Inciting racial hatred to burn the Quran.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

The Qur’an (English pronunciation: /kɒˈrɑːn/ kor-AHN; Arabic: القرآن‎ al-qur’ān, IPA: [qurˈʔaːn], literally “the recitationâ€�) is the religious text of Islam, also sometimes transliterated as Quran, Kuran, Koran, Qur’ān, Coran or al-Qur’ān.

Thanks Hom3r and others...

Since that answers my question, hopefully it will end the off topic posts on the spelling issue :-/

Sorry mods, only nice to say thankyou

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Gary L

For the record, I was joking.

Can't see these people being prosecuted. not when the original video is still on youtube.
if it was that serious. it wouldn't still be on there. I'd say it was more of an over reaction by the police on political grounds.

So if a group of mindless Muslims were filmed burning the Bible, kicking it about and being equally as hateful as these other morons, you'd still find it "politically motivated" and an "over reaction" were the police to arrest them?
I believe most people on this forum already the answer to this question Gary, but please let us know anyway?

[Gary L]

I've already mentioned about the reverse earlier in the thread.
It depends on one or two things. one is are they making threats of harming or killing anybody, are they insulting the religion or the people?

The fact of the matter is, the law has to be broken for a prosecution to happen. just because you are arrested it doesn't mean that a prosecution has to follow.

a prosecution can't happen just because you don't like or agree with what they have done.

[Pierre]

As I see it, it's not inciting racial hatred, as per the thread title, as muslims are not a racial group.

Is it inciting religious hatred? I'm not even sure if there is a law for that.

I think there is a law for inciting violence against religious groups, and I don't believe this act transgresses that.

If he was encouraging people to burn the koran and go out and smack a muslim, then that would be different, but all he/they are doing is buring a book.

Now that may be offensive to muslims but not illegal, and he's done it with the sole intention of offending muslims and causing trouble but as far as I know it's not illegal to "offend" anyone.

If the police saw somebody burning the Koran, and could see that it was about to cause civil unrest by provoking nearby muslims then I think they could probably come up with some reason to arrest them just in order to keep the peace. As you point out they would probably be later released without charge.

It would take less manpower for that course of action rather then try to defend the book burner from potential violent actions of nearby offended muslims, although it would be the muslims that were on the wrong side of the law.

[Gary L]

Well said Pierre. I agree with arresting them, but prosecution can only happen if they have broken the law.
some people think that being arrested automatically means that you have.

[Lew]

Originally Posted by Pierre

As I see it, it's not inciting racial hatred, as per the thread title, as muslims are not a racial group.

Is it inciting religious hatred? I'm not even sure if there is a law for that.

I think there is a law for inciting violence against religious groups, and I don't believe this act transgresses that.

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 covers both.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Lew

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 covers both.

Having a religious law does not make religion a race of people.
Having a religious law does not mean there is a god.
Having a religious law does not mean that all religions are not false.
Having a religious law does not mean that religion should not be criticised.

Having a religious law defending religion means the government is trying to keep the peace after they have first caused
the problem and have done nothing to deal with the dangerous mass affliction.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Lew

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 covers both.

Thanks for that.

I don't usually trust wikipedia 100% for my reference material, however I have no cause to doubt it on this occasion.

It would seem that my interpretation is correct.

The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred

Burning a book is not "threatening" in itself.

It may be insulting or offensive but not inciting hatred or violence.

Therefore, the burning on the koran, bible or a flag is not breaking the law.

I hate the title of this thread because it is inaccurate.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I hate the title of this thread because it is inaccurate.

Innacurate as it is. that's what they have been 'charged' with. it's relevant to the thread.

Originally Posted by Gary L

Innacurate as it is. that's what they have been 'charged' with. it's relevant to the thread.

Then the charge is wrong and they could challenge it on those grounds.It's really inciting religious hatred.

It could, of course, have been misreported/simplified - according to MSNBC, they were charged under the Public Order Act 1986.

Also according to MSNBC, they were all members of the EDL.

[Gary L]

They also say "Police would not say how much bail was required."

You are correct.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I hate the title of this thread because it is inaccurate.

It doesn't even make sense grammatically