Gay sauna in Luton, UK not extended a license: too close to a mosque

[Razgovory]

Humans seem to have an inborn proclivity to want to tell each other what to do. Well, many of them do.

Isn't part of maturity reaching that stage where you stop trying to solve problems by fixing the world around you to suit yourself rather than trying to adapt to suit your surroundings? I think the concept of licensing was created by tribal-thinking immature people. It takes a certain amount of narcissistic petulance to think you should have a say in what your neighbors do on their own property if they aren't hurting you.

No that's just a sign you are either a college age kid/given up on life.

[LaCroix]

it's pretty common for local neighborhood folk to not want sex shops nearby

[Jaron]

it's pretty common for local neighborhood folk to not want sex shops nearby

Yeah

[Martinus]

The parts quoted from the petition/letters make it sound like the Mooslimbs object not so much to porn and sex, but the fact that it was related to homosexuality though.

[Berkut]

The parts quoted from the petition/letters make it sound like the Mooslimbs object not so much to porn and sex, but the fact that it was related to homosexuality though.

So? Is it extra objectionable because they object to the kind of sex you like as opposed to the kind of sex they like?

This is such a mountain out of a molehill.

Who cares? So we find out that in a given population there are a bunch of prudes. Shocking! Who would have thought it!

[Martinus]

The parts quoted from the petition/letters make it sound like the Mooslimbs object not so much to porn and sex, but the fact that it was related to homosexuality though.

So? Is it extra objectionable because they object to the kind of sex you like as opposed to the kind of sex they like?

This is such a mountain out of a molehill.

Who cares? So we find out that in a given population there are a bunch of prudes. Shocking! Who would have thought it!

Some of the comments quoted go beyond people being a "bunch of prudes". I am generally against penalising people for speech, no matter how hateful or offensive it is - but British legislators disagree, and anyone else making this type of comments about gay people would have been prosecuted.

[Richard Hakluyt]

There are two separate issues here. The objections to the change of use by local people are absolutely standard procedure here in the UK. Some strip joints faced similar difficulties here in Preston and had to go for more central locations in clearly commercial zones. Similarly a new mosque in the Fulwood suburb had planning permission denied for many years whilst ways were sought to overcome local opposition to the development.

I agree with the point that some of the comments were definitely hate speech under our current laws though. If similarly offensive comments had been made by other parties about other groups prosecutions would have been quite likely. I don't like the hate speech laws myself, but a selective application of them based on some spurious hierarchy of victimhood has to be the worst way possible of arranging things.

[Martinus]

There are two separate issues here. The objections to the change of use by local people are absolutely standard procedure here in the UK. Some strip joints faced similar difficulties here in Preston and had to go for more central locations in clearly commercial zones. Similarly a new mosque in the Fulwood suburb had planning permission denied for many years whilst ways were sought to overcome local opposition to the development.

I agree with the point that some of the comments were definitely hate speech under our current laws though. If similarly offensive comments had been made by other parties about other groups prosecutions would have been quite likely. I don't like the hate speech laws myself, but a selective application of them based on some spurious hierarchy of victimhood has to be the worst way possible of arranging things.

Ok, that I agree with 100%.

[Sheilbh]

I agree with the point that some of the comments were definitely hate speech under our current laws though. If similarly offensive comments had been made by other parties about other groups prosecutions would have been quite likely. I don't like the hate speech laws myself, but a selective application of them based on some spurious hierarchy of victimhood has to be the worst way possible of arranging things.

Disagree. The law on hate speech on sexuality is more or less the same as hate speech on religion. It's against threatening words/behaviour that is intended to stir up hatred. So being insulting or abusive and intending to stir up hatred isn't enough; neither is being recklessly threatening.

It's very analogous to the religious hatred law and a judge said of that law that 'It doesn't prohibit public discussion, criticism, antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or their followers.'

The comments are homophobic which is wrong, but I don't think they're anywhere near hate speech under our laws. I don't see any threat or intent.

The other legislation often used for speech which doesn't meet the test for hate speech is the 86 Public Order Act - it was what was used to prosecute John Terry for example - but I don't think that would apply either. As you'd expect it's about public order so it really requires there to people present. I don't think a petition would qualify.

[Richard Hakluyt]

.....and yet Paul Gascoigne, for all his fragile mental health, is up before the beak for a pitiful joke :

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2016/06/04/paul-gascoigne-charged-over-racial-joke-at-wolverhampton-civic-hall-show/

[Sheilbh]

.....and yet Paul Gascoigne, for all his fragile mental health, is up before the beak for a pitiful joke :

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2016/06/04/paul-gascoigne-charged-over-racial-joke-at-wolverhampton-civic-hall-show/

Looking into that it looks like he's being charged under the Public Order Act - which is the one that does prohibit threatening, abusive or insulting words/behaviour to a person who can see/hear it and is likely to be caused distress by it. Then onto that they've tagged on that it's racially aggravated which will just potentially alter the sentencing.

But that's different than our hate speech laws. The hate speech laws carry long custodial sentences, the public order generally doesn't and is mostly a fine though you can get a short sentence. Also the hate speech laws the CPS will very often prosecute if they've the evidence regardless, the Public Order Act they're far more lead by the victim. Also I could be wrong but hate speech is almost certainly a Crown Court case whereas most public order offences will be before a magistrate.

I don't think the petition comes anywhere near hate crime and, unlike in Gazza's case, there's no-one for it to cause offence or upset to. Unless those comments were posted through his letterbox the petition would just get sent to a council office.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I see, so Gazza's error was to be crass in a (very) public place. I expect he will get off anyway.

[Sheilbh]

Basically. Same as John Terry and Anton Ferdinand - and again the CPS are more likely to follow the victim.

The law originally was to deal with football hooligans who weren't actually breaking the law until a fight started. It was all about giving police powers to arrest people way before then. Obviously there's a big debate to be had over whether it's used in an appropriate way now but that is distinct from the hate speech laws which are very narrow (racial hatred is slightly broader).

It's also why despite the big kerfuffle over especially the law on religious hatred the main focus of free speech campaigners now seems to be reforming Section 5.

Edit: Here we are:
http://reformsection5.org.uk/#?sl=1

It's a shame that of all the internet gays Marti likes he found Milo instead of Peter Tatchell who is, of course, supporting the Reform Section 5 campaign

[Martinus]

In other news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/ztvdg82

England, the nation of cucks. 

[Valmy]

The parts quoted from the petition/letters make it sound like the Mooslimbs object not so much to porn and sex, but the fact that it was related to homosexuality though.

So? Is it extra objectionable because they object to the kind of sex you like as opposed to the kind of sex they like?

This is such a mountain out of a molehill.

Who cares? So we find out that in a given population there are a bunch of prudes. Shocking! Who would have thought it!

Because they are launching political activities to make life difficult for other people for no particular reason?

Is it 'nobody cares' when the fundies over here shut down sex education programs to you? I just do not get it you have even gone after me for my religious beliefs and I am not out doing stuff like this. What made you so tolerant now concerning something that typifies why they create problems.