What is wrong with the UK?

[HonestJoe]

In the UK, it is against the law to burn a Qur'an, and, yes, people have actually been arrested for it.

That’s not entirely true. Simply burning a Koran you own isn’t illegal. The charges and convictions you refer to were for inciting religious hatred; the crimes aren’t the burning in itself but the promotion of that as part of a direct attack against people on the basis of their religion. A similar attack on Christians should be treated the same way if and when it actually happens.

It’s worth noting that the example given in the link is about “Fathers 4 Justice” threatening to burn Bibles at a protest. I can’t find anything about them actually doing it.

In addition, the UK recently banned individuals critical of Islam from entering the country, yet they still allow SHARIA COURTS to exist in the nation, and allow Muslim men to preach about abusing women in mosques.

Several extremists Muslims have been banned from entering the UK too and many more would be if they ever wanted to come here due to membership of banned organisations. There is a difficult line in general between free speech and harmful speech which is pushed against by many groups and individuals, not just Muslims.

“Sharia Courts” are really a separate issue. They exist in the UK only as voluntary arbitration systems, much like the long existing Beth Din within Jewish communities and other secular arbitration systems. Sharia Courts have no special legal recognition. There are certainly examples of abuse and overstretch but just as much push back in return.

 

[Sakeenah]

In the UK, it is against the law to burn a Qur'an, and, yes, people have actually been arrested for it. Source: BIBLE BURNING LEGAL / NOT QURAN However, burning the Bible is completely legal. Why are the leaders of the UK in bed with Islam, giving the Qur'an special protection, but not the Bible? Let me be clear, I believe that it should be perfectly legal to burn any book, including all religious books. So, why does the UK restrict freedom of speech by making Qur'an burning an arrestable offense?

In addition, the UK recently banned individuals critical of Islam from entering the country, yet they still allow SHARIA COURTS to exist in the nation, and allow Muslim men to preach about abusing women in mosques. I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but when I learn about stuff like this, I suddenly become happy that he is our president instead of some leftist who loves Islam and hates free speech. Bear in mind, not all leftists think this way. Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, and Sam Harris among others are examples of leftists who have common sense on this issue. Unfortunately, as is evident in the United Kingdom, many do not have common sense, and clearly do not care about the overall welfare of their citizens.

The problem here is that it seems you are taking your information from people that twist facts, and when they can't do that they'll add some 'alternative facts'. Their goal is to create divison and create hatred.

I'm a Muslim, and I have no problem with you disagreeing with my beliefs.
By all means, critics can discuss the Quran, write about it, hold conferences. But to burn something that others consider sacred is a caveman response, and it achieves nothing but hatred and division. The same goes for the Muslims who burn flags, embassies as a response.

We should look at the facts here. You should have called this thread " free speech and European laws" because that's what it should be about.

The people that were arrested for burning the Quran, weren't arrested because the Quran gets special treatment. It was simply based on law called the Racial & Religious Hatred Act 2006. The primary law regulating incitement of racial hatred in the United Kingdom is Public Order Act 1986, which defined racial hatred and criminalized a number of actions that incited it. It was amended by the
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which expanded the crimes against racial hatred to explicitly include religious hatred. ( you can look this up in the Public Order Act, 1986, c. 64, pt. III (Eng.) Racial and Religious Hatred Act, 2006, c. 1)

" In 2005, France passed a law prohibiting incitement to religious
hatred, and England and Wales followed a year later with the Racial
& Religious Hatred Act 2006.These statutes built on a series of laws
were passed long before the 9/11 attacks and restrict speech and conduct based on the content of the message. As critical race theorist Mari Matsuda observes ―the knowledge that anti-Semitic hate propaganda and the rise of Nazism were clearly connected guided development of the
emerging international law on incitement to racial hatred. Many
countries, but especially European countries, crafted their laws so that
―international human rights norms treat freedom of speech as an
important right, but one that must be balanced against other democratic
rights."
(Sedler, supra note 20, at 379 (describing the freedom of speech as a right that, in Europe, is
held equal to, not above, other human rights).

The fact that you think that you have Donald Trump to thank for protecting freedom of speech is laughable. The reason why burning the Quran or any other book is legal in the USA is, because your constitution holds freedom as a paramount right. The European model( not only the UK)
treats it merely as one right that must be weighed against other
democratic rights, such as dignity and privacy.

You need to read article 10 section 1 and 2 of the ECHR to understand why they were arrested on suspicion of inciting hatred.

" European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art.
10 § 1, Nov. 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter ECHR] (―Everyone has the right to freedom of
expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information
and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not
prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.‖).
60. ECHR, supra note 59, art. 10 § 2 (―The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security,
territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health
or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of
information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
judiciary.‖). "

Article 10 was applied lawfully according to the European Court in the Quran burning case so the UK was within it's right to restrict it. I believe if there was a trend of burning other scriptures like the Bible the same would have happened.

These laws aren't made to 'appease Muslims'.Muslim extremists have been tried under these laws. There have been several cases one of them was a case of a protester shouting slogans calling for massacre of those who insult Islam, he was convicted on several charges and was sentenced to two years and six months in jail specifically on the
charges of stirring racial hatred.

In regards to the telegraph article that was mentioned in your link( the arrest of those in Gateshead)
the Police Department‘s statement is not on the individual rights of the
arrested parties to freedom of speech but on the community‘s right to avoid enduring such speech. The burning of a Quran demonstrates the intent to stir up religious hatred with it's message, and the same ruling has been applied to banning individuals( non Muslims and Muslims) from entering the UK.

Like I said I don't mind criticism, but this is just fear-mongering and looks a lot like a conspiracy theory.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think it is necessary to underline that the restrictions of freedom of speech that are applied in UK don't exist in any other secular European country (or at least in the countries of Napoleonic juridic tradition).

Besides in Civil law systems such an arbitrary use of the jurisdictio is unusual

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Sharia courts have no legal standing in the UK what so ever.
However any religion or organisation can impose is own rules for its members. Though they are only enforceable by consent.

What about innocent people who are scared to leave Islam? Or the children? They don't consent to the abuse imposed upon them by Sharia courts, yet they are afraid to leave the religion for fear of the retaliation of the court or their family members. My solution? Ban ALL Sharia courts.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The problem here is that it seems you are taking your information from people that twist facts, and when they can't do that they'll add some 'alternative facts'. Their goal is to create divison and create hatred.

I'm a Muslim, and I have no problem with you disagreeing with my beliefs.
By all means, critics can discuss the Quran, write about it, hold conferences. But to burn something that others consider sacred is a caveman response, and it achieves nothing but hatred and division. The same goes for the Muslims who burn flags, embassies as a response.

We should look at the facts here. You should have called this thread " free speech and European laws" because that's what it should be about.

The people that were arrested for burning the Quran, weren't arrested because the Quran gets special treatment. It was simply based on law called the Racial & Religious Hatred Act 2006. The primary law regulating incitement of racial hatred in the United Kingdom is Public Order Act 1986, which defined racial hatred and criminalized a number of actions that incited it. It was amended by the
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which expanded the crimes against racial hatred to explicitly include religious hatred. ( you can look this up in the Public Order Act, 1986, c. 64, pt. III (Eng.) Racial and Religious Hatred Act, 2006, c. 1)

" In 2005, France passed a law prohibiting incitement to religious
hatred, and England and Wales followed a year later with the Racial
& Religious Hatred Act 2006.These statutes built on a series of laws
were passed long before the 9/11 attacks and restrict speech and conduct based on the content of the message. As critical race theorist Mari Matsuda observes ―the knowledge that anti-Semitic hate propaganda and the rise of Nazism were clearly connected guided development of the
emerging international law on incitement to racial hatred. Many
countries, but especially European countries, crafted their laws so that
―international human rights norms treat freedom of speech as an
important right, but one that must be balanced against other democratic
rights."
(Sedler, supra note 20, at 379 (describing the freedom of speech as a right that, in Europe, is
held equal to, not above, other human rights).

The fact that you think that you have Donald Trump to thank for protecting freedom of speech is laughable. The reason why burning the Quran or any other book is legal in the USA is, because your constitution holds freedom as a paramount right. The European model( not only the UK)
treats it merely as one right that must be weighed against other
democratic rights, such as dignity and privacy.

You need to read article 10 section 1 and 2 of the ECHR to understand why they were arrested on suspicion of inciting hatred.

" European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art.
10 § 1, Nov. 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter ECHR] (―Everyone has the right to freedom of
expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information
and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not
prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.‖).
60. ECHR, supra note 59, art. 10 § 2 (―The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security,
territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health
or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of
information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
judiciary.‖). "

Article 10 was applied lawfully according to the European Court in the Quran burning case so the UK was within it's right to restrict it. I believe if there was a trend of burning other scriptures like the Bible the same would have happened.

These laws aren't made to 'appease Muslims'.Muslim extremists have been tried under these laws. There have been several cases one of them was a case of a protester shouting slogans calling for massacre of those who insult Islam, he was convicted on several charges and was sentenced to two years and six months in jail specifically on the
charges of stirring racial hatred.

In regards to the telegraph article that was mentioned in your link( the arrest of those in Gateshead)
the Police Department‘s statement is not on the individual rights of the
arrested parties to freedom of speech but on the community‘s right to avoid enduring such speech. The burning of a Quran demonstrates the intent to stir up religious hatred with it's message, and the same ruling has been applied to banning individuals( non Muslims and Muslims) from entering the UK.

Like I said I don't mind criticism, but this is just fear-mongering and looks a lot like a conspiracy theory.

I appreciate your tolerance of my opposition to your religion, but I strongly disagree that book burning is a "caveman" response. On the contrary, I think it is an effective and nonviolent method of protest in many cases, and should be fully legal. I have no problem with the burning of any religion's "sacred" book, or the burning of the flag of any country or organization, and I think banning these activities is a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What about innocent people who are scared to leave Islam? Or the children? They don't consent to the abuse imposed upon them by Sharia courts, yet they are afraid to leave the religion for fear of the retaliation of the court or their family members. My solution? Ban ALL Sharia courts.

You can not ban sharia courts in isolation,
unless you ban all such institutions. Such as church law, and membership rules, and the rules of clubs and societies that can fine punish or expell you.
Any such ban would be thrown out by the courts.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think it is necessary to underline that the restrictions of freedom of speech that are applied in UK don't exist in any other secular European country (or at least in the countries of Napoleonic juridic tradition).

Besides in Civil law systems such an arbitrary use of the jurisdictio is unusual

The British law on freedom of speech is subject to the European law. And follows exactly the same rules in all other EU countries.

After Brexit we may be able to change such laws, but why would we?

 

[HonestJoe]

What about innocent people who are scared to leave Islam? Or the children? They don't consent to the abuse imposed upon them by Sharia courts, yet they are afraid to leave the religion for fear of the retaliation of the court or their family members. My solution? Ban ALL Sharia courts.

How would you actually enforce such a ban? They’re just a bunch of people sitting together and reaching an agreement (even if some of them feel obliged or trapped by the process). Acknowledging their existence and bringing them somewhat in to the light seems a much better way to protect those people who are mistreated by the system than pushing them in to the shadows ever will.

 

[Estro Felino]

The British law on freedom of speech is subject to the European law. And follows exactly the same rules in all other EU countries.

After Brexit we may be able to change such laws, but why would we?

Each European country has its own laws ( UK and Ireland are the only ones having a Common Law system in Europe).
It turns out that the French state has never tried to punish or censor the Charlie Hebdo magazine.

Not to mention Italy; so many journalists or writers here would be arrested or fined, if British laws were applied to them.
You only need to read the articles of the French and the Italian Constitutions on Freedom of speech, to understand the difference with the British law.

 

[Altfish]

Each European country has its own laws ( UK and Ireland are the only ones having a Common Law system in Europe).
It turns out that the French state has never tried to punish or censor the Charlie Hebdo magazine.

Not to mention Italy; so many journalists or writers here would be arrested or fined, if British laws were applied to them.
You only need to read the articles of the French and the Italian Constitutions on Freedom of speech, to understand the difference with the British law.

Which British Law are you referring to?
Do you remember The Satanic Verses palaver? Salman Rushdie was not prosecuted.
The UK was late repealing its blasphemy laws (2008?) but successful prosecutions under it were usually related to 'sex' issues, such as Gay News v Mary Whitehouse. In fact I seem to remember that there was a case that asserted that the law only related to the Christian religion.
I suspect that any cases that have gone forward have been brought under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Which says, " A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." My bold to highlight the relevant words.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Each European country has its own laws ( UK and Ireland are the only ones having a Common Law system in Europe).
It turns out that the French state has never tried to punish or censor the Charlie Hebdo magazine.

Not to mention Italy; so many journalists or writers here would be arrested or fined, if British laws were applied to them.
You only need to read the articles of the French and the Italian Constitutions on Freedom of speech, to understand the difference with the British law.

Each EU country can create its own laws, However they are all subject to appeal to the European court of Justice.
And what it decides becomes effectively EU law.
Even a supreme court ruling in the UK can be appealed to and over ridden by the EU court.

 

[Mock Turtle]

For me, the elephant in the room with regards Sharia Law, is whether it will evolve to become a rival system to our normal UK laws - for those who are Muslims at least. But then - as per slippery slope - what would stop any other such system from developing - and this hardly is beneficial for society as a whole surely? One people, one set of laws - no?

 

[Estro Felino]

I suspect that any cases that have gone forward have been brought under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Which says, " A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." My bold to highlight the relevant words.

I was just saying that a British person can express any kind of negative criticism towards any religion, in Italy.
Here the concept of "Religious hatred" doesn't exist...because a religion or a religious book is not a person...so it cannot sue you, calling for the hedonic damage.
No judge will ever have the power to limit freedom of speech over such an insignificant matter.

 

[HonestJoe]

I was just saying that a British person can express any kind of negative criticism towards any religion, in Italy.
Here the concept of "Religious hatred" doesn't exist...because a religion or a religious book is not a person...so it cannot sue you, calling for the hedonic damage.
No judge will ever have the power to limit freedom of speech over such an insignificant matter.

Italy holds 'Pope hate' suspects

 

[Estro Felino]

Italy holds 'Pope hate' suspects

Sei marocchini arrestati a Brescia, minacciavano di "punire" il Papa e Magdi Allam - Video - Il Sole 24 ORE
As this article shows, those people had threatened both the Pope and a journalist, Magdi Allam.
I guess you do understand the difference between harming a person, and criticizing a religion (which is not a person)...right?

 

[HonestJoe]

As this article shows, those people had threatened both the Pope and a journalist, Magdi Allam.

I guess you do understand the difference between harming a person, and criticizing a religion (which is not a person)...right?

Sure, but the key point was that it referred to a crime under Italian law of “incitement to religious hatred”, just as there is in the UK. The claim that this is not illegal in Italy doesn’t seem to be accurate.

It also isn’t about criticising a religion, which is perfectly legal in the UK too, but inciting hatred against people because they follow a particular religion.

 

[HonestJoe]

In UK this female senator would have been fined or arrested.

You don’t know that at all and you’ve already demonstrated ignorance of UK law and the wider principles behind all of this. Exactly which piece of UK legislation do you believe his words would have breached?

 

[HonestJoe]

What's the difference between Lauren Southern and that Italian senatrix?

But...above all why was Lauren Southern expelled from UK?

You didn’t answer my question. You asserted that the Italian Senator “would have been fined or (sic) arrested”. On exactly what legal basis do you believe that would be possible under UK law? You could concede that you’re just guessing instead?

Lauren Southern was refused entry by the UK government (not courts) because they deemed her presence is “not conducive to the public good”. That falls short of any criminal action against her and any British citizens who worked with her on her protests or similar ones will have face no legal action on that basis alone. It’s worth noting that there have been Muslim preachers refused entry to the UK on similar grounds, despite not having done anything actually illegal (yet).

 

[Estro Felino]

You didn’t answer my question. You asserted that the Italian Senator “would have been fined or (sic) arrested”. On exactly what legal basis do you believe that would be possible under UK law? You could concede that you’re just guessing instead?

Lauren Southern was refused entry by the UK government (not courts) because they deemed her presence is “not conducive to the public good”. That falls short of any criminal action against her and any British citizens who worked with her on her protests or similar ones will have face no legal action on that basis alone. It’s worth noting that there have been Muslim preachers refused entry to the UK on similar grounds, despite not having done anything actually illegal (yet).

All right...I give up

Btw...don't you think that senatrix should be the feminine form of senator?
isn't it cooler?

 

[outlawState]

In the UK, it is against the law to burn a Qur'an....

Technically this is incorrect, and the issue is much much worse. An English translation of the Quran is only judged to be an interpretation of the Quran. It is not a true Quran. To burn an English translation is only to burn an interpretation, not the real thing. I am astonished that this defence has not yet been adduced in any English Court of law.

English judges are basically morons, and fascist pigs. Once they were Christian but no longer I regret.