News0 min ago
Should the ‘insulting words or behaviour’ phrase be removed from the Public Order Act legislation?
19 Answers
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It has to be "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby" The law is fine, but it requires common sense in interpreting and applying it. Asking a mounted policeman whether his horse is gay is not within the intended ambit of the section, though a student is said to have been arrested for doing just that.
Whether the words or the behaviour is insulting is a question of fact, as is whether it is likely to have the consequences mentioned. It's not the only law to be misused or misunderstood; for example, the laws concerning the prevention of terrorism which led to tourists being told not to photograph some bulidings which are landmark tourist attractions, are just such. If every law was enforced to the letter, rather than to prevent the mischief which it was intended to properly prevent, few of us would escape prosecution daily.
Sensible police and prosecutors should bear all this in mind. Let's hope they do. The public, and the Daily Mail, would have then no instances to complain about.
Whether the words or the behaviour is insulting is a question of fact, as is whether it is likely to have the consequences mentioned. It's not the only law to be misused or misunderstood; for example, the laws concerning the prevention of terrorism which led to tourists being told not to photograph some bulidings which are landmark tourist attractions, are just such. If every law was enforced to the letter, rather than to prevent the mischief which it was intended to properly prevent, few of us would escape prosecution daily.
Sensible police and prosecutors should bear all this in mind. Let's hope they do. The public, and the Daily Mail, would have then no instances to complain about.
/// Members of gay group OUTRAGE! Held while protesting against 6,000 supporters of Islamic fundamentalists Hizbut-Tahrir. Their placards claiming the group incited the murder of gays were deemed insulting and likely to cause distress. ///
All right to cause distress among gays and also for them to be insulted, just as one doesn't cause distress or be insulting towards Islamic fundamentalists?
All right to cause distress among gays and also for them to be insulted, just as one doesn't cause distress or be insulting towards Islamic fundamentalists?
Quite, aog, and it may be that the Islamic fundamentalists were liable to be guilty of the offence, whether they were or not. Note that Tatchell himself was acquitted on the s5 charge, which shows that the Deputy Judge or the magistrates applied the law properly.
Writing in The Times today, his complaint in such cases as the 'gay' polce horse and one of a student holding a placard that said Scientology is a cult, is that "though the charges were dropped,both protestors had been publicly humiliated by the police". These, and other examples he gives, are examples of the law misapplied. He is concerned that reasonable and justified comment, including that with which he disagrees, such as 'homosexuality is a sin', should not be prevented or restricted by the section being applied.
Now, it may be that the word, or a phrase including, 'reasonable' should be put in the section; "within the sight or hearing of a person of reasonable firmness who is likely" or " who is likely to be caused reasonable ...distress or alarm" Lawyers don't like 'reasonable' much because it seems vague or indefinible, but it's commonly used in statutes and the common law and here would emphasize the common sense element when considering whether the section applied. The police and prosecutors might then more readily ignore some behaviour or words because, patently, no normal, reasonable person or alternatively no person of "reasonable firmness" (a phrase I've nicked from the common law on public disorder) would fell harassed, alarmed or distresssed by them. It wouldn't change the intent of the section but would serve to restrict or prevent its misapplication.
Writing in The Times today, his complaint in such cases as the 'gay' polce horse and one of a student holding a placard that said Scientology is a cult, is that "though the charges were dropped,both protestors had been publicly humiliated by the police". These, and other examples he gives, are examples of the law misapplied. He is concerned that reasonable and justified comment, including that with which he disagrees, such as 'homosexuality is a sin', should not be prevented or restricted by the section being applied.
Now, it may be that the word, or a phrase including, 'reasonable' should be put in the section; "within the sight or hearing of a person of reasonable firmness who is likely" or " who is likely to be caused reasonable ...distress or alarm" Lawyers don't like 'reasonable' much because it seems vague or indefinible, but it's commonly used in statutes and the common law and here would emphasize the common sense element when considering whether the section applied. The police and prosecutors might then more readily ignore some behaviour or words because, patently, no normal, reasonable person or alternatively no person of "reasonable firmness" (a phrase I've nicked from the common law on public disorder) would fell harassed, alarmed or distresssed by them. It wouldn't change the intent of the section but would serve to restrict or prevent its misapplication.
Unfortunately, where the actual words/actions are involved it seems to me that "common sense" goes right out the window, as what is in common usage for one person is unacceptable/inflamatory/insulting to the other "aggreived" person, it's another case of the judiciary trying to square another circle of life.
Unfortunately, nibble, judges, magistrates and, above all, juries have to 'square the circle' in decisions, all the time. Juries are dailly called upon to decide what dishonesty is, what is reasonable force in self- defence, what is a reasonable excuse or a reasonable belief, what words mean, what conduct is reckless, and what words are likely to cause a person hearing them to feel a particular way. All these are matters upon which people may disagree; all are open to interpretation.
It is striking that, in his long piece in The Times, the gist of which was repeated in other reports, Peter Tatchell expressed a concern which he did not bear out with any case where someone had been convicted. Now, if the words of the Act are such that people were convicted for saying things which he says can, and should, be said, it should be easy to find at least one case where that had happened in the 15 years that the Act has been in force and operating.He did not cite one.
On the other hand, he did cite several cases where that had not happened; one over 10 years ago where he was acquitted , the rest cases where the arrest or charges had not led to any proceedings at all, they were "dropped". So the complaint is not that the courts are applying the law, and its words, wrongly. In his trial, a court did so correctly and he was acquitted, in the remainder it was the arrest itself, or the threat of it,which was from a wrong understanding or application of the section and nothing further happened. At its highest, his complaint is that people are humiliated by the arrest and that erroneous arrest or the threat of that,may deter people from speaking.
That is not a reason to change a law which has worked for 15 years. If people were convicted for saying something which he thinks they should be allowed to say, it would be a different matter, but he has not cited any such case.
It is striking that, in his long piece in The Times, the gist of which was repeated in other reports, Peter Tatchell expressed a concern which he did not bear out with any case where someone had been convicted. Now, if the words of the Act are such that people were convicted for saying things which he says can, and should, be said, it should be easy to find at least one case where that had happened in the 15 years that the Act has been in force and operating.He did not cite one.
On the other hand, he did cite several cases where that had not happened; one over 10 years ago where he was acquitted , the rest cases where the arrest or charges had not led to any proceedings at all, they were "dropped". So the complaint is not that the courts are applying the law, and its words, wrongly. In his trial, a court did so correctly and he was acquitted, in the remainder it was the arrest itself, or the threat of it,which was from a wrong understanding or application of the section and nothing further happened. At its highest, his complaint is that people are humiliated by the arrest and that erroneous arrest or the threat of that,may deter people from speaking.
That is not a reason to change a law which has worked for 15 years. If people were convicted for saying something which he thinks they should be allowed to say, it would be a different matter, but he has not cited any such case.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Israel Bombs Another Safe Zone
News11 mins ago
Rayner Pleads For Muslim Votes
News21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.