Police to investigate Iris Robinson
The MP and MLA Iris Robinson is to be investigated by the Northern Ireland Police following complaints about her recent comments about homosexuality. In a radio interview last Friday, Mrs Robinson called homosexuality "disgusting", "loathsome", "nauseating", "wicked", "vile" and "an abomination". I understand that at least two separate complaints have been made to the police and that police in south Belfast are dealing with the case. One complaint, at least, questions whether Mrs Robinson's comments are tantamount to .
Without commenting on this incident specifically, it is certainly the case that, in a free society, politicians -- and everyone else -- have the right to express their deeply held religious convictions. The issue we all face in our increasingly diverse society is how to express our views responsibly. Some will question whether the courts are the best way to test the issue of responsible speech -- particularly in the case of politicians who regularly face the test of the ballot box. Others will claim that our words have consequences, and it is vital that we all avoid language that could foster further divisiveness in our society. That is not just the case with homosexuality: the language we use in addressing our diverse religious environment is implicated with precisely the same issues of sensitivity.
Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act (Northern Ireland) 1970
An Act to impose penalties for incitement to hatred and for the circulation of certain false statements or false reports; and for purposes connected therewith.
BE it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, and the Senate and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-
1. A person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act if, with intent to stir up hatred against, or arouse fear of, any section of the public in Northern Ireland -
(a) he publishes or distributes written or other matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting; or
(b) he uses in any public place or at any public meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting;
being matter or words likely to stir up hatred against, or arouse fear of, any section of the public in Northern Ireland on grounds of religious belief, colour, race or ethnic or national origins.
2. A person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act if, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace whether immediately or at any time thereafter, he publishes or circulates in any way whatsoever any statement or report which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, being a statement or report likely to stir up hatred against, or arouse fear of, any section of the public in Northern Ireland on grounds of religious belief, colour, race or ethnic or national origins.
3. - (1) A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable -
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding one thousand pounds, or both.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a prosecution for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General.
(3) Subsection (2) shall not prevent the arrest, or the issue of a warrant for the arrest, of a person for an offence under this Act, or the remand in custody or on bail of a person charged with such an offence.
4. In this Act -
"meeting" means a meeting held for the purpose of the discussion of matters of public interest or for the purpose of the expression of views on such matters;
"public meeting" includes any meeting in a public place and any meeting which the public or any section of the public are permitted to attend whether on payment or otherwise;
"public place" includes any street, road or highway and any place to which, for the time being, the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise;
"publish" and "distribute" mean publish or distribute to the public at large or to any section of the public not consisting exclusively of members of an association of which the person publishing or distributing is a member;
"written matter" includes any writing, sign or visible representation.
5. This Act may be cited as the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.
Comment number 1.
At 10th Jun 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:One would be tyrant crosses another would be tyrant. The European mind asserts itself as consistantly as the tide.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 10th Jun 2008, OriginalPB wrote:test
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 10th Jun 2008, OriginalPB wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 10th Jun 2008, OriginalPB wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 10th Jun 2008, William Crawley (91Èȱ¬) wrote:I've noticed some removal of comments in some posts, which suggest that bloggers are using the complaint function to challenge comments from others. Can I appeal to people to be careful about mis-using that function. If you think a comment break the house rules, you are entitled to use the function; if you are simply in disagreement with a comment, that is not a fair use of the function. Using the function means our moderators will consider a comment before it is posted. Unnecessary use of the function slows down the discussion; so, please let's be fair to one another.
In addition, if you have any difficulty posting a comment, please let us know. The new posting mechanism seems to be working very well, but we would appreciate any comments about how it might be improved.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 10th Jun 2008, OriginalPB wrote:Just a suggestion Will, but mightnt it be a good idea to suggest bloggers stop using abusive, threatening, or defamatory language on your blog and then the moderators might not clip their comments???
I know it sounds a bit radical...
I hope this sort of stuff not tolerated just because it is aimed at Christian!!!!
That would be discrimination and intolerance!
;-)
PB
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 10th Jun 2008, PBmild wrote:test
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 10th Jun 2008, Dylan_Dog wrote:Will Crawley M5
I agree 100% with your post. I do prefer open and honest debate (and personally never hit the complain button)-If I see someone's views I disagree with I prefer to challenge them in an adult manner. However there does seem to be a certain poster here who when they get their views challenged behaves in a very pathetic, childish manner-this really reflects on the lack of intellect, maturity and fundamentalist mindset of the complainer. As ever the fundamentalists muck things up for everyone. I must make it crystal clear here that I do not have any poster/s in mind when I state this, it is just a personal opinion and not meant in any way to offend or defame.
PB
On the matter that you raise...this board is retroactively monitored-meaning the mods have to receive a complaint first...Anyway it would be excellent if certain posters here after making certain strong claims-lets say for example in the matter of science-and when asked to back them up-prevaricate and bluster then appear to run off-then(get this!) repeat the claims. I am sure you would agree that this is dishonest and despicable behaviour and it does annoy posters. So much so that certain posters would start to not take other posters seriously.
Present company of course excluded.
"I hope this sort of stuff not tolerated just because it is aimed at Christian!!!!"
Ummmm I am very perplexed and confused by this remark PB!? as the vast majority of people get on great here of whatever persuasion or none! Indeed one must remember PB that those of all faiths and none have criticized you . One need only think of Jovial PTL's comment about you awhile ago. With all due respect PB I think that you should learn what debate actually entails-perhaps you could make a start with all those points that have been raised with you but...left unanswered.
Regards
DD
ps. this post was meant in a totally non-unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, obscene, sexually explicit, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material way.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 10th Jun 2008, Dylan_Dog wrote:To the question of the thread...
I think it is a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a literal nut to get the police involved. Reading the paper today Iris (like all fundamentalists) is reveling in her victim statue eg., boo hoo I am being attacked for my Christian beliefs, (my) god is infallible etc bore etc yawn etc
I think the best way when challenged with peoples views is to...challenge them! ask them questions, ask for evidence, try to encourage full and open debate. However in saying that I know to my cost how fruitless it is to try to debate certain types of fundamentalists as they love to wallow in their own pitiful, wilful ignorance-one need only look at the hypocrisy of Biblical creationists. Indeed fundamentalists do love to dish it out but...don't like to take it and do get rather upset when challenged(ahhh bless them!). Indeed they remind of one of the favourite refrains from Cpl Jones from Dads Army "They don't like it up them!".
In short I would say challenge Iris but don't get the police involved as this would spare us the pathetic victim bleat.
Also Iris should know that she is a public representative and should maybe wind the neck in a bit. However myself as being a non-public representative can of course express my opinion and funnily enough my view of religious fundamentalists is that they are "disgusting", "loathsome", "nauseating", "wicked", "vile" and "an abomination" and for that matter pathetic, intellectually challenged, hypocrites and dishonest. Fairs fair and all that in the interests of free speech and all that.
Peace
DD
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 10th Jun 2008, brianmcclinton wrote:Dylan Dog:
I think you mean religious fundamentalism is disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked, vile and an abomination. Remember 'it is the sin not the sinner'. In which case, I am with you 100%.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 10th Jun 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:brianmcclinton
I think the internet is disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked, vile, and an abomination. That's why I post on it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 11th Jun 2008, Dylan_Dog wrote:Spot on both Brian and MAII!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 11th Jun 2008, PBmild wrote:Will
sorry i dont buy the "team effort" any more.
Verbal abuse of Christians is "misplaced humour"???
But verbal abuse of homosexual people is "hate crime" even when it is manufactured by a shock jock.
Unless you give a direct response to this matter William I have drawn the conclusion of complete double standards here.
over to you.
PB
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 11th Jun 2008, U11831742 wrote:pb ... im missing something here. where has Will written about team effort and misplaced humor??
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 11th Jun 2008, PeterKlaver wrote:PB,
"Verbal abuse of Christians"
Is it abuse of christians, or is it abuse against the house rules BY you as a christian? I notice that posts submitted from your original identity are kept in pre-moderation before appearing. And that you've now taken another identity to post from. Which appears very much an attempt to avoid abiding by the rules that saw you demoted to pre-mod status. It could be argued that that constitutes a minor abuse of this blog on your side.
Peter
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 12th Jun 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:PB
Verbal abuse of Christians is all we have left. They've taken away our lions.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 12th Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:someone has issues with christians(suprise suprise,especially those euro christians.
,one of you at least.I believe the person i refer to might have been refered to in an earlier post.
There are many christians who care little of peoples sexual preferences , they show true christian principles.
the idea that she will be able to scream "i was persecuted for being a bigot" is funny but true. though it holds no water.
like other vessels i can think of.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 12th Jun 2008, petermorrow wrote:Verbal abuse of Christians? Ho hum.
And lions? Why should we fear them, we follow one.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 12th Jun 2008, Dylan_Dog wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 13th Jun 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:It seems to me that the Christian Church in general, and the Anglican Church in particular, especially in Northern Ireland is obsessed with sexuality and homosexuality right now. I think I liked them better when they concerned themselves with more sectarian issues...like ridding NI of its plague of Catholics by any and all means. It was after all the Christian thing to do.
It also seems to me the EU increasingly resembles the USSR and so I have dubbed it the EUSSR. When just speaking one's mind is a crime, you have to wonder where it will go. The founding fathers of the US who wrote the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States grappled with with this problem and continue to, to this day. They are extremely wary about censorship in any form. They fear what they call the slippery slope, the tendency to start small and slowly work up into incrementally restricting the freedom of speech and thought to the point where there is no freedom left at all. What they say is that free speech needs defending most strongly when it is at its most vile, repugnant, and nauseating to the public at large. Apparantly in the EU and in NI, there is no such concern. We know where it will all go, all that's left to find out is what route it will take and how long it will take to get there.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 13th Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:Marcus erroneous,
the reason she is being taken to task is some in civilised society consider it unlawful to promote hate and bigotry.
If your regular writing in go too near the northern Irish you will be committing a crime .
read the act.
the reason laws like this exist is to keep the likes of you with your regular hate speech off the air.
Away from the press and in the dark hole you came from.
Away from fostering hatred.
or we could let the bigots roam and see how that fares for the minorities,
Oh wait Hitler already did that.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 13th Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:He got jews, homosexuals, gypsies,handicapped , anyone who could be blamed .
Killed them. That is why germany takes incitement of hatred seriously and why the police are taking this seriously.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 13th Jun 2008, petermorrow wrote:Hi Marcus
I have a tendency to agree with you on this one. The issue of free speech is important.
Everyone is going to find something offensive, but in place like Northern Ireland we're a bit too sensitive.
For example I'm a Christian. You lamented that it was no longer possible to arrange Christians versus Lions contests. Am I offended? No, that would be stupid.
The trouble with abandoning the idea of free speech is that sooner or later those in power use force to stop everyone speaking.
I don't always agree with you Marcus, but I defend your right to speak.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 13th Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:23
though I agree with freedom of speech when does it cross the line.
some use it only to cause trouble.
Free speech does not include You %$#@ing A%$#^ why don't you go @@#@!. you people disgust me. theyare this and they are that until someone stands up . punches them in the mouth. then the aggressor is seen as the person that denied free speech.
You are free to speak but only if you speak in a socially acceptable manner.
After all if I printed all my views on MA2 they would not be printed.
With free speech comes the responsibility
something some never understand.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 13th Jun 2008, Gee-Dubyah wrote:Jacksforge.
MA2 has little to offer but hate speech.
I drop in here regularly and have pulled him up for his hypocrisy time and time again.
He will tell you when I respond to his anti euro bile that it's my fault for hating America.
I don't hate America, I think it's a great country with a noble tradition.
I work for an American company.
I wouldn't change that.
But MA2 has a short memory if he derides Euro administrations for curbing hate speech. I'd be fascinated to hear MA2's double standards when he justifies McArthyist censorship.
Over to the wacky world of Mark.
Take it away Uncle Sam...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 13th Jun 2008, The Christian Hippy wrote:Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 14th Jun 2008, petermorrow wrote:I think freedom of speech crosses the line when our words become actions.
For example suggesting that Christians be fed to the lions, and actually throwing them into the lion cage, might be one way of explaining the difference.
The other point is this, hateful ideas need to be challenged and defeated in debate by better ideas; that, rather than legislation, is how we win the battle for hearts and minds.
From a Christian point of view however the debate takes on a slightly different slant. We are called to neither fear the words nor the actions of those who might feed us to the lions, but fear the one who is in charge of our very identities. That is where true freedom lies.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 14th Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:gee dubya
lol i'm in agreement .
I occasionally follow MA link to respond to the rubbish he throws out.
normally weird arguements of how he is not a vicious little,,,but a true patriot as HE slags off the US europe the pope anyone who goes to church anyone who doesn't go to church(made that up) anyone who thinks breaths lives.
I'm even 1/2 american.
Take NO offense when people slag it off.I encourage it.
unless way off mark.but then only because it is distracting.
McArthyist censorship.
what about now.
I'm an unamerican pinko communist who should get out of this country because I'm not patriotic.Supposedly.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 16th Jun 2008, dennisjunior1 wrote:i think that she should be investigated for her remarks, because they could be termed as homophobic...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)