4 ms·

The UK arrests were also for stickers with: slogans such as “Reject white guilt”, “Nationalism is nurture”, “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” and

The UK arrests were also for stickers with: slogans such as “Reject white guilt”, “Nationalism is nurture”, “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” and “Diversity – designed to fail, built to replace” - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/16/uk-man-with-hitler-picture-used-sticker-campaign-to-stir-racial-hatred-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/16/uk-man-with-... "Stirring up racial hatred", even merely possessing material that could do so, is a crime in the UK: https://www.thelawpages.com/criminal-offence/Possessing-racially-inflammatory-material/-for-display/publication/distribution-with-intent/likely-to-stir-up-racial-hatred-496-9.law https://www.thelawpages.com/criminal-offence/Possessing-raci... Burning the Koran is also illegal: https://spectator.com/article/england-now-has-a-blasphemy-law/ https://spectator.com/article/england-now-has-a-blasphemy-la... Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jail https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-v... True factual statements such as "young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" come with a nearly 1-year jail term: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo Note that most of the time, articles are happy to omit actual quotes, instead parroting the prosecution's description of the speech in question, using vague terms such as "racially aggravated comments" or "inciting racial hatred": https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68086012 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68086012 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68074858 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68074858

inigyou 2mo ago
ok good. Except for the viewing thing. That one is crazy. Most of what you described is just disinformation though and I'm fine with the UK taking a different approach than the US.
- Fidelix 2mo ago
  That's fine, then there is no need to lie like you did.
- like_any_other 2mo ago
  > Most of what you described is just disinformation though “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-britons-could-be-minority-by-2066-2137329.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-briton... Burning the Koran is not a statement of fact, so it cannot be disinformation. "young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" is also accurate (though the precise number is contentious, mostly because the police turned a blind eye, or even actively aided the gangs): https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-grooming-gang-scandal-report-claims-250000-victims-1803240 https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-grooming-gang-scandal-rep... So can you be more specific in what you were referring to as being "disinformation"?
  - selimthegrim 2mo ago
    Why is it we never hear about the Muslim prosecutor who put them away?
  - 52-6F-62 2mo ago
    lol, this is odd. British =/= Briton And English most certainly =/= Briton. No more than English == Iroquois
    - suslik 2mo ago
      I see this a lot, but it depends on how you define these terms. If person A defines British such as British = Briton, you categorically claiming that British =/= Briton is not really an argument, just a statement of belief. An argument would be why you think your definition is better, more correct, etc.
  - Steve16384 2mo ago
    > “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate, we would be waist-deep in horse manure. And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".
Steve16384 2mo ago
Your framing of the stories is interesting: * "UK arrests were also for stickers" - surely there must be a point where we stop someone putting racists stickers everywhere. * "merely possessing materials designed to Stirring up racial hatred" - Presumably you're okay with someone stirring up racial hatred? * "Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence:" - No it doesn't, that's just an MP trying to get votes. * ""young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" ". Where does it say anything about a jail term?
- like_any_other 2mo ago
  > Your framing of the stories is interesting: * "UK arrests were also for stickers" - surely there must be a point where we stop someone putting racists stickers everywhere. The post I replied to claimed "The UK wrongthink arrests were for stuff like calling for a building full of people to be burned down". That example shows this is clearly not the case, and entirely non-violent speech [0] is criminal. That you personally agree with that prosecution is irrelevant. > "merely possessing materials designed to Stirring up racial hatred" - Presumably you're okay with someone stirring up racial hatred? What does it matter what I agree with? It doesn't stop being censorship, or a counterexample to the parent post's claim, if I agree with it. > "Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence:" - No it doesn't, that's just an MP trying to get votes. After reading the text of the law [1], you are correct - it only applies to material "useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". My mistake for believing the word of the UK Home Secretary about the law she was pushing. > ""young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" ". Where does it say anything about a jail term? I apologize, I should have better organized the citations. [2] only talks about the conviction, the jail sentence is reported in [3]: Jailing him for 10 months and two weeks, Judge Nicholas Barker said it was clear that Heggie had wanted his offensive comments about the Muslim faith "to be read and heard by many". [0] Yes, speech, not "vandalism" or other charge related to the stickers themselves, not their content - the conviction was literally for "stirring up racial hatred", and the average sticker promoting a nightclub or dance class, even if technically illegal, does not come with a 2 year jail term: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867 [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58 (it says 2000, but includes amendments from 2019) [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno
lern_too_spel 2mo ago
Burning the Koran isn't illegal: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgv785n23eo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgv785n23eo Viewing far right propaganda does not carry a 15 year jail sentence, though conservative politician Rudd wished it did: your own article (did you even read it)
- lern_too_spel 2mo ago
  Nor is "merely possessing material" that could stir up racial hatred a crime. The law requires intent or likelihood of stirring up racial hatred. I don't know why you linked to a page filled with ads when the text of the law is available straight from the government that implemented it: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/data.html#key-a800a341a95e15051ff931ed7ed99357 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/data.html#key-a... If a person presenting or directing the performance is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred, it is a defence for him to prove— (a) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the performance would involve the use of the offending words or behaviour, or (b) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the offending words or behaviour were threatening, abusive or insulting, or (c) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the circumstances in which the performance would be given would be such that racial hatred would be likely to be stirred up.

inigyou 2mo ago

ok good. Except for the viewing thing. That one is crazy. Most of what you described is just disinformation though and I'm fine with the UK taking a different approach than the US.

Fidelix 2mo ago
That's fine, then there is no need to lie like you did.
like_any_other 2mo ago
> Most of what you described is just disinformation though “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-britons-could-be-minority-by-2066-2137329.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-briton... Burning the Koran is not a statement of fact, so it cannot be disinformation. "young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" is also accurate (though the precise number is contentious, mostly because the police turned a blind eye, or even actively aided the gangs): https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-grooming-gang-scandal-report-claims-250000-victims-1803240 https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-grooming-gang-scandal-rep... So can you be more specific in what you were referring to as being "disinformation"?
- selimthegrim 2mo ago
  Why is it we never hear about the Muslim prosecutor who put them away?
- 52-6F-62 2mo ago
  lol, this is odd. British =/= Briton And English most certainly =/= Briton. No more than English == Iroquois
  - suslik 2mo ago
    I see this a lot, but it depends on how you define these terms. If person A defines British such as British = Briton, you categorically claiming that British =/= Briton is not really an argument, just a statement of belief. An argument would be why you think your definition is better, more correct, etc.
- Steve16384 2mo ago
  > “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate, we would be waist-deep in horse manure. And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".

Steve16384 2mo ago

Your framing of the stories is interesting: * "UK arrests were also for stickers" - surely there must be a point where we stop someone putting racists stickers everywhere. * "merely possessing materials designed to Stirring up racial hatred" - Presumably you're okay with someone stirring up racial hatred? * "Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence:" - No it doesn't, that's just an MP trying to get votes. * ""young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" ". Where does it say anything about a jail term?

like_any_other 2mo ago
> Your framing of the stories is interesting: * "UK arrests were also for stickers" - surely there must be a point where we stop someone putting racists stickers everywhere. The post I replied to claimed "The UK wrongthink arrests were for stuff like calling for a building full of people to be burned down". That example shows this is clearly not the case, and entirely non-violent speech [0] is criminal. That you personally agree with that prosecution is irrelevant. > "merely possessing materials designed to Stirring up racial hatred" - Presumably you're okay with someone stirring up racial hatred? What does it matter what I agree with? It doesn't stop being censorship, or a counterexample to the parent post's claim, if I agree with it. > "Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence:" - No it doesn't, that's just an MP trying to get votes. After reading the text of the law [1], you are correct - it only applies to material "useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". My mistake for believing the word of the UK Home Secretary about the law she was pushing. > ""young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" ". Where does it say anything about a jail term? I apologize, I should have better organized the citations. [2] only talks about the conviction, the jail sentence is reported in [3]: Jailing him for 10 months and two weeks, Judge Nicholas Barker said it was clear that Heggie had wanted his offensive comments about the Muslim faith "to be read and heard by many". [0] Yes, speech, not "vandalism" or other charge related to the stickers themselves, not their content - the conviction was literally for "stirring up racial hatred", and the average sticker promoting a nightclub or dance class, even if technically illegal, does not come with a 2 year jail term: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867 [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58 (it says 2000, but includes amendments from 2019) [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno

lern_too_spel 2mo ago

Burning the Koran isn't illegal: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgv785n23eo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgv785n23eo Viewing far right propaganda does not carry a 15 year jail sentence, though conservative politician Rudd wished it did: your own article (did you even read it)

lern_too_spel 2mo ago
Nor is "merely possessing material" that could stir up racial hatred a crime. The law requires intent or likelihood of stirring up racial hatred. I don't know why you linked to a page filled with ads when the text of the law is available straight from the government that implemented it: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/data.html#key-a800a341a95e15051ff931ed7ed99357 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/data.html#key-a... If a person presenting or directing the performance is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred, it is a defence for him to prove— (a) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the performance would involve the use of the offending words or behaviour, or (b) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the offending words or behaviour were threatening, abusive or insulting, or (c) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the circumstances in which the performance would be given would be such that racial hatred would be likely to be stirred up.