(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
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.
Following yesterday's totally unexpected defeat by Iceland, the English team has called for an annulment and possibly a re-play of the Round of 16 match.
"Nobody had told us that the match was Leave or Remain!", says one player who wishes to remain anonymous. "We thought we were still in the group phase, not in the knockout phase!"
"Seriously, 2-1 is not a convincing victory! The match was balanced on a knife's edge!" says Roy Hodgson, England's coach. "It can hardly be construed as a significant majority!" He further points out that, since not all players from both teams were on the pitch during the match, the outcome can not be regarded as the will of the players.
English attacker Harry Kane agrees with this sentiment: "If I had known that my goals would count, of course I would have scored for England to remain in the tournament!" His fellow forward Jamie Vardi concurs. "The bookmakers had told us that we were well ahead before the match, so I thought it didn't matter whether I scored or not!"
Several English commentators have denounced Iceland's team as a bunch of barbarian vikings who cannot be taken seriously: "First they invade Britain, and now they don't want us in the tournament after all!" states one, while another adds, "I'm not saying that all Icelanders are vikings, but all vikings are Icelanders!"
"Soon they will regret their decision!" comments the BBC. "Their coaching team may have promised them a place in the final, but they will find it hard to deliver on their campaign promises!"
The Icelandic team, meanwhile, maintains that the outcome of the match should stand. "The English knew the rules beforehand," states coach Lars Lagerbäck, "now they must abide by the result. It was a no-reload challenge."
The UEFA has so far only commented that they are unhappy to see England leave the tournament. Meanwhile, the Football Association has stated that they are of course open to suggestions and that the Brexit in their mind is still far from certain.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
That actually sides entirely with my point, thank you. These limitations must solely be for securing respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and general welfare.
1: These limits are unnecessary for securing the rights and freedoms of others, as speech does not interfere with others' rights. 2: It is not moral to silence people stating facts, nor does saying any collection of words next to one another constitute immoral behaviour - words are not actions. It is arguably more moral to expose hateful ideas so others may examine and deal with the underlying issues behind them. 3: It is not in support of public order to silence opinions. Again, words are not actions. 4: It is against general welfare to deny information to the populace under the guise of preventing hate speech, particularly when that information could help them avoid harm.
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.
The closest one here is "prevention of disorder", yet "inciting hate" is again, ridiculously broad, but if you want to continue on this path, which other rights do you think are okay to get rid of? How about the right to a fair trial? Trials are so untidy, and having one would not be in the interests of national security, so doing away with them is in the interests of more quickly preventing disorder and crime. We need to preserve the authority of the judiciary, after all.
And what if a extremist gets into power? Do they get to choose what's necessary to keep things just and moral? How about the extermination of all women? No, you can't speak out against it, that would be hate speech against their religion, and against the interests of national security, sorry.
Losing rights is dangerous, because you cannot guarantee that people who agree with you will always be in charge, and the state never gives rights back.
The same is true for power. The EU was given a clear sign that its authoritarianism caused the Brexit, yet its response is to plan for ever more authority, ever more control. And every step the EU takes towards totalitarianism is yet another reason to be glad we're on the way out.
@Pantalion Those are not my words. They are from the very source you named.
Let's not be coy, you used them to try and provide a counter to my pro-human rights position. Now you'll note that I asked you a question. By those articles, what rights do you consider "unnecessary"? What rights should be discarded in the name of moral decency, and whose morals?
One of the branches of Christianity that believes all other religions are immoral and for the sake of the citizen's immortal soul, all other faiths should be restricted? How about the branch of Islam that believes gay people should be stoned to death, women shrouded and mutilated, and children bedded? Or should it be your own morality imposed upon all who dissent? Or the social majority, aka Leave supporters?
If it's not morality, what, exactly, do you consider to be a valid reason to deny someone their rights, and again, which ones are okay to get rid of?
My position on this is extremely simple: All rights are vital and necessary to keep as robust as possible in order to prevent tyranny and disenfranchisement of the public, whether I like how others use those rights or not. The EU's failure to respect free speech in such a frivolous fashion is one of many reasons that make me glad to be rid of it that have nothing whatsoever to do with the "Leavers are racist" narrative that everyone seems so keen to peddle.
So if you wish to disagree with me about human rights, you must presumably consider some or all rights as unnecessary and I'd like to hear which you're okay to do without. We will likely be forced to agree to disagree as I will view your position as misguided, if not morally abhorrent, but you're welcome to make it.
If you wish to disagree with me about the EU you must supply some compelling evidence that staying in (or, indeed, returning to) the EU is worth the loss of rights and the risk that entails and thereby invalidate my concerns.
Alternatively if you disagree with neither statement then we may conclude our discussion on this subtopic and continue with the overall discussion on Leave vs. Remain. I'd be fascinated to see an actual list of real, tangible benefits to remain that wasn't defined by "access to the common market" which was never as big a deal as everyone seems to think.
@Pantalion I don't disagree with human rights, only your interpretation of free speech. Free speech does not cover absolutely everything. For example, planning a terrorist attack on an online venue is criminal offence, and claiming free speech is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
And what if a extremist gets into power? Do they get to choose what's necessary to keep things just and moral? How about the extermination of all women? No, you can't speak out against it, that would be hate speech against their religion, and against the interests of national security, sorry.
No ideology I've ever heard of advocates the extermination of all women. I think you mean extermination of other folks, with misogyny on top.
Also, advocating for the extermination of anyone would definitely definitely amount to hate speech. If you're worried about Islam being intolerant, be aware that a ban on hate speech would limit that kind of intolerance as well. Whether the ban is good or bad, it's not one-sided. [/spoiler] For what it's worth, a lot of the whole hate speech thing is the fact that somebody who objects to misogyny and homophobia in the Muslim world is easy to confuse with somebody who is simply xenophobic, and the defense of Islam is easy to confuse with defense of misogyny and homophobia. Everybody is getting accused of being one kind of bigot or another.
Now, it is the fault of the gays. Apparently that drove the Tories to UKIP in the first place.
I would go further: if it were not for David Cameron’s decision to legalise marriage between people of the same sex — a measure I supported — Britain would not now be on her way out of the EU.
When you unleash hate as a tactic, it can't be put back in the bottle. Furthermore, when you embrace such odious tactics, your opposition (I'd argue legitimately) begins to view you, or at least your cause, as evil. And then where is there to go?? Battle-lines are drawn and no one will move. It's playing with fire.
@Pantalion I don't disagree with human rights, only your interpretation of free speech. Free speech does not cover absolutely everything. For example, planning a terrorist attack on an online venue is criminal offence, and claiming free speech is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
If I were to say "Someone should kick David Cameron in the shins", am I legitimately conspiring against our beloved Prime Minister? I'd presumably be inciting violence.
If I were to say "Tonight at ten p.m. we will strike and make off with the milk delivery of all of Downing Street, plunging the region into chaos, we will convene just outside Boris' house", am I legitimately planning to engage in dairy theft, inciting violence against our governments cereal bowls, and plotting sedition against their calcium intake?
If I write a thrilling story including a violent and brutal murder of the king's council and Arch Vizier Cardamon through a magical plague put into the water supply, am I writing fiction, or should I be arrested and questioned to see if there's more to the story?
While I can agree that conspiracy should at very least warrant police investigation, and agree that shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is a jerk move that should carry legal ramifications if anyone is hurt, where should the line be drawn? Certainly in the rare occasions that words can cause legitimate physical harm (aka where they legitimately infringe upon the rights of others).
But we're not discussing this in a vacuum, where does "Incite hatred or violence against a certain group" fall into this? Particularly over an online medium? And again, how can you reliably define something like "hatred"?
No ideology I've ever heard of advocates the extermination of all women. I think you mean extermination of other folks, with misogyny on top.
I actually picked something ridiculous on purpose for my example, but do note that there are feminists who really do believe that all men should be killed.
As to the ban being theoretically universal, I'm sorry to note that in practise this was not the case. Consider that under Sharia law I would be executed as kafir. Any statement in support of Sharia law is as good as a direct call for my death, yet many Islamist groups are permitted to say this, and worse, openly on all the same sites mentioned in the anti-hate speech law, while reports of "refugee" crime statistics is actively and widely suppressed due to being "hate speech" even now.
Even groups of Muslim activists working to reform some of the most hateful parts of their religion are being silenced while cheers for those killed in actual terror attacks continue without restriction.
I totally agree that ultimately everyone is a bigot in somebody's eyes. This is why the EU's anti-hate law is frighteningly vague and in my mind serves only as a knife poised over the heart of the populace than a defence for those that need it.
The definition of hate speech in the UK is an expression of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.
It's also my understanding that it requires intent to cause distress, harassment, or alarm.
You can't send people to jail for discussing an alleged terrorist attack plan, therefore it is not a criminal offence. It can be used as evidence, it can be a cause for an investigation, but it is not sufficient for prosecution.
Correct. I was reacting to the first part of your statement "You can't send people to jail for discussing an alleged terrorist attack plan" because you can...
Yeah, I could have chosen better wording. Just to clarify: if you are discussing a hypothetical terrorist plot, you are technically not committing any crime, however the discussion can spark a police investigation and if you are called suspect, the police has the legal power to indefinitely detain you. De jure you are still innocent though.
As much as I wish another referendum would happen, I find the petition really unconvincing. Given that 16 million people just voted remain, and that voting is more of a hassle than signing an online petition, 3.5 million signatures isn't terribly impressive. Like, after the 2012 US presidential election, 22% of Romney voters could probably have been convinced to sign a "Redo the election!" petition.
I think that the only way out of Brexit is that the imminent unelected Tory PM triggers early elections, and opposition parties run on pro-EU platform, and are elected as majority.
The Tory PM should, in my view, morally speaking, if morality applies to politics, be one that is pro-Brexit, because Tories triggered this. In this context, what Labour is doing is maybe desperately stupid, but could be understood as a desperate attempt to have a less democratic leader in place, as Corbyn is liable to respect the referendum result over politics. (one loves and hates him for that)
As to the second referendum, I see it as a cry of a broken covenant: that the public would not be mislead for political power-grabbing.
Yes, Leave won. But the backing out of "pledges" and "promises" of that campaign is probably horrifying and terrifying to many whom voted Leave. Both campaigns failed, but where Leave cried scare-mongering is now turning out to be true.
Finneous, note that this is the second time you have deliberately misrepresented my position. You're the one who proposed planning a terrorist attack, not me, and I have not stated that free speech is not curtailed, but that it should not be curtailed, save for where that speech infringes upon someone else's rights (the aforementioned "fire" example) or against the security of a nation as a whole (such as sensitive state information).
Secondly, you're still not answering my questions. Did you miss them? Where I asked you about the actual law in question, and how to define "inciting hatred"?
Mr2150 gives a good one for hate speech, and rightly notes that British law enshrines "intent to harm" thanks to the House of Lords' revision to the law. But that does not appear compatible with the EU policy restricting the incitement of hate. I break British law by stating "I hate white men" (actually very unlikely to get me in trouble regardless, thanks double standards) with the intent to cause distress and harassment to those vile members of the patriarchy.
But how do I break EU law? Does me supplying scientific evidence that Europeans have on average a lower IQ than Asians "incite hatred" against white people for being so dumb? What about statistics linking a higher rate of violent crime to certain groups of immigrants? Is that "inciting hatred" against those groups?
This is why I dislike the law. There is no protection for fact, no protection for parody or freedom of opinion, and it's totally dependent on who makes the ruling. But we're well into thought crimes at this point, and it all ends up with nonsense like the media concealing information about the ethnicity and religion of criminals to "avoid inciting hatred against specific groups" (not that Sweden is currently doing just that, or anything).
In better news, it seems like the stock markets are over their "disaster", the pound continues to be stable (back up to 1.33 last I checked), and Farage has managed to enrage pretty much the entire European Parliament. Par for the course, really. At least until the EU, US, and China all suffer economic collapses at least, which everyone will probably blame on Brexit.
You do not have a right not to be hated. You do not have a right for horrible things not to be said about you. You do have a human right to say whatever you like, to gather with others to say what you like,
Fact is, words do not interfere with the rights of others. Words are not violence, and repressing "hate" speech does nothing but push that hatred under the surface, where it cannot be challenged with reason, logic and truth. People must be protected from actions under their right to life and security, not ideas.
With rights comes responsibilities, in post-enlightenment Europe, IMO. And btw: calling a group of persons, say, "vermin" is actually a de facto crime in UK. It is not viewed a "freedom."
Our freedoms are not an excuse to infringe rights of others, or absolve ourselves of responsibility: rights to human dignity and freedom from violence.
A case of beating someone up works on a similar analogy: someone aggressive might claim that their personal freedom to act according to their natural impulse is infringed, if they are not allowed to beat someone up.
Does anyone take that argument seriously? Obviously not. Our individual impulses are limited by laws, morality and social cohesion. And hopefully: empathy.
Your kind of argumentation is generally asking not for freedom or right, but privilege, the privilege of using perceived rights in a way that you would not endorse from others, using them in aggression, and without concern for consequences.
During Ruanda genocide, radios were spewing non-stop incitation, in quite the same vermin wording: crush those cockroaches, and let's take Ruanda for "us."
After a fundamentalist-evangelical publications listed a name of "gay deviants" and called them to be taken to task for their unnatural and disgusting sins, David Kato had his head bashed in by a hammer.
The influence of Nazi propaganda is not generally doubted to have been very harmful.
Words create moods, motivation, justification. Therefore incitation to hatred is a crime.
@iKrivetko@Pantalion Planning an attack is a criminal offence. As I said, you are wrong in claiming that you can say or do anything under free speech.
Well, at least in the UK you cannot even say what you want, nor generally elsewhere in Europe. ^
As Cameron emphasized in the parliamentary Brexit debate, anyone calling a group of nationals "vermin" is not only doing wrong, but has committed a crime.
I made a longer post above that freedom is not an absolute when it is based on rights. With it comes responsibility. When those whom would call others vermin demand unlimited tolerance of their intolerance and hatefulness, they are demanding a childish privilege in my opinion.
Finneous, note that this is the second time you have deliberately misrepresented my position. You're the one who proposed planning a terrorist attack, not me, and I have not stated that free speech is not curtailed, but that it should not be curtailed, save for where that speech infringes upon someone else's rights (the aforementioned "fire" example) or against the security of a nation as a whole (such as sensitive state information).
Secondly, you're still not answering my questions. Did you miss them? Where I asked you about the actual law in question, and how to define "inciting hatred"?
That's great; it's what I am saying as well. As for your questions, I am not sure what questions you've asked of me. I read your questions as rhetorical. As for law and how to define "inciting hatred", I'm not sure what you're referring to. The original quote you posted is a press release on a code of conduct, not law.
Yeah, I could have chosen better wording. Just to clarify: if you are discussing a hypothetical terrorist plot, you are technically not committing any crime, however the discussion can spark a police investigation and if you are called suspect, the police has the legal power to indefinitely detain you. De jure you are still innocent though.
It's true that discussing a purely hypothetical plot is not a crime, but as others have noted above making plans for a terrorist action is a crime (at least in the UK) - even if your intentions are vague and you have not yet acquired any equipment to carry it out. It is the intent that separates a story or hypothetical discussion from a crime and the question of intent would no doubt be argued in court. However, there have been convictions for terror crimes based only on this type of undeveloped planning.
@Pantalion: You can't expect somebody to respond to all of your questions or all of your points. For one thing, the people you're talking to have no obligation to respond at all; for another, they probably agree with you on a lot of your points, as I do. They don't address points A, B, and X because it's only points C though W that they disagree with.
Just because we criticize one thing you said doesn't mean we take issue with anything else.
The European Union is the largest economic area in recession. All other continents have regained and added to there GDP since the great recession of 2007 - 2008. In fact growth around the world has been pretty good last year, except in the EU (oh... and Japan...) All the growth in the EU has been made mostly from Britain itself!
Reasons?
The Euro. Great idea. Unfortunately, poorly implemented. This was written in 2012 but still holds true.
Yeah, but many of the reasons for retarded growth in Western Europe are due to the domestic policies of member states rather than the EU. In the United States Texas recovered very quickly from the 2008 downturn, but its doubtful that they would have been better off if they had left the union in 2011. Just because the UK is growing faster than the average EU member state doesn't mean that this trend will continue when they leave.
I understand, semiticgod, and I'm not trying to be catty. I'm trying to explain my concern over the EU's policy being irresponsible and dangerous, and how important it is to protect our rights as an electorate, then getting the feeling that that's being ignored in favour of talking about minutiae I wasn't really arguing for in the first place - often on something that I feel would be covered already if only taken in context of the whole statement.
TStael:
Free speech is not a "privilege", it is a right, agreed not only by the EU's own laws and the US constitution's most vital right, but also in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
A right is fundamental, absolute, and unassailable, that's what a right is. You do not lose the right to a fair trial by being obnoxious, you should not lose your right to free speech by being obnoxious either. Rights should not be conditional.
Note that having a right to do something does not mean that it should be without consequences, and private individuals may enforce consequences as they please (such as banning someone from Beamdog for saying something racist and intolerable), but "all public bodies and other bodies carrying out public functions are to respect and protect the human rights of the individual". The state must not do anything to restrict an individual's human rights beyond the absolute minimum necessary to preserve the rights of other individuals.
Secondly when you say that "calling a group vermin" is illegal, this is actually not the case, otherwise books like the Qu'ran would also be illegal due to their contents. Note there is a distinction in British law between a "Hate Incident" and a "Hate Crime":
The EU's "code of conduct" with the private entities in question is the state interfering with the rights of correspondence and freedom of expression of the populace, while the restriction is a vast, sweeping restriction subject to liberal interpretation. The fact it uses private companies to enact this control does not change the fact that it is the EU itself that is the source of this change.
FinneousPJ:
Under the EU agreement in question, the restriction is on anything that "incites violence or hatred against individuals based on their ethnicity/race/nationality/religion/age/gender" and so on.
Do you agree with my estimation that this definition is unreasonably broad? If so, I would suggest we have no disagreement, since my main concern is that this falls well beyond "protecting the rights of another person" and deep into "wrongthink" territory, where it can just be used to eliminate any dissenting opinion under the guise of "inciting hate".
If you disagree and think that it this policy and its wording is justified, I would politely ask that you explain your position, because I cannot see it.
To change the topic somewhat, I'll also note that, intentional or not, this tangent started with me effectively being accused of wanting to incite violence against immigrants, while responding to a post where Leave supporters were being branded as racists and xenophobes.
We live in an age where left wing extremists try to shut down anyone politically "right" of them as being "hateful and bigoted", or just straight up attack them, such as the recent attack in the US and Antifa violence all across Europe attacking people for "having opinions they don't like". < Not hyperbole, this is actually happening.
The divide and the vitriol of the people towards Leavers is a worrying symptom of this recent rise in us vs. them politics that's been thrust down our throats by entire mainstream media coverage of the campaign and politics in general. It disgusts me to see this in British society. People actually demanding the vote be stripped away from people over a certain age? People mourning Jo Cox and calling for a "toned down rhetoric" while cheerfully describing UKIP as "nazis"?
As a centrist I see a lot of polarised politics, people refusing to even examine the facts of the opposing "camp" rather than entering tribal "us vs. them".
This is dangerous, hate fuelled extremism, no different and no better than the unpleasant (and over-represented) minority of Leave supporters who acted horribly towards Poles who had done nothing wrong.
We as a nation really do need to face up to this fact and stop calling every single right wing viewpoint, party and individual as "far right". A lot of right wing views aren't particularly nice, and a lot of left wing views are vapid feelgood crap, but we need to have the moral courage to examine opposing views without prejudice to understand why those views exist without couching it in terms of moral or intellectual superiority designed to let ourselves feel superior while not having to actually think about the other side's position (why try to understand bigots, after all, amirite?).
Comments
Article 29
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Article 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.
"Nobody had told us that the match was Leave or Remain!", says one player who wishes to remain anonymous. "We thought we were still in the group phase, not in the knockout phase!"
"Seriously, 2-1 is not a convincing victory! The match was balanced on a knife's edge!" says Roy Hodgson, England's coach. "It can hardly be construed as a significant majority!" He further points out that, since not all players from both teams were on the pitch during the match, the outcome can not be regarded as the will of the players.
English attacker Harry Kane agrees with this sentiment: "If I had known that my goals would count, of course I would have scored for England to remain in the tournament!" His fellow forward Jamie Vardi concurs. "The bookmakers had told us that we were well ahead before the match, so I thought it didn't matter whether I scored or not!"
Several English commentators have denounced Iceland's team as a bunch of barbarian vikings who cannot be taken seriously: "First they invade Britain, and now they don't want us in the tournament after all!" states one, while another adds, "I'm not saying that all Icelanders are vikings, but all vikings are Icelanders!"
"Soon they will regret their decision!" comments the BBC. "Their coaching team may have promised them a place in the final, but they will find it hard to deliver on their campaign promises!"
The Icelandic team, meanwhile, maintains that the outcome of the match should stand. "The English knew the rules beforehand," states coach Lars Lagerbäck, "now they must abide by the result. It was a no-reload challenge."
The UEFA has so far only commented that they are unhappy to see England leave the tournament. Meanwhile, the Football Association has stated that they are of course open to suggestions and that the Brexit in their mind is still far from certain.
(Trace amounts of irony may be present.)
1: These limits are unnecessary for securing the rights and freedoms of others, as speech does not interfere with others' rights.
2: It is not moral to silence people stating facts, nor does saying any collection of words next to one another constitute immoral behaviour - words are not actions. It is arguably more moral to expose hateful ideas so others may examine and deal with the underlying issues behind them.
3: It is not in support of public order to silence opinions. Again, words are not actions.
4: It is against general welfare to deny information to the populace under the guise of preventing hate speech, particularly when that information could help them avoid harm. The closest one here is "prevention of disorder", yet "inciting hate" is again, ridiculously broad, but if you want to continue on this path, which other rights do you think are okay to get rid of? How about the right to a fair trial? Trials are so untidy, and having one would not be in the interests of national security, so doing away with them is in the interests of more quickly preventing disorder and crime. We need to preserve the authority of the judiciary, after all.
And what if a extremist gets into power? Do they get to choose what's necessary to keep things just and moral? How about the extermination of all women? No, you can't speak out against it, that would be hate speech against their religion, and against the interests of national security, sorry.
Losing rights is dangerous, because you cannot guarantee that people who agree with you will always be in charge, and the state never gives rights back.
The same is true for power. The EU was given a clear sign that its authoritarianism caused the Brexit, yet its response is to plan for ever more authority, ever more control. And every step the EU takes towards totalitarianism is yet another reason to be glad we're on the way out.
One of the branches of Christianity that believes all other religions are immoral and for the sake of the citizen's immortal soul, all other faiths should be restricted?
How about the branch of Islam that believes gay people should be stoned to death, women shrouded and mutilated, and children bedded?
Or should it be your own morality imposed upon all who dissent? Or the social majority, aka Leave supporters?
If it's not morality, what, exactly, do you consider to be a valid reason to deny someone their rights, and again, which ones are okay to get rid of?
My position on this is extremely simple: All rights are vital and necessary to keep as robust as possible in order to prevent tyranny and disenfranchisement of the public, whether I like how others use those rights or not. The EU's failure to respect free speech in such a frivolous fashion is one of many reasons that make me glad to be rid of it that have nothing whatsoever to do with the "Leavers are racist" narrative that everyone seems so keen to peddle.
So if you wish to disagree with me about human rights, you must presumably consider some or all rights as unnecessary and I'd like to hear which you're okay to do without. We will likely be forced to agree to disagree as I will view your position as misguided, if not morally abhorrent, but you're welcome to make it.
If you wish to disagree with me about the EU you must supply some compelling evidence that staying in (or, indeed, returning to) the EU is worth the loss of rights and the risk that entails and thereby invalidate my concerns.
Alternatively if you disagree with neither statement then we may conclude our discussion on this subtopic and continue with the overall discussion on Leave vs. Remain. I'd be fascinated to see an actual list of real, tangible benefits to remain that wasn't defined by "access to the common market" which was never as big a deal as everyone seems to think.
[spoiler] No ideology I've ever heard of advocates the extermination of all women. I think you mean extermination of other folks, with misogyny on top.
Also, advocating for the extermination of anyone would definitely definitely amount to hate speech. If you're worried about Islam being intolerant, be aware that a ban on hate speech would limit that kind of intolerance as well. Whether the ban is good or bad, it's not one-sided.
[/spoiler]
For what it's worth, a lot of the whole hate speech thing is the fact that somebody who objects to misogyny and homophobia in the Muslim world is easy to confuse with somebody who is simply xenophobic, and the defense of Islam is easy to confuse with defense of misogyny and homophobia. Everybody is getting accused of being one kind of bigot or another.
(scroll down to halfway down the page).
When will people stop looking for someone to blame?
If I were to say "Tonight at ten p.m. we will strike and make off with the milk delivery of all of Downing Street, plunging the region into chaos, we will convene just outside Boris' house", am I legitimately planning to engage in dairy theft, inciting violence against our governments cereal bowls, and plotting sedition against their calcium intake?
If I write a thrilling story including a violent and brutal murder of the king's council and Arch Vizier Cardamon through a magical plague put into the water supply, am I writing fiction, or should I be arrested and questioned to see if there's more to the story?
While I can agree that conspiracy should at very least warrant police investigation, and agree that shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is a jerk move that should carry legal ramifications if anyone is hurt, where should the line be drawn? Certainly in the rare occasions that words can cause legitimate physical harm (aka where they legitimately infringe upon the rights of others).
But we're not discussing this in a vacuum, where does "Incite hatred or violence against a certain group" fall into this? Particularly over an online medium? And again, how can you reliably define something like "hatred"?
As to the ban being theoretically universal, I'm sorry to note that in practise this was not the case. Consider that under Sharia law I would be executed as kafir. Any statement in support of Sharia law is as good as a direct call for my death, yet many Islamist groups are permitted to say this, and worse, openly on all the same sites mentioned in the anti-hate speech law, while reports of "refugee" crime statistics is actively and widely suppressed due to being "hate speech" even now.
Even groups of Muslim activists working to reform some of the most hateful parts of their religion are being silenced while cheers for those killed in actual terror attacks continue without restriction.
I totally agree that ultimately everyone is a bigot in somebody's eyes. This is why the EU's anti-hate law is frighteningly vague and in my mind serves only as a knife poised over the heart of the populace than a defence for those that need it.
It's also my understanding that it requires intent to cause distress, harassment, or alarm.
"Indefinite detention without charge of foreign nationals if suspected of involvement in terrorism;"
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/countering-terrorism/overview-terrorism-legislation
if you are discussing a hypothetical terrorist plot, you are technically not committing any crime, however the discussion can spark a police investigation and if you are called suspect, the police has the legal power to indefinitely detain you. De jure you are still innocent though.
The Tory PM should, in my view, morally speaking, if morality applies to politics, be one that is pro-Brexit, because Tories triggered this. In this context, what Labour is doing is maybe desperately stupid, but could be understood as a desperate attempt to have a less democratic leader in place, as Corbyn is liable to respect the referendum result over politics. (one loves and hates him for that)
As to the second referendum, I see it as a cry of a broken covenant: that the public would not be mislead for political power-grabbing.
Yes, Leave won. But the backing out of "pledges" and "promises" of that campaign is probably horrifying and terrifying to many whom voted Leave. Both campaigns failed, but where Leave cried scare-mongering is now turning out to be true.
Secondly, you're still not answering my questions. Did you miss them? Where I asked you about the actual law in question, and how to define "inciting hatred"?
Mr2150 gives a good one for hate speech, and rightly notes that British law enshrines "intent to harm" thanks to the House of Lords' revision to the law. But that does not appear compatible with the EU policy restricting the incitement of hate. I break British law by stating "I hate white men" (actually very unlikely to get me in trouble regardless, thanks double standards) with the intent to cause distress and harassment to those vile members of the patriarchy.
But how do I break EU law?
Does me supplying scientific evidence that Europeans have on average a lower IQ than Asians "incite hatred" against white people for being so dumb? What about statistics linking a higher rate of violent crime to certain groups of immigrants? Is that "inciting hatred" against those groups?
This is why I dislike the law. There is no protection for fact, no protection for parody or freedom of opinion, and it's totally dependent on who makes the ruling. But we're well into thought crimes at this point, and it all ends up with nonsense like the media concealing information about the ethnicity and religion of criminals to "avoid inciting hatred against specific groups" (not that Sweden is currently doing just that, or anything).
In better news, it seems like the stock markets are over their "disaster", the pound continues to be stable (back up to 1.33 last I checked), and Farage has managed to enrage pretty much the entire European Parliament. Par for the course, really. At least until the EU, US, and China all suffer economic collapses at least, which everyone will probably blame on Brexit.
Our freedoms are not an excuse to infringe rights of others, or absolve ourselves of responsibility: rights to human dignity and freedom from violence.
A case of beating someone up works on a similar analogy: someone aggressive might claim that their personal freedom to act according to their natural impulse is infringed, if they are not allowed to beat someone up.
Does anyone take that argument seriously? Obviously not. Our individual impulses are limited by laws, morality and social cohesion. And hopefully: empathy.
Your kind of argumentation is generally asking not for freedom or right, but privilege, the privilege of using perceived rights in a way that you would not endorse from others, using them in aggression, and without concern for consequences.
During Ruanda genocide, radios were spewing non-stop incitation, in quite the same vermin wording: crush those cockroaches, and let's take Ruanda for "us."
After a fundamentalist-evangelical publications listed a name of "gay deviants" and called them to be taken to task for their unnatural and disgusting sins, David Kato had his head bashed in by a hammer.
The influence of Nazi propaganda is not generally doubted to have been very harmful.
Words create moods, motivation, justification. Therefore incitation to hatred is a crime.
As Cameron emphasized in the parliamentary Brexit debate, anyone calling a group of nationals "vermin" is not only doing wrong, but has committed a crime.
I made a longer post above that freedom is not an absolute when it is based on rights. With it comes responsibility. When those whom would call others vermin demand unlimited tolerance of their intolerance and hatefulness, they are demanding a childish privilege in my opinion.
Just because we criticize one thing you said doesn't mean we take issue with anything else.
But a word on economics.
The European Union is the largest economic area in recession. All other continents have regained and added to there GDP since the great recession of 2007 - 2008. In fact growth around the world has been pretty good last year, except in the EU (oh... and Japan...) All the growth in the EU has been made mostly from Britain itself!
Reasons?
The Euro. Great idea. Unfortunately, poorly implemented. This was written in 2012 but still holds true.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2012/06/24/4-reasons-why-the-euro-project-is-failing/#6d8923cf6fed
Most European countries are in debt, debt and more debt. This includes the UK, but this is offset with, if not strong, growth.
I was amazed at Remain camp manifesto used economics as a reason to remain!
TStael:
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
A right is fundamental, absolute, and unassailable, that's what a right is. You do not lose the right to a fair trial by being obnoxious, you should not lose your right to free speech by being obnoxious either. Rights should not be conditional.
Note that having a right to do something does not mean that it should be without consequences, and private individuals may enforce consequences as they please (such as banning someone from Beamdog for saying something racist and intolerable), but "all public bodies and other bodies carrying out public functions are to respect and protect the human rights of the individual". The state must not do anything to restrict an individual's human rights beyond the absolute minimum necessary to preserve the rights of other individuals.
Secondly when you say that "calling a group vermin" is illegal, this is actually not the case, otherwise books like the Qu'ran would also be illegal due to their contents. Note there is a distinction in British law between a "Hate Incident" and a "Hate Crime":
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/hate-crime/what-are-hate-incidents-and-hate-crime/
The EU's "code of conduct" with the private entities in question is the state interfering with the rights of correspondence and freedom of expression of the populace, while the restriction is a vast, sweeping restriction subject to liberal interpretation. The fact it uses private companies to enact this control does not change the fact that it is the EU itself that is the source of this change.
FinneousPJ:
Do you agree with my estimation that this definition is unreasonably broad? If so, I would suggest we have no disagreement, since my main concern is that this falls well beyond "protecting the rights of another person" and deep into "wrongthink" territory, where it can just be used to eliminate any dissenting opinion under the guise of "inciting hate".
If you disagree and think that it this policy and its wording is justified, I would politely ask that you explain your position, because I cannot see it.
To change the topic somewhat, I'll also note that, intentional or not, this tangent started with me effectively being accused of wanting to incite violence against immigrants, while responding to a post where Leave supporters were being branded as racists and xenophobes.
We live in an age where left wing extremists try to shut down anyone politically "right" of them as being "hateful and bigoted", or just straight up attack them, such as the recent attack in the US and Antifa violence all across Europe attacking people for "having opinions they don't like". < Not hyperbole, this is actually happening.
The divide and the vitriol of the people towards Leavers is a worrying symptom of this recent rise in us vs. them politics that's been thrust down our throats by entire mainstream media coverage of the campaign and politics in general. It disgusts me to see this in British society. People actually demanding the vote be stripped away from people over a certain age? People mourning Jo Cox and calling for a "toned down rhetoric" while cheerfully describing UKIP as "nazis"?
As a centrist I see a lot of polarised politics, people refusing to even examine the facts of the opposing "camp" rather than entering tribal "us vs. them".
This is dangerous, hate fuelled extremism, no different and no better than the unpleasant (and over-represented) minority of Leave supporters who acted horribly towards Poles who had done nothing wrong.
We as a nation really do need to face up to this fact and stop calling every single right wing viewpoint, party and individual as "far right". A lot of right wing views aren't particularly nice, and a lot of left wing views are vapid feelgood crap, but we need to have the moral courage to examine opposing views without prejudice to understand why those views exist without couching it in terms of moral or intellectual superiority designed to let ourselves feel superior while not having to actually think about the other side's position (why try to understand bigots, after all, amirite?).