10/08/2007
New Measure Targeting Anti-Gay Hate Drawn Up in Britain
Justice Secretary Jack Straw today announced plans to "make inciting hatred against gay people" a criminal offence, the BBC reports.
Said Straw: "It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the last 10 years that we are now appalled by hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality. It is time for the law to recognise this."
This is London clarifies the measure: "The new law aims to catch those who do not explicitly call for attacks or discrimination against homosexuals, as this is covered by existing incitement laws. Instead, police will be allowed to pursue those who create an 'atmosphere or climate' in which hatred or bullying can be fostered. Officials said it would not prohibit criticism of gay, lesbian and bisexual people or joke-telling. The final decision over who has 'crossed the line' will rest with the police."
Posted 6:15 PM EST by Andy Towle in Great Britain, Law Enforcement, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
That sounds great in theory, but leaving the decision in the hands of the police is a really slippery slope. Just think if you let police decide if someone were fostering an atmosphere of terrorism if they were simply reading a koran.
I guess I'm glad the Brits are so in tuned with protecting gay people, but this one makes me nervous.
Posted by: MT | Oct 8, 2007 6:40:11 PM
Meanwhile, of course, in America, politicians build their entire careers inciting hatred against gay people.
Damn I wish I was a UK expat most of the time.
Posted by: adamblast | Oct 8, 2007 6:48:02 PM
Yeah, this one's tough. In the US, does Free Speech include a right to "create an 'atmosphere or climate' in which hatred or bullying can be fostered"?
Because personally, I would never want the Po-po deciding that me and my man holding hands in public is creating an atmosphere where hatred toward Christianity is being fostered, and thus arrest us. Y'knaw mean?
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 8, 2007 6:52:13 PM
i don't know about this proposition. i don't have a lot of faith in the police, irrespective of country.
however, i would like to see it put into practice in our own country (the u.s., for those of you from exotic lands such as canada, england, australia, latin america, etc.) at least for a little while.
i would give all of you gaysessesss salaries and my own queer bucks to see that sow, john hagee, the satanic pat robertson, fred phelps, et al, doing the perp walk in chains.
Posted by: nic | Oct 8, 2007 6:56:55 PM
I'm glad we have the First Amendment in this country. Such an act (though well-meaning in its intent) is extremely dangerous and would be unconstitutional in the United States. I'm glad I'm an American, and we have the protections of the Bill of Rights. This doesn't mean I'm not very angry about the challenges gay people face in getting even the most basic civil rights protections recognized by Federal law.
Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 8, 2007 7:17:27 PM
Wow, liberty really is ebbing away day by day in Britain. What an appalling law.
Posted by: Dan | Oct 8, 2007 8:35:15 PM
Thought laws used for us can be easily turned against us. That's why they are never a good idea.
Posted by: freedom | Oct 8, 2007 9:20:25 PM
For me, free speech should not mean as an instrument to incite violence through negative feelings like hate. In this case, Dobson can say that homosexuality is unmoral, but he would say that it doesn't mean to hate, but to respect people with different opinions. Hate is degenerating development.
Glanville Williams, an important British jurist and critic of the religious imposition on the society rules (laws), said: "Being emotional is not irrational; irrationality consists only in the indifference between the emotions and facts".
Posted by: rdiazsi | Oct 8, 2007 10:11:38 PM
I'm glad to see that most of the posters here are extremely skeptical of this proposed law. It's nice to feel that the law protects you, but in practice it simply empowers those in authority ever more over those not in authority. Britain is growing closer to the vision of George Orwell every day, with police cameras everywhere and police that can act like judges and juries all at once, along with laws that try to enforce PC niceness and groupthink. Let's hope the first amendment is not eroded by well meaning judges here in the US any more than it already has.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 8, 2007 11:50:11 PM
This is a terrible law. Makes me glad nothing like this would ever make it on the books in the US. I may be alone, but makes me glad I'm a card-carrying ACLU member.
Posted by: Aaron | Oct 8, 2007 11:55:47 PM
"This is London CLARIFIES the measure"?
Where the hell did Andy get the idea that the load of misinformation and spin in that commentary "clarified" the measure?
I can't believe how quickly, easily and completely some of you fell for the mischaracterization of this law in this clearly biased commentary meant to scare people with outrageous and false claims about what this law will do, how it will be enforced and what it will make illegal.
Next thing you know you will be going to World Net Daily to find out what the Matthew Sheppard Act or ENDA are all about.
That commentary is full of the kinds of spinning and misrepresentations that you would find on a Concerned Women of America site.
It's disappointing that Andy would link to that commentary to clarify the situation and it's really scary to me that some of you guys vote.
"Because personally, I would never want the Po-po deciding that me and my man holding hands in public is creating an atmosphere where hatred toward Christianity is being fostered, and thus arrest us. Y'knaw mean?" -- JEFF
Stupidist comment I've seen on Towleroad in a LONG time?
By the way JEFF, and others, religious people are ALREADY protected by this law in England. Like the Matthew Sheppard Act, this is not a new SPECIAL law for homosexuals. This is just a move to ADD gay people to an EXISTING law that already protects other minorities, including the Christians who are ONCE AGAIN playing victim.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 9, 2007 12:00:47 AM
ANON, nice recitation of all the anti-PC, and faux first amendment talking points. The problem is incitement to violence is NOT protected by the first amendment; nor is it just a matter of being anti-PC.
The funniest thing about the ad nauseam "PC gone mad" rhetoric and screams of violations of first amendment rights is that the complaints usually come from conservatives who are the first to scream bloody murder when someone says something to hurt their feewins and the first to deny others' right to free speech, and might I add, from people who are themselves already protected by the very laws that they claim to find so offensive and oppressive.
The Moveon.org kerfuffle is an example of the former and the Religious Right (who, by the way, are protected under hate crimes laws AND employment nondiscrimination laws), who wants to control every word on TV, every picture on promotional posters and what people do and don't do in the privacy of their own homes, crying FOUL and demanding that heads roll when a D-list celebrity says "SUCK IT JESUS" at the Emmys, demostrates the latter.
England may be moving too far toward big brother but I don't think ANYONE in America has ANY right to be looking at the spec in the British eye when we in America have a beam in our own. Or does our government SPYING on us not count in the conservative meme about big brother? And if this law is such a bad idea, why complain about it now that they want to add gay people to it? Why not complain yesterday when the exact same law was already being used to protect other minorites from violence? It's like the people in America who bitch and moan about the unfairness of hate crimes and employment nondiscrimination, when it applies to gay people, but don't lift a finger to rescind EXISTING hate crime or discrimination laws that have been on the books since the 60's.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 9, 2007 12:30:55 AM
This has nothing to do with erroding freedom of speech! There's plenty of things you can't say in public in the US or UK already (c word, n-word). This just adds f-word to the list to protect gay people in UK.
Britain is founded on personal freedoms and democracy. However in the UK we can't stand on the street and scream out for muslims to kill christians - that's inciting terrorism. Now we can't stand out on the street and scream out for thugs to kill gay people.
If you're happy that you have that freedom in America - then I'm pleased for you. As a Londoner I'm glad gay people in Britain have been given a little extra protection by our police.
Posted by: Luke Kennedy | Oct 9, 2007 4:01:35 AM
I'm with MT on this one
I mean leaving it up to the police?? Yea but what if it's the actual police themselves who are creating the 'atmosphere or climate' in which hatred or bullying could foster?
Posted by: stephen | Oct 9, 2007 4:12:07 AM
I'm with MT on this one
I mean leaving it up to the police?? Yea but what if it's the actual police themselves who are creating the 'atmosphere or climate' in which hatred or bullying could foster?
Posted by: stephen | Oct 9, 2007 4:12:48 AM
Sounds Orwellian to me.
Posted by: Miles | Oct 9, 2007 5:04:12 AM
We "leave it up to the police" to determine if every other law in the land has been broken - I don't see how they may have a problem with this particular one.
I believe Americans may be a little more skeptical about 'Orwellian' way of life and about trusting the law as they have a different relationship with police than the UK.
The United States has a lot of cases of police brutality against their own people. Their police carry tasers and even carry guns. They taser school children and they always handcuff you when they arrest you. They pull cars over randomly. You even have to go to court for driving enfringements or small misdemeanors - which would normally get you a warning or on-the-spot fine in UK. Also they even have to show photo-id to even enter a bar or buy alcohol, no matter how old you appear. They have to show fingerprints to cash a cheque/check in a bank. Over there they have a social security number which is linked to everything in their lives and they use it for everything - even getting a phone a/c or renting an apartment!?
Also they've introduced harsher laws like the Patriot Act which the government has used to turn against them.
Perhaps that's why Americans are more suspicious of their governments than we Brits are? The police relationship of protecting us in the United Kingdom is very different here, and hard for an outsider to understand.
Posted by: Adam | Oct 9, 2007 5:41:14 AM
Well said Adam.
The fact is, whether we like it or not people have to rely on the police (both in the US and the UK) to make decisions on a lot of different situations that affect a persons personal liberty.
Hate Crime law is a sticky issue as it raises the issue of one crime being worse than another identical crime based on a persons thoughts at the time the murder was being committed. So if a person was killed by someone because they were angry, then that's not so bad than if the reason was because they hated that particular group (white, black, straight, gay, disabled, able-bodied, man, woman, religious, atheistic etc.)
I am in favor of it as a method for cultural change, hate crimes make the news and help people understand that discrimination is not acceptable in society. I do genuinely believe that a murder of a minority committed by someone with a deep seated hatred for that type of person is worse (ethically) than one committed by someone with a deep hatred for that *particular* person. Both are wrong, but the latter is effectively a crime against a whole community of people committed to create fear.
I accept my position is controversial.
Sean xx
Posted by: Sean | Oct 9, 2007 6:35:08 AM
I'd like to clarify that I'm not in favour of hate crimes themselves, but hate crime legislation as a means for cultural change...
Obviously.
Sean xx
Posted by: Sean | Oct 9, 2007 6:37:23 AM
I'm not sure which Zeke responded to my comments, fake or real. Anywho, the problem with such laws is that they rely on a fantasy state of affairs where everything can be sorted out if X Y and Z were all true. Problem is that you can never sort everything out--that is why we have the first amendment--the govt will never be able to have the time, energy or skills to sort out what sort of speech is acceptable and what not. We are talking about every posting on a blog, every e-mail, ever utterance, every advertisement, etc. Europeans live under the insane notion that they have the skills necessary to achieve social utopia; that intent = success, etc. Sorry guys, you're being delusional. These laws protect no one. They create a lot of fear, anxiety and confusion though. Fear of police has nothing to do with it. Most Americans only encounter the police when they get pulled over in their cars for speeding or something like that. It doesn't weight on people's minds. The issue is more likely: who's in charge? Us or Them? Most Americans would prefer it to be Us, and Europeans would prefer it to be Them.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 9, 2007 12:22:53 PM
The hate speech bill was introduced by the Labour Party and has the unqualified support of the Liberal Democrats. The English Conservative Party has reservations about this bill as have christian totalitarians and islamic jihadists.
I can understand the Conservatives natural reluctance to call bigots to account. Like american conservatives they're accountable to totalitarian christian bigots and their own homophobic base and some of them would be liable for prosecution under the new statute.
Whatever their hesitations though we have to demand their support for this measure. The provocations of bigoted rap and reggae artists, the bigots in the Paisley klan in English occupied northern Ireland, christian totalitarians, islamist jihadists, and the BNP (British National Party – neo fascists) have a direct link to beatings and murders by thugs, who get encouragement and feel empowered by hate speech.
The same is true of the utterances of George Bush and Pat Robertson in the US.
The Conservatives will just have to suck it up and restrain their instincts to voice bigoted remarks in public.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Oct 9, 2007 4:37:28 PM