Is The UK saying that any 'Hate Speech', directed against Homosexuals, Christians, Jews, etc., by a Muslim. Is Subject to Criminal Prosecution?

Have The Authorities in The UK, ever prosecuted a Muslim for this?

If the answer is no. Why not?

The answer is "yes".

Still NO.

He was convicted of "Soliciting" the Murder of Jews.

A Criminal Action.

NOT any 'Hate' Speech against Jews, or any others.

Therefore. Still this open question:

Have The Authorities in The UK, ever prosecuted a Muslim for Hate Speech, against Christians, Jews, et al?

(a) three charges of soliciting the murder of Jews, Americans, Hindus, and Christians; and (b) two charges of using threatening words to stir up racial hatred

The answer is yes.

[ETA]The "threatening words" is a reference to the previously linked Public Order Act 1986:

18 Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.

(1)A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

source

BTW, is this example does not meet your criteria for hate speech, then the answer becomes, "unknown at this time", not "NO", unless that is, you have done the research and found there are no examples meeting your criteria.
[/ETA]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobby...

Read my previous post regarding the applicable UK Law.

“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
race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation
or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any
crime motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is
transgender or perceived to be transgender.”

Means: First one commits a Criminal Action. Then Hate Speech/Motivation is applied, to increase penalties.

Still open question:

Have The Authorities in The UK, ever prosecuted a Muslim for Hate Speech, without a Criminal Action. Against Christians, Jews, et al?

In the first form of the question:

Is The UK saying that any 'Hate Speech', directed against Homosexuals, Christians, Jews, etc., by a Muslim. Is Subject to Criminal Prosecution?

Have The Authorities in The UK, ever prosecuted a Muslim for this?

as in the second form:

Have The Authorities in The UK, ever prosecuted a Muslim for Hate Speech, against Christians, Jews, et al?

the answer is yes, as shown by the link provided.

In the current form:

Have The Authorities in The UK, ever prosecuted a Muslim for Hate Speech, without a Criminal Action. Against Christians, Jews, et al?

I'm guessing you mean "absent of other criminal actions", as hate speech is a criminal act in the UK, though the answer still appears to be yes.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

bobby...

The Law and Facts, are apparently foreign to you.

Question: What 'link' supports your fantasy?

Answer: None

You're sinking faster and faster.

Note: Although you are beginning to become very Intellectually Boring. As all, 'don't confuse me with the facts', Ideologues/Religious Fanatics are:

I do take a perverse pleasure and amazement, reading and listening to their BS.

bobby...

Congratulations!!! You have now been awarded the 'Laugh of The Day' honor.

What a moment, you asked a question, I found a link that appeared to provide an answer, you changed the question and again I found a link that appeared to provide an answer, and after that you decide to attack me? I was trying to do you a favor, thanks for the gratitude.

Perhaps you'll do me the honor of explaining why the conviction of 3 Islamic men for distributing homophobic leaflets does not result in a "Yes" response to your question?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Clyde
How many people are charged with only one offense in the US?

Excluding simple things like motoring offenses for speeding and parking.

Perhaps you'll do me the honor of explaining why the conviction of 3 Islamic men for distributing homophobic leaflets does not result in a "Yes" response to your question?

bobby...

They were FIRST convicted for their Criminal Actions.

“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
race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation
or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any
crime motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is
transgender or perceived to be transgender.”

First: One must commit, and be convicted of, a Criminal Action.

The leaflets (Motivation) only added to their punishment regarding the Convicted Crime.

Understand?

Still open question:

Have The Authorities in The UK, ever prosecuted a Muslim for Hate Speech, without a Primary Criminal Action. Against Christians, Jews, et al?

To find out what is a criminal offense, one needs to look at Acts of Parliament, not the web site you linked:

Public Order Act 1986 wrote:

18 Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.

(1)A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.

(3)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(4)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.

(5)A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.

(6)This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme

(emphasis added)

As previously noted, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended this to include "Hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation". It was the criminal offenses under these acts and no others that the 3 muslims were convicted. As can be seen, motivation matters as it shows intent, and intent is specifically called out in the 1986 Act.

[ETA]from the judges sentencing remarks:

In 1986 the Public Order Act made it an offence to distribute threatening, abusive or insulting written material with intent to stir up Racial Hatred. In 2006 the legislation was extended to prevent the stirring up of hatred on religious grounds.

Most recently the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 again extended the area of protection. It was clearly perceived by parliament that people of a particular sexual orientation needed protection from that minority who wished to stir up hatred against them.

This happens to be the first prosecution under that legislation.

(emphasis added)[/ETA]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

bobby...

'Intending' is the operative word.

Not stating you hate anyone or group.

Think of 'Inciting a Riot'.

Edit: There is a Legal Difference to someone saying "I Hate Whites".

And yelling to a large group in the streets. "Burn Down White Owned Businesses" while pointing to White Owned stores.

That is the state of UK "Hate Speech" laws at this time, and as can be seen Muslims have been convicted under those laws. Does that answer your question?

It is perhaps noteworthy that intent is not a requirement for an offense, "having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby" which is the "fire" in a theater part of the law, even if one does not intend to "stir up" hatred, one could predict that hatred would be "stirred up".

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Bobby, I think Clyde's issue is he is attempting to use US Criminal law as a basis to understand UK Criminal law. While they are close in some respects, they are not identical. This is perhaps best left to a barrister and a lawyer to explain.

---

Bobby, I think Clyde's issue is he is attempting to use US Criminal law as a basis to understand UK Criminal law. While they are close in some respects, they are not identical. This is perhaps best left to a barrister and a lawyer to explain.

Indeed, the discussion about primary and secondary offenses does suggest that's what's happening here. Unlike the US hate speech is a primary offense in the UK (I'm unsure there are "secondary offenses" in UK law), and the police can (and have) arrested people solely for what they have said.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

bobby...

'Intending' is the operative word.

Not stating you hate anyone or group.

Think of 'Inciting a Riot'.

Edit: There is a Legal Difference to someone saying "I Hate Whites".

And yelling to a large group in the streets. "Burn Down White Owned Businesses" while pointing to White Owned stores.

That is the state of UK "Hate Speech" laws at this time, and as can be seen Muslims have been convicted under those laws. Does that answer your question?

It is perhaps noteworthy that intent is not a requirement for an offense, "having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby" which is the "fire" in a theater part of the law, even if one does not intend to "stir up" hatred, one could predict that hatred would be "stirred up".

Apparently the UK is degenerating into something Despicable and Uncivilized.

What a shame.

Don't understand your statement.

Would you prefer we revert to the laws of old, where the UK was a very discriminatory country.

The long history of discrimination

All these forms of inequality and discrimination have long histories. Jews were expelled from England from 1290 until the seventeenth century. The Aliens Act, 1905, the first official restriction of immigration by people not of British nationality, was designed to restrict the immigration of Jews fleeing from persecution in eastern Europe. Roman Catholics were unable to stand for parliament until 1829, despite their substantial numbers in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; or Jews until 1859. Buggery became a hanging offence in 1533 and by the early nineteenth century more men were hanged for homosexual offences than for murder. Gypsies have been simultaneously romanticised and marginalised throughout recorded history. Older and disabled people have always been among the poorest groups in society, discrimination against them largely taken for granted. In his influential and largely humane report of 1942, Social Insurance and Allied Services, William Beveridge could comment, without facing public criticism: 'it is dangerous to be in any way lavish to old age until adequate provision has been assured for all vital needs, such as prevention of disease and the adequate nutrition of the young'.

WinterKnight...

Speaking of Speech, not Actions.

The UK is now descending into Puritanism.

Why this Modern Day attempt to Criminalize Speech?

Hasn't the UK already experienced the results?

No we haven't just started banning what you can say, we just changed from the Blasphemy laws which was a common law offense to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. One of the reasons being that the Blasphemy laws were specifically against Christianity and not other religions. Now all religions are covered.

edit] I just looked and Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania still have Blasphemy laws, a hangover from the founding days.

WinterKnight...

Speaking of Speech, not Actions.

The UK is now descending into Puritanism.

Why this Modern Day attempt to Criminalize Speech?

Hasn't the UK already experienced the results?

No we haven't just started banning what you can say, we just changed from the Blasphemy laws which was a common law offense to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. One of the reasons being that the Blasphemy laws were specifically against Christianity and not other religions. Now all religions are covered.

edit] I just looked and Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania still have Blasphemy laws, a hangover from the founding days.

Religious Blasphemy and Secular Blasphemy: Are the same.

Just different 'Targets'.

I do not apologize for being an Atheist to your Secular Ideology. Nor do I apologize for being an Atheist to Religious BS.

Perhaps being an Atheist to both. Give me an insight to the BS of both.

My old Army docs if they are still available, will show I signed up as an Atheist in 1961.

Free speech is free speech when you go to the Speakers corner and get on your soap box however some have forgotten this is how it started . Hyde Park in Sydney still has a speakers corner and if you get on your soap box you can exercise your right to free speech without being arrested for hate speech .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapbox

Now if only the Don had been on his soap box it might not have been taken so bad what he has said but hey no problem what he said right ....


Just don't whinge when you are attacked again please or say why do they hate us next time there's another 9/11 or San Bernardino

---