulting". It also means people can only be prosecuted if they intend to stir up hatred - not if they are merely "reckless".
(my underlining)
Oh and lets keep it civil please!
Last edited: