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.

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'.

Repeal the Equalities Act

This act does nothing to acheive its stated objectives, indeed it does the oposite. It explicitly allows discrimination against the ethnic majority, against males and against heterosexuals. It promotes so called "positive" discrimination on all sorts of grounds, so of which are merely choices made by individuals (eg sexuality, religion).

Far from promoting equality, it actually creates situations where the law is bound to treat people with differences in different ways.

Why is this idea important?

This act does nothing to acheive its stated objectives, indeed it does the oposite. It explicitly allows discrimination against the ethnic majority, against males and against heterosexuals. It promotes so called "positive" discrimination on all sorts of grounds, so of which are merely choices made by individuals (eg sexuality, religion).

Far from promoting equality, it actually creates situations where the law is bound to treat people with differences in different ways.

Referendum on Capital and Corporal Punishment.

I have just watched your message at the front of the page, and for you to say that you will definitely not re-introduce the Death Penalty and Corporal Punishment, really is going against what this website is for really.

You can't just ask people for their views and then when they do produce their views just shove it to one side because you don't like it.

You are a representative of the nation, and these two penalties were taken away without the proper consultation of the general public.

With your own admissions, the prisons are full to bursting, and we are not in a postion to keep building new ones.

The most dangerous view that is being put forward by Kenneth Clarke is to release some prisoners for community service.

The problem with that is the person is not being punished. The law is a laughing stock, because criminals know that they will only get a slapped wrist and don't do it again routine. The next minute, there is another victim of crime by the same prisioner you let out early.

How many people should be brutally attacked, or even murdered, before the government sits up and takes notice that this shouldn't be happening in our society.

People should be able to walk down the street without fearing attack. The blight that the illegal drugs has on the effect on not just the users and families, but of neighbourhoods, with people afraid to the shops, or being afraid of waking up with a man stood over your bed with a machettee, because he is looking for someone that he is going to either maim or murder.

Prisons help to stop these criminals from terrorising our country, however with there not being enough room within prison, you are letting others free to cause mayham again.

With cutbacks looming with the Police and frontline services, people are being left vunerable, and they cannot take the law into their own hands.

Will the public be consulted about the laws you are repealing?

Why is this idea important?

I have just watched your message at the front of the page, and for you to say that you will definitely not re-introduce the Death Penalty and Corporal Punishment, really is going against what this website is for really.

You can't just ask people for their views and then when they do produce their views just shove it to one side because you don't like it.

You are a representative of the nation, and these two penalties were taken away without the proper consultation of the general public.

With your own admissions, the prisons are full to bursting, and we are not in a postion to keep building new ones.

The most dangerous view that is being put forward by Kenneth Clarke is to release some prisoners for community service.

The problem with that is the person is not being punished. The law is a laughing stock, because criminals know that they will only get a slapped wrist and don't do it again routine. The next minute, there is another victim of crime by the same prisioner you let out early.

How many people should be brutally attacked, or even murdered, before the government sits up and takes notice that this shouldn't be happening in our society.

People should be able to walk down the street without fearing attack. The blight that the illegal drugs has on the effect on not just the users and families, but of neighbourhoods, with people afraid to the shops, or being afraid of waking up with a man stood over your bed with a machettee, because he is looking for someone that he is going to either maim or murder.

Prisons help to stop these criminals from terrorising our country, however with there not being enough room within prison, you are letting others free to cause mayham again.

With cutbacks looming with the Police and frontline services, people are being left vunerable, and they cannot take the law into their own hands.

Will the public be consulted about the laws you are repealing?

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.

change wording of the Harrasment act

Thr current wording of the 1997 Harrasment act says 'if some one feels harrased a crime has been comited'  absoloutly no evidance is required to prive that the person feels harrased or that any real harrasment has taken place as the whole act is based on someones feelings and not evidance.

Why is this idea important?

Thr current wording of the 1997 Harrasment act says 'if some one feels harrased a crime has been comited'  absoloutly no evidance is required to prive that the person feels harrased or that any real harrasment has taken place as the whole act is based on someones feelings and not evidance.