NationStates Jolt Archive

The Guardian (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/padraig_reidy/2007/06/cops_on_the_campus.html)

Ok, so it's the Public Order Act rather than the Blasphemy Act (which only covers the Church of England) which is being used, but it's the same principle: the law is being used to intimidate those who use their freedom of speech to attack religion. In this case no charges were pressed, but apparently only because it wasn't felt to be 'in the public interest'.

How long will this go on before we get a proper constitution with guaranteed freedom of speech?

As someone on the comments in the article put it:

There is a big difference between inciting someone to racial hatred and some lighthearted mickey taking of religion in a college newsletter.

Do the religious ones who are complaining not realise that by blurring the line between humour and incitement, they are alienating large parts of the population who are otherwise sympathetic to their plight.

I stand by everyone's right to hold their own religious beliefs (they may be wrong, but that is not the issue here) and to be protected from real hatred and violence. But above that I stand by the right to free speech, the right to satarise these institutions and yes to have a jolly good laugh at those who hold themselves up for ridicule. Funnily enough I also stand by my right to satarise and ridicule racists and those who really incite racial and religious hatred.

Is the Blasphemy Act still "on"? I remember hearing about it several years ago when several Muslims complained about blasphemy, citing this law, but the point was brought up it only applied to a specific type of blasphemy, that of the Church of England.

Like i said in the last thread about this issue is, they're cowards.

The Guardian (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/padraig_reidy/2007/06/cops_on_the_campus.html)

Ok, so it's the Public Order Act rather than the Blasphemy Act (which only covers the Church of England) which is being used, but it's the same principle: the law is being used to intimidate those who use their freedom of speech to attack religion. In this case no charges were pressed, but apparently only because it wasn't felt to be 'in the public interest'.

How long will this go on before we get a proper constitution with guaranteed freedom of speech?

Don't let that stupid phrase: 'unwritten constitution' mislead you. The UK already has a constitution, and it does guarantee freedom of speech.

Don't let that stupid phrase: 'unwritten constitution' mislead you. The UK already has a constitution, and it does guarantee freedom of speech.

Really? I didn't know that - they probably keep it on the QT over there to encourage tourism, everyone wanting to see the palaces and castles of the monarchy and all. :p

What is it with people using examples of things not happening to scream comments about how these non-problems are massive threats?

Really? I didn't know that - they probably keep it on the QT over there to encourage tourism, everyone wanting to see the palaces and castles of the monarchy and all. :p

Sadly, not an option. The 'unwritten' bit means that there isn't any single document which seeks to define the relationship between the people, the government, and the law.

The constitution is embedded in common law, Acts of Parliament, and legal precedent.
Freedom of speech, to give one example from each, is upheld by Privilege at Common Law, the Human Rights Act (1998), and Lord Justice Hoffmann's ruling that the right to freedom of speech is 'a trump card which always wins.' [R. v Central Television, 1994]

Don't let that stupid phrase: 'unwritten constitution' mislead you. The UK already has a constitution, and it does guarantee freedom of speech.

Er, I'd like a check on that. The closes thing I know of in Britain is the Agreements of Charles II - and given he was overthrown, I'm not sure they apply.

An unwritten constitution is a non-existent constitution. It has no power, and only serves to make people sleep better - when they shouldn't.

Don't let that stupid phrase: 'unwritten constitution' mislead you. The UK already has a constitution, and it does guarantee freedom of speech.
Yes, but it is only a constitution insofar as there are a set of practices and rules as to how the country is governed. It isn't a constitution in the generally understood meaning of the term: a single document that describes how the country is run. As such, the 'constitution' of the UK can be amended by an Act of Parliament or even a simple an act as breaking established convention. Although we do have freedom of speech, the document that gives it (Human Rights Act, treaties in Europe) could be repealed tomorrow, and an Act of Parliament abridging these rights passed and enforced.

Sadly, not an option. The 'unwritten' bit means that there isn't any single document which seeks to define the relationship between the people, the government, and the law.

The constitution is embedded in common law, Acts of Parliament, and legal precedent.
Freedom of speech, to give one example from each, is upheld by Privilege at Common Law, the Human Rights Act (1998), and Lord Justice Hoffmann's ruling that the right to freedom of speech is 'a trump card which always wins.' [R. v Central Television, 1994]
Perhaps, but if legislation was passed abridging freedom of speech, I suspect the situation would be very different. The courts do not have the power to overturn legislation except under the Human Rights Act, which, thanks to the lies and half truths of the tabloid press, and the refusal of the Conservatives to stand up to the media and defend it (instead showing a complete lack of principle by riding on media bullshit), I doubt it will last long.

Well I do hope that all these god botherers who are banging on about incitement to religious hatred are going to edit down their own religious texts to more pleasant bowdlerized versions. Otherwise it is just rank hypocracy.

What is it with people using examples of things not happening to scream comments about how these non-problems are massive threats?

Two students, both the editor-in-chief and the guest editor, were questioned by police, and their files sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Index on Censorship understands that the CPS did believe a crime had been committed under Section 4 of the Public Order Act, but did not press charges, as it would not have been "in the public interest" to do so.

In other words, the message that's being sent out is "blasphemy is illegal, so just be grateful we let you off this time".

The threat of legal action will now be hanging over the heads of newspaper and magazine editors and many may choose to self-censor rather than risk prosecution. Still, if you want to stick your head in the sand and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of 'screaming' then don't let me stop you.

I'm offended by the term "mickey taking"!!!!!!!!!!

An unwritten constitution is a non-existent constitution.

No it isn't. Which bit of "Don't let that stupid phrase: 'unwritten constitution' mislead you." did you not understand?

Yes, but it is only a constitution insofar as there are a set of practices and rules as to how the country is governed.


Yes, that's what a constitution is.


It isn't a constitution in the generally understood meaning of the term: a single document that describes how the country is run.


No, that's a 'written constitution'.


As such, the 'constitution' of the UK can be amended by an Act of Parliament or even a simple an act as breaking established convention.

Are you saying that freedom of speech doesn't exist, because it might conceivably be taken away one day? Are you also saying that no written consitution can ever be amended?

Perhaps, but if legislation was passed abridging freedom of speech, I suspect the situation would be very different.

And if legislation was passed requiring us all to paint ourselves pink, then we'd have to do it. What's that got to do with anything? It's current law that's the issue.

Don't say I didn't warn you. But will the General electorate listen to the observations and complaints of the "poofy" intelligentsia, or will they simply elect Blair again in 2005? Guess, go on....

In other words, the message that's being sent out is "blasphemy is illegal, so just be grateful we let you off this time".

The threat of legal action will now be hanging over the heads of newspaper and magazine editors and many may choose to self-censor rather than risk prosecution. Still, if you want to stick your head in the sand and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of 'screaming' then don't let me stop you.

I'm sorry, but you really think that the CPS deciding not to prosecute a breach of the law because it's "not in the public interest" is them forcing the law on people, and not the complete and utter opposite?

Don't let that stupid phrase: 'unwritten constitution' mislead you.

Yes, but it is only a constitution insofar as there are a set of practices and rules as to how the country is governed. It isn't a constitution in the generally understood meanin
The UK has an uncodified constitution, a opposed to a codified (single text) or 'unwritten' (non-existent) constitution, meaning that the constitution is made up of many different texts and traditions; stemming from the evolutionary development of the UK constitution, as opposed to the American or French constitutions which were written pretty much at one time.

The UK has an uncodified constitution, a opposed to a codified (single text) or 'unwritten' (non-existent) constitution, meaning that the constitution is made up of many different texts and traditions; stemming from the evolutionary development of the UK constitution, as opposed to the American or French constitutions which were written pretty much at one time.

Some (very very few) countries have an uncodified constitution. The UK is not one of them.

Some (very very few) countries have an uncodified constitution. The UK is not one of them.
I beg to differ.

It's true that very few nations have uncodified constitutions, but the UK is indeed one of those few.

Linky (http://britishconstitution.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-britians-constitution-works.html).

I beg to differ.

It's true that very few nations have uncodified constitutions, but the UK is indeed one of those few.

Linky (http://britishconstitution.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-britians-constitution-works.html).

[Looks into it.]
Oh yes - you are right. However, my point that 'unwritten' is not 'non-existent' remains valid.
If you can be bothered to disentangle it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution