Freedom of Speech (could be connected to EU regulation, GDPR)

  • 0 Replies
  • 392 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4107
  • +75/-0
Freedom of Speech (could be connected to EU regulation, GDPR)
 
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance
Racist and Religious Hate Crime - Prosecution Guidance ...
www.cps.gov.uk
Introduction; Referral of Racist and Religious hate crime cases to CPS; Flagging and identification of racially and religiously aggravated crime; Case building



 
Sentencing Council, President
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Burnett, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
For a man who knows so much about common Law, how does he excuse such harsh sentencing for having an opinion?
Lord Justice Burnett . His practice was in common law and public law. He was junior counsel for the Crown, Common Law from 1992 and was appointed as a Queens Counsel in 1998. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-us/council-members/
UK Proposes Six Year Prison Sentences for Online Posts Against Religion, Transgender
People promoting “hostility” towards a religion or the transgendered online could get much harsher sentences, of up to six years in jail,especial if they have a large online audience according to new proposals.
The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has drafted changes to public order offences, including anyone perceived as targeting online a “protected characteristics” including “race; sex; disability; age; sexual orientation; religion or belief; pregnancy and maternity; and gender reassignment.”
The most severe punishments will be handed to those “in a position of trust, authority or influence and abuses their position to stir up hatred,” such as political leaders or figureheads and anyone whose offences are “persistent.”
If an “offender was a member of, or was associated with, a group promoting hostility based on race or religion,” their sentence will also be harsher.
The Sentencing Council believes that the use of social media, YouTube, and other “websites” to stir hatred is a growing problem – despite the number of prosecutions remain relatively low.
“Volumes of these offences are extremely low and there have been no offenders sentenced for some offences,” the Sentencing Council said.
“However, given the recent social climate and an enhanced focus on this type of offending, the council considers it would be useful for sentencers to be equipped with guidance on sentencing these offences,” they continue.
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Adding: “Among the cases analysed there were a number of ‘hate speech’ type offences, where inflammatory speeches were given by influential figures with the intention of stirring up racial hatred.
“Other cases involved publication on YouTube of content inciting serious violence towards particular racial or religious groups, websites being published including abusive and insulting content, with some activity continuing over a long period of time and intended to reach global audiences.”
The proposals will now be subject to a three-month public consultation ending in August.
The launch comes nine months after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) promised toperuse online “hate crime” as vigorously as those taking place face-to-face, saying they hope to see more prosecutions, with longer sentences for those convicted of “hate” online.
Separate “hate crime” guidelines from the CPS released in January last year reaffirmed that no evidence is needed to report a “hate crime”, and they only need to be “perceived” by the alleged victim or someone else.

 
I have since received the following e.mail from a correspondent:
(2)
1. It is extremely subjective.  All that's necessary is for someone to feel an online post is 'hostile' for it to be deemed a criminal offence
 
2. Hostility and Hate are linked in this proposal. There's no definition of either
 
3. It is unclear whether an opinion, considered hostile, need relate to a specific individual or a group
 
4. What prevents an individual claiming a remark is hostile or hate speech on behalf of a group
 
5. It will stifle criticism and probably investigative reporting
 
6. It will be 'manna from heaven' for those who aim to change our society. All they'll need to do is to claim some online content is hostile or hate speech
 
7. It may even be possible for online religious studies to be claimed as hate speech or hostile to those of a different faith.
 
I'm waiting to see what response I receive from David Gauke, to my letter concerning proposed legislation over criticism of Islam.
 
John
 
 
(3)
 
John's letter to David Gauke ( who was appointed Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in January 2018)  as follows:
 
 
Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 11:18 am
Subject: Press Freedom
Dear Mr Gauke
 
Yesterday's Daily Telegraph leader welcomed Parliament's defeat of a motion designed to obstruct, if not prevent, press freedom to investigate issues of public concern, and report on failures in and of government. This welcome was qualified, adding 'for the time being'.Similarly, the Daily Telegraph, correctly, pointed out that the motion was only defeated by nine votes. Many would believe such a small majority reflects very badly on Parliament. It may also imply that the issue will return at a later date.
 
Few have the means or ability to examine the way our government and political parties operate. Even fewer have the interest. Thus, the press have an essential role in informing the electorate of prospective or actual measures proposed, or whether the country, rather than a privileged 'elite', will benefit. Hence, any restriction, proposed or otherwise, against press ability to investigate must be stoutly resisted. In this context, that this deeply flawed motion, partially already resisted by Lord Leveson, should be brought to the House again, only serves to deepen the electorate's understandable mistrust of the government.
 
Furthermore, in the light of suspicions that the government intends to produce a bill to render illegal any criticism of Islam, or anything perceived as criticism of Muslims or Islam, though there is no proposal for a similar measure appropriate to Jews and Christians, it will amount to a direct attack on Freedom of Speech, divide the country between Islam and Judeo-Christianity and probably lead to bloodshed.
 
Unacknowledged to date, though supported by scholarly journals, is the  great concern amongst the electorate that the government is directionless, gives way to pressure from the EU and Islam and is steadily undermining everything that underpins the Judeo-Christianity culture that has been the bedrock of Britain for 2000 years.
 
These concerns, taken in conjunction with the debate over press freedom, are issues that worry most of us. But, seem of little or no concern to the government, which lacks inspiration and leadership. .
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
 
 


 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk