Perhaps it was not unexpected that David Willetts, Universities Minister, should have been forced to abandon his speech about the Idea of a University in Cambridge on 22nd, when students took over and prevented him from continuing. This sort of blocking of free speech goes back a long way in universities, and it was that habit that led to the Education (no2) Act 1986 which requires Universities to secure freedom of speech within the law for visiting speakers, and to take preventative action if it is likely that a speaker will behave in a threatening or offensive way. Universities also have special responsibilities under the law to promote harmony between different racial groups on campus, and to have equality and anti-harassment policies. And of course they are subject to the Equality Act 2010, as well as being charities with all that that entails.
And yet in recent times campuses have been the scenes of the worst antisemitic speeches and outbreaks I have witnessed in my lifetime. Take the University of Exeter. A couple of weeks ago a speaker included these phrases in his speech to students – “Hitler was right”, “the only kind of form equivalent in History to Israeli barbarism, expansionalism, racially driven philosophy is Nazi Germany”, “Israel must be de-Jewdefied”, “antisemitism doesn’t exist”. There was a lot more like this, but it sickens me to copy it and it would only bring out the madder bloggers, of whom there are plenty to be found in relation to this theme on the internet.
Students are the first to protest when there might be discrimination against black and ethnic minorities, against gays, against women, or to complain about bankers, etc. But when it comes to antisemitism, what did the right-on Student Guild of Exeter reply to the protests on behalf of the Jewish students in the audience, who had walked out, offended? “Freedom of expression is not criminal” and that the university’s legal and moral obligation to protect its students “was not legally enforceable.” So where antisemitism is concerned, the students’ union is not interested because the laws against it can, in their view (albeit wrongly) be avoided.
I used to be the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, handling student complaints from all the unversities in England & Wales, and I know something about the law. So I would have expected the University of Exeter authorities not only to have taken action, if not to stop it (given that the speaker was well known for this sort of language) then at least to act firmly during the speech, halting it, but also to sanction the Student Guild afterwards and commence the appropriate legal action against the speaker. Apparently they have done absolutely nothing, in contravention not only of the laws mentioned here, but of others in the same vein, and in disregard of National Union of Students and government guidance on hate speech on campus. Exeter could learn from Manchester and Birmingham Universities which have brought their guidelines on speakers up to date and have good policies.
No connection, I suppose, with the University of Exeter’s solicitation of funds from Gaddafi a few years ago, nor its receipt of substantial funds from various Middle Eastern states with bad human rights records. http://www.studentrights.org.uk/2011/03/disregard-morality-exeter-university/; http://www.studentrights.org.uk/2011/04/blood-stained-money-funded-exeter-university/
The University of Exeter is clearly not a welcoming place for Jews, or women, let alone Jewish women. A recent “safer sex student ball” there promoted itself with a rape joke in a “shag mag”. http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/Fury-rape-joke-student-ball-magazine/story-13977806-detail/story.html
The universities have in general shown themselves to be in denial as far as the possibility of nurturing terrorist activity on campus goes – witness their resistance to the government Prevent Strategy, which is the subject of a debate in the Lords on 30 November. They have also ignored the warnings about antisemitism on campus contained in the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, and the subsequent helpful government responses to it. Campus should be a place for dialogue, equality and truth telling, not hatred, fear and racism.
Freedom of speech.
Misguided or not, we have a woman in Croydon being prosecuted for speaking her mind.
No doubt you support that.
What it really is is that you support free speech for the things you agree with, and not free speech for people who hold other views.
That’s why free speech, no matter how offensive, should be a right not to be interfered with by the likes of you.
You miss the point which is that universities have to allow freedom of speech WITHIN THE LAW. It is not lawful in this country to speak hatred against black and ethnic minorities, gays etc. It is not lawful to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre when there isn’t one, causing a stampede (this is the standard legal example!) So it is not a question of what I agree with or not, but our law. There are many laws about what we may or may not say, like it or not.
So your first para is taking the moral highground condemning students who ‘prevented [Willitts] from continuing’ and your fourth a demand that the Uni ‘act firmly during the speech, halting it,’.
Not much consistency of argument. Free speech means gritting your teeth even in Britain where we have some of the most restrictive speech laws in the western world.
Simple Willetts was speaking WITHIN THE LAW, and the Education (no.2) Act supports that, whereas the speaker at Exeter was not.
Not simple at all. I asked for a consistency of argument all you have claimed in support is that the law picks and chooses what it allows which is no defence to the consistency of your own point at all.
Unless I have missed a court case the argument you make is anyway simply an assertion that the latter example broke the law not an objective fact.
So, the audience, who’s time he was taking up, didn’t want to listen to him. They made their point freely and loudly. And it is the right of any man to disagree with a speaker.
This crazy system we have in law now, of, you can only speak freely if we agree with what and how you say it, is a disgrace.
Whilst I may not agree with a great deal of people who speak loudly and persistently on certain matters, I not only accept, but will fight, for their right to say it.
And you cannot force a person to embrace anyone or anything, simply because you feel it is ‘right’ they do so. Their view is as important as yours. No matter what that view may be. Repulsive to you or otherwise.
To remove that right, as has been done to the western world, is an outrage. And it flies in the face of democracy.
Freedom of speech, is just that, freedom. We don’t have it anymore.
And the worse thing of all, is, because we have all accepted such a monstrous change in our laws, tomorrow the law will take even more freedoms, of the same kind, from us.
Unless people in a democracy are willing to fight for their rights, those same rights will be eroded by those who find those rights a threat.
So hate speech, lies, racism all OK by you?
Everyone should be equal under the law. All laws and privilidges should apply equally to all people.
If you want a law that exempts you from the other laws you create – you can. However, everyone gets that.
So you have a law that says you can’t libel people when you speak in parliament. That means everyone would have the same right. They just have to turn up, say it in parliament, and no one can prosecute them.
If you take the woman in Croydon. She was just voicing what a lot of people think. She certainly believes it and if you look at the film a lot of evidence is right there in the image.
She’s a loser from migration. Partly because I’ll bet she didn’t take advantage of what education was offered. She will be low skilled, and she is an example of the group that has lost.
Whether you find it objectionable or not, I see nothing wrong with enabling her to spout off. If you don’t like it, don’t listen.
There is one difference, and its advocating violence. That should apply to warmongering PMs and MPs. One rule for all.
@Baroness Deech:
In a nutshell, yes.
Speech is simply that, speech. It cannot change you or harm you. It is merely a way of one man telling another who he is.
It is his right to do that. And it is your right to know who and what he is.
To pretend otherwise is foolish and immature.
Blagger is right on the violence issue. And to egg someone to violence is loathesome, but, the instigator is not the perpetrator. And unless you are of diminished responsibility then your decision to follow his call is down to who you are. Not who he is.
I put this up on another thread, but, I repeat it again. It is so beautifully written it won’t hurt to revisit it.
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm
Freedom cannot be half given. A nation is either free, or, it isn’t. And our nation has lost its right to liberty, so valued before 1997. And so easily taken from us.
Maud Elwes’ comment is a denial of all the legislation there has been over the last 20 years or so to drive hate and libel out of our public discourse. People need to understand the part played by law in keeping our society one where different groups can live with each other and not incite and discrimate against each other.
Heavens above, there is more to the right of freedom of expression than groups and hate and libel. It would indeed be interesting to study cases over the years, since the law changed, to really see just what and who these laws have jailed. And for what.
The narrowness of thinking has really taken hold of the British judiciary, that once upon a time, used to understand the way they legislated and what it meant in reality.
Speech is simply that, speech. It cannot change you or harm you. It is merely a way of one man telling another who he is.
Oh dear really? I would not put it quite like the Baroness has for entirely different reasons, hers probably having more to do with
proscribing anti Semitic opinions than anything.
Maude has no experience of public life,or public office to say that. As children we used to “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me” but regrettably they can do permanent damage to good reputation and bank balance.
I wonder what the reform synagogue’s attitude is to anti-semitism? After all many, if not all, their adherents are converts from another faith or no faith at all, and yet have a dedication to Zion and Israel which exceeds the Orthodox synagogue by leaps and bounds!
Are you not allowed to say anything against the gentle folk of the reform synagogue either, because it might stir up both religious and so called ‘racial’ hatred?
Libel and race hate are two very different subjects.
It might be more honest merely to ban incitement to “hatred”, seeming a bit of an ecclesiastical invocation to me!!
it would only bring out the madder bloggers, of whom there are plenty to be found in relation to this theme on the internet.
To true!
Can the speaker of those foul words not be prosecuted? I would be very offended if somebody said “exterminate all Welshmen!”
So you have a law that says you can’t libel people when you speak in parliament. That means everyone would have the same right. They just have to turn up, say it in parliament, and no one can prosecute them.
But it is the high court of parliament, and to that extent such libels are dealt with by Mr Speaker and his deputies, and the same in the noble place.
In the case of the Rt Hon Teresa May about 6 years ago, after various libellous remarks were made about her, of insanity, by a particularly unpleasant labour member, she eventually threatened to take proceedings for libel outside parliament, (in debate)and that was enough to silence the Hon labour member.
That surprised me for the reason Blagger mentions, but it may be that Speaker’s dept
had refused to take action in the chamber, and the now Home Secretary (who does have some very charming moments!)decided to draw attention in that way to the damage he was causing her good reputation, which had little to do with the banter, sometimes ill tempered, of the House of commons.
It was a constructive libel, repeated again and again and again, which can be very debilitating indeed, and although she is a Tory,she was wise to act in the way she did.
This is a hugely misinformed piece and is arguably libellous against the University of Exeter and the Guild of Students. I am a student at Exeter (holding a position of considerable power/responsibility which I shall not divulge here) and do not recall seeing you at the ‘antisemitic’ talk (actually a talk on the problems within the Middle East held by a speaker known for his anti Israel opinions (despite himself being a Jew) or being present during the recent ‘rape joke’ issue.
1) The speaker was invited by a particular society to speak, which is within the Guild’s rules, the Guild was aware of the speaker’s reputation but allowed the talk to go ahead based upon the cause you are arguing about- freedom of expression. However, they monitored the speech and allowed other societies to stage peaceful protests outside the venue, which was again in compliance with Freedom of speech/expression laws. The Guild took a stance that meant it was supporting all students, allowing those to host a speaker who they felt was relevant to their cause and giving those who disagreed the opportunity to protest against it, without inhibiting either group. Personally, I think this is an admirable and just course of action to take and is far better than simply silencing one group in favour of another (and for further information, several high ranking elected members of our Guild are of the Jewish faith and yet still felt that it was better to allow different viewpoints to be expressed to encourage debate and thought rather than silencing one point of view in favour of another) Would you rather live in a society where only one point of view is allowed? That sounds quite similar to the Nazi Germany this particular antisemitic speaker was comparing Israel to, don’t you think?
2) The recent ‘rape joke’ that you are clearly jumping on the band wagon about has been hugely misrepresented by the press and had you done some proper research into the matter you would have learned that it was printed in a magazine which is separate from both the University and the Guild and was part of a promotional magazine for an event known as the Safer Sex Ball (SSB). The SSB is Europe’s largest World Aids Day event and last year raised over £40 000 pounds for Aids based charities, simply from students spending money. The entire event takes over a year to plan and is entirely run and funded by Exeter students and is even featured on FHM magazine’s “top 100 things to do as a student” list. The rape joke was written by an Exeter student, as students were asked to contribute towards the magazine in the run-up to the event, and unfortunately the proofing and editing system simply failed to spot the comment. No members of the organising team or official elements of the University were responsible for the ‘joke’, which was in bad taste and has been dealt with extremely maturely and promptly by an extremely busy team of people (the SSB is on 8th December) In total, only 10 students (out of 17 000) actually complained about the comment and the magazine was quickly withdrawn and re-printed (with the money to do this being taken away from what would have gone to charity) Ultimately, you have simply referenced two events that you clearly have very little knowledge about, in order to make what is ultimately quite a vacuous point.
I am neither defending these two events, or supporting them, I am merely trying to educate someone who should maybe question their wisdom about blogging on issues they have little knowledge of. Exeter is an extremely open, friendly and hospitable university that has very low rates of intolerance, discrimination and unhappiness. The student population here, although with its flaws, is still regarded as one of the most close knit and tolerant student bodies in the country, and is proud to have such an open mind and be willing to accept ideas and thoughts of different persuasions, debating and questioning our world and keeping it as free and democratic as possible. Frankly, the more we have students like those I am studying with, and less of people like you in the world, the better off we will be as a society.
I have seen the transcript of the speech and the Q&A and without doubt it was antisemitic. The university should say so. I have to say over and over again, that freedom of expression in this country only exists WITHIN THE LAW, and the law is clear about racism and incitement to hatred. The law would apply equally to a speech of a similar nature about black and ethnic minorities or any other religion. In the latter case, I do not think you would be jumping to defend the university.
Useful discussion.
that freedom of expression in this country only exists WITHIN THE LAW, and the law is clear about racism and incitement to hatred.
The problem with racism is its taxonomic meaning, which varies according to the systematics/phylogenies that you use.
In systematics it may have been deleted entirely as a meaningful term, whereas in phylogenesis(?) it continues to have a seriously pejorative definition. (I can check that in more detail if you wish)
Even in the medical faculties of universities
the methods of study vary between treating medical terminology in one way or by treating it in the other, which has a powerful effect on the students’ judgement itself, and even on later disease diagnosis.
Given the term
“racism AND incitement to hatred”
it is easier to see what the noble baroness is getting at, except that if according to the one scientific plan, there is no such thing as “race”, it is difficult to see how, mere incitement to hatred without any other crime attached, can be a valuable
cause for prosecution, until a crime of violence perhaps is committed as a consequence.
PS Are you satisfied that the university fulfilled its obligations under the equality policy http://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/humanresources/documents/equalityanddiversity/Equality_&_Diversity_Policy_Nov10.pdf and the Code DocID=11846falmouth.ac.uk/downloads/Student%20Regulations/2011/code_of_practice_on_freedom_of_speech_and_lawful_assembly_2011-12.pdf and is this code up to date? It does not mention when it was drafted, nor recent legislation that is relevant.
The reputation of the university is already damaged because the events I mention have been reported globally. I was once a university official. If it happened under my watch, I would a. apologise for the offence caused to the Jewish students b. promise to do everything possible in the future to promote racial harmony on campus and care for the dignity and welfare of all students, as in the equality policy c. get a grip on the application of human rights and equality within Students’ Guild and d. ensure that the Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech was updated. See for good practice Manchester http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=11846 and Oxford http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/councilsec/fos/
Did you actually read my comment? The Guild and the University are entirely separate institutions, as I made quite clear, and do not come under the same governance or operational practise. This talk was organised by a student society which aims to raise the profile of the issues in the Middle East. Therefore, it was neither the responsibility of the Guild or the University over which speaker was chosen, they could merely react to it. Both these organisations took it upon themselves to ensure the society that had invited the speaker could proceed and allowed those that objected to voice their concern outside, thus representing the entire student body. As far as I’m concerned, and as most of the university population agreed, this is just about as democratic and fair as a society can be. Everyone was allowed a voice and everyone was given the chance to state their views and opinions. Perhaps you would benefit from the same attitude. Had you actually attended the talk and not just ‘read’ a transcript, you would have seen all of this in action.
What you are effectively saying is the University and the Guild should silence its students and prevent them from free decision making and independent thought if it doesn’t comply with the government’s stance or views on the world (which at present aren’t exactly in favour with many students) and only allow speakers and discussions on ‘safe’ topics, those that cannot possibly offend anyone and will ultimately get our society nowhere. Nanny state anyone?
Freedom of expression and free thought are the very foundations that British universities are built upon and you should be able understand that having been through the system and being so closely tied with it. We could simply follow Nazi doctrines or other dictatorial nations and indoctrinate all our future children to one mode of thought, then we wouldn’t have freedom of expression problems because everyone would have the same point of view.
I did not agree with a lot of what this speaker said, but some of it was valid and raised important questions that students have been debating since, and had he not spoken I would not have heard those views at all. Anti-semitism cannot be condoned, but nor can the selective neglect of one nation’s plight in favour of another, just because we do not deem the opinions of its supporters as worthy or in compliance with our freedom of speech laws.
It is a cliché but one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, and I’d rather live in world where this cliché can be used, rather than everyone simply being a terrorist unless it conforms to the government’s discourse (in which case, the government would surely be the terrorist?)
Digression aside, I find it somewhat ironic that you complain about freedom of expression being too liberal and open and condemn those who voice an opinion that isn’t accurate or balanced and yet have written this blog, which is only here because you are allowed an opinion, despite it being just about as inaccurate and poorly informed as is possible. You then proceed to try to silence anyone who has argued against you. This blog was set up to allow the public to interact and debate with peers which is exactly the point of freedom of expression, and yet you are using it to condemn freedom of expression if it doesn’t suit your perspective.
Exeter’s Vice Chancellor is Sir Steve Smith, the government’s advisor and head of Universities UK. If anyone were in a position to decide if his university were taking correct courses of action and operating within the law (he is also a Professor specialising in Politics) then it would be him. I suggest you take up your qualms with him if they bother you so much.
I’m afraid you do not know the law as it applies to the student societies, the union and the university. There is so much of it. You could start with the Education no.2 Act 1986, the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, the Equality Act 2010, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and much more, and how they apply to students. It is not a question of reacting but of being positive.
Baroness Deech, you ignored all of H’s comment. Besides, you are hiding in obscure legislation, claiming that the University should have and fundamentally missing the point. If Gilad Atzmon’s visit was illegal, why hasn’t he/the university been prosecuted? Why is he not currently in jail for incitement to hatred? You say he has made racist statements, and you have transcripts, but you are not going to take it any further.
You mean you want to curtail other people’s right to say what they think, because you disagree with what they say.
The problem is that someone will do that to you one day.
Referring to natural species, in general, the term “race” is obsolete, particularly if a species is uniformly distributed on a territory. In its modern scientific connotation, the term is not applicable to a species as genetically homogeneous as the human one, as stated in the declaration on race (UNESCO 1950).[85] Genetic studies have substantiated the absence of clear biological borders, thus the term “race” is rarely used in scientific terminology, both in biological anthropology and in human genetics.[citation needed] What in the past had been defined as “races”—e.g., whites, blacks, or Asians—are now defined as “ethnic groups” or “populations”, in correlation with the field (sociology, anthropology, genetics) in which they are considered
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf
Looking at the Kingdom “Animalia”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo
If it were the human race this would be classed as Family or Tribe but the species “Homo” itself, and “Homo Sapiens” in particular are placed well below
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Homo
You might say that all the different species of “Homo” are different races but that still gives you lee way in claiming that the term “race” distinguishes one part of homo sapiens from another except in so far as we now consider ourselves as “Homo sapiens sapientia” in having externalised what have previously considered to be the internal brain power of “Memory”;
So, far from the students being brainless, it is far more likely that the ageing colleague and political opponents of the noble baroness who have not succeeded in mastering the Internet and its search facilities are the only brainless ones she really knows anything about!!!
Case rests. “race” has no meaning. “Race” laws are redundant however many of them the baroness cares to quote.
Anyone else recall being educated into
“Freedom is only freedom if it does not inhibit every other’s freedom(*) ?
(*) presumably “freedom from (exploitation manipulation and unfair-competition), freedom to (non-criminally live, find food, shelter, and holistic-health)…
freedom of (information-sharing, democratic-discussion, registration-of-needs …)
and what else ?
Oh ! yes,
since the students were selected by (amongst other governors) Baroness Deech’s ‘like’, those selectors must be at least as “brainless” as the students they selected, mustn’t they ?
Then the charge would be incitement and GBH, or something like that!
Obviously case law is the paradigm in English law for what constitutes racial discrimination but I do not think that much consideration by lawyers has been given to the different classifications of the term, except that “race” in the 1960s had an obvious meaning. The knowledge classification itself may have changed since that time but British society has done too, and we should re-examine the meaning of the law and the classification in the context of a rapidly changing world.
It may be, and this is probably my opinion, that the law will become more and more redundant as it becomes obvious that it is being used as a tool for Zionist campaigning,
rather than to ensure, for example, that Afro Caribbean and African people, in these islands, get their just desserts, and are not discriminated against, which to my memory was the value of them in the 1960s.
The severely flawed arguments of the BNP, which require ignorant commitment to a totally dated definition of race, are another matter all together.
Where were you when this topic was exhaustively debated in Parliament and in the press throughout 2010 when the Equality Act was passed, and all definitions and minorities examined? Zionism has nothing to do with it. We are talking hate speech and race discrimination, both of which are covered in detail in English law. It amazes me how little the law is known by the public.
That’s because a lot of it is written by people who delight in obscure wording and often adding in exceptions and loopholes instead of something that is nice and clear and easy to understand.
When a Bill merely amends bits of previous Acts or refers to provisions in all sorts of other Acts then it gets even harder to follow. Throw in some Statutory Instruments for good measure and it’s a wonder that anyone ever understands it.
If there is no such thing as race, how can you define an action as ‘racial hatred’ or anything close to it? As, therefore, it cannot exist.
Next, this matter has to be considered more closely and understood more fully doesn’t it? And to do that, it has to be raised and debated. Which is stultifying on this matter.
Race is often confused, in terms of language, with culture. And cultures or peoples way of life, worldwide, differ broadly.
As a result, what is regarded as a regular way of dealing with cultural or social matters to one group of people, is seen as horrendous and barbaric to others.
The problem lies in denial of the cultural and social trends of the worlds population. Ridiculously, it is now construed as ‘racially’ unacceptable to express factual knowledge of different practices within mankind.
Lets get into some ‘facts’ on this matter. The West consider female circumcision as horrific, and yet, it embraces all manner of male circumcision. Isn’t this the kind of blind hypocrisy only those who wish to impose a ‘numb mind’ culture on practice of thought would savour.
Then if we go to honour killing, the West is against this practice, but, without informing the people who carry out such a practice, as a natural solution in their culture, do not, prior to allowing millions of people who feel this is a regular way of life, to enter our country without expressly warning them, to continue with this practice, is against the laws of this land they are planning to call home. Same with polygamy, forced marriage, child marriage, and so on. Then, only years after they surprisingly find the abuse to have continued within a community, decide to make it ‘against’ the law and legislate.
These issues, and so many more I could cite, are often considered racial traits, rather than cultural. Which makes the reluctance of government to broach such matters ludicrously obscure.
The point is, if you want to promote there is ‘no race’ propaganda then you must add to that, there is ‘no culture.’
And to take that a step further. iI there is no race or culture, how can we have anything close to racial and cultural hatred? It is not possible to incite racial or cultural hated under this auspices. Is it?
Jewish faith, it is claimed, incites anti semitic behaviour. Semitic, in this instance meaning religion rather than persuasion. And Jewish religion is then given the name semitic. And to disagree with or dislike the practice of this religion or persuasion terms you, antisemitic.
If you look into all of this closely you are imposing a ‘no rights of association’ on the public. No right to dislike, no right to selection and no right to question. For to do so is considered ‘racist.’ And having such thoughts is unlawful.
This being so, how do we become selective, or are we also to be denied this option as well?
This thread then suggests that I cannot say I disagree with or dislike your culture, religion or sexual practice, because to do so raises my rights to freedom of speech in law. It is unlawful to have an opinion on these matters. And should I have an opinion on anyone who shares a way of life I find goes against my ‘principles’ I am at risk of losing my freedom as a result. Which also means I have no right to principles.
So, we must then ask, what rights do I have as a human being who thinks and feels?
In fact there is so much law controlling speech and behaviour now that you have a point!
Well perhaps we can use the hate law against the left. They are keen to vilify anyone who has worked hard. Scum being the general theme. Vermin being the other.
Does that fall under hate crime or is it just the people you like who are protected?
Note widespread reactoion to Jeremy Clarkson’s comment about strikers last week.
@Baroness Deech:
The Jeremy Clarkson situation was a put up job. His silly way of expression, in this Britain of today, should be a warning of how far we have come in absurdity on the issue of free speech.
If yo listen to the entire piece, what the man said, most regular people would have taken it as I did. That he was drawing attention to the absurdity of the entire issue on the right to strike and the reason these people had been in such a predicament in the first place, was humorous. He was making a point on how far we have come as an idiot breed of people.
But, oh no, the ban everything lobby had to jump on a band wagon of cry ‘hatred.’ Lets rid him of his job and force him into bankruptcy, he is an opinionated sod of man who needs to face castration.
Doesn’t this smack of the female lobbyist. Who secretly, or even openly, can’t stand the fact that this man made a masculine centric programme for the guys about cars, for TV viewing. And not only that, brought the beer drinking male chatter into the living room, to enable guys to enjoy their natural traits regardless of the ‘hatred’ of it by these strident female objectionists.
The real truth being, this lobby see his kind of ‘open man’ as a threat to their cause.
You see, not one man I know, in all spheres of life, does not thrill at the prospect of racing those motors around that circuit. There lies the disgruntled face of the objecting women.
Clarkson is right. However I would say that we can restrict it to just a couple of strikers.
How about Michael Owen and Emile Heskey?
We are talking hate speech and race discrimination, both of which are covered in detail in English law. It amazes me how little the law is known by the public.
I am glad Maude, who has a mind of her own, agrees with me some little way on this.
I have sent another post which Mod has not published yet which details the exact definition of the meaning of “race” in anthropological terms.
I was listening carefully noble baroness to the discussion last year and went over all this conflict between the proper anthropological meanings compared with those of the Law in recent years.
The one is at complete variance with the other. If mod will publish the link post I have provided you will be able to check for yourself. [it may be in the name of Delaney’s donkey for reasons of sight elegance]
Basically Donkeys do not wait to crap and in this the law does not either]
Hate is a vice as I have also mentioned recently on this board. To attach hate to race or religion as the Law has done is one way of banning certain kinds of hate, but by no means all.
If the state is to concern itself with religious belief, ie the deadly sin and vice of HATE, then it should have the integrity to say so, without attaching itself to redundant
pseudo-intellectual terms, which are no longer part of the Taxonomy of “Homo”[Sapiens Sapientia]
The comment stands regarding the meanings of
Memory and their various [5]uses, which allow us to consider that we are no longer mere “Sapiens” but “sapientia” as well.
CHECK the anthropology link!
Does that fall under hate crime or is it just the people you like who are protected? Blagger’s sour wit as usual.
We’ve come a long way from “H”‘s reply above to the baroness. Exeter university’s policy on comparative religious studies has seemed to me excellent for some years and not to be demeaned.
there is so much law controlling speech and behaviour now that you have a point!
Dave makes wise remarks about clever clog wordings, exceptions, loopholes, that one bill leads in to another, but the profession of Lawyer, judge, and politician, is precisely to follow all of those things through and know them thoroughly, legal idiocies ‘n orl.
Many of the wordings do not matter, until I, or somebody, says so… and then…. they do…
Thus it is with the litany of race laws provided by BD above. The first one only mentions the word “race” twice ( I stopped looking half way down) and leads directly on to the next Act mentioned.
The word “race” has no meaning to half of the world’s anthropologists, and they should know, but is rich with meaning to all lawyers.
four types of anthropology, actually: Archaeological, Biological/Physical, Linguistics, and Cultural/Sociological
Half believe “race” does have a place in their hierarchies; the other half does not.
If you check the Scientific classifications a few times and study the differences you may be able to decide whether to agree or not that “race” is meaningless depending on your
anthropological science point of view!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominina
What may be said of people’s knowledge of the law, is that far too many people are aware of the Criminal law, far too many families are aware of family law (ie divorce) but of all the rest of it, far too many know far too little, especially of the making of it, even though politics is stuffed down their throats
incessantly morning, evening and night.
To those who complain that the law is being used or abused as a Zionist tool to suppress free speech: People in glass houses should neither throw stones nor fire Katyushas.
@Heisi:
You couldn’t be more right. You only have to see a young woman jailed here again today, for speaking her mind on a bus.
What she has done is against the political doctrine of the day. The video of her speaking her mind can be seen on youtube. She was using expletives to other passengers on a bus. The crime being classified as racial hatred.
Certainly Katyushas have been fired at this sad woman and her child and repeated again today.
The concern now is with racial or religious>/i> hatred, on account of the new religion to the UK in the last 30 years or so of Islam. Islam is a proselytizing faith, like Reform Judaism, and Christianity.
What with the divisions in Christianity being so fiercely competitive as well, religious hatred laws are not before time.
How would you prosecute somebody for hating for the sake of hate, rather than for religion hate or race hate?
Police are perrttyy good at inventing charges; they can choose the wording to help the magistrates along, so what charge would Maude suggest to press against somebody for
Hate pure and simple?
A Hate crime would usually take the form of violence and certainly “Conduct”.
It is really not advisable to go round in public declaring “Hate for somebody for any reason whether it is racial or religious or you just feel like hating somebody?
You quite often hear simple minded people saying that they “hate” this or that, and I have sometimes mentioned the lack of wisdom
in saying it, to those who do. It often leads to more serious crime.
Hate does become an obsession to some people, and it is a vice, one of the seven deadly sins.
I had a school chum once who used to say “I hate such and such a teacher”. I was aware even then of the foolishness of it, but he was not. I told him once, but not often enough, not to say it.
He very nearly killed the teacher a few days later, with an electric shock in the bug lab.
He left within half an hour, probably to a secure unit. We never found out.
I blamed myself for not telling him every time he said it. Everybody else just laughed.
“You can see murder in a man’s eyes but there is very little you can to prevent it” Said Hercule Poirot, a thought he obtained from readings on Roman thinkers.
My school friend has been highly respected in his own field of study in adult life.
He was not naturally a hateful person. far from it, and yet the vice caught him in its jaws; had the master died, (he very nearly did) his own life might well have taken a very different course.
You might say that expressing hate might be an incitement to kill. You quite often hear people saying, “I could have killed him! or even “I hate him “or “I could kill him,her”.
There is nothing you can do until they have done so, violence, manslaughter murder and so on.
But inciting hatred for a group of people, because of what they believe, rightly or wrongly,in their/your opinion?
Is that the same? Or different?
Speaking from what I like to think is a fairly informed point of view, as a female Jewish student at the University of Exeter, I have experienced neither antisemitism nor sexism in my time here.
Freedom of speech is important, and we cannot compare a woman ranting on a public train to a man coming and giving a speech at the university. Those who attended the talk by Gilad Atzmon knew what was in store, and many went only to argue with him. This is freedom of speech and healthy debate. Shouting racist remarks on a train is nowhere near the same thing.
Furthermore, the publishing of a misguided joke does not condemn the university, or the guild, to sexism. They have apologised profusely, and it is not as if this is a common occurrence.
Just to say that you should use a little more concrete evidence when condemning from the outside.
I am a student at Exeter University… Does this make me brainless?
I am a Theology student, despite being an atheist… does this support your blog where it defines us ALL as one and the same? No. I am not religious, yet I love religion, so when you make a judgement about the university and write in your blog in such a manner that makes us all out to be anti-semitic, I am proud to prove you wrong.
What do you say to students that aren’t going to the Safer Sex Ball? Or those that ARE Jewish and find their time here absolutely fine? Or, quite frankly, as you make it out to be… all the poor, suffering, objectified women (myself included apparently?!) on this campus?
Take up your issues with those that make the decisions, or with students in a manner that makes us support you, not condemn your own condemning nature.
Take up your issues with those that make the decisions, or with students in a manner that makes us support you, not condemn your own condemning nature.
Now you know Baroness Deech!
Distinguishing between “religious” and “racial” hatred,and just plain “hatred” is valuable.
It is entirely lawful to go round persuading others to hate an individual, providing you have a good case for them to do so. The media
is particularly good at this kind of persuasion, using analog/digital files(pictures!)music and script.
Persuading people to hate one individual who is also a head of state, is a special case, with rather different rules and responsibility.
You do sometimes read in the gutter press of
hate campaigns against individuals, notably paedophiles, who are always fair game for such hatred.
They are entirely lawful.
Hating a group of people with religious beliefs, however much mumbojumbo the religion may be, and inviting others to do so too, in public, is not lawful.
The hatred may be meaningless; the religion may be meaningless, but it is not allowed.
Hating an ethnic minority or group,especially one classed as a “race”,or “strain”, and inciting other to hate them, is not lawful either, although the boundaries between the meaning of “ethnos” and “race” may be blurred.
The legal term “race” is clear.
The Anthropological sciences are at odds over the meaning at all, depending on whether the discipline is seen historically or with recent geography.
Exeter University Students do well to remind us of the distinctions.
This is perhaps the most ignorant blog I have ever seen. Not just for its factual inaccuracies but also for its sheer hypocrisy.
Firstly Baroness Deech,perhaps you should have provided your readers with some context. The “Hitler was right” quote for starters was actually as followers; “If Israel bombed Iran, there are those who would say Hitler was right….”. The “Israel needs to be de-Judaified” was actually: “If Israel wants to become a country for all its citizens Jewish and non- Jewish then Israel needs to be de-Judaified.”
So in context there is absolutely nothing wrong with the above statements. They are neither anti-semitic nor racist. To take them out of context you have not only misinformed your readers but you have also slandered Exeter University and its reputation. The accusation of sexism and racism from a member of the House of Lords is laughable. The House of Lords is one of the most elitist and un-diverse bodies in the UK.
Next time I recommend you firstly read things in context before you pick and chose some quotes that have branded about out of context. Secondly perhaps ask Jewish women and the university whether the feel welcome or not before making such an accusation. My guess is that they feel more welcome than they ever would in the House of Lords.
There are those who say that Hitler was right, irrespective of whether Israel carries out a pre-emptive strike against Iran. We can justifiably describe them as anti-Semites. There are those who call for de-Judaification of Israel, irrespective of Israel’s wishes. We can justifiably describe them as anti-Semites.
If they did carry out that pre-emptive strike (heaven forbid) they would probably not do much damage to the rest of the Semitic people,since
the Muslim mullahs in Iran may be the only other ones of the semitic people,
being Arabs.
There are always those who will argue the hind leg off a donkey that Jews are semitic and Arabs are not.
We are all the human species, homo sapiens sapientia.
Search term :Homo hominini
“The accusation of sexism and racism from a member of the House of Lords is laughable. The House of Lords is one of the most elitist and un-diverse bodies in the UK.”
But not sexist or racist.
Not racist?
Think again. It was the Black and Asian peers who were the ones roasted (slightly) over their expenses. Look at the proportion done compared to the proportion of the rest.
I thought we still had freedom of speech in this country? If he said anything offensive, he could have been prosecuted regardless of where the event took place. It should also be pointed out that the talk was organised by Friends of Palestine, and was picketed by the Jewish Society of Exeter. The Jewish society disrupted his talk and, when challenged, could not verify that they had even read the works they were criticising.
Secondly, linking the Student Guild’s choice of speaker with the University’s solicitation of funds from Libya borders on slanderous, and more pertinently, displays a complete ignorance of how Universities are run. The Student Guild does not solicit funds from Gaddafi, nor does the University arrange the Friends of Palestine’s talks, so the two are not some interwoven conspiracy.
Finally, as a student body, I believe Exeter’s students (I am one) welcome the fact that we can invite speakers, none of whom express illegal viewpoints, without censorship from our University or indeed, esteemed members of the House of Lords.
I challenge Baroness Deech to justify her comments regarding the funding, the choice of speaker, or the fact that she believes Exeter to be an unsafe place for Jews.