Same punishment at school for homophobia and racism

Why is there no punishment at schools for using 'gay' in the wrong context?

Or using the word 'Faggot'. How and why is it possible for someone of 16 or any age to get away with using 'faggot' to describe someone whereas if anyone used the word 'ni**a' they would be fined or kicked out of class or worse?

I want to know why there is not a suitable punishment for homophobia compared the punishment of racism? 

There is already a lot more homophobic bullying in schools and i want to know what this new government is going to do to try and change that.

Why is this idea important?

Why is there no punishment at schools for using 'gay' in the wrong context?

Or using the word 'Faggot'. How and why is it possible for someone of 16 or any age to get away with using 'faggot' to describe someone whereas if anyone used the word 'ni**a' they would be fined or kicked out of class or worse?

I want to know why there is not a suitable punishment for homophobia compared the punishment of racism? 

There is already a lot more homophobic bullying in schools and i want to know what this new government is going to do to try and change that.

Repeal of “hate crime” legislation

I would like to see the Government repeal recent legislation which has established the idea of a hate crime.  As long as they do not specifically incite violence, people should be free to voice an opinion, however strong, about religion, sexuality etc.  and should be able ot do so with the full protection of the law. 

The idea that a policemen can arrest a person, and that person be charged and convicted becasue they called another peorsn a "coconut", which happened recently, has no place in British society.

We should be allowed to say what we please, when we please, to whomsoever we please.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the Government repeal recent legislation which has established the idea of a hate crime.  As long as they do not specifically incite violence, people should be free to voice an opinion, however strong, about religion, sexuality etc.  and should be able ot do so with the full protection of the law. 

The idea that a policemen can arrest a person, and that person be charged and convicted becasue they called another peorsn a "coconut", which happened recently, has no place in British society.

We should be allowed to say what we please, when we please, to whomsoever we please.

Subsume the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred into the existing, and perfectly adequate Incitement to Racial Hatred legislation.

The crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred was created to close a loophole in the previous law. The crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred already protected Jewish and Hindu people from hate-speech (being both races and religions) so the BNP decided to change their tactics to attacking Muslims (because Islam isn't a race and so they could get away with it).

 

As with the old adage, exceptions make bad law. The idea of this massive legal apparatus just to stop a BNP hate campaign that few will listen to is ill thought through. As a result of badly-drafted law, it is now illegal to criticise another's religious beliefs too strongly. Religion, unlike race, is based on belief, and is not merely a tribal affiliation – people should have the freedom to discuss the basis of their beliefs freely without fear, in order for religious groups to remain grounded in reason and avoid fundamentalism.

 

I propose that the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred be abolished, and the crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred amended to cover not only those groups that are a 'race' by ethnicity, but also any group that views itself as connected by a filial bond in its' belief system (such as Christians, who see themselves as the adopted family of God, or Muslims, who see themselves as the spiritual descendents of Ishmael – this would also cover hatred against other groups like the Freemasons, who see themselves as brothers, or Americans, who are not a single race, but have a common affinity through their constitution and its values). This would mean it would still be a crime to incite hatred against Muslims just for being Muslims, but it would not be a crime to suggest that the belief in polygamy is a degrading idea to women.

Why is this idea important?

The crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred was created to close a loophole in the previous law. The crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred already protected Jewish and Hindu people from hate-speech (being both races and religions) so the BNP decided to change their tactics to attacking Muslims (because Islam isn't a race and so they could get away with it).

 

As with the old adage, exceptions make bad law. The idea of this massive legal apparatus just to stop a BNP hate campaign that few will listen to is ill thought through. As a result of badly-drafted law, it is now illegal to criticise another's religious beliefs too strongly. Religion, unlike race, is based on belief, and is not merely a tribal affiliation – people should have the freedom to discuss the basis of their beliefs freely without fear, in order for religious groups to remain grounded in reason and avoid fundamentalism.

 

I propose that the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred be abolished, and the crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred amended to cover not only those groups that are a 'race' by ethnicity, but also any group that views itself as connected by a filial bond in its' belief system (such as Christians, who see themselves as the adopted family of God, or Muslims, who see themselves as the spiritual descendents of Ishmael – this would also cover hatred against other groups like the Freemasons, who see themselves as brothers, or Americans, who are not a single race, but have a common affinity through their constitution and its values). This would mean it would still be a crime to incite hatred against Muslims just for being Muslims, but it would not be a crime to suggest that the belief in polygamy is a degrading idea to women.

Equality. Race.

Is true equality possible in this country? Before I moved into my present address I stood at the front entrance talking to two strangers from my housing  organisation. 'There is only one reason we will evict you without any warning for,' these landlords who had never met me before told me, ' This is the crime of racism!' I later learned the person in the flat beneath mine was an African. I was however surprised at their admonishment for my father way back in the early 1960's invited a man and his daughter from the West Indies to stay and he received some hostility for this in the street where we lived which was a very quiet, rural area. I have never thought of myself as being racist and have friends from different parts of the world. My new landlords, so intent on everybody being politically correct  proved to me one point over the years which is that those who force this particular philosophy onto other people prove persistently cruel with regard to the way they treat other people. This peculiar mentality is more akin to fascism than anything else. Social housing must be a form of social engineering in truth. Please make it possible for there to be true equality for people of all colours,yellow, white, brown, black, whatever. Do not allow the race relations Act to be manipulated and abused to oppress and crush people by tyrannical authorities in any department of the State and especially not in social housing!

Why is this idea important?

Is true equality possible in this country? Before I moved into my present address I stood at the front entrance talking to two strangers from my housing  organisation. 'There is only one reason we will evict you without any warning for,' these landlords who had never met me before told me, ' This is the crime of racism!' I later learned the person in the flat beneath mine was an African. I was however surprised at their admonishment for my father way back in the early 1960's invited a man and his daughter from the West Indies to stay and he received some hostility for this in the street where we lived which was a very quiet, rural area. I have never thought of myself as being racist and have friends from different parts of the world. My new landlords, so intent on everybody being politically correct  proved to me one point over the years which is that those who force this particular philosophy onto other people prove persistently cruel with regard to the way they treat other people. This peculiar mentality is more akin to fascism than anything else. Social housing must be a form of social engineering in truth. Please make it possible for there to be true equality for people of all colours,yellow, white, brown, black, whatever. Do not allow the race relations Act to be manipulated and abused to oppress and crush people by tyrannical authorities in any department of the State and especially not in social housing!

Repeal the Law for Aggravated Offences

The idea that crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred should attract a differential sentencing premium of 40% to 70% should be scrapped.  Justice should be blind.  It is no business of the State to punish 'thought crimes' which is what these laws try to do.

If I murdered a Jew because I hated Jews (I don't actually), why should I be punished more severely than if I murdered a prostitute because I hate prostitutes (which, I hasten to add, I don't).

The State is creating favoured Client groups who will use there 'protected status' to obtain advatanges over unprotected groups.

Britain must become again a Free and Fair country.  Ban these divisive laws that seek to punish 'thought crimes'.

Why is this idea important?

The idea that crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred should attract a differential sentencing premium of 40% to 70% should be scrapped.  Justice should be blind.  It is no business of the State to punish 'thought crimes' which is what these laws try to do.

If I murdered a Jew because I hated Jews (I don't actually), why should I be punished more severely than if I murdered a prostitute because I hate prostitutes (which, I hasten to add, I don't).

The State is creating favoured Client groups who will use there 'protected status' to obtain advatanges over unprotected groups.

Britain must become again a Free and Fair country.  Ban these divisive laws that seek to punish 'thought crimes'.

Remove Michael Savage from Banned in Britain List for exercising Free Speech

Immediately remove top 4 American Radio Talk Show Host Michael Savage from the UK's Banned List for exercising Free Speech.

Apologize to him for printing false and damaging libelous accusations that he has called for and incited violence, as well as putting him on a list of known murderers and terrorists.

For over a decade and a half, Michael has always been against violence on his talk show, and regularly cuts off callers who even hint at violence.

The U.S. FCC laws are clear, and he would have been taken off the radio if he had suggested or incited violence of any kind. 

Why is this idea important?

Immediately remove top 4 American Radio Talk Show Host Michael Savage from the UK's Banned List for exercising Free Speech.

Apologize to him for printing false and damaging libelous accusations that he has called for and incited violence, as well as putting him on a list of known murderers and terrorists.

For over a decade and a half, Michael has always been against violence on his talk show, and regularly cuts off callers who even hint at violence.

The U.S. FCC laws are clear, and he would have been taken off the radio if he had suggested or incited violence of any kind. 

Allow scientists to study what they want

Funding for science is dictated by the government (or a body acting on behalf of the government). This is carried out by calling for research proposals in a particular area of science chosen by the government-often chosen by particular buzzwords seen in the media.

It wasn’t always like this, it was possible to have your own idea then ask for funds. Now we must wait until the government has the idea before we can get it funded.

Please increase the funds for “responsive mode” research and cut back on tHose which promote the government agenda.

Why is this idea important?

Funding for science is dictated by the government (or a body acting on behalf of the government). This is carried out by calling for research proposals in a particular area of science chosen by the government-often chosen by particular buzzwords seen in the media.

It wasn’t always like this, it was possible to have your own idea then ask for funds. Now we must wait until the government has the idea before we can get it funded.

Please increase the funds for “responsive mode” research and cut back on tHose which promote the government agenda.

Knowledge should never be illegal

It should never be illegal to own a book such as "The Poor Man's James Bond" or "The Anarchist's Cookbook". The idea that one could be jailed for merely owning "material that could be of use to terrorists" is abhorrent in a free society. Should we criminalise maps because terrorists could use them to plan attrocities? Why then should we criminalise these books? Reading them does not make one a terrorist any more than owning a map of London.

Why is this idea important?

It should never be illegal to own a book such as "The Poor Man's James Bond" or "The Anarchist's Cookbook". The idea that one could be jailed for merely owning "material that could be of use to terrorists" is abhorrent in a free society. Should we criminalise maps because terrorists could use them to plan attrocities? Why then should we criminalise these books? Reading them does not make one a terrorist any more than owning a map of London.

Repeal criminalisation of psylocybes

Reconsider the classification of psylocybe ('magic') mushrooms as a Class A drug in the UK, as part of a wider review of drug classification and a serious scientific and sociological appraisal of drug prohibition in general.

Why is this idea important?

Reconsider the classification of psylocybe ('magic') mushrooms as a Class A drug in the UK, as part of a wider review of drug classification and a serious scientific and sociological appraisal of drug prohibition in general.

Give all an opportunity to be offended

Why have we allowed the potential offence of a group of individuals stop us from expressing ourselves ? There will always be groups or individuals who take offence at anything that is said, therefore the political correctness that drives so much of what people like teachers, doctors say is pointless.  

Why is this idea important?

Why have we allowed the potential offence of a group of individuals stop us from expressing ourselves ? There will always be groups or individuals who take offence at anything that is said, therefore the political correctness that drives so much of what people like teachers, doctors say is pointless.  

Allow Complete Freedom to Verbally Express Opinions and Ideas

Anyone should be allowed to write, speak, and publish (through whatever means or media) their opinions and ideas.  For example, if a person thinks the Earth is flat, that person should have every right to express and publish such a notion, even if it offends someone.  Furthermore, even if a person has an idea or opinion that seems "dangerous" or "could incite hatred", that person should have every unabridged right to publish, disseminate, discuss, and proclaim that idea.  This freedom would not extend to allowing death threats or harrassment or extortion.

Until we can proclaim what we think, we will never be free in this nation or anywhere else!

Think about citizens of USA–they can quite freely express, publish, discuss, and share opinions and ideas, even if such material is bogus or hateful or scary to some people.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone should be allowed to write, speak, and publish (through whatever means or media) their opinions and ideas.  For example, if a person thinks the Earth is flat, that person should have every right to express and publish such a notion, even if it offends someone.  Furthermore, even if a person has an idea or opinion that seems "dangerous" or "could incite hatred", that person should have every unabridged right to publish, disseminate, discuss, and proclaim that idea.  This freedom would not extend to allowing death threats or harrassment or extortion.

Until we can proclaim what we think, we will never be free in this nation or anywhere else!

Think about citizens of USA–they can quite freely express, publish, discuss, and share opinions and ideas, even if such material is bogus or hateful or scary to some people.

remove the requirement for collective worship in state schools

The legal framework for collective worship can be found in the Education Act 1996 Part V, Chapter III, sections 385-388. Community schools must provide a pattern of worship that is 'wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character' – Education Act 1996 Part V, Chapter 3, section 386 (2).

 

This should be removed. 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The legal framework for collective worship can be found in the Education Act 1996 Part V, Chapter III, sections 385-388. Community schools must provide a pattern of worship that is 'wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character' – Education Act 1996 Part V, Chapter 3, section 386 (2).

 

This should be removed. 

 

 

 

Amend the Public Order Act with using “threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress”.

Currently it can be an offence to call somebody names and I give the following link as a prime example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8771721.stm

Why is this idea important?

Currently it can be an offence to call somebody names and I give the following link as a prime example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8771721.stm