I agree with JayJay's sentiments completely. He said everything I wanted to say pretty much and probably said it better.

I'm not sure on laws about inciting racism, but all I can say is in my view people should be able have opinions about ANYTHING, and disseminate those opinions to ANYONE they choose, regardless of its content or abhorrence to another group of people.

Even if you incite violence, its down to the people who commit the violence to pay for their crimes. Everyone chooses their actions, and everyone is ultimately responsible for them. As I see it, if an individual's views can be silenced then they dont have freedom of speech.



(Edited by Funky Monkey 19/11/2002 14:42)

---

by Funky Monkey
I agree with JayJay's sentiments completely. He said everything I wanted to say pretty much and probably said it better.

I'm not sure on laws about inciting racism, but all I can say is in my view people should be able have opinions about ANYTHING, and disseminate those opinions to ANYONE they choose, regardless of its content or abhorrence to another group of people.

Even if you incite violence, its down to the people who commit the violence to pay for their crimes. Everyone chooses their actions, and everyone is ultimately responsible for them. As I see it, if an individual's views can be silenced then they dont have freedom of speech.

---

As with anything taken to extremes, unlimited freedom of speech comes with some inherent dangers, and the offence of incitement is one of the most powerful guards we have against this. I’ve already given John Stuart Mill’s example of incitement; he devised the modern concept of free speech, but even he recognized the danger of incitement. It’s been there since the start.

Lets say one man bears a grudge against another, so makes it known publicly that he is a paedophile. A mob promptly goes round to his house and murders him. Should the man who made the accusation be absolved of all responsibility? Everyone is ultimately responsible for their individual actions, but something has to influence these actions. Take the tabloids’ hysteria against paedophilia and asylum-seekers – it has lead directly to witchhunts of suspected paedophiles and demonization of asylum-seekers based entirely on prejudiced, infactual and biased reporting. No flame without fire. The Daily Mail printed some very biased reports about the National Lottery Community Fund’s grants to what it deemed “politically correct causes”, and invited its readers to “vent your anger” to the addresses it published. The result was this (warning: the link contains strong and racist language): www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=343631

The BNP say that Islam is a terrorists’ religion, they imply that gay people have a predilection for paedophilia, and they distribute grossly warped information to substantiate this. This will inevitably influence some people’s opinion, and the BNP – as with all people who incite hatred - should be held accountable for the damage they do.

Punishing people for incitement and offences such as slander and libel is not prohibiting free speech; it’s holding people to account for abusing it.

How do you give someone a place and then withdraw it. When I filled in a UCAS form it did not ask for political affiliations.

If I was to apply for a civil service job (Civil service proper not just a post that is a civil servant) I would be expected to say that I am Liberal Democrat, I would also be expected to say that I will not be active whilst in that position (standing for elections or canvassing etc) and it would not affect my application.
He would also have to abide by those stipulations, however he would not be accepted for a civil service position for "security reasons".

But where is the line drawn on civil service applications? Labour used to be pretty much blocked for "security reasons" (by MI5) 30 years ago even when a labour government was in. Conservatives have always been acceptable.
However do members of the Green party come under such assesment, Socialist Workers Party probably do, Socialist Labour ?, Socialist party?

The problem with witholding an earned degree is that people can change. Oswald Mosley went from the conservative to the left to the far right. When he got his degree he was not into politics.

This guy could in ten years become a leader exposing tollerance and peace, not likely but not impossible.

---

by Byron
(quotes)
As with anything taken to extremes, unlimited freedom of speech comes with some inherent dangers, and the offence of incitement is one of the most powerful guards we have against this. I’ve already given John Stuart Mill’s example of incitement; he devised the modern concept of free speech, but even he recognized the danger of incitement. It’s been there since the start.

---

I agree that if a person says something that is provably UNTRUE about another that the person accused has a right to take legal action, for example for defamation of character. (sp?)

If someone is provably a rapist etc, and I tell everyone that, then maybe he will get mobbed and killed. Might make me irresponsible, but I certainly don't see how I should pay for other people's actions. If I can see the wood for the trees and have enough sense not to commit murder, why can't the mob?

If it is illegal to incite, it should be illegal to have Spin, cos its just a less dangerous version of the same thing. The masses minds and opinions are largely influenced by spin doctors. Yet should spin be illegal? No of course not, people should have enough sense to make what they will of what they are told than to take it at face value.

That reason for limiting free speech smacks to me of saying:

'much of the masses dont own their own minds, and are too easily influenced, therefore free speech is limited because of the some of the population's inability to deal with it'

Funnily enough Dubyah is 'inciting' his nation and others to go to war against Iraq. Much as you might disagree with him, should he be sent to prison for inciting violence. Should Winston Churchill have?

I suppose the law is the law, but to me, its just not really free speech, its free speech with * on the end and some small print.

(Edited by Funky Monkey 19/11/2002 16:57)

---

by Funky Monkey
(quotes)

I agree that if a person says something that is provably UNTRUE about another that the person accused has a right to take legal action, for example for defamation of character. (sp?)

If someone is provably a rapist etc, and I tell everyone that, then maybe he will get mobbed and killed. Might make me irresponsible, but I certainly don't see how I should pay for other people's actions. If I can see the wood for the trees and have enough sense not to commit murder, why can't the mob?[/b]

---

Because mobs tend not to be the most rational of beasts. Did you see the numerous reports of the “paedo mobs” who responded to the News Of The Worlds’ name and shame campaign? None of that would have happened if the News Of The World hadn’t started its name and shame madness; it was clearly 100 per cent culpable. Having someone do your dirty work for you by proxy is every bit as bad as doing it yourself. If there was no penalty for it, it would be open season: why risk being prosecuted when you can set up a mob with impunity?

---

If it is illegal to incite, it should be illegal to have Spin, cos its just a less dangerous version of the same thing. The masses minds and opinions are largely influenced by spin doctors. Yet should spin be illegal? No of course not, people should have enough sense to make what they will of what they are told than to take it at face value.

---

Telling lies is one thing, and of course shouldn’t be illegal unless it’s libellous. Spreading malicious information with the express intent of causing harm to a specific group, race or individual, or directly calling for violence against them, is quite another, and cannot be tolerated because it has been shown time and time again to get results.

---

That reason for limiting free speech smacks to me of saying:

'much of the masses dont own their own minds, and are too easily influenced, therefore free speech is limited because of the some of the population's inability to deal with it'

---

Nothing in life is absolute; the world doesn’t work like that. Generals and dictators can be prosecuted without actually killing a single person themselves, and incitement follows the same logic. Are you saying the likes of General Pinochet should be let off scott free because people could just have ignored him?

---

Funnily enough Dubyah is 'inciting' his nation and others to go to war against Iraq. Much as you might disagree with him, should he be sent to prison for inciting violence. Should Winston Churchill have?

---

Winston Churchill never warmongered in his life: “Jaw Jaw is better than War War”. What he did do was call for the nation to stand up to the Nazis when there were no options left.

If a country’s leader called for that country’s citizens to, say, start killing asylum-seekers, or told them to kill citizens of another country on sight, then yes, of course they should be removed; they almost certainly would be. But no politician in a democracy would ever do so, even indirectly; Enoch Powel proves the consequences if they did.

Yes, warmongering is incitement in a sense, but nothing is perfect. That’s what the new international court is for, to hold leaders to account for their actions. It may seem a double standard, and in a sense it certainly is, but better that and some protection is provided for a country’s citizens from those who would do them harm I think.

---

I suppose the law is the law, but to me, its just not really free speech, its free speech with * on the end and some small print.

---

Like I’ve said, nothing is absolute.

---

by Byron
(quotes)
Because mobs tend not to be the most rational of beasts. Did you see the numerous reports of the “paedo mobs” who responded to the News Of The Worlds’ name and shame campaign?

---

I did indeed. Shamefull behaviour they (the mobs) exhibited, and they should be ashamed of theirselves. Personally I think its shamefull behaviour of the News of the World too, but I dont feel they should be held accountable for people's actions.

---

None of that would have happened if the News Of The World hadn’t started its name and shame madness; it was clearly 100 per cent culpable."

---

I couldn't disagree more. What is one of the things people most often do when someone close to them dies? They blame themselves. "If I didn't have that argument with him, he wouldnt have stormed out and he wouldnt have been killed in that accident.." But people learn they are not responsible for others actions and get on with their lives. Why should this be any different.

Worst of all, blaming the newspapers exhonorates the mobs, as if to make them the victims. They are not victims they are people like you and I who make their own decisions. Live by the sword, die by it.

---

Having someone do your dirty work for you by proxy is every bit as bad as doing it yourself.

---

If people do dirty work for you by proxy in a commercial sense, ie. they get some sort of reward or expect something in return, then clearly it is wrong. If they decide to take action from what you only SAID, then they are fully to blame for their actions. If I go put Kelly in the boot and drive her off a bridge - is is Eminem's fault??

---

Like I’ve said, nothing is absolute.

---

One of James Herbert's favourite sayings - There are no absolutes. I like that saying, and I see where you're coming from. Maybe im in a minority, but this is one thing I disagree with wholly, it seems to go against the grain of free speech. Ultimately I am convinced that all people should be held accountable for their own actions. To in anyway detract from our own total accountability by blaming a third party's rants is to diminish everyone's liberties.

Thing is, if there's no offence of incitement, then the people who actually orchestrated the violence get off so long as they don't pay a direct part. I agree that the mobs are guilty as hell, but the News Of The World was 100 per cent responsible for instigating the whole thing; nothing would have happened if they had not fuled the fire.

They bear ultimate responsibility for starting the whole mess, and I think people who do that should be held to account. If there's no crime of incitement, you'll get the perpetrators, but the brains behind it all won't have a thing to worry about, and will be free to do the same again with impunity.

Which I personally find completely unnaceptable.

Byron, sorry to but in, but listen to yourself. "It's a discrimination that I can live with". Well whoop dee do! You destroy your whole moral arguement about unexceptable rascism, by being just as arrogant and narrow-minded as the BNP.

Yes they're rascists, yes rascim is wrong, so's denying someone an education. I don't support positive discrimination, but I won't boy-cot everyone in life who does.

I wish the BNP didn't exist, I do, but it does and it's wrong to label every member as a violent, wicked, never gives a damn about anyone else, clearly a murdering rascist. He shouldn't be denied an education, and he SHOULD be free to think what ever he wants. Not every one in America from the South is a gun-totting redneck. True Bush is, but whacha gonna do

Sorry Byron, but I'm still with Funky Monkey on this one. If someone says 'go jump off a cliff' and a bunch of people do, then the people who jumped off only have themselves to blame. We must judge, in all senses of that word, people by their actions, not their opinions or their speeches.

In the case of the Paedophile mobs, again the violence committed is utterly the fault of the barbarians who physically committed it, not the papers. If the papers are guilty of anything it was invasion of privacy, not incitement to violence.

Further, with regard to the BNP, the argument they would use in their defence is that none of their literature, nor would they in speech, ever condone violence against people with differing skin colours or sexuality. It's presented with a smiling face and an attempt at acceptability. That we know different changes nothing. Tell me, would you support a University expelling a member of Sinn Fein? Or a left wing organization that supports the Interfada, the Irish republican struggle, animal rights activists, or any other violent struggles? The defences we would use would be the same defences the far right would use, with the politics inverted.

How about being a member of an organization that supports the FBU? After all, many would claim (and do) that this organization is responsible for a number of deaths through its strike action. Supporting their right to do so, is that incitement to murder as well? Where do you draw the line? And who gets to nominate the judges of where the line is?

No fair on playing the Mill card, though! Yeah, the guy was right pretty much 99% of the time. But he was human. And he was wrong on incitement. We have to draw the line on physical action, not on the expression of opinion. Otherwise you create a grey area for other less discerning individuals than you and I to exploit.

---

by KieranFrost
I wish the BNP didn't exist, I do, but it does and it's wrong to label every member as a violent, wicked, never gives a damn about anyone else, clearly a murdering rascist. He shouldn't be denied an education, and he SHOULD be free to think what ever he wants. Not every one in America from the South is a gun-totting redneck. True Bush is, but whacha gonna do

---

Seperate from the argument about the Nazi's place at Univeristy, but I think every member of the BNP is scum and surplus, with no exceptions. They've signed up to a party that wants to boot every non-white person out of Britian: if that's not good enough reason to revile them, nothing is.

The only good Nazi is a dead one.

Just a slight nitpick (don't have time to get into the debate right now..) - he's a student at a university in Greater Manchester. This is almost certainly not the University of Manchester, otherwise they'd have said so. Not a big point, but well, I did go there.

---

by Jayjay
Sorry Byron, but I'm still with Funky Monkey on this one. If someone says 'go jump off a cliff' and a bunch of people do, then the people who jumped off only have themselves to blame. We must judge, in all senses of that word, people by their actions, not their opinions or their speeches.

In the case of the Paedophile mobs, again the violence committed is utterly the fault of the barbarians who physically committed it, not the papers. If the papers are guilty of anything it was invasion of privacy, not incitement to violence.

No fair on playing the Mill card, though! Yeah, the guy was right pretty much 99% of the time. But he was human. And he was wrong on incitement. We have to draw the line on physical action, not on the expression of opinion. Otherwise you create a grey area for other less discerning individuals than you and I to exploit.


No fair on playing the Mill card, though! Yeah, the guy was right pretty much 99% of the time. But he was human. And he was wrong on incitement. We have to draw the line on physical action, not on the expression of opinion. Otherwise you create a grey area for other less discerning individuals than you and I to exploit.

---

Incitement isn’t just an opinion, it’s a deliberate attempt to cause harm by orchestrating violence. It’s unlikely Herman Goering ever actually murdered anyone in his life; he was still convicted of crimes against humanity, and rightly so. If you’re arguing that planning a crime is not a crime, then technically, everyone under him could have ignored him, so he should have been set free. If someone has the clear intent of murdering someone, but pays someone to do it for them, should they be acquitted? The other person could just have ignored them after all. Why should it be different just because they’re either too niggardly or cowardly to cough up the money, but prefer to absolve themselves of responsibility by inciting others to do their dirty work for them for free?

If there was no crime of incitement, someone could publish information “proving” asylum-seekers were raping and murdering thousands of people a week, watch the inevitable results, then say “no fair cop guv’nor, I didn’t do nothing wrong”. Alone, intent to a commit a crime cannot be an offence, but committing it by proxy can, and should be. If it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt someone masterminded violence by proxy, they should be punished for it, because they’re as guilty as those who actually committed the act.

You get into grey areas certainly, but then so is life; you can’t have laws catering solely for the black and white. Should the News Of The Wolrd – certainly a grey area – have been prosecuted for incitement? If it could be proved they deliberately wanted lynch mobs, or considered them a distinct possibility but carried on regardless, then yes. If not, then they should be punished for showing both gross negligence with and gross disregard to sensitive information that lead to violence.

You may disagree with what Mill said, but it’s not unfair “playing the Mill card” – the crime of incitement was a fundamental part of his beliefs, and I think he was 100 per cent correct on it!

---

Further, with regard to the BNP, the argument they would use in their defence is that none of their literature, nor would they in speech, ever condone violence against people with differing skin colours or sexuality. It's presented with a smiling face and an attempt at acceptability. That we know different changes nothing. Tell me, would you support a University expelling a member of Sinn Fein? Or a left wing organization that supports the Interfada, the Irish republican struggle, animal rights activists, or any other violent struggles? The defences we would use would be the same defences the far right would use, with the politics inverted.

How about being a member of an organization that supports the FBU? After all, many would claim (and do) that this organization is responsible for a number of deaths through its strike action. Supporting their right to do so, is that incitement to murder as well? Where do you draw the line? And who gets to nominate the judges of where the line is?

---

We’re in those pesky grey areas again. What if a member of al-Qu’ida was a student at a university, but couldn’t directly be linked to any crime? Should they be allowed to remain if the students and dean objected?

Denying a BNP member a state education would be wrong. But universities are not state institutions, they’re private ones, with their own sources of funding. I’m not arguing for someone to be excluded from public services because of what they believe, I’m arguing for the right of a private institution to choose, if it should so wish, to prevent its plaudits being abused by an organisation with the explicit aims of causing harm to others. You say the BNP are not explicit – they have linked homosexuality with paedophilia, Islam par se with terrorism, and have as their goal an all-white nation. Their leadership has been seen, on film, to allow virulent lies and calls for violence against ethnic minorities to go ahead at their own conferences. Where do I draw the line; deliberate and proactive intent of and incitement to violence. The FBU may or may not have been responsible for deaths by inaction, but that was a passive act, or withdrawing their labour. They did not actively go out to cause violence.

The balance of proof can never be 100 per cent certain, but it can be placed “beyond reasonable doubt”, and that is what I’m arguing for; if Manchester, as a private institution, decided to expel the “human” turd because he would put their degree towards promoting racial violence, they should be allowed to.

(Edited by Byron 20/11/2002 19:20)

---

by Byron
if Manchester, as a private institution, decided to expel the “human” turd because he would put their degree towards promoting racial violence, they should be allowed to.

---

But then what if a different private institution decided to expel someone because they thought had say, just "right wing beliefs" Would that be right? OR what about a private institution that wanted to expel people because they had left wing beliefs. Or wanted to expel someone because they didn't have racist beliefs?

Having beliefs isn't a crime, acting on some of them is and surely that's where the lines should be drawn.

If a guy commits an act of racist violence that's one thing, if he has strong feelings about it, it's not nice, it's not what decent folks would deem "right", but is it a crime? What you're saying is that you think it's right to impose restrictions on a man's life because of his beliefs and that's the sort of descrimination that you can live with whilst at the same time attempting to maintain the moral high ground. I think you have a very flawed arguement there

---

by MonSTeR
(quotes)

But then what if a different private institution decided to expel someone because they thought had say, just "right wing beliefs" Would that be right? OR what about a private institution that wanted to expel people because they had left wing beliefs. Or wanted to expel someone because they didn't have racist beliefs?

Having beliefs isn't a crime, acting on some of them is and surely that's where the lines should be drawn.

If a guy commits an act of racist violence that's one thing, if he has strong feelings about it, it's not nice, it's not what decent folks would deem "right", but is it a crime? What you're saying is that you think it's right to impose restrictions on a man's life because of his beliefs and that's the sort of descrimination that you can live with whilst at the same time attempting to maintain the moral high ground. I think you have a very flawed arguement there

---

Just to clarify, I have explicitly stated I do not think someone should be expelled solely because of their beliefs, however extreme they may be.

I think the University should have the right to expel him because of his membership of and high rank in a specific Nazi organization - the BNP - for which there is ample evidence of its involvement in the incitment to, perpetration of and support for racist, homophobic and other forms of violence. I think they should have the right to remove his worthless hide because, on the precedent of the last Young BNP's leader Mark Collett, the degree he gained would be used by the Nazi organisation to further its credibility and actions.

He has already acted on his beliefs by pledging his allegance to the BNP and everything it stands for, and is involved in.


(Edited by Byron 20/11/2002 20:19)

The BNP have as much right to the freedom of speech and the right to exist as any other group

The 'Mill's card' comment was meant light hearted mate. I'm sure I must have mentioned my love of Mill in the past.

---

by Byron
Incitement isn't just an opinion, it's a deliberate attempt to cause harm by orchestrating violence. It's unlikely Herman Goering ever actually murdered anyone in his life; he was still convicted of crimes against humanity, and rightly so. If you're arguing that planning a crime is not a crime, then technically, everyone under him could have ignored him, so he should have been set free. If someone has the clear intent of murdering someone, but pays someone to do it for them, should they be acquitted? The other person could just have ignored them after all. Why should it be different just because they're either too niggardly or cowardly to cough up the money, but prefer to absolve themselves of responsibility by inciting others to do their dirty work for them for free?

---

When a high ranking officer in the military gives an order to kill (be it Goering, Pinochet or Milosevic) it isn't incitement. When someone hires a second party to kill, that isn't incitement. That is direct involvement. Someone, or a group of people, calling a group of people evil or undesirable is not a direct and provable link if a mob then goes out a kills or attacks members of that group. If someone reads this thread and your words about Nazis and their human value, and then goes out and kills a few, are you to blame?

Personally I'm glad we don't have an anti-incitement law. It would be an infringement of civil liberties. However, we do have laws outlawing membership of certain organizations. Jack Straw used it to outlaw members of a socialist Kurd organization because they support violent struggle. Well, actually, he did because our Turkish allies don't like them as they want the Kurdish areas of Turkey to become part of a separate state. That's what happens when you have overly grey definitions.

And we have people printing all kinds of rubbish. About homosexuals, other races, the impact of immigration, of single mothers and all other contentious issue. And what we do is examine them, and discredit those without basis. Which is the only correct response.

So, to intent. How do you prove intent? How do you prove that what the BNP say, or what the News of the World or the Daily Mail prints, is more to blame for associated violence than me saying armed struggle can be justifiable is to blame for the acts of Al Qaeda? How do you prove the BNP intend violence whereas my words have been misconstrued or do not apply?

And you haven't answered my comparison with Sinn Fein...

---

by azrael
The BNP have as much right to the freedom of speech and the right to exist as any other group

---

When they stop allowing speeches inciting violence against ethnic minorities at their conferences, publishing outright lies with the intention in inciting violence and hatred, and having numerous members notching up convictions for violent racist attacks, then I'll start talking about the Nazis' rights.

They cannot and should not be banned until it can be proved beyond all doubt they're orchestrating violence, but until then, it still remains that the only good Nazi is one who's six feet under.

---

by Byron
Just to clarify, I have explicitly stated I do not think someone should be expelled solely because of their beliefs, however extreme they may be.

I think the University should have the right to expel him because of his membership of and high rank in a specific Nazi organization - the BNP - for which there is ample evidence of its involvement in the incitment to, perpetration of and support for racist, homophobic and other forms of violence. I think they should have the right to remove his worthless hide because, on the precedent of the last Young BNP's leader Mark Collett, the degree he gained would be used by the Nazi organisation to further its credibility and actions.

He has already acted on his beliefs by pledging his allegance to the BNP and everything it stands for, and is involved in.

---

Tony Blair makes use of his degree to further the gains of his politcal party, it lends him credibility. I'm sure most political leaders in this country do. Iain Duncan Smith use his military career as a point to demonstrate his character. Should Tony Blair or Iain Duncan Smith have their degrees taken off them because they've acted on thier beliefs by pledging their allegances to the Labour and Conservative Parties and everything they stand for, and are involved in?

Or is it just the members of the political parties that you don't like or feel have views incompatible with your views of what's acceptable that should be descriminated against? Don't forget to the members of the BNP you are in the wrong. It's your views that are unacceptable.

---

The 'Mill's card' comment was meant light hearted mate. I'm sure I must have mentioned my love of Mill in the past.

---

#John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill!#

Among the disadvantages of print, one is definitely the context not always being immediately obvious!

---

When a high ranking officer in the military gives an order to kill (be it Goering, Pinochet or Milosevic) it isn't incitement. When someone hires a second party to kill, that isn't incitement. That is direct involvement. Someone, or a group of people, calling a group of people evil or undesirable is not a direct and provable link if a mob then goes out a kills or attacks members of that group. If someone reads this thread and your words about Nazis and their human value, and then goes out and kills a few, are you to blame?

---

If I explicitally stated "Go out and murder a Nazi BNP scumbag wherever you find one, right now, this is what they do ..." then I'd be willing to take the rap for incitement. But I haven't done, nor will I. Incitment is more than saying a particular group is vile and subhuman, it's directly calling for violence against them, and setting up information with this specific end.

---

Personally I'm glad we don't have an anti-incitement law.

---

Actually, we do. Incitement to racial violence is a criminal offence. I'm not sure about other kinds of incitement, but people have certainly been prosecuted for it in the past, whether there's a specific law or not.

---

It would be an infringement of civil liberties.

---

If setting people up deliberately to be harmed is an infringement, it's one I'm all for!

---

However, we do have laws outlawing membership of certain organizations. Jack Straw used it to outlaw members of a socialist Kurd organization because they support violent struggle. Well, actually, he did because our Turkish allies don't like them as they want the Kurdish areas of Turkey to become part of a separate state. That's what happens when you have overly grey definitions.

---

Any law could be open for abuse; you have to balance the good and bad. You could effectively argue we should have no age of consent laws because they could be used to punish consenting teenagers, but if you didn't, paedophiles would have far more lattitude. I completely disagree with Straws actions here, but that's an argument for vesting the power wider than the Home Secteary, not nessisarily abolishing the prinipal. Banning membership of al-Qu'ida, for example, could save many lives.

---

And we have people printing all kinds of rubbish. About homosexuals, other races, the impact of immigration, of single mothers and all other contentious issue. And what we do is examine them, and discredit those without basis. Which is the only correct response.

---

Absolutely: I'd defend without question someone's right to be a braindead bigot. I don't think sites like Stormfront should be banned, nor relgious nutters who call homosexuality an "adbomination" should be silenced. Only if they actively go out to cause harm to people should they be criminalized.

---

So, to intent. How do you prove intent? How do you prove that what the BNP say, or what the News of the World or the Daily Mail prints, is more to blame for associated violence than me saying armed struggle can be justifiable is to blame for the acts of Al Qaeda? How do you prove the BNP intend violence whereas my words have been misconstrued or do not apply?

---

The only way you can prove anything, a burden of proof before a court of law. How do you prove a General ordered massacres? By showing his orders and his troups' responses to them. How do you show a Nazi party has incited violence? By analysing their words and interogating those who carried out the violence; you build a case.

For example, the abuse of the Community Fund started only after the Daily Mail's biased information and calls on their readers to "vent their anger" was printed. One man interviewed (you can read his vile letter in the link I've provided earlier in the thread) said he was inspired by the Mail, and didn't "give a damn". If you can show clear correlation between cause and consquence, you build up a case.

---

And you haven't answered my comparison with Sinn Fein...

---

Sinn Fein is a totemic organisation if ever there was one, but if someone could prove conclusively their support of the IRA's methods, then yes, I'd say the same should apply: the Uni should be able to chose.

As a side note, irrespective of my feelings about the Irish Troubles and support for the Peace Process and Good Friday Agreement, I think both the IRA and Unionist paramilitaries are murdering terrorist filth. No ambiguity.