Hard cases, bad law, etc
Recovering servicemen verbally abused by Islamic nutters while they are in hospital. Servicemen in uniform abused or spat at in the street. Timid commanding officers advising servicemen not to wear uniforms in public places. All pretty disgraceful. All extremely unpleasant.
However, the calls by a second rate politician with no principles to make verbal abuse of servicemen a crime are just authoritarian knee jerking. Spitting at anyone is assault and should be treated as such. Yelling obscenities at someone is objectionable, but can’t, and shouldn’t, be made a crime, lest you are prepared to end free speech.
The people who verbally attack servicemen will still hate them, either because they are demented trots, or because of their version of sky fairy worship. Laws such as these just serve to increase such tensions, and feed the extremists ~ ‘you know they put Mohammed in prison just for expressing his opinions? Its because they hate all Muslims you know, etc etc’
They irony is that much of the hatred I encounter towards minorities, especially Muslims, has nothing to do with 9/11 or 7/7. It has undertones of ‘They’re all right, aren’t they?. They are protected, privileged. You can’t even speak your mind these days’.
Have we learnt nothing from making bad law?
Filed under: BBC / Nu Labour alliance, idiots
I thought verbal abuse was, if strenuous enough, assault, whereas you got to ABH and GBH if you hit somebody (including spitting)? Abuse and speech are different - the best answer to “Get out of Iraq!” is “I have, you fool, can’t you see I’m in London?”
But I’m not a lawyer. I don’t see why servicemen (I am one) should be any more protected a part of the human species than dustbin men, market traders or PAs.
I don’t think so, although I’m also not a lawyer ~ I believe the only two things that could apply would be threatening behaviour ( I’m going to smash your head in you baby murderer, that sort of thing), or perhaps a public order offence (bad language).
Personally, I agree with the first being a bona fied law against coercion, but have actually witnessed plod abuse the second (usually when they are loosing an argument, or being made to look foolish by someone they consider inferior to them), and think it should be scrapped.
Like you, I see no need for further laws, but it plays to the gallery, so they will be made.
The proper response to some hag-in-a-bag giving you verbal is “fuck off you ape-faced cunt” followed by a swift fandango on the ribs of any accompanying muslim male.
That would generally be seen as “conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline” and I’m allergic to courts martial.
“conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline”
Surely a soldier in uniform is allowed self defence; after all, they are wearing the Queens uniform and any attack on it could be seen as a direct afront to Her Maj.
It is a tricky one, as I want people to be proud of working in these public services and not suffer any bad reaction to their choice.