Interesting theory about the 2006 act


Michael Winning.

It says at Samizdata that some funny-bisiness about the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act may be going on behind the curtains. Wonder wgat you people think?

About these ads

4 responses to “Interesting theory about the 2006 act

  1. Just another deliberately poorly framed law that is so vague that it can be used to arrest anyone who defies the Politically Correct line.

    Are the police really so pigshit stupid that they think a burning a religious book is a racist act? Or do they just not care about the truth at all?

  2. It looks like some of the posters on Samizdata, as well as the Guardian journalists, are confused. The 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act did introduce new offences by amending the 1986 Public Order Act.

    In all likelihood, the arrests are due to this amendment, the Police considering the burning of the book to be ‘threatening’ and that the intent of the burners was to ‘incite religious hatred’. Thereby being an offence under s.29 1986 POA (as amended). There are no racial connotations necessary for this offence.

    I’m just waiting for the Act to be amended further. How long before ‘the Sexuality Hatred Bill’ and the ‘Environmental Hatred Bill’ are brought into being by some crazed despot in Parliament?

  3. Not so much a ‘thought crime’ as an ‘emotion crime’.

    You are a criminal if you have the wrong emotions.

  4. As I said over at Samizdata, the difference between English Common Law and GramscoFabiaNazi Law (Progressive Law, that is) is that the Common Law punishes particular acts (or at least the conspiracy to commit such acts) while Proggie Law attempts to identify particular types of persons and remove them from society to induce a state of social nirvana.

    So for instance in the old days we had a Sodomy Law, which punished the specific act of sodomy, not “a law against being a homosexual”. The law did not know anything about homosexuals. It just punished the act of sodomy. Compare that to the paedo-hysteria, in which the Law attempts to use acts (e.g. downloading pictures) to identify a particular type of person, a paedophile. You can be convicted of being a paedophile even for having pictures of, say, children playing on a beach, because the pictures prove what type of person you are. In this case, they are arrested for being racists (or “faithists” perhaps); the act of Koran burning simply reveals to the wise authorities their person type.

    Back with the sex thing, because I can’t stop talking about nookie, it’s interesting how our philosophical heritage informs that. Our society is heavily based on christian philosophy; under Christianity, sins are a snare that anyone may fall into, and anyone may by force of will avoid falling into. That naturally leads to a law system in which particular (sinful) acts are punished and then, if they are not too serious, you are given another chance to reform yourself (otherwise you are sent upstairs to let God sort you out). Under Proggie philosophy, types of persons who exist are doomed to particular acts and cannot by any force of character avoid such behaviours. There is sin, but no prospect of salvation. No wonder we are so pessimistic these days.