Sack this revolting specimen

[amateur51]

But, on what basis is encouraging violence 'wrong'? (I'm trying to work out the answer, not defending the action!).

I'd make the distinction between the violence of the dispossessed and the violence of the powerful. The former is a function of their powelessness; the latter is a function of their powerlfulness

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But, on what basis is encouraging violence 'wrong'? (I'm trying to work out the answer, not defending the action!).

I would say that it is wrong on a societetial basis. If there is a social agreement between different and even opposing groups of people that this is what we all agree are socially acceptable standards of behaviour, and that transgressions against those standards are to be dealt with by legal processes that we have also agreed upon, then that social agreement is sideswept by those who use violence to get their way, and it falls apart if that violence is supported and encouraged with impunity.

[french frank]

I'd make the distinction between the violence of the dispossessed and the violence of the powerful. The former is a function of their powelessness; the latter is a function of their powerlfulness

Same question: if you say to a powerful person in some way mistreating a weaker person, 'You have no right to do that'. Or 'It's wrong', what is the basis for saying it's wrong if, as waldo seemed to imply, there is no transient, unstable element to rights (such as evolving social attitudes)?

[amateur51]

Same question: if you say to a powerful person in some way mistreating a weaker person, 'You have no right to do that'. Or 'It's wrong', what is the basis for saying it's wrong if, as waldo seemed to imply, there is no transient, unstable element to rights (like evolving social attitudes)?

It's anti-social, unfair and likely to lead to unpleasant and unforeseen consequences. That's the basis for calling it wrong in my view

[waldo]

But she (or her husband in her name) does support those who have actually physically and violently attacked others

often, in certain cases, it is necessary to break jaws in order to be appreciated as a nation
I am proud of the fact how Georgian society spat at the parade
those who attacked the parade were Georgian youth of pure blood, still unspoiled by the "Westernized" tolerant reforms initiated by the Georgian President, who had condemned the violence against the Parade.

Giving support to those who use violence against unarmed, peaceful demonstrators is encouraging, supporting (or "inciting") further such acts, isn't it?


"Freedom of speech" means that she is entitled to voice her opinions about the sensitivity of holding the Parade on such a day in such a vicinity - because this view can be publicly discussed and views to the contrary put forward; positions explained, and some sort of tolerance of conflicting opinions reached on both sides.

She is even entitled to describe LGBTs as "deviant faecal matter" - that merely reflects on her own abominable, petty mindset, and works against her foetid opinions.

But calling out "go on, stick the boot in" isn't an exercise of "free speech" - it's encouraging violence.

Approving violence could well be construed as encouraging violence - yes, I can see that. But I think we have to be very careful here. Firstly, there is a difference between encouraging and inciting violence. The latter refers to a quite concrete relationship between the act of violence and the words which led up to it. Very strict criteria have to be met here. Simply saying that you approve of some act of violence, or hate a group of people who are victims of violence, is not itself an act of incitement. But it can certainly be counted as a form of encouragement, but only in a fairly loose way. At the very least, it contributes to an atmosphere which may, in some rather nebulous way, contribute to more violence.

The question then is whether this is allowed or not. Do we silence people who approve of violence against certain people or groups, simply because that approval can be said to constitute a form of encouragement? Do we silence people who verbally support animal rights groups which commit violence? Or who support violent protesters in a dictatorship? Can we verbally support the rebels in Syria? What if someone says that don't think the UK government should be in Northern Ireland. Does that encourage violence against them? (In a loose way, it does, no doubt.)

Personally, I think that the concept of "encouragement", insofar as it is used to police opinions, throws too wide a net; too much is fished up in the process. Too many important discussions would be closed down before they started. The concept of causation, which underpins the criminal justice system and the very notion of personal responsibility, would be stretched to breaking point. Just about any act of violence could be connected to any form of words. (Precisely what tyrannical regimes do all the time, of course.)

In the final analysis, the question is about what we decide for ourselves and what the government decides on our behalf. It is, of course, the government which does the banning here. They decide, in advance, what we are not allowed to hear for ourselves. If the government was allowed to ban this or that statement on the grounds that it offered encouragement to the "wrong" causes or contributed to violence "somewhere down the line" - God help us all.

[waldo]

To be clear: Tamar Iveri is not inciting violence in this article. She needs to say a lot more than she does to meet that standard, and to involve herself in a much more intimate chain of causation than she does.

[amateur51]

To be clear: Tamar Iveri is not inciting violence in this article. She needs to say a lot more than she does to meet that standard, and to involve herself in a much more intimate chain of causation than she does.

Well I hope that you're right. What happens if a crowd of thugs, crudely chanting the sort of invective that she included in her letter to the Georgian President, were to attack a LGBT Pride event resulting in numerous injuries and two hospitalisations. Is she innocent of inciting violence?

These things have certainly happened recently in Russia.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Well that's the problem with religious belief, isn't it. I don't/can't subscribe to it and yet my world is required to be proscribed by her promoting her religious belief.

Bonkers.

I agree that, sadly, religious beliefs can have bonkers results, but that doesn't mean she's 'bonkers'. Not at any level above mere 'trading insults' anyway. It will probably stay that way till all jurisdictions have reached the conclusion that holding any sort of religious belief is sufficient evidence of insanity. I'm not holding my breath on that one!

[waldo]

Well I hope that you're right. What happens if a crowd of thugs, crudely chanting the sort of invective that she included in her letter to the Georgian President, were to attack a LGBT Pride event resulting in numerous injuries and two hospitalisations. Is she innocent of inciting violence?

These things have certainly happened recently in Russia.

Yes, she is innocent. They are the ones who committed the actions - not her. If we extend the line of responsibility out from them (the people who committed the actions) to her (someone who didn't), we could extend the line to quite a lot of other people, too. (Have you heard what many of the Tories have said about gay marriage in parliament in the UK?)

The bottom line is surely that you cannot be guilty of a crime simply because you have (possibly) contributed to an attitude or an outlook in some way or another. It's just too loose. Are any of us innocent by that standard?

Now, if she gathered some people at her house and said, "Remember! Show no mercy to these perverted monsters! Make sure you bring your baseball bats and good luck!", we are beginning to get to the point where we can connect the violence with her words.

[amateur51]

I agree that, sadly, religious beliefs can have bonkers results, but that doesn't mean she's 'bonkers'. Not at any level above mere 'trading insults' anyway. It will probably stay that way till all jurisdictions have reached the conclusion that holding any sort of religious belief is sufficient evidence of insanity. I'm not holding my breath on that one!

My bad - I meant that the elevation of religious beliefs about any other value system is bonkers.LGBT people seek equality within society; Ms Iveri seeks supremacy of her belief system at the diadvantage of others.

[french frank]

The bottom line is surely that you cannot be guilty of a crime simply because you have (possibly) contributed to an attitude or an outlook in some way or another. It's just too loose..

"A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) [B]having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby[/B]."

CJ&POA 1994

[amateur51]

Yes, she is innocent. They are the ones who committed the actions - not her. If we extend the line of responsibility out from them (the people who committed the actions) to her (someone who didn't), we could extend the line to quite a lot of other people, too. (Have you heard what many of the Tories have said about gay marriage in parliament in the UK?)

The bottom line is surely that you cannot be guilty of a crime simply because you have (possibly) contributed to an attitude or an outlook in some way or another. It's just too loose. Are any of us innocent by that standard?

Now, if she gathered some people at her house and said, "Remember! Show no mercy to these perverted monsters! Make sure you bring your baseball bats and good luck!", we are beginning to get to the point where we can connect the violence with her words.

So Mrs Thatcher was innocent of the economic violence meted out by her policies to poor people in UK? And Mr Blair is innocent of the current situation in Iraq?

They'd both agree with you I'm sure, which may give the lie :biggrin:

[Flosshilde]

My bad - I meant that the elevation of religious beliefs about any other value system is bonkers.LGBT people seek equality within society; Ms Iveri seeks supremacy of her belief system at the diadvantage of others.

I thought that was quite clear in your original comment.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, she is innocent. They are the ones who committed the actions - not her. If we extend the line of responsibility out from them (the people who committed the actions) to her (someone who didn't), we could extend the line to quite a lot of other people, too. (Have you heard what many of the Tories have said about gay marriage in parliament in the UK?)

The bottom line is surely that you cannot be guilty of a crime simply because you have (possibly) contributed to an attitude or an outlook in some way or another. It's just too loose. Are any of us innocent by that standard?

Now, if she gathered some people at her house and said, "Remember! Show no mercy to these perverted monsters! Make sure you bring your baseball bats and good luck!", we are beginning to get to the point where we can connect the violence with her words.

I don't think that she should be allowed to exonerate herself, or be exonerated, for her words. There are plenty of people whose demise I would not mourn - we had a heated debate on this subject over the death of Margaret Thatcher - but I would consider it within the remit of the law to arrest me for saying I wanted them gone, or would not regret their passing, because a "wish" could be taken as open season for somebody to carry out my wish by proxy. In that instance, if the evidence suggested I'd said it, it would be up to me to prove to a court of law that I had no intention of inciting, or for that matter encouraging, a.n.other to bring it about; the line between inciting and encouraging is a very thin one, methinks.

Edit: french frank's citing of the Race Relations Act (?) would seem to bear me out.

[french frank]

but I would consider it within the remit of the law to arrest me for saying I wanted them gone, or would not regret their passing, because a "wish" could be taken as open season for somebody to carry out my wish by proxy.

There was the case of the preacher who paraded around with a sign saying Homosexuality Is Immoral. In that case he was attacked by an angry crowd and when the police arrived they had to decide whether to defend him or arrest him. In the end they arrested him and he was convicted for a Public Order Offence on the grounds that his action was unreasonable (and he 'started it'). His various appeals were all rejected. But that's under UK law.

But so much for being innocent if you don't commit the violence yourself. (Not an uncontroversial decision, however).