Guest guest Posted February 25, 2001 Report Share Posted February 25, 2001 > ---------- > FW: [uK] 'Hate' e-mails to be outlawed > > scary stuff from the UK > > > 'Hate' e-mails to be outlawed > > BBC News > Wednesday, 21 February, 2001 > > People who send " hate " e-mails or " hate " text messages could face prison, > under government plans. > > Home Secretary Jack Straw has drawn up proposals to update the law to make > it an imprisonable offence to send hate mail by traditional or electronic > means. > > The measure is part of a package of legal changes designed to protect > scientists from animal rights extremists. > > Mr Straw is also planning to give police greater powers to stop protestors > from gathering outside people's homes. > > Amendments > > The changes will be contained in amendments to the Criminal Justice and > Police Bill now going through parliament. > > They will be tabled in the Commons on Thursday. > > Under the plans, protestors who refused a police request to move away from > a private residence could be arrested and face up to three months > imprisonment. They could also be fined up to £2,500. > > The changes will target " hate " text messages > > And anyone who sent " hate " mail could be sentenced to six months in prison > or fined £5,000 - double the amount at present. > > Mr Straw is also planning to make it harder for protestors to defend their > actions. > > An amendment to the Malicious Communications Act would establish an > " objective test " to be used to decide if their actions were reasonable. > > At present it is a defence under the Act for the sender of hate mail to > say > that they honestly believed their threats were reasonable. > > Under the amendment, a court would be able to convict a protestor if it > believed that a reasonable person would not have taken the same action. > > Violence and intimidation > > Mr Straw said: " We simply will not tolerate the criminal actions of a > small > number of extremists who use violence and intimidation to stop people > going > about their legitimate business. > > " These new measures are designed to help prevent two tactics often used by > these individuals - protesting outside employees' and directors' homes and > sending intimidating mail. > > " We want to ensure that all types of threatening messages are covered - > including those sent by text messaging and email. > > " Tougher penalties for sending hate mail will be an added deterrent. " > > Guidelines > > The Home Office is also working on guidelines for shareholders and > employees of research companies who may be targeted by animal rights > extremists. > > The guidelines will outline steps they can take to improve their personal > security and avoid unnecessary publication of their home addresses. > > Mr Straw said: " We are determined to make sure that the public are > protected and that lawful businesses can operate freely. " > > He added: Peaceful public protest is entirely legitimate, but there is a > world of difference between that and the type of intimidation, threats and > violence we have seen recently. " > > === > (translation of that last paragraph by Mark: " Protest is allowed as long > as it is entirely ineffective. once public outrage becomes so widespread > that big companies start losing money and rich bastard animal abusers cant > walk out theri front door without being yelled at, then civil rights will > be abolished " > > ******************************************************8 more on the UKs new anti terrorist laws. > --- > > Wearing a T-shirt makes you a terrorist > Anything with a slogan could put you outside the law now > > Special report: human rights in the UK - > http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/ > > George Monbiot > Thursday February 22, 2001 > The Guardian > > Britain, Tony Blair announced at Labour's spring conference on Sunday, is > on > the brink of " the biggest progressive political advance for a > century " . To prepare for this brave new world, two days before his speech > Mr > Blair bombed Baghdad. On Monday, the progressive era was > officially launched, with the implementation of an inclusive piece of > legislation called the Terrorism Act 2000. > > Terror, in the new progressive age, is no longer the preserve of the > aristocracy of violence. Today almost anyone can participate, just as > long as she or he wants to change the world. > > Beating people up, even killing them, is not terrorism, unless it is > " designed > to influence the government " or conducted " for the purpose of > advancing a political, religious or ideological cause " . But since Monday > you > can become a terrorist without having to harm a living being, > provided you believe in something. > > In that case, causing " serious damage to property " or interfering with " an > electronic system " will do. Or simply promoting or encouraging > such acts, or associating with the people who perform them, or failing to > tell > the police what they are planning. Or, for that matter, wearing a > T-shirt or a badge which might " arouse reasonable suspicion " that you > sympathise with their activities. > > In his speech on Sunday, Tony Blair called for a " revolution " in our > schools, > and spoke of " noble causes... asking us to hear their cry for > help and answer by action " . So perhaps we should not be surprised to learn > that > you can can now become a terrorist by supporting government policy. > > British subjects writing pamphlets or giving lectures demanding a > revolution in > Iraq can be prosecuted under the new act for " incitement " of > armed struggles overseas. The same clause leaves the government free to > bomb > Baghdad, however, as " nothing in this section imposes criminal liability > on any > person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the crown. " > > By such means, our new century of progressive politics will be > distinguished > from those which have gone before. There will be no place, for > example, for violent conspiracies like the Commons Preservation Society. > The > CPS launched its campaign of terror in 1865, by hiring a trainload of > labourers > to dismantle the railings around Berkhamstead Common, thus seriously > damaging > the property of the noble lord who had just enclosed it. > > The CPS later split into two splinter groups called the Open Spaces > Society and > the National Trust. Under the new legislation, these subversive factions > would > have been banned. > > Nor will the state tolerate dangerous malefactors such as the woman who > claimed > " there is something that governments care far more for than human life, > and > that is the security of property, and so it is through property that we > shall > strike the enemy " and " the argument of the broken windowpane is the most > valuable argument in modern politics " . Emmeline Pankhurst and her > followers, > under the act, could have been jailed for life for damaging property to > advance > a political or ideological cause. > > Indeed, had the government's new progressive powers been in force, these > cells > could have been stamped out before anyone had been > poisoned by their politics. The act permits police to cordon off an area > in > which direct action is likely to take place, and arrest anyone refusing to > leave it. > > Anyone believed to be plotting an action can be stopped and searched, and > the > protest materials she or he is carrying confiscated. Or, if they prefer, > the > police can seize people who may be about to commit an offence and hold > them > incommunicado for up to seven days. > > Under the new act, the women who caused serious damage to a Hawk jet bound > for > East Timor could have been intercepted and imprisoned as terrorists long > before > they interfered with what Mr Blair described on Sunday as his mission to > civilise the world. So could the desperados seeking to defend organic > farmers > by decontaminating fields of genetically modified maize. > > Campaigners subjecting a corporation to a fax blockade become terrorists > by > dint of interfering with an electronic system. Indeed, by writing > articles in support of such actions, I could be deemed to be " promoting > and > encouraging " them. Which makes me a terrorist and you, if you were foolish > enough to copy my articles and send them to your friends, party to my > crime. > > I don't believe the government will start making use of these new measures > right away: after all, as Mr Blair lamented on Sunday, " Jerusalem is not > built > overnight " . But they can now be deployed whenever progress demands. Then, > unmolested by dangerous lunatics armed with banners and custard pies, the > government will be free to advance world peace by bombing Baghdad to its > heart's content. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.