Sunday, November 12, 2006
Bleeding Hearts
Somehow it is quite disturbing to find out that Home Secretary, John Reid, is on the more cautious wait-and-see side in the debate on whether to respond to acquittal of Nick Griffin with new race hate laws.
Personally, I agree with Lord Lester that such legislation is unnecessary, especially when an existing race and religious hatred law has not really had time to prove itself. There is a real danger that trying to legislate for one particular case could have wider repercussions for the rights and liberties of ordinary people. The leader in the Observer sums it up well:
The problem is not a shortage of law. Quite the contrary. It is a long-established principle that incitement to murder is unacceptable; likewise incitement to race hatred. This year, incitement to religious hatred was banned, as was 'glorifying acts of terrorism'. It is sensible that rhetoric impelling someone to commit violence sometimes be deemed criminal. But the law should avoid criminalising ideas and beliefs, even unpleasant ones. Police are already over-empowered to interpret all sorts of opinions as crimes, unhealthy in a democracy. The government has invented enough thought crimes to curtail our freedom of expression. Mr Brown and Lord Falconer are plain wrong if they think we need more.
Personally, I agree with Lord Lester that such legislation is unnecessary, especially when an existing race and religious hatred law has not really had time to prove itself. There is a real danger that trying to legislate for one particular case could have wider repercussions for the rights and liberties of ordinary people. The leader in the Observer sums it up well:
The problem is not a shortage of law. Quite the contrary. It is a long-established principle that incitement to murder is unacceptable; likewise incitement to race hatred. This year, incitement to religious hatred was banned, as was 'glorifying acts of terrorism'. It is sensible that rhetoric impelling someone to commit violence sometimes be deemed criminal. But the law should avoid criminalising ideas and beliefs, even unpleasant ones. Police are already over-empowered to interpret all sorts of opinions as crimes, unhealthy in a democracy. The government has invented enough thought crimes to curtail our freedom of expression. Mr Brown and Lord Falconer are plain wrong if they think we need more.
Comments:
<< Home
There is a real danger that trying to legislate for one particular case could have wider repercussions for the rights and liberties of ordinary people.
Spot on, Peter.
I am also very uncomfortable with the idea of "He's been found to be within the law, so let's change the law"
Post a Comment
Spot on, Peter.
I am also very uncomfortable with the idea of "He's been found to be within the law, so let's change the law"
<< Home
