Sack this revolting specimen

[visualnickmos]

She wasn't just saying that she didn't like LGBT people & that I am scum, shit, etc., but that it is perectly legitimate to physically assault me, injure me and, quite possibly, kill me. That's not 'expressing an opinion', that's inciting people to violenrt assault.

Flosshilde
I couldn't have put it better myself. What you have said is exactly my view and stand-point as well. It surprises and actually saddens me that there seem to be some on here who give the impression that it's quite OK to publish such hate-filled and violent crap.

My question to them is simply this: Do you agree that it permissible to publicly state that one supports the idea of violence to some members of society ?

[Beef Oven!]

Flosshilde
I couldn't have put it better myself. What you have said is exactly my view and stand-point as well. It surprises and actually saddens me that there seem to be some on here who give the impression that it's quite OK to publish such hate-filled and violent crap.

I don't think it's true that anyone has given the impression that "it's quite OK to publish such hate-filled and violent crap".

[Nick Armstrong]

Flosshilde
I couldn't have put it better myself. What you have said is exactly my view and stand-point as well. It surprises and actually saddens me that there seem to be some on here who give the impression that it's quite OK to publish such hate-filled and violent crap.

Certainly not "OK" ... Different question: would she be arrested if she did it here? Probably, on balance:

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

[visualnickmos]

That's not what the question asks. It asks if people can be sacked for their opinions. The answer is no. That would be tantamount to dismissing people for "thought crimes".

You are totally missing the point. It is NOT merely an opinion; it is exactly as Flosshilde states so succinctly

"She wasn't just saying that she didn't like LGBT people & that I am scum, shit, etc., but that it is perectly legitimate to physically assault me, injure me and, quite possibly, kill me. That's not 'expressing an opinion', that's inciting people to violenrt assault."

Where do you stand on this?

[Beef Oven!]

You are totally missing the point. It is NOT merely an opinion; it is exactly as Flosshilde states so succinctly

"She wasn't just saying that she didn't like LGBT people & that I am scum, shit, etc., but that it is perectly legitimate to physically assault me, injure me and, quite possibly, kill me. That's not 'expressing an opinion', that's inciting people to violenrt assault."

Where do you stand on this?

Slow down a bit!

You said "there seem to be some on here who give the impression that it's quite OK to publish such hate-filled and violent crap."

I said that I didn't think it was true that anyone had given that impression. And I don't.

[visualnickmos]

Certainly not "OK" ... Different question: would she be arrested if she did it here? Probably, on balance:

[I]The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.

I am no lawyer (thank goodness :whistle:) but I thought that such behaviour would almost certainly now be illegal, or at least on the very edge of legality in the UK. You have confirmed my thought.

[visualnickmos]

Slow down a bit!

You said "there seem to be some on here who give the impression that it's quite OK to publish such hate-filled and violent crap."

I said that I didn't think it was true that anyone had given that impression. And I don't.

I never thought I'd end up going into Jeremy Paxman mode here, of all places but:

Do you, Beefy, think that she should be allowed to carry on with impunity after publishing support and incitement of violence towards gay people?

It is a simple yes/no question.

[Black Swan]

First, what she said is reprehensible. That it wasn't illegal to do so in her own country is an issue. I do not approve of inciting violence on anyone. I wouldn't buy recordings made by her or attend performances.

I suggest with her views she look for employment in Opera Houses in Uganda and she stay in the Dorchester Hotel when traveling.

[Beef Oven!]

I never thought I'd end up going into Jeremy Paxman mode here, of all places but:

Do you, Beefy, think that she should be allowed to carry on with impunity after publishing support and incitement of violence towards gay people?

It is a simple yes/no question.

I think you need to calm down a bit!

Now, in post #12, Mary asked if people could be sacked for 'an opinion, even if it was appalling'. I responded to the effect that people shouldn't be sacked for an opinion, because that would be viewing it as a "thought crime", but what they did with that opinion was what mattered. I then went on, with an ill-advised confidence in my understanding of UK employment law, to give two reasons (gross misconduct & SOSR (some other substantial reason)) as to how I thought such a dismissal could be effected (in 2 posts).

Now if you calm down a bit, look at what I've said, you should realise that you do not need to ask me your question.

You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

[visualnickmos]

I am perfectly calm, thank you.

You have answered my question in no uncertain terms.

As for the "wrong end of the stick" errr, I don't think so.

[Flosshilde]

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.[/I][/COLOR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_sp...United_Kingdom

I assume that, being part of an Act dealing with immigration, this means that she could/would be refused a visa if any opera company were to be so ill-advised to invite her to perform here?

[french frank]

I assume that, being part of an Act dealing with immigration, this means that she could/would be refused a visa if any opera company were to be so ill-advised to invite her to perform here?

Just what I thought: rather like miltant ayatollahs or neo-Nazis who have expressed their views. I think there's also a Public Order connection somewhere.

[LeMartinPecheur]

I assume that, being part of an Act dealing with immigration, this means that she could/would be refused a visa if any opera company were to be so ill-advised to invite her to perform here?

Your assumption appears to be incorrect I'm afraid, flosshilde. As so often, the title of the Act simply indicates that it deals with two unconnected areas of law (two for the price of one, which statistically helps the gov't's deregulation targets:sadface:). This Act is mainly a ragbag of criminal justice changes, but with one immigration one tagged on the end. No connections between the two.

If this singer has done something that would have breached UK law if it had happened in this jurisdiction it will I think be of no interest whatsoever to our immigration authorities. I can't begin to imagine the political and international-law mess we'd be in if we started pulling the trick of refusing visas on the grounds of not liking actions that were legal where carried out.

[visualnickmos]

... I think there's also a Public Order connection somewhere.

I rather had the same thought.

[visualnickmos]

.... I can't begin to imagine the political and international-law mess we'd be in if we started pulling the trick of refusing visas on the grounds of not liking actions that were legal where carried out.

Nazi war crimes were legal where carried out. OK, I agree that I am probably taking the argument to its ultimate 'end point' which is perhaps not very relevant here, but at the same time, not completely disassociated.

Am I correct in thinking some Russians are being refused visas on the grounds of not liking actions that are legal where they occurred; eg the invasion and occupation of part of another sovereign state. Mugabe is not permitted to enter certain European scenarios for violations of human rights - which are perfectly legal in Zimbabwe where they occur? Please correct me if I am mistaken. That is only my 'take' on events, nothing more. Both of these apparently 'legal' where they occurred.