Winston McKenzi - Homo Comment

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I tell you what Korben, ask Eilzel, who he thinks is about the biggest defender of homosexual rights on here and who stands against any homophobia?

i am sure he will give his opinion and i am betting he supports my interpretation and as  for defending  homosexual rights i have and always will  

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
i am sure he will give his opinion and i am betting he supports my interpretation and as  for defending  homosexual rights i have and always will  

I am willing to take that bet.

I will stay off for a month if Eilzel agrees with you.

If he disagrees with you, then you have to be a man and apologise for losing the plot here?

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


I am willing to take that bet.

I will stay off for a month if Eilzel agrees with you.

If he disagrees with you, then you have to be a man and apologise for losing the plot here?

i haven`t lost the plot i am repeating what is on the web site dedicated to this

A homophobic hate crime is:

“Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.”

you however know better than the Association of Chief Police Officers

your hubris is astounding

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
i haven`t lost the plot i am repeating what is on the web site dedicated to this

A homophobic hate crime is:

“Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.”

you however know better than the Association of Chief Police Officers

your hubris is astounding

I cannot believe you still fail to grasp this.

If someone says homosexuality is a child abuse when rasinng children, it is not specific but a general homophobic view.
If somone says to a homosexual couple they are child abusers as they have children, that is a hate crime, as its specific.

I see you bailed out on taking the bet.

Quelle surprise which says to me even more you know you are wrong

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Then take the bet and accept the terms

Its that simple

You are wrong as you fail to actually understand the context of the law as so many times demonstrated.

You claimed his views were a hate crime previously.
I stated you were wrong and have reasoned as to why.
To be honest if you cannot grasp it now, I doubt you ever will.

Laters and have a good evening

korban dallas wrote:and just to addres one of your points
Openly gay actor John Patridge, who was visibly emotional during the task, was more restrained.He said in the Diary Room: "Hearing him speaking about that is difficult for me


so directed at a person ?
He obviously took offense at the comment so that blows your "directed at a person " argument right out the water

Raggamuffin wrote:What did he say about gay adoption?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What did he say about gay adoption?

that its tantamout to child abuse

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Then take the bet and accept the terms

Its that simple

You are wrong as you fail to actually understand the context of the law as so many times demonstrated.

You claimed his views were a hate crime previously.
I stated you were wrong and have reasoned as to why.
To be honest if you cannot grasp it now, I doubt you ever will.

Laters and have a good evening

i am not six years old
bets for Christ sake man grow up

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

korban dallas wrote:and just to addres one of your points
Openly gay actor John Patridge, who was visibly emotional during the task, was more restrained.He said in the Diary Room: "Hearing him speaking about that is difficult for me


so directed at a person ?
He obviously took offense at the comment so that blows your "directed at a person " argument right out the water

Words fail me at the lack of common sense.

Yes he did take offense just like countless other people did at home watching, but and here is the big but.
It was not specific to the housemate or anyone else.

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Words fail me at the lack of common sense.

Yes he did take offense just like countless other people did at home watching, but and here is the big but.
It was not specific to the housemate or anyone else.

doesn`t have to be is the point you fail to grasp
he did not say all gays except his house mate did he

it was about a group of people of witch he is part of  it was hate speech pure and simple

hate speech is against the law

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
doesn`t have to be is the point you fail to grasp
he did not say all gays except his house mate did he

it was about a group of people of witch he is part of  it was hate speech pure and simple

hate speech is against the law

Point so far gone over your head its pointless now even trying to explain to you

Seriously, you still fail to grasp this

It may be hateful and vile to say the least but its not a hate crime.

Lord Foul wrote:

This is a real grey area in law, not, strangely, on the facts but in interpretation and proof of intent

to some extent the afore said moron is protected by HRA legislation

the things he said were, or at least could be regarded as, hateful, and therfore one would think hate speech per se

HOWEVER.

PROVING incitement (of hatred)  would be difficult to say the least

the prosecution would have to prove that hatred was or was likely to be caused by this and moreover that this hatred was a forseeable and or intended consequence.

mmm...difficult...

the Police if complained to would be required to act, however this action would be unlikely to be his arrest, they would most likely inform a CPS lawyer of this and await HIS
opinion. they (or the chief at least) would want to see the video, and a transcript as would the CPS chap.

If it were MY call, as a CPS representative, I would say that a prosecution would NOT be in the public interest as it would drag on for weeks and cost a fortune , with no even reasonable guarantee of success.

That is NOT to say that does NOT amount to hate speech either...

the law is notoriously uncertain in this area

. In Hammond v DPP
,94
an evangelical Christian preacher was in the habit of setting up in a city
centre square a large double
sided sign bearing the words ‘Stop Immorality’, ‘Stop
Homosexuality’ and ‘Stop Lesbianism’. This had previously attracted protest. On the
occasion in question, members of the public found it distressing and insulting. A group of
protesters assaulted Mr Hammond. Police officers asked him to take down the sign and leave
but he refused. They then formed the view that he was provoking violence and arrested him
for breach of the peace. He was convicted of an offence under section 5 of the Public Order
Act 1986, aggravated on grounds of sexual orientation, for displaying an insulting sign within
the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. The
appellate court held that it was proportionate to restrict his freedoms of expression and of
thought, conscience, and religion because it had been open to the lower court to conclude that
Hammond had knowingly gone ‘beyond legitimate protest’ and was provoking violence and disorder, which interfered with the
rights of others, and that he had failed to demonstrate a
defence that his behaviour was reasonable. There was therefore a legitimate aim of
preventing disorder and thus a pressing social need for the restriction. Further appeal to the
European Court of HumanRights was refused.

note however that this is an isolated instance and DID NOT go to the supreme court.
in effect you are both arguing slightly different things, which means , when the law is indeed such a grey area

you could quite easily both be right or both be wrong...

THE ONLY way the question of "is this hate speech?" to be answered would be for it to go before a HIGH COURT judge for a definitive answer...

what I can say is there are legitimate grounds for a complaint,
legitimate grounds for investigation
and possible legitimate grounds for an attemped prosecution (however that would depend on trained and knowlegeable legal opinion, which could give due regard to past actions and precedent (such as there is)


like I said

Lord Foul wrote:

This is a real grey area in law, not, strangely, on the facts but in interpretation and proof of intent

to some extent the afore said moron is protected by HRA legislation

the things he said were, or at least could be regarded as, hateful, and therfore one would think hate speech per se

HOWEVER.

PROVING incitement (of hatred)  would be difficult to say the least

the prosecution would have to prove that hatred was or was likely to be caused by this and moreover that this hatred was a forseeable and or intended consequence.

mmm...difficult...

the Police if complained to would be required to act, however this action would be unlikely to be his arrest, they would most likely inform a CPS lawyer of this and await HIS
opinion. they (or the chief at least) would want to see the video, and a transcript as would the CPS chap.

If it were MY call, as a CPS representative, I would say that a prosecution would NOT be in the public interest as it would drag on for weeks and cost a fortune , with no even reasonable guarantee of success.

That is NOT to say that does NOT amount to hate speech either...

the law is notoriously uncertain in this area

. In Hammond v DPP
,94
an evangelical Christian preacher was in the habit of setting up in a city
centre square a large double
sided sign bearing the words ‘Stop Immorality’, ‘Stop
Homosexuality’ and ‘Stop Lesbianism’. This had previously attracted protest. On the
occasion in question, members of the public found it distressing and insulting. A group of
protesters assaulted Mr Hammond. Police officers asked him to take down the sign and leave
but he refused. They then formed the view that he was provoking violence and arrested him
for breach of the peace. He was convicted of an offence under section 5 of the Public Order
Act 1986, aggravated on grounds of sexual orientation, for displaying an insulting sign within
the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. The
appellate court held that it was proportionate to restrict his freedoms of expression and of
thought, conscience, and religion because it had been open to the lower court to conclude that
Hammond had knowingly gone ‘beyond legitimate protest’ and was provoking violence and disorder, which interfered with the
rights of others, and that he had failed to demonstrate a
defence that his behaviour was reasonable. There was therefore a legitimate aim of
preventing disorder and thus a pressing social need for the restriction. Further appeal to the
European Court of HumanRights was refused.

note however that this is an isolated instance and DID NOT go to the supreme court.
in effect you are both arguing slightly different things, which means , when the law is indeed such a grey area

you could quite easily both be right or both be wrong...

THE ONLY way the question of "is this hate speech?" to be answered would be for it to go before a HIGH COURT judge for a definitive answer...

what I can say is there are legitimate grounds for a complaint,
legitimate grounds for investigation
and possible legitimate grounds for an attemped prosecution (however that would depend on trained and knowlegeable legal opinion, which could give due regard to past actions and precedent (such as there is)


like I said

What type of incidents can be a hate incident?

• verbal abuse like name-calling and offensive jokes
  
• harassment
  
• bullying or intimidation by children, adults, neighbours or strangers
  
• physical attacks such as hitting, punching, pushing, spitting
  
• threats of violence
  
• hoax calls, abusive phone or text messages, hate mail
  
• online abuse for example on Facebook or Twitter
  
• displaying or circulating discriminatory literature or posters
  
• harm or damage to things such as your home, pet, vehicle
  
• graffiti
  
• arson
  
• throwing rubbish into a garden
  
• malicious complaints for example over parking, smells or noise.
  

When is a hate incident also a hate crime?

eddie wrote:I've got to say I am in agreement with didge on this.....

So if it's hate speech and it's a crime, why hasn't he been arrested?

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:I've got to say I am in agreement with didge on this.....

So if it's hate speech and it's a crime, why hasn't he been arrested?

Err - he was arrested, convicted and sentenced, think you will find it's in Vic's post.



He was convicted of an offence under section 5 of the Public Order
Act 1986, aggravated on grounds of sexual orientation, for displaying an insulting sign within
the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. The
appellate court held that it was proportionate to restrict his freedoms of expression and of
thought, conscience, and religion because it had been open to the lower court to conclude that
Hammond had knowingly gone ‘beyond legitimate protest’ and was provoking violence and disorder, which interfered with the
rights of others, and that he had failed to demonstrate a
defence that his behaviour was reasonable. There was therefore a legitimate aim of
preventing disorder and thus a pressing social need for the restriction. Further appeal to the
European Court of HumanRights was refused.

Lord Foul wrote:

This is a real grey area in law, not, strangely, on the facts but in interpretation and proof of intent

to some extent the afore said moron is protected by HRA legislation

the things he said were, or at least could be regarded as, hateful, and therfore one would think hate speech per se

HOWEVER.

PROVING incitement (of hatred)  would be difficult to say the least

the prosecution would have to prove that hatred was or was likely to be caused by this and moreover that this hatred was a forseeable and or intended consequence.

mmm...difficult...

the Police if complained to would be required to act, however this action would be unlikely to be his arrest, they would most likely inform a CPS lawyer of this and await HIS
opinion. they (or the chief at least) would want to see the video, and a transcript as would the CPS chap.

If it were MY call, as a CPS representative, I would say that a prosecution would NOT be in the public interest as it would drag on for weeks and cost a fortune , with no even reasonable guarantee of success.

That is NOT to say that does NOT amount to hate speech either...

the law is notoriously uncertain in this area

. In Hammond v DPP
,94
an evangelical Christian preacher was in the habit of setting up in a city
centre square a large double
sided sign bearing the words ‘Stop Immorality’, ‘Stop
Homosexuality’ and ‘Stop Lesbianism’. This had previously attracted protest. On the
occasion in question, members of the public found it distressing and insulting. A group of
protesters assaulted Mr Hammond. Police officers asked him to take down the sign and leave
but he refused. They then formed the view that he was provoking violence and arrested him
for breach of the peace. He was convicted of an offence under section 5 of the Public Order
Act 1986, aggravated on grounds of sexual orientation, for displaying an insulting sign within
the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. The
appellate court held that it was proportionate to restrict his freedoms of expression and of
thought, conscience, and religion because it had been open to the lower court to conclude that
Hammond had knowingly gone ‘beyond legitimate protest’ and was provoking violence and disorder, which interfered with the
rights of others, and that he had failed to demonstrate a
defence that his behaviour was reasonable. There was therefore a legitimate aim of
preventing disorder and thus a pressing social need for the restriction. Further appeal to the
European Court of HumanRights was refused.

note however that this is an isolated instance and DID NOT go to the supreme court.
in effect you are both arguing slightly different things, which means , when the law is indeed such a grey area

you could quite easily both be right or both be wrong...

THE ONLY way the question of "is this hate speech?" to be answered would be for it to go before a HIGH COURT judge for a definitive answer...

what I can say is there are legitimate grounds for a complaint,
legitimate grounds for investigation
and possible legitimate grounds for an attemped prosecution (however that would depend on trained and knowlegeable legal opinion, which could give due regard to past actions and precedent (such as there is)


like I said

Lord Foul wrote:

This is a real grey area in law, not, strangely, on the facts but in interpretation and proof of intent

to some extent the afore said moron is protected by HRA legislation

the things he said were, or at least could be regarded as, hateful, and therfore one would think hate speech per se

HOWEVER.

PROVING incitement (of hatred)  would be difficult to say the least

the prosecution would have to prove that hatred was or was likely to be caused by this and moreover that this hatred was a forseeable and or intended consequence.

mmm...difficult...

the Police if complained to would be required to act, however this action would be unlikely to be his arrest, they would most likely inform a CPS lawyer of this and await HIS
opinion. they (or the chief at least) would want to see the video, and a transcript as would the CPS chap.

If it were MY call, as a CPS representative, I would say that a prosecution would NOT be in the public interest as it would drag on for weeks and cost a fortune , with no even reasonable guarantee of success.

That is NOT to say that does NOT amount to hate speech either...

the law is notoriously uncertain in this area

. In Hammond v DPP
,94
an evangelical Christian preacher was in the habit of setting up in a city
centre square a large double
sided sign bearing the words ‘Stop Immorality’, ‘Stop
Homosexuality’ and ‘Stop Lesbianism’. This had previously attracted protest. On the
occasion in question, members of the public found it distressing and insulting. A group of
protesters assaulted Mr Hammond. Police officers asked him to take down the sign and leave
but he refused. They then formed the view that he was provoking violence and arrested him
for breach of the peace. He was convicted of an offence under section 5 of the Public Order
Act 1986, aggravated on grounds of sexual orientation, for displaying an insulting sign within
the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. The
appellate court held that it was proportionate to restrict his freedoms of expression and of
thought, conscience, and religion because it had been open to the lower court to conclude that
Hammond had knowingly gone ‘beyond legitimate protest’ and was provoking violence and disorder, which interfered with the
rights of others, and that he had failed to demonstrate a
defence that his behaviour was reasonable. There was therefore a legitimate aim of
preventing disorder and thus a pressing social need for the restriction. Further appeal to the
European Court of HumanRights was refused.

note however that this is an isolated instance and DID NOT go to the supreme court.
in effect you are both arguing slightly different things, which means , when the law is indeed such a grey area

you could quite easily both be right or both be wrong...

THE ONLY way the question of "is this hate speech?" to be answered would be for it to go before a HIGH COURT judge for a definitive answer...

what I can say is there are legitimate grounds for a complaint,
legitimate grounds for investigation
and possible legitimate grounds for an attemped prosecution (however that would depend on trained and knowlegeable legal opinion, which could give due regard to past actions and precedent (such as there is)


like I said

sassy wrote:I presume you are already on the sauce.   Eddie was talking about your reply to Vic and said why hadn't he been arrested then, Vict had already posted that he had and convicted.  You're a very strange man.

sassy wrote:You're truly weird, you attack for no reason and then call someone abusive when they point out your behaviour is off the wall and must have a reason.  Get help.

Stormee wrote:Sassy, you need to stop labelling people with offensive names and verbal attacks which is hardly conducive to forum propriety, etiquette.  

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

This is a real grey area in law, not, strangely, on the facts but in interpretation and proof of intent

to some extent the afore said moron is protected by HRA legislation

the things he said were, or at least could be regarded as, hateful, and therfore one would think hate speech per se

HOWEVER.

PROVING incitement (of hatred)  would be difficult to say the least

the prosecution would have to prove that hatred was or was likely to be caused by this and moreover that this hatred was a forseeable and or intended consequence.

mmm...difficult...

the Police if complained to would be required to act, however this action would be unlikely to be his arrest, they would most likely inform a CPS lawyer of this and await HIS
opinion. they (or the chief at least) would want to see the video, and a transcript as would the CPS chap.

If it were MY call, as a CPS representative, I would say that a prosecution would NOT be in the public interest as it would drag on for weeks and cost a fortune , with no even reasonable guarantee of success.

That is NOT to say that does NOT amount to hate speech either...

the law is notoriously uncertain in this area

. In Hammond v DPP
,94
an evangelical Christian preacher was in the habit of setting up in a city
centre square a large double
sided sign bearing the words ‘Stop Immorality’, ‘Stop
Homosexuality’ and ‘Stop Lesbianism’. This had previously attracted protest. On the
occasion in question, members of the public found it distressing and insulting. A group of
protesters assaulted Mr Hammond. Police officers asked him to take down the sign and leave
but he refused. They then formed the view that he was provoking violence and arrested him
for breach of the peace. He was convicted of an offence under section 5 of the Public Order
Act 1986, aggravated on grounds of sexual orientation, for displaying an insulting sign within
the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. The
appellate court held that it was proportionate to restrict his freedoms of expression and of
thought, conscience, and religion because it had been open to the lower court to conclude that
Hammond had knowingly gone ‘beyond legitimate protest’ and was provoking violence and disorder, which interfered with the
rights of others, and that he had failed to demonstrate a
defence that his behaviour was reasonable. There was therefore a legitimate aim of
preventing disorder and thus a pressing social need for the restriction. Further appeal to the
European Court of HumanRights was refused.

note however that this is an isolated instance and DID NOT go to the supreme court.
in effect you are both arguing slightly different things, which means , when the law is indeed such a grey area

you could quite easily both be right or both be wrong...

THE ONLY way the question of "is this hate speech?" to be answered would be for it to go before a HIGH COURT judge for a definitive answer...

what I can say is there are legitimate grounds for a complaint,
legitimate grounds for investigation
and possible legitimate grounds for an attemped prosecution (however that would depend on trained and knowlegeable legal opinion, which could give due regard to past actions and precedent (such as there is)


like I said

lol and there was me thinking you had stopped pandering to regressives, knowing full well he is wrong, you big girls blouse....
You know for a fact he would never be arrested or even charged as its not directed at anyone specifically, but hey if you want to humour people because you like them, what can I say, but we both know you are talking gobbledygook mate. There is no legitimiate grounds for any complaint or case here for criminality.
There is not legfitimate grounds here as after 3 years none of the homosexual groups have gone after him, which is telling in itself, that there is no case to answer
Sorry Victor that was nonsense, it has to be specific, even the ase you sighted was not done on hate crime but the Public order act,  which is the same mistake Korben keeps making. The sign itself is inciting because it is calling on people to act, hence why it would rightly be seen as incitement, but saying certain parenting is child abuse, is not incitement on any level, its just vile.
Having a personal views stated to people would make just about any view considered to be a hate crime, hence why this would never go to court and would be riduiculed by a judge for wasting time.
The other massive point is nobody has been able to produce a case where a person said a view non specific towards anyone and was convicted being classed as a hate crime
Having an opinion which he would use his religion to back up, would deny any laywer being able to even bring a case against him, as its a personal view he has


Maybe you can point out the offense committed?

What type of incidents can be a hate incident?

Hate incidents can take many forms. Here are examples of hate incidents:

• verbal abuse like name-calling and offensive jokes
  
• harassment
  
• bullying or intimidation by children, adults, neighbours or strangers
  
• physical attacks such as hitting, punching, pushing, spitting
  
• threats of violence
  
• hoax calls, abusive phone or text messages, hate mail
  
• online abuse for example on Facebook or Twitter
  
• displaying or circulating discriminatory literature or posters
  
• harm or damage to things such as your home, pet, vehicle
  
• graffiti
  
• arson
  
• throwing rubbish into a garden
  
• malicious complaints for example over parking, smells or noise.
  

When is a hate incident also a hate crime?

When hate incidents become criminal offences they are known as hate crimes. A criminal offence is something which breaks the law of the land.
Any criminal offence can be a hate crime if it was carried out because of hostility or prejudice based on disability, race, religion, transgender identity or sexual orientation.
When something is classed as a hate crime, the judge can impose a tougher sentence on the offender under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

What type of incidents can be a hate incident?

• verbal abuse like name-calling and offensive jokes
  
• harassment
  
• bullying or intimidation by children, adults, neighbours or strangers
  
• physical attacks such as hitting, punching, pushing, spitting
  
• threats of violence
  
• hoax calls, abusive phone or text messages, hate mail
  
• online abuse for example on Facebook or Twitter
  
• displaying or circulating discriminatory literature or posters
  
• harm or damage to things such as your home, pet, vehicle
  
• graffiti
  
• arson
  
• throwing rubbish into a garden
  
• malicious complaints for example over parking, smells or noise.
  

When is a hate incident also a hate crime?

Lord Foul wrote:blah blah blah



didge

I have given my "opinion"

if you dont like it tough...

Lord Foul wrote:watch the sides of the door on the way out didge...dont want you to bang your head....

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:watch the sides of the door on the way out didge...dont want you to bang your head....

And as usual we have an infantile comment made.
Seriously I am not concerned what you or others think about me old timer, which you need to get into your head.
I am here to debate and if you cannot back your view, of which you failed to do, then tough.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:One question that does beg asking is why is not the Bible, Quran, Hadiths and Torah not classified as hate speech?
As they certainly have incitment to hatred against homosexuals, non-believers, women etc.

Lord Foul wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:One question that does beg asking is why is not the Bible, Quran, Hadiths and Torah not classified as hate speech?
As they certainly have incitment to hatred against homosexuals, non-believers, women etc.

one may well ask that question, personally I think they should all be banned for the hateful, spiteful and mentally damaging rubbish they are....

Richard The Lionheart wrote:One question that does beg asking is why is not the Bible, Quran, Hadiths and Torah not classified as hate speech?
As they certainly have incitment to hatred against homosexuals, non-believers, women etc.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I did not ask, " />I ask you Korben which proves again how poorly you lied and as seen Victor could not back his position.
Anyone can see its a question to you, I never asked Victor did I

So why are you again lying and trying to stir things up?

Are you that hateful or your can do is throwe abuse, and act immature?
Anyway move on, if you cannot back your stance, I suggest you put up or move on, its that simple

I also said I would not gloat to you of which I have kept my pronmise showing how even more you just invent thingsm, seriously, we just started to get onto an interesting topic and you come iun and throw your dummies everywhere.

Grow the hell up, you are not fooling anyone with your immature stance