________________________________________________________________________________
It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak—‘child hero’ was the phrase generally used -- had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Police.
'tis but a simple book. To some a lark, an escape, a bit of amusement, or a farcical warning not to be taken that seriously.
To others? A manual.
Missed time with your children due to work can also induce a bad conscience that can be appeased slightly by subjecting your children to draconic surveillance. Nothing says "I love you" like being watched 24/7 outsourced to security companies. Because you just want the best for your children.
Police in the UK only cares about low hanging fruit. It will probably be used when someone needs to be locked up and there is nothing on that person.
Not only lawyers should be uneasy about that. I don't know the legislative process that ended in this situation, but I would guess there are a lot of cognitive errors along the way.
I suspect zero people in this thread have read the Law Commission report. It's here:
https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/hate-crime/
You want page 481 "The Dwelling Exception".
3 things to note:
1) It's a question in a consultation document.
2) one of the answers (s18.252) could make hate speech more, not less, protected
3) It's only about the "stirring up" parts of the act.
---
LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
The Dwelling Exception
18.250 Until 1986, the offence of using words or behaviour intended or likely to incite racial hatred could only be committed in a public place. In the POA 1986, Parliament extended the offences to the private sphere. However, an exception exists where words or behaviour are used or written material displayed within a dwelling, provided that they cannot be seen or heard outside that or another dwelling.129 Similar protections were later incorporated into the legislation on religious hatred and hatred on grounds of sexual orientation.
18.251 This exception also applies to the POA 1986 offences of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to put a person in fear of violence, or to provoke violence, or causing a person harassment, alarm or distress.130
18.252 To the extent that the aim is to ensure that the criminal law does not intrude on purely private matters, the exception is poorly targeted. It would include a meeting held in a large private house, for instance, but would exclude a private conversation conducted in an office. Other jurisdictions handle this issue differently. For instance, the Canadian Criminal Code excludes a “private conversation” from the offence of wilful promotion of hatred.131
18.253 It is also anomalous that the parallel offence of showing video or sound recordings does apply in a dwelling.
18.254 We question the need for this exception to the stirring up offences. As discussed in Chapter 3, the harm at which these offences is targeted is the propagation of hatred. Other incitement offences, such as inciting or encouraging commission of an offence,132 are not protected simply because they take place within a person’s home.
18.255 We therefore propose that the dwelling exception should be removed from the stirring up offences.
18.252 I cannot read this to be advocating for more protection. It's an observation that a private discussion in an office is not protected, that the protection target is vague and therefore (later on) that private discussion in your own private home should also not be protected.
Its boggling how you can mis-read this.
Please read the document. They suggest removing the private dwelling exemption, but later on they talk about adding free speech protections.
It's boggling that people feel they can comment on a >500 page document without having read any of it, after having only read comments from groups like "We are fair cop".
Your two first comments intending to refute the claims had no evidence to back up your comments but instead proved the claims! Then, with no actual defence, instead you just say for us to read a 500 page document.
To be charitable, perhaps you originally pasted the wrong quotes for your argument? Did you?
I quoted that bit because that's the piece that's being widely discussed. It does say that they're thinking of suggesting that the private dwelling exemption is removed, but that covers a wide range of options:
1) Remove it and criminalise "stirring up" in private dwellings
2) Remove it and add private conversations in private dwellings, thus continuing to allow stirring up in private dwellings unless it's a public meeting in someone's home
3) Remove it and add protections for private conversations, thus adding protections for hate speech that are private conversations but not in the home.
It's a consultation, this is how Law Commission consultations work. Your unfamiliarity with them doesn't make you right, it just means you don't know how they work.
Thank you for editing your comment that was in all caps, I have deleted my comment in reply to that.
Seems clear:
"_18.255 We therefore propose that the dwelling exception should be removed from the stirring up offences._"
And from the link:
"_Reformulating the offences of stirring up hatred to focus on deliberate incitement of hatred, providing greater protection for freedom of speech where no intent to incite hatred can be proven._"
Here we have it.
They do propose to remove the exception for private dwelling, which mean people _could_ indeed be prosecuted for what they say at home. Then those people would be able to _try_ to prove that, while what they _said_ was wrong, what they _thought_ was not.
Another commentator referenced 1984... That seems apt.
It can be interpreted that because proving intend to stir racial hatred is so hard to prove, that it is offers a good protection for any form of online speech.
But yes, I would go with your version and think the arguments for better protections are dishonest. Honestly every form of executive overreach on internet comments has been a disaster. In Germany we also had some cases like this and you don't get info
People responsible for it are nauseous and unfit to deal with real problems and worst of all have inspired dictators around the world. Problem is there is little room for criticism, because people responsible have real racists throwing insults at them left and right and your attempt to voice opposition will sort you right into these groups.
This is a crazy proposal that should raise red flags about the workings of the Law Commission.
The law commission is saying that stirring up (eg) racial hatred is protected if you do it in your own home but not if you do it in a private conversation that no-one overhears in an office. They're asking why that is, but they're also suggesting extending the private dwelling defence to be broader to include all private conversation.
> 13018.252 To the extent that the aim is to ensure that the criminal law does not intrude on purely private matters, the exception is poorly targeted. It would include a meeting held in a large private house, for instance, but would exclude a private conversation conducted in an office. Other jurisdictions handle this issue differently. For instance, the Canadian Criminal Code excludes a “private conversation” from the offence of wilful promotion of hatred.
They are not suggesting extending the private dwelling defence to be broader to include all private conversation, its the opposite.
They want to _remove_ the "dwelling exception" defence _because_ private conversations elsewhere are not protected.
As you quoted in your other comment, they are proposing to _remove_ a legal protection for things that happen in private dwellings.
However you try to spin it, the only result would be to allow prosecution for speech that takes place at home in private and that is currently protected.
They are not suggesting extending any protection.
Please read the consultation document.
Please provide us with the quote that says they are "suggesting extending the private dwelling defence to be broader to include all private conversation" because your previous quotes say the exact opposite!
This is precisely the response desired by "We are fair cop". You're the victim of a misinformation campaign.
> Other jurisdictions handle this issue differently. For instance, the Canadian Criminal Code excludes a “private conversation” from the offence of wilful promotion of hatred
Oh it may well be the desired response, but you have really not helped any of us become more informed. You are not helping us as victims. Quite the opposite, your quotes and directions prove the claims you try to refute.
You have given clarification that the consultation says what they claim! That the consultation proposes "that the current exclusion of words or behaviour used in a dwelling from the stirring up offences should be removed."
The best thing you can say to us victims of misinformation is "educate yourself! Read this 500 page report" which does not work. The other thing you would say is something like "I know how the law works, you dont, therefore you must believe me when I say this on faith", probably an appeal to authority which might work a bit better if you have more status (e.g. "I am a barrister")
If the proposal's aim was to increase protection then I would think that this what they would have proposed instead of explicitly and only proposing to remove the existing protection (as you quote).
It's strange to claim misinformation when we're only just reading the proposal.
You're making the assumption that this consultattion is aimed at the general public and that it is not written in careful legal language.
"We're thinking of spitting in your eye. Do you want us to spit in your eye?"
The question is obviously no, and here's a big list of reasons why not.
"We're thinking of removing the private dwelling exemption. Do you agree?"
The answer is obviously no. Police officers are going to talk about the impossibility of gathering evidence to prosecute the crime. CPS, and solicitors, and barristers are going to talk about the importance of free speech protections and the difficulty of proving _mens rei_. Judges are going to talk about the problems of convicting people of a crime when it's difficult to show who the victims of that crime might be.
All of this thread happens because people don't bother to read the source documents and get whipped into a frenzy by shitty low-tier troll groups like "We Are Fair Cop". FFS, spit the hook.
I think its a safer and probably more accurate claim that it's needless fear mongering
I would have focused more on the credibility of the source and weakened the severity of it.
1) it's from the guardian via its a fair cop. Weakening the source of the news, the anti-government angle, attacking the poor legal knowledge of the argument.
2) it's a consultation document, it's just for discussion, its nothing legal, nor will it be used for making new laws. Its nothing to worry about.
I cant find any possible way to spin what the document says to make it read the other way. strange indeed!
The Law Commission is a very serious and credible source, obviously newspapers spin this however suits them.
It is known that their reports are not the law but only proposals that may inform law-making. The article is quite factual.
What is shocking is that they (the Law Commission) would essentially propose restricting free speech in people's homes, which is what their proposal is word for word.
I suspect that there is actual support for this proposal but that to explicitly say so on this forum would have a negative reaction.
There could be a belief that to admit that hate speech can be allowed in your own home is to endorse and advocate the murder of others. To be uneasy about removing the protections from your dwelling could be seen as support for hate.
However to say "we shouldn't be uneasy, we should welcome this removal of liberties" wouldn't go down well with HN so other (less logical) angles of attack are taken.
Indeed, utterly bonkers