Visit Germany, or Not Visit Germany... That Is The Question...

[Drummond]

This thread is so wildly off base it’s borderline hilarious.

I’m glad we have Darin popping in to try and give some sanity and perspective on Germany, meanwhile Drummonds here trying to make the U.K. sound like something altogether unfamiliar ^,^

Indeed ?

Perhaps Northern Ireland has different laws altogether ... but, in this case, I doubt it.

These things are arranged 'stealthily'. Naturally, 'good' reasons are offered for the introduction of legislation, frequently having very little to do with the true motivation and intent behind them. Nonetheless, certain legislation DOES exist, and DOES have its effect.

Noir, I invite you to show me that the following is 'fiction' ....

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Racial-...atred-Act-2006

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. The Act was the Labour Government's third attempt to bring in this offence: provisions were originally included as part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in 2001, but were dropped after objections from the House of Lords. The measure was again brought forward as part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill in 2004-5, but was again dropped in order to get the body of that Bill passed before the 2005 general election.

The Act is notable because two amendments made in the House of Lords failed to be overturned by the Government in the House of Commons.

Most of the Act came into force on 1 October 2007.

Previous attempts at legislation

After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the Government in Britain brought forward the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. Clause 38 of that Bill would have had the effect of amending Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 to extend the existing provisions on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred. When the Bill reached the House of Lords, an amendment to remove the clause was passed by 240 votes to 141. The Commons reinstated the clause, but the Lords again removed it. Finally, the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, accepted that the Commons had to accede to the Lords' insistence that the clause be left out of the Bill.

The government brought the proposal back before Parliament in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill in the Session leading up to the general election in May 2005. During the Lords debate on the relevant section of the Bill, on 5 April 2005 (the day on which the general election was called), the provision was removed. When the Bill returned to the Commons on 7 April, the Government announced that it was dropping the measure so as to secure the passage of the Bill as a whole before the Dissolution of Parliament .

At the general election, the Labour Party confirmed that, were it to be re-elected, it would bring in a Bill to outlaw incitement to religious hatred: "It remains our firm intention to give people of all faiths the same protection against incitement to hatred on the basis of their religion. We will legislate to outlaw it and will continue the dialogue we have started with faith groups from all backgrounds about how best to balance protection, tolerance and free speech".

Note the 'balance' intention. In other words, the right to free speech is 'balanced' against other 'considerations'.

I've seen it said on this forum that, with free speech, 'people have a right to be offended'. Here in the UK, our Left have legislated against it.

Try arguing vigorously against a Muslim, in public, on grounds of his or her religion. Said Muslim need only claim incitement to hatred on grounds of his religion to have you arrested.

Noir, you still want to argue against what you can see with your own eyes, and more, what you MUST know is true ?? Then tell me that Wikipedia is lying, here .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_s...United_Kingdom

Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

Enough said, I think. Noir, I'll thank you to be more truthful and accurate in your offerings, here, in future.

QED.