Thread: go to prison for insulting someone?

I'm afraid that I don't represent most europeans my friend.But thank you, this is a subject that I am very conserned about.

Originally Posted by jnich67

I feel that if anyone tried to pass or enforce something like that here, the backlash would be substantial - too substantial to make it worth anyone's while.

The problem is that laws that SOUND reasonable are passed, and then influential people with their own agendas twist and exploit them.

In the UK for example, crimes where the victim claims to believe there was racial motivation are deemed to be more serious and the police have to treat them as high priority. E.g. if there are two separate stabbings, and one victim states an opinion that it was a racial attack, that stabbing gets investigated first and more thoroughly and if a conviction is gained the punishment will be higher.

Seems to me that one unjustified stabbing is just as wrong as another, but our law no longer sees it that way.

Everything in the UK changed after the Lawrence Enquiry. BBC NEWS | VOTE2001 | FACTS | Race: The Macpherson report A young black man was killed with a knife in a struggle. When the police investigated they treated the last person known to have seen him alive as a potential suspect. I believe that is standard police procedure the world over. But because the victim and that suspect were both black, it was interpeted as racist. There was a big enquiry and the Macpherson Report branded the poilice "institutionally racist." That was an official judgement, one that still applies. The police have been treading on eggshells ever since.

Of course there are people who are happy with this, and people who aren't. But it all came about because of laws that "sounded" reasonable.

It is my understanding that the opinion is changing of these subjects in the UK.I read something of a afghani unemployed mother of 5 children was living in a government supported house worth 1,6 million pounds.Just an example of a system that is completly lacking in logic.Am I missinformed?

Originally Posted by mhailey

Very interesting to hear the European view point. I'm very refreashed by this. I alway thought that most Europeans looked down on Americans as those uncooth, uncivilized cowboys, with their guns, and their national pride.

Matt

Not really. I generally like Americans. I just don't like the way how US politics works. But that has little to do with how much I like the people as individuals.

I have faith in my country, and I believe in a higher deity.
But I also believe very firmly in the rightness of the secular state, and that religion has no place in government. No oath should have me say 'under God' because such an oath does not apply to all citizens.

Also, with regards to nationalism: the US has the advantage that it's basically a big island in the ocean, with only 2 countries adjacent, none of which represents any threat. So nationalism will not cause harmful conflict at the borders. There was Russia, but the hostile environment makes a border conflict unlikely. And both are nuclear powers, so there is a MAD standoff.

Europe has been a cauldron of countries, with different languages, ideals, and beliefs. We used to have fierce nationalism. It's what gave us about a 1000 years of semi continuous war, culminating in 2 world wars, which were fought in my backyard. I am glad we got rid of fierce nationalism in most countries.

If we are not going to wage war on each other anymore, we might as well talk to each other and find common ground. To date we haven't had an internal war for 64 years. That is an all time record. So yes, we talk, and compromise, and talk, and compromise some more. But history shows us that so far, it's the only system that actually works over here.

So we have no absolute freedom of speech. Our judicial systems are different. Over here, if something is not forbidden, it is allowed. 'Hate speech' is banned, because it generates unrest and conflict.
I understand that it seems strange to someone who believes in absolute freedoms. But it works for us. We have to compromise. We know what happens if we don't. We found out the hard way, and we didn't like it.

EDIT: sorry I hope this explanation is coherent. It's almost 1 AM, I am tired and I have to go to bed.

Originally Posted by mhailey

not necessarilly. An assault is when you incite in a person a "reasonable expectation of bodily harm." just making a threatening statement to them is not an assault. I threatened the nutjobs of the dog rescue with extensive civil litigation, such that they would run the risk of bankruptcy, and that was not an assault, but it was a threat. Also, the threat has to be a "reasonable" expectation of bodily harm. If my threat is not reasonable, then it is not an assault.

Insulting someone is not assaulting someone.

Matt

Assault is classified in several degrees and it is very clear, at least in my state that a serious threat of bodily harm is a simple assault. There is simple assault, aggravated assault, atrocious assault and degrees in each. Then you move on to battery. No actual action need take place for assault to have occurred just a serious threat.

Originally Posted by KristofferBodvin

It is my understanding that the opinion is changing of these subjects in the UK.I read something of a afghani unemployed mother of 5 children was living in a government supported house worth 1,6 million pounds.Just an example of a system that is completly lacking in logic.Am I missinformed?

Such cases are not uncommon.

When immigrants arrive in the UK with nowhere to live, the local council near the airport has to put them high up on the housing list ahead of homeless people already living in the country.

I'm realy really sorry, I'm beginning to sound racist, but truly I'm not. These things are simple facts. That I feel the need to apologise for stating the facts should tell you something.

In any case I'm going to shut up now.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Assault is classified in several degrees and it is very clear, at least in my state that a serious threat of bodily harm is a simple assault. There is simple assault, aggravated assault, atrocious assault and degrees in each. Then you move on to battery. No actual action need take place for assault to have occurred just a serious threat.

I will PM you a reply. we are just a little off topic.

I have been reading this thread with a lot of interest because it is about some issues in the country I live in..Luckily I dont feel I'm deprived of any right to say what I would like to say. Nor do I think anybody in this country is deprived of his freedom of speech. they are deprived somewhat of their freedom to spread hatred and racism..

Nobody is convicted of anything yet.... so is it a problem that if people get insulted they try to do something about it with legal means or should they get frustrated and do something illegal?

Another issue I found quite interesting is the mixup of criminal youngster (that are a problem and most of them are muslim but that is more because the dangle on the bottom of the social ladder around here and feel they dont fit in) Islamic terrorist that do not tollerate any critisism of the Islam (or do they just find an excuse to get angry) and Imigrants.. Mind that most of the imigrants are not a real problem. they just live their lives in poor housing without good jobs in a country that is cold and wet and where they are welcomed by mr Wilders..

The Netherlands have quite a different culture than most other countries and think we are quit tollerant (or we dont care) towards other people and believes just as long as you blend in a bit..Even within europe there are quite some cultural differences just as in The US although you would have to travel further to notice.

Mr Wilders is trying to scare the hell out of everybody by provocing islamic people around the world and then starts wyning that he needs police protection. Then he makes a movie where he burns the Qoran., compares it to mein kamph..and so on and expects major riots in the netherland (while the muslims in the netherlands just shrug their shoulders and went on with their lives) well some felt grieves dnd insulted and pressed charges for that.. We've seen more of those charges before but that was mainly targeted at Ultra nationalist/skinheads claiming the hollaucast never took place.. or that kind of statements..but it is not the message itself that is the problem but mostly the manner that you present it. And that is why the court wanted a trial... to judge if this was ok or not..


So in short
No I dont think the Islam is a big threat in the Netherlands
No I dont feel deprived of any right well if you mean the right to spread hatred... yes I'm deprived of that
Yes the youngsters and radical muslims are a problem and they should be dealt with in a legal way.

I'm confident that the judges will make a nice trail and he will do his victory dance... or become a marter for his holy cause.. as I said.. he likes the attention anyway.

Maarten

One doesn't have to go to Europe to find this phenomenon. Just a few hundred miles north of you mhailey, in Canada, one can be charged with a hate crime for saying pejorative terms describing certain "protected groups."

Now I haven't followed this thread very closely and I haven't read all posts and opinions but I thought I had to jump in to the discussion after having read some of the posts here.

First of all I saw there was a lot of talk about muslims..when we say muslim what do we mean?
"Muslims" are as diverse as "Christians" if not even more. There are sunnis and shias and even different sunnis and shias. There are also sufis (islamic mysticism) of different kinds and of different lodges. There are also culturall differences that makes a muslim from one place different fom another, even within one culture there are differences. "Mulslims" is not a term that can or should be used to desegnate people in the kind of discussion we have here.

For example in kurdistan most people are muslims, though 1/3 belong to the different kurdish religions and there are also kurdish jews and christians. But kurdish muslims are mostly sufis, in fact there are more sufi shrines and lodges than there are mosques that in fact are quite rare. The kurdish form of islam is very different from the orthodox islam or the islam we read about in textbooks, and an othodox muslim would probably not say kurdish muslims are muslims at all.

Now I'm not a muslim myself but we cannot say that muslims are this or that. They are people too and there are good people and bad people. And we should not here talk about "muslims" but rather Islamists who do not constitute a majority of muslims, far from, but they are more visible. Most people, at least kurds, think these people are nuts and very dangerous. We must also remember that most targets from islamists are not "westeners" but other muslims.

As for the Muhammed-caricatures in denmark and the films made in the netherlands etc. In my opinion they have the legal right to publish and make these things, thats freedom of speach which is a good thing. However I don't think that makes them appropriate, I think that they were largely tasteless and provocative. But the reactions by "Muslims" around the world was not appropriate either, but we have to remember here that most muslims did not burn flags or were violent, this is politics linked with islamists.
We must also have in mind the caricatures from the 1930's about jews, I'm not saying it is the same thing but there is a degree of linkage. Muhammed being the symbol of islam being drawn as a caricature as a crazy terrorist..