"A 'racial group' is a > group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, > nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national > origins." Yes. I see no reasonable alternative (to defining "race" broadly). > Calling homosexuality a sin is free speech, but leaving > "anti-religious cartoons" in a chapel is a crime? I > note that the case law mostly comes from magistrates > courts. I shall be interested to hear what the higher > courts make of this. > In McAlpine's case, there wasn't a court, the charge was dropped; quite rightly, it really doesn't fall under the provisions of the Public Order Act etc.. Here's the story: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mr Mcalpine was preaching to shoppers in the west Cumbrian town on 20 April when he said he was approached by the PCSO, who told him he was a liaison officer for the local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. "He told me he was homosexual," Mr Mcalpine said. "I said 'the Bible says homosexuality is a sin'. He said 'I'm offended by that and I'm also the LGBT liaison officer within the police'. "I said 'it is still a sin'." He said three uniformed police officers then appeared and accused him of using homophobic language. "I'm not homophobic, I don't hate gays," Mr Mcalpine said. "Then they said it is against the law to say homosexuality is a sin. I was arrested. It's crazy isn't it?" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8687395.stm he was subsequently paid £7,000 in compensation and his legal costs, and a senior police officer went to see him to apologise. ?!, you think? So do I. But there's been a fair amount of yelling and screaming by Christians here about the infringement of their rights to foist themselves on people... Here's the sainted Peter Tatchell on hate speech/homophobia http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/10/hatespeechvfreespeech I too would like to know whether a higher court would have found Harry Taylor guilty; but it was a rather different case. Judy Evans, Cardiff --- On Wed, 26/10/11, David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: QPR v Chelsea > To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Wednesday, 26 October, 2011, 14:02 > > On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:15 AM, Judith Evans wrote: > > > > >> Britain has "illegal" remarks? I thought > only Germany > >> did that kind of law. > > > > "Hate speech" laws > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom > > > > But I doubt the police will take it up. > > > I wonder where Mr. Rumpole went. The footnotes on the > page you directed me to include this, "A 'racial group' is a > group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, > nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national > origins." > > Rumpole, "Your Honour, my client Mr. Smith is charged with > standing outside a golfing club, which he says he wished to > join, in spite of not knowing one end of a golfing stick > from another. He was holding a placard that read, > 'Arians Go Home.' If poor 'spelling skills'--as the > current jargon has it--were a crime, I would have to break > the habit of a lifetime and plead guilty. But the > charge here is under the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, an > act that addresses not speech but behavior..." > > Would the Blue Man Group constitute a group for the > purposes of this act, I wonder? > > Calling homosexuality a sin is free speech, but leaving > "anti-religious cartoons" in a chapel is a crime? I > note that the case law mostly comes from magistrates > courts. I shall be interested to hear what the higher > courts make of this. > > David Ritchie, > Portland, Oregon > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, > vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html