|
|
|
In a related matter: "Ruling on one of the most important First Amendment issues of the day, a Philadelphia judge (USA) has ruled that a valid defamation claim trumps any right to speak anonymously on the Internet. In his opnion in Klehr Harrison Harvey Bransburg & Ellers v. JPA Development, Inc., No. 0425, Common Please Judge Albert W. Shepparrd Jr. ordered the operator of two now-defunct Web sites to turn over the identities of the anonyomous authors of comments on the sites that allegedly defamed a Philadelphia law firm, Kleher Harrison." -- from news accounts
|
|
|
|
I don't think you need worry about that.
The fact that Rawat inc has spared no expense in its several roundabout attempts to stifle legitimate recollections & comment from his former followers, yet has never tried to sue anyone for libel, shows that the comments are probably as true as it gets.
So there's no case for defamation. Is there even a character to defame?
|
|
|
|
I agree, the law is preposterous but it's just typical nanny New labour/ PC New labour. No surprise there, IMO. For our own good we must be directed in what we say and think. Yeah right.In actual fact, to widen it, the UK must be one of the most spied upon and "controlled" populations anywhere....at least in the Western world, anyway. The examination, the other night on Newsnight, of stealth DNA recording, cctv's, freedom of speech and a host of other matters just confirmed what I've known for a long time. Can you believe that peaceful, lone demonstrator was arrested simply for reading out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq? Ok, she wasn't charged, as far as I know, but the cops took delight in using some stupid anti-freedom law to get her off the streets . The truth is Britain now needs a crystal clear written constitution and declaration of rights. Period. I just don't think the executive and Parliament can be trusted to act in the interests of basic freedoms anymore. Back to the cult, though. In spite of the politicians, the press and the people here aren't as constrained as they would like us to be. That’s the good news about this society and, in that respect, it must be one of the most liberal of nations in actuality. New Labour, though, is doing its best, in partnership with the Police, to fundamentally change things. Still, “ Freedom of speech”, though ,is such a prominent issue right now, that any minor organisation such as EV would be stepping into a minefield if they wanted to use the law ( watered down as it is )for their own petty reasons. This would be one time when the usually ignored cult would be centre page, IMO, and it wouldn't be a case of " any publicity is good publicity" as far as they're concerned. It'd be a disaster for them. They'd be idiots to try to use the new law. Well, ok, they've proved time and time again that they are idiots but they really WOULD be idiots this time round. I think it's more likely the Act will just gather dust in the statute books. I could be wrong but I doubt if any of the main religions and/or minor cults etc will try to use it. We'll see, though, I could be completely wrong.
|
|
|
|
Excellent analysis Dermont, I agree with what you say, particularly the point you make about Elan Vital being crazy to even contemplate using these news laws, let alone actually using them. But still, you never know. One can but hope huh?  Personally I think this new law was provided by the government as a sop to the Muslim minorities in some muddle headed attempt to try and save their Labour votes which is still haemoraging due to the Iraq war. I don't think Blair, Charles et al actually want people to use the law, they want simply to be able to turn around to these minorities and say "see, we have provided what you asked us for, so please keep voting for us." Local elections coming up in May and the government just managed to squeeze this law in on time. Hey ho. I wonder if the Danish cartoons that is causing such a storm in the Middle East were to be published here in the UK would contravene this new law? Probably not, but still this law may have a very bad chilling impact on freedom of speech. And I guess that is the worst aspect of laws such as this, the chilling effect. T
|
|
|
|
It isn't actually law yet; the Govt lost the vote on it only yesterday, so it remains to be seen what transpires. On a related note, the leader of the British National Party just avoided a criminal prosecution for incitement to racial hatred over remarks he'd made about Islam. The jury threw out the charges, which is kinda interesting for all sorts of reasons. Then there's the business of the Danish cartoons......
Suddenly this issue is becoming a real can of worms, & I don't see anything in it for EV(UK) which after all is an Educational Charity not a religion, even if the legislation goes ahead as planned, which doesn't look to be a likely prospect.
Roll on Friday, when I can allow myself to uncork the next bottle of Smith's Glenlivet, shout at the tv, & generally empathise with my inner reactionary, without getting funny looks from the tongue cluckers I'm mercifully spared from 'working with', but do have to 'liase' with from time to time.
What do you call someone who calls a manhole a personhole ?...............an arsehole is the answer, & it sometimes seems that public life in Merrie England is overrun with the bastards.
|
|
|
|
While BNP leader Nick Griffin is the most obnoxious racist holocaust denier that ever went to Oxford University, prosecuting him on grounds of incitement to *racial* hatred was never going to work, since his inflammatory speeches were directed at Islam, rather than (what he really meant) Arabs - especially those living in Britain. Under the proposed laws, Moslems and Christians would have parity against discrimination with Sihks and Jews who are already protected through being distinct racial groups under existing law. Under new laws Nick Griffin would probably have been jailed (and they can throw away the key weighted with concrete blocks into the Sargasso for all I care), but that wouldn't change the idiocy of the bill's underlying precept, ie, 'religious hatred'. Anyway, there's already a perfectly good law against inciting third parties to a commit a criminal offence. The French editor sacked for reproducing the Danish anti-Islamic cartoons was a victim of the publishers' fear of losing sales, and not really a legal matter. It is surely significant that no other European country has considered implementing the absurd, repressive legislation that Blair is now trying to push through. (And to think that I voted for him, three times, so far...)
Modified by Nigel at Thu, Feb 02, 2006, 18:51:19
|
|
|
|
For EV UK to adopt a religious status would be a massive about face, and would have major implications for their charitable status. I can't see them risking what's really important to Rawat - the money- for the chance to shut up a few UK exs while all you other guys will be able to keep up the criticism unaffected. While I've got no sympathy for Blair and Co - it should be recognised that there is a Constitutional problem behind all this - and that is the relationship between church and state - and the appalling Blasphemy Laws that still apply, largely because of the special position of the Anglican Church. The racial hatred law is an attempt to provide something which the Anglicans will accept is a fair swop for consigning the Blasphemy Laws to the dustbin - while at the same time giving in to the Muslims who want 'religious status' put on the statute book. What is really crap about the current proposals is that hatred against non believers will not be covered - and over the last 500 years a damn sight more non believers have been butchered by Christo-Islam than the other way round - so just who is that needs protecting ? Nik
Modified by Nik at Thu, Feb 02, 2006, 12:24:54
|
|
|
|
incitement to religious hatred. It was halted in Parliament exactly to allow people to vigorously question religions, and be insulting about the same if one has the inclination, but to draw the line on religious hatred In practical terms it means using religion to encourage violence to others. Inciting violence towards people is amply covered by existing law in any case. You can say what you want about a religion of any type, but keep short of inciting violence towards its members. The victory in Parliament was another stroke against Tony Blair, who would attempt to limit our civil liberties to vigorously discuss ideas. The victory in court by Griffin of the BNP is ironically a type of victory for civil liberty, in that the government was attempting to push the limitations of free speech into areas far beyond incitement to possible violence into stifling the area of upsetting people through the discussion of ideas. Free speech means the right to talk freely and occasionally offend. This is deeply fundamental in a free society. However, it draws the line at incitement to violence towards others for their beliefs. In practical terms of discussing Prem and EV, it has zilch bearing. To its great credit, Parliament has defended a deeply important principle of free expression, in accordance with our traditional freedoms, against an encroaching government which has attempted recently far too greatly to stifle personal rights, their practice and expression.
|
|
|
