XPost: ie.politics, uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british
XPost: uk.current-events.terrorism
From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk
In article <3QS_e.5881$DO.3842@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, Stephen Glynn
writes
>banana wrote:
>> In article , Howard9
>> writes
>>>In article ,
>>>stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com says...
>>>
>>>>My objections to the legislation are that it's vague and that it's
>>>>unnecessary. If it's incitement then prosecute it as such.
>>>>Alternatively, change the law on incitement in general, so you also
>>>>catch (e.g.) rappers who are 'glorifying' all manner of other
>>>>anti-social behaviour.
>>>
>>>This argument doesn't make sense. Suggesting that we cannot make one
>>>kind of incitement (terrorism) illegal unless we make all incitement
>>>(anti-social behaviour) illegal is utterly silly.
>> But why don't you answer his main point? Incitement to murder is already
>> a crime, and the law against it is by no means a dead letter.
>>>if the current laws are inadequate to prosecute the kinds of
>>>glorification that is evident so much nowadays then a new law is needed.
>> Glorification is not currently a crime.
>>>If you think that existing laws cover it - then explain what parts of
>>>the law would apply
>> I thought he did.
>>>and why they have not been used.
>
>> Because they wanted a new more draconian law?
>Let's try a specific example. People have sometimes quite rightly
>complained that films about East End gangsters of the past have
>'glorified' their criminal activities -- running protection rackets,
>torturing and murdering informers and so forth. Presumably, under the
>proposed legislation, it would continue to be legal (though possibly
>misguided and distasteful) to write such books about the Kray brothers
>but not to write similar ones about Republican or Unionist
>paramilitaries. That seems completely illogical; the crimes that being
>'glorified' or to which people might be incited are the exactly the same.
>
>What's the difference between 'It would be a glorious and praiseworthy
>act for someone to rob a bank and give the proceeds to al Qa'ida' and
>'It would be a glorious and praiseworthy act for someone to rob a bank
>and give the cash to me' other than that I'd probably do less damage
>with the money?
Good point.
Or, why is there a need for an Act of Parliament to distinguish between
statements such as a) 'the Hungerford massacre was a glorious and
praiseworthy act', and b) 'the Tavistock Square bus bombing was a
glorious and praiseworthy act'? Or if it might be said that a) wasn't
premeditated to the same extent as b), replace a) with a similar
statement about the Dunblane massacre.
Your reference to the Krays is apposite. It's not just films in the
past... Last I heard, there were teeshirts on sale, glorifying the Krays
[*], portraying them as some kind of East End heroes.
The authorities' message to the sheep is that the mass-murder of
innocent people is something that brown-skinned people in the UK are
liable to start thinking is wonderful, if only a faction of
opinion-formers remains free to tell them so.
Which is kind of curious when one realises that the UK authorities'
involvement in mass murder in Iraq is surely more popular among white
people than brown-skinned people.
Part of the subtext of the message is...old-fashioned racism and
xenophobia...Muslims painted as 'the enemy within'.
(*) I won't resist mentioning that the Krays liked hanging out with Tory
bigwig 'Lord' Boothby, formerly Churchill's PPS, chair of the London
Philharmonic Orchestra, and president of the Anglo-Israel Association.
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
