XPost: ie.politics, uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british
XPost: uk.current-events.terrorism
From: stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com
Howard9 wrote:
> In article ,
> stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com says...
>
>
>>You're begging the question. Why do you think 'the kinds of
>>glorification that is evident so much nowadays', as you put it, need
>>prosecuting if they don't actually constitute incitement or soliciting
>>to murder?
>
>
> Because in my view they equate with incitement to terrorism. I have
> repeated this several times.
>
We're going round in circles. I'm asking you why you think that
something that clearly *doesn't* equate to incitement in the way that
the term is understood by English common law does 'equate' to incitement
in the way you understand the term.
You think your definition of 'incitement' is preferable to the one the
courts presently use; fair enough. Explain your definition and *why*
you think it's preferable. If someone expresses his approval of, say,
the Brighton bomb at the Conservative Party Conference in 1984, is that
*really* the same as inciting people to blow up someone's party
conference next year?
>>The fact that they're extremely distasteful and offensive isn't, in
>>itself, a particularly good reason to ban them.
>
>
> I never supported laws against distastefulness or offensiveness. I still
> don't.
>
>
>>And why do you say
>>that a new form of 'incitement' specific to terrorism is necessary as
>>opposed to a general extension of the law on incitement to cover (e.g.)
>>the glorification (or 'indirect incitement' as I think Lord Falconer has
>>taken to calling it) of drug taking, violence and murder in gangsta rap ?
>
>
> Clearly the existing law is not working otherwise it would not need to
> be bolstered. You write post after post on the issue yet your only
> argument seems to be a beurocratic argument about using existing as
> opposed to introducing new laws. This argument is boring and
> irrelevant.
>
It's not clear to me in the slightest that the existing law isn't
working, in the sense of catching behaviour that needs to be caught.
You're saying the existing law needs to be bolstered because there's
stuff that it doesn't prohibit that you think should be prohibited,
presumably because it's so close to what's already illegal that it
should also be illegal. All I'm doing is asking you to convince me
that the material you'd like to see banned does, in fact, need banning.
>>You're the one who wants the law to be extended; it's up to you to make
>>your case.
>
>
> I haven't asked for the law to be extended. I simply say that if the
> Gov feels it necessary to extend it, then it makes sense to me.
>
Really? And does this apply to anything the Government proposes to do
or not to do; that is, had the Government not felt it necessary to
extend the law, you wouldn't think it needed extending? How about
income tax? Do you take the view that if the government thinks it
necessary to increase income tax then it must be necessary and there's
no point disagreeing with their assessment?
Steve
--
"It has been said," he began at length, withdrawing his eyes
reluctantly from an usually large insect upon the ceiling and
addressing himself to the maiden, "that there are few
situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and
without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or
by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a
precipice on a dark night."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
