Skip to comments.The Muslim Hate Preacher and the T-Shirt Salesman: a Bizarre Study in Double Standards
Posted on 06/05/2013 12:15:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Compare and contrast. A few days ago, one of Britains best-loved hate preachers, Anjem Choudary, a man so widely admired that we pay him £25,0000 a year in benefits so he can live in this country, was filmed saying murdered Woolwich soldier Lee Rigby will "burn in hellfire" as a non-Muslim.
Choudary then added, in typically disarming manner, that Adebolajo and Adebowale, the two men charged with Drummer Rigbys murder, were doing "what they believed to be Islamically correct", while noting that Michael Adobelajo was "a very nice man".
Quite properly, the police refused to step in. After all, we have the right to free speech in this country, and Choudary said nothing illegal.
Quizzed on the matter, assistant police commissioner Cressida Dick told MPs: "In the case of somebody like Mr Choudary we are constantly assessing whether any of his proclamations are breaking the criminal law." Cressida Dick further explained to MPs that the complexity of legislation surrounding the incitement of religious and racial hatred made it difficult to build a case against Choudary.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Yes they have Free Speech in Britain...which makes me wonder why the comments section on this piece is closed....
On what basis do they have Free Speech in Britain? There is no First Amendment or Constitution.
Hate crime laws were created for the express purpose of criminalizing anything a non-minority says or does, or doesn’t say or doesn’t do, while setting free minority people who do anything against a non-minority.
Britain has a constitution, although it is a looser one than the US.
Comments section are shut for one of two reasons:
1—If its an ongoing criminal case, the very strict laws of prejudice in the UK dont allow newspapers/media to print public comments.
2—The papers shut them down because of obscene remarks, trolls etc.
Yes, I have, top to bottom, several times. I did say that the British version is different to the US. You seem to think that as it is different to the US, its inferior or simply dosent exist.
BTW, my constitution gives me a constitutional right to vote. Yours dosent.
As a second point, (and I know this will come off as trying to be controversial, but I don't intend it that way) is there anything, other than what the people at Downing Street and Westminster feel, that says they are obligated to let people in Scotland vote or have a say? Anything they have done in that regard is simply their "generosity and magnanimity, no?
This conversation is interesting, but I fear that the Obamadork, his West Wing Clown Show of Felon/Cretins, and the “Just-Us” dept headed by Mr Quota baby himself would love to render our Constitution irrelevant...and are doing a pretty good job thus far. Methinks the UK populace will come to the correct conclusions (and actions) sooner than we will.
Such is our Republican form of government. It is one check against mob rule.
Britain has only traditions and laws, and the concept of Parliamentary Supremacy. In countries with Parliamentary Supremacy, there is not -- nor can there ever be -- a Constitution, because there is no power above the legislature. Rights Englishmen have enjoyed since Magna Carta can be swept away by nothing more than a majority vote.
Witness, for example, the English Bill of Rights (containing a few, very immature, ideas about ordered liberty.) That so called "Bill of Rights" contains a provision for the right to keep and bear arms. That provision was long ago destroyed in all meaningful senses by acts of Parliament.
The Constitution does indeed and explicitly recognize that enfranchised voters must exist, in several places. The most basic is a Constitutional requirement that every State must provide a representative form of government. That is not possible without the Franchise.
Beyond that, the US Constitution DOES guarantee a right to vote; it specifically qualifies certain people as adults for the purposes of voting but otherwise does not specifically say who may vote because the matter of determining the qualifications and rules for election are not part of the basic Federal charter; that is a power reserved for the States.
Brush up on your US Constitutional Law if you intend to comment on it.
Supreme Court, Bush v Gore, stated that Americans do not have a constitutional right to vote.
‘”The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”
—Supreme Court, 2000.’
Americans dont have a constitutional right to vote. What exists is a set of amendments detailing what form of discriminations against a person’s ability or qualification to vote are not allowed.
But the actual right to vote dosent exist. A fact which Gore v Bush in 2000 at the Supreme Court confirmed.
The 19th simply prohibits stopping women the vote because of their sex. Again, it dosent provide women with (a constitutionally protected) right to vote, it simply takes away any barriers to a woman voting. And the 14th and 15th DONT provide Americans with a constitutional right to vote: they simply stop someone being denied the chance to vote because of race or any form of discrimination.
Stopping the denial of the right to vote is not the same thing as the actual right to vote.
The Ninth Amendment for example does not actually give any rights, but rather just makes a statement about them. All it does is protect a person’s right to vote, free from intent to stop them from doing so.
‘’In light of the recent election, I thought I would write a quick quiz for all you lawyer-types out there: Which constitutional amendment guarantees American citizens the right to vote? Dont look ahead, just guess. If you said any number at all, Im sorry, but youre wrong. In fact, there is no clause in the Constitution granting the right to vote. As with driving a car or staying up late on school nights, voting in the United States is a privilege, not a right. If you dont believe me, look it up. Americans have the right to own a gun, but they do not possess the right to vote. This isnt good; there needs to be a new constitutional amendment that explicitly enfranchises citizens.
But, you might argue, what about the 15th Amendment, giving people of all races the right to vote? Or the 26th Amendment, granting 18-year-olds the right to go to the polls? Well, the actual texts of each amendment do not give anyone the right to vote, but instead are non-discrimination clauses: They state that the right to vote shall not be abridged or denied on account of gender, age, race or previous condition of servitude.
Only states can grant citizens the privilege of voting. Of course, its easy to call me fussy for differentiating between having a right and not being denied a right. The Supreme Court, however, would disagree. Justice Antonin Scalia, in Bush v. Gore, continuously reminded lawyers that there is no explicit right to vote in the United States Constitution. The majority opinion agreed: The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 ).
According to federal law, citizens do not have the right to vote for electors, who in turn are not obligated to vote in the peoples interest.’
In Search of the Right to Vote
Right to Vote Frequently Asked Questions
Americans dont have the right to vote (?!)
Thank you for the reply. Very good post, although I would argue against the calling of the English Bill of Rights as immature in parts. I think its a better and more rounded document than that. Also Scotland also has a Bill of Rights. The US BoR was influenced by both.
I would like to think I know my US constitutional law fairly well, thanks.
Well, we do have the House of Lords and redress to the British courts. And to the European courts. And the monarch can refuse to pass an unjust law. All laws must have Royal Assent.
Parliament is not the final say, there are redresses. We are not as beholden to Parliament as you think. And of course Parliament is there to represent the people for a start. It is not a dictatorial star chamber.
As to Scotland, and voting in general, I/we/they are obligated/give the right to vote by various laws and ratified political agreements. The 1983 ‘Representation of the People Act’ is the basis for my protected right to vote. Again, its not a case of being given, ‘they’ are obligated by law to allow the electorate the right and opportunity to vote.
First, that is a specific case, and as it applies to Presidential elections ONLY, does NOT make your point. The Constitution explicitly says that States determine the method of determining electors for the President of the United States. That has always been true and is not dispositive of anything concerning your statement, or mine.
It's like me saying you have "no right to vote" because you don't get to vote directly for Prime Minister.
Here, in part, is article IV of the Constitution of the United States of America. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. How exactly do you believe this is guaranteed without some mechanism for representation?
Stopping the denial of the right to vote is not the same thing as the actual right to vote.
Apparently, you're not paying attention. Stopping the denial of the right to vote is an explicit qualification made against the States in the regulation of the franchise, because absent a Constitutional Amendment, the Federal Government has no authority in that area. Please do actually read what people take the trouble to post to you. The US does NOT have a National Government, we have a Federal Government, and that means that there are areas in which the States have sovereignty and the Federal Government does not. Determining the qualifications for voting is one of them.
PLEASE stop using a small "C" for Constitution. It's insulting, grammatically incorrect, and deliberately ambiguating. I have a constitution AND a Constitution. YOU have only the former. The US Constitution is a specific legal instrument. That makes it a proper noun. My ancestors (Campbell of Argyll) left Scotland at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century -- long ago -- but do they not still speak English there?
Finally, you apparently don't know the difference between the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, nor even what the Ninth Amendment is about; so let me spell it out for you before you embarrass yourself like this again: The Ninth Amendment (at the time of its ratification) did indeed protect specific rights, most importantly (and it was WELL understood at the time) all of the rights of Englishmen established by the Common Law. The Tenth Amendment guarantees to the States (and secondarily, The People) every power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. [In particular, must I still beat this dead horse since you determinedly ignored it in my original post?] the right to regulate the Franchise except as amended later on.
Finally, I note you do not press your original and highly foolish claim that your constitution gives you a right to vote that mine doesn't. Your "right" to vote ends tomorrow if a majority of MP's say that it does. That can't happen in the United States, because the Constitution requires every State government be representative: our Congress is explicitly denied a "power" that your Parliament very much does arrogate to itself (through the concept of Parliamentary Supremacy.)
The point you are so determined to miss is this: There is no theoretical temporal limit to the power of Parliament. The limits of Congressional Power were established before the first bell was rung on March 4th 1789.
That said, the idea that only Protestants have the right to keep and bear arms, or that only MP's have an absolute right to free speech or to petition for a redress of grievances are -- in the sense that they are not fully developed ideas -- immature.
I am British, not American. And not a Constitutional scholar, merely an educated layman (MA in History) as far as the history of the US Constitution goes. If I am wrong on any point, please take the above into consideration. I am also happy to accept I am in error, as I am well known here for pulling people up on poor UK history/cultural knowledge. You were also unnecessarily insulting at several points in the last post, and there wasnt any need for it.
To your points:
1-’First, that is a specific case, and as it applies to Presidential elections ONLY, does NOT make your point. The Constitution explicitly says that States determine the method of determining electors for the President of the United States. That has always been true and is not dispositive of anything concerning your statement, or mine.’
I was under the impression that the lack of right pertained to the lack of a constitutional right to vote overall.
2—’Here, in part, is article IV of the Constitution of the United States of America. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. How exactly do you believe this is guaranteed without some mechanism for representation?’
I understand your point, however article IV still does not state Americans have a right to vote, only a form of government to which to vote for. One could argue you are making a leap and an assumption that A.IV+gov=right to vote, when it dosent actually result in that answer.
3-’PLEASE stop using a small “C” for Constitution. It’s insulting,’
Oh, for gods sake. Hardly. Last time I looked, the US Constitution was not a holy document. Nor is the only one in the world. It might be erronous to refer to it in lower case, but hardly insulting. You’re being a touch delicate there.
4—’....grammatically incorrect, and deliberately ambiguating. I have a constitution AND a Constitution. YOU have only the former. The US Constitution is a specific legal instrument. That makes it a proper noun. My ancestors (Campbell of Argyll) left Scotland at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century — long ago — but do they not still speak English there?’
Firstly, I have both. I, as a Briton, have a Constitution. It simply does not take the form of the US Constitution. But that does not mean it is inferior nor non-existant. It is rather typical American arrogance to think so. Especially when the British version is the influence and inspiration for much of the US version.
Secondly, yes we speak English. Quite what you lot speak however is debatable. Its English, but not as we know it. A mangled form.
5—’Finally, you apparently don’t know the difference between the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, nor even what the Ninth Amendment is about; so let me spell it out for you before you embarrass yourself like this again:’
I mentioned the 9th (btw, I cut and pasted my reply from my replies on RightNation on a recent similar thread, here it is if you wish to read it:
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=192037&st=0 ) simply because it is usually used in the argument that the US DOES have a right to vote.
6—’Finally, I note you do not press your original and highly foolish claim that your constitution gives you a right to vote that mine doesn’t. Your “right” to vote ends tomorrow if a majority of MP’s say that it does.’
Nope. Any British law has to pass the House of Lords which can reject it, and all laws have to have Royal Assent. Also the British have recourse to both British and European courts. My right to vote, given to me in 1983, cannot be taken away from me except frankly by a dictatorship.
Again, like another poster, you make assumptions and errors in regards to the British system. The very errors you seem to give me no leeway on as regards the US system.
‘The point you are so determined to miss is this: There is no theoretical temporal limit to the power of Parliament’
Yes, there is. The second chamber, the monarch and the courts.
The "finding" of the US Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore was an explicit slap in the face of the Florida Supreme Court, which had asserted an "implied" federal right to vote in Presidential elections. The Court reminded them of US civics taught in elementary school: that electors for President are to be determined by methods chosen by the individual states, and not necessarily by direct exercise of the franchise.
This warning was made explicit to suppress anticipated further mischief on the part of the Florida court, which had indicated it would not accept a slate of electors chosen by the Florida legislature in the event problems in four Florida counties could not be resolved by the safe haven deadline required by the US Constitution. In effect, the SCOTUS was telling the Florida SC that it could not void Florida's alternative selection law on the basis of a right to direct exercise, because the US Constitution does not recognize such a right in Presidential contests.
article IV still does not state Americans have a right to vote, only a form of government to which to vote for
The thought processes of the British are strange indeed if you believe an affirmative requirement of representative government, coupled with a clear statement that states shall determine the rules for elections -- both in the Constitution as ratified in 1789 -- do not imply the franchise exists. It becomes stranger still in historical context when one considers the rallying cry in the Stamp Act Crisis of "no taxation without representation," and rises to the level of laughably silly in consideration of the several articles of indictment against the crown in The Declaration in which George III is (correctly) accused of tyranny for imposing a despotism on the colonies, and the founding statement of the American Republic that "governments instituted among men derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." The Colonists explicitly and violently rejected a claim that they could be "indirectly represented" by a Parliament they had no hand in electing.
Oh, for gods sake. Hardly. Last time I looked, the US Constitution was not a holy document.
You miss the point. The point is: it is a document, unlike your constitution, which is essentially the Common Law, common understanding, acts of Parliament, culture, and case law. The US has all that as well (Mutatis mutandis.) But we also have a specific document which one can go and see on display, and that is different from a constitution. It is a proper noun, and correct English grammar requires it be capitalized.
But that does not mean it is inferior nor non-existant [sic]. It is rather typical American arrogance to think so.
There's no arrogance involved. The American Constitution is superior to your constitution and my constitution, because it is a specific document written in plain language that anyone can understand, not thousands of court opinions, legislative acts, bits of history, usage, and culture. Now the EU does have a Constitution (and not just a constitution.) I would argue -- without, need I say, any American arrogance -- that the idea of a Supreme Law accessible to any citizen of modest capacity in its entirety and at all times seems to have rather escaped the EU; one cannot take a document running to nearly 450 pages all that seriously as an instrument of basic law and principle. Brevity, as a Briton once wrote, is the soul of wit.
Secondly, yes we speak English. Quite what you lot speak however is debatable. Its English, but not as we know it. A mangled form. Manglish. LOL.
Frankly, I find the round-about circumlocution of British English tedious, and the pretentious affectation of the British accent effeminate. I prefer the compact and direct approach of the North American dialect. That said, arguments about style are as boring as they are pointless. I'm perfectly willing to allow anyone reading our discussion to decide if your command of English is better (in any sense) than mine. In any event, both God (in your "for god's sake") and the US Constitution when referred to as a definite instrument, are proper nouns.
Any British law has to pass the House of Lords which can reject it, and all laws have to have Royal Assent.
Again, the reasoning of Britons is strange to me if you believe that the Lords offers a check on Parliamentary Supremacy, since that chamber is, in fact, part of Parliament.
As for the crown, you can't take your liberties very seriously if you're trusting their last redoubt to the supervision of a family of inbred borderline dull-normals [Actually, I'm not sure Barmy Prince Charlie even rises to that level of intelligence, and based on a number of his statements, I don't think he has a great deal of enthusiasm for popular sovereignty or individual liberty if they run afoul of his pet causes.] Luckily for you, I think you know perfectly well that the monarchy is not going to oppose Parliament on any serious issue.
Also the British have recourse to both British and European courts.
Your courts afford administrative review, not judicial review of primary legislation. If you're claiming British courts can exercise veto power over Parliament, you need to take your argument up with many primary sources written by Britons, NOT me. Your courts have no such power.
My right to vote, given to me in 1983, cannot be taken away from me except frankly by a dictatorship.
Again, a fundamental misunderstanding. Your right to vote was not "given" to you in 1983 or at any other time. We have our fundamental rights by virtue of a grant from a higher than temporal authority; either God or our own sentient personhood; I won't quibble about which. For the purposes of this discussion, they're the same thing as far as I'm concerned. But the point is neither your constitution nor my constitution (or Constitution) "give" us any rights. They recognize rights, that is all.
As for dictatorship: Would you have said the same thing about a government that deprived you of the right to keep and bear arms? That right was recognized in the English Bill of Rights. Where is it now?
Or consider the instant case: you have no First Amendment, but you have a long lower-c constitutional tradition recognizing freedom of speech going back quite far and, until recent times gradually evolving toward the near absolute freedom recognized by America. Where is that headed now ...?