incite animosity and hatred against minority groups
Whay does it matter that they are "minority" groups?
Facebook has removed the pages of far right group Britain First from its platform along with those of its party's leaders. The group, which has 2 million followers, was banned on grounds of hate speech. In a statement Facebook said the content posted on the page and on the pages of party leaders Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen …
If you're going to ban folks for hate speech then ban Trump for doing it too. Or is that too much of a double standard for FB to stomach?
Our Dear Leader seems not to use FB but Twitter. But, hate speech seems to go all the way to the bottom so how many users would FB have left if all hate speech types were removed? Their followers would probably abandon FB also and follow them to the new place so FB might take a big hit.
If you included those who cannot read a simple English sentence without proclaiming that it's hateful, when it's anything but, there would be NO Facebook.
As for President Trump being the source of hate speech, the phenomenon actually seems to stem from those who get their notions and their next reason to riot from similarly mindless idiots who couldn't get past Alinsky 101 in college!
Perhaps that was the specific infraction?
Honestly I really hope this is the beginning of the end of all hatemongering idiots across all of the spectrums of hatemongery on horribly toxic social meeja, but it's more likely that these convicted criminals and their organisation will just become further martyred for their hairyknuckled supporters as it's easier for Facebook to justify pulling the trigger when a beak has said it too.
Here's hoping Facebook shovel the love out equally.
Your comment would appear to support the rape of a 16 yr old girl and even the rapes of thousands of others that have been finally exposed across GB with the disclosure of a number of grooming gangs. All Britain First members did was to call out the rapists to increase the awareness. Might be the last round of women coming forward would not have happened without the efforts of Britain First and Tommy Robinson's efforts to bring the issue into the public eye. But it is so much easier to ignore than to admit one group in society seems to want to live by different rules than what the rest their community has deemed acceptable. The last group exposed had been raping girls for well over 20 years with threats of murdering their entire families if they spoke up. Thank god that there are people like Britain First to speak up as it is very clear that the Home Office and the Constabulary prefer to protect the criminals.
Just how long have you lived in the UK?
The Police have an interest in protecting two things. Their pensions and their families - in that order. I learned that at 13 years old.
Other than that it's all lip service and nelsoning (I see no pedo priests - nor one notable pedo prime minister (Ted the Ped)), despite the first complaints against him being in 1981!). I should probably remind you that Ted was white, the priests were white so I find it odd you fixate on the Muslims..
May I remind *you* that the police last year said that if the old cretin was still alive he'd have been investigated and charged because there was many more than one person came forward to state he was a sweeper of the chocolate chimney with a penchant for underage boys.
To be blunt - there has to be an avalanche of evidence on something for the British police to even suggest they might have considered looking into it (they've abandoned rape cases with witnesses AND perfect dna evidence - everything bar a confession (sans use of desk drawer)) so on the balance of that I'm perfectly happy to consider him a gay Jimmy Saville.
Because some people of whatever ethnicity / religion (not sure exactly how Britain First phrased their rhetoric ) did paedo / rape stuff does not mean Britain First can label all of that category of person as criminal in the same way.
Otherwise (roll out Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith etc.) you can brand all "white" people as paedos.
Strangely enough I don't see much of racist groups extrapolating in a nice way based on a particular event - e.g. I had a really pleasant & helpful doctor / nurse / dentist etc of (insert ethnicity / religion here) therefore all of that category are great
No you've stumbled into a conversation and debate on Facebook's divisive policy and how the UK treats minorities and majorities, whether there is any bias on either side. The problem is that some comments provoke a response which others will find uncomfortable. This is why the UK is the shit show it is now, nobody wants to confront these issue without fear of being labelled racist just for stating facts.
Don't allow yourself to fall into the trap of labelling people because that's how those groups can gain power.
I posted the comment about exploitation but made it clear I don't view all those people the same because of the acts of a few,. Do I fit into your "Britain First" morons category for raising the issue in response to a comment about how minorities are targeted by the authorities when clearly they are not?
> You beat me to that - it implies that Facebook is OK with inciting animosity and hatred against majority groups.
You mean just like after a serious road accident, someone saying "We must reduce death by car accident" means they are OK with death by shootings?
Or are you just saying it because it's facebook?
You mean just like after a serious road accident, someone saying "We must reduce death by car accident" means they are OK with death by shootings?
Or are you just saying it because it's facebook?"
My bad - I didn't quote what I was replying to there, which was the first comment to the article.
What I'm saying is that hate speech, in general, shouldn't be tolerated, much less propagated. No label needed - minority, majority, or whatever.
Someone inciting that "All X should be killed, their bodies dragged through the streets and their entrails fed to the pigeons!" is bad. It shouldn't matter if X is "left handed, green eyed, 12 fingered people born on February 29th 1996" or "Caucasian men."
Tell that to the..
Christians of Najran (notable for being a Jewish crime against humanity)
The Turkish Armenians
The 38-45 Jews
The Jews (most of the rest of the time)
Practically everyone in Stalinist Russia
The Native Americans (various but a really nasty one was British troops giving Indians (mostly women and children) smallpox laced blankets).
Should I go on...?
Because attempting to incite animosity and hatred towards majority groups tends to be self-limiting, when a few of the majority get together and thump them who would incite. After being thumped a few times, and finding that the police or other authorities, being members of the majority group being incited against, are strangely reluctant to do anything to stop the thumping, them who would incite either get smart and stop, or get even more stupid and do something which inspires a really serious thumping, typically good enough to end the inciting one way or another.
I'm not buying that in the slightest. I don't know what country you live in but the minority have special protected status in the UK so what you describe never happens. Tell me, how many jihadist that go around shouting they want all Christians and westerners to die have ever been challenged or even stopped before they go all stabby, killy or bomby on people?
Repeat after me, active discrimination is still discrimination.
Tell me, how many jihadist that go around shouting they want all Christians and westerners to die have ever been challenged or even stopped before they go all stabby, killy or bomby on people?
Citation please. For "jihadists going around shouting (that stuff)".
I certainly didn't hear them. Who did?
"But about two years ago there was a black flag on the roof with Arabic writing on it."
I think the Daesh flag on the roof of his house constitutes shouting.
I think the Daesh flag on the roof of his house constitutes shouting.
Err... no. People put all kinds of things on their houses.
When I was a kid, anarchist slogans were in vogue. If everyone who displayed a poster saying "If you don't hit it, it won't fall" - to say nothing of "everyone who expressed a liking for the Sex Pistols" - had drawn the attention of Special Branch, they'd have had a very busy time of it.
To this day there are people in the United States who proudly display the Confederate flag. A symbol whose entire raison d'etre is armed rebellion against the USA.
Should people who display Scottish flags in England be investigated? Those two countries have been at war for most of the past millennium. How about French flags, or - gasp - German ones?
None of these things "constitutes shouting" anything very provocative.
"After being thumped a few times, and finding that the police or other authorities, being members of the majority group being incited against, are strangely reluctant to do anything to stop the thumping"
Tell that to all the white working class children in Rotherham, Telford and Rochdale passed around for sex by people from minorities.
Disclaimer: I am fully aware that these people are minorities in the minorities, I'm not stupid and would never tar a race of people by the actions of a few because if I did I could never trust a white person for as long as I live.
"Tell that to all the white working class children in Rotherham, Telford and Rochdale passed around for sex by people from minorities."
Not by "minorities" but by "Asians," even though none of the child predators are Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. And don't forget Birmingham's Trojan Horse schools.
Britain's acceptance of sharia courts demonstrates quite clearly that the leadership -- Tory, Labor, and the rest -- have no idea what is actually going on.
There is no point defining which minority it is because whichever one it is is not the point.
There are lots of things going on in this country that are taboo because it is minorities, we don't need to single out any single one, there also a lot of things going on in this country by the majorities. This is my issue, it should be equal and it's not and Facebook targeting people because they target a minority is just plain wrong unless they target everyone who is hateful.
I could sit here and slag off Asians and Sharia law but then I would be no better than the people at Facebook slagging off white people (a.k.a. the majority).
It'll be interesting to see the comment voting perspective in the morning when the UK is back online.
Let's not hide behind innuendo and hyperbole.
When you say "Asians" you mean Muslims but don't want to be seen as a protagonist.
Most of the child rapists from Rotherham were of Asian descent but ALL of them were Muslims.
@Anonymous Coward (why anon, by the way)?
Not by "minorities" but by "Asians," even though none of the child predators are Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc.
As you would know if you had been brought up in Britain, "Asian" in that country has always been broadly synonymous with "brown". Mostly Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan. East Asians (mostly Chinese/Taiwanese, plus a smattering of Malaysian/Singaporean - there are very few Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese etc.) are an afterthought.
Trojan horse school thing was mostly a convenient myth for the papers "Five senior school leaders accused of involvement in the Trojan horse controversy in Birmingham are free to return to the classroom, after the government’s case against them was found to involve an “abuse of justice” by government lawyers." https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/30/trojan-horse-tribunal-five-birmingham-teachers-islam
And kids in care and the white working class are certainly an oppressed minority but who really are the oppressors?
How are sharia courts any different to any other non-legal forms of dispute mediation (i.e. ACAS) that we are encouraged to use before resorting to clogging up the courts?
Britain's non-acceptance of sharia courts demonstrates quite clearly that the authorities -- are on top of what is actually going on.
Fixed That for you
PS the United kingdom does not have a "Labor" party. It does, however, have a Labour party. Party members would have noticed if it had been spelled wrongly...
If you are going to ban hate then you need to employ people to ban all hate.
Picking off easy targets such as these only feeds their followers and saying that you are stopping "hatred against minority groups" can be interpreted as you allow hatred of the majority. This was not very well thought out. These people and their platform for hate will now just move to another platform where they are not as easy to monitor, at least on Facebook you can see who holds these beliefs.
No, if you are going to "ban hate" then you need to warn people who are posting material that you feel infracts your rules, and if they ignore the warnings, ban them.
Note two points: targeting, and warning. No blanket bans, and anyone who is banned gets a warning first.
In this case, it's clear that Britain First were warned, and decided they'd rather raise a stink as Facebook martyrs than stop posting shit. And lookie here, no shortage of useful idiots on El Reg happy to oblige them.
Ah , here is the end of the replies to the first comment , for now. too many to count.
There seems to be several different discussions going on (most spawned from the flippant 'majority' reply) , in single rather limited thread model , with nobody bothering to say which conversation or comment they are replying to.
How you can have an intelligent discourse escapes me,
So im out!
I don't need Facebook protecting me from politically incorrect opinion. Aren't we luck we don't live in Putin's Russia where the state security apparatus can lock anyone up under trumped-up charges and shutdown legitimate public discourse. Can one be for limited emigration and the Church of England and still not be a racist. Why isn't the fella that made this not in jail. A stormtrooper sits on a cross
This is not about 'hate speech' at all, it's about liberals preventing what is actually the MAJORITY from expressing themselves, thus making it look like the liberal point of view is universally accepted.
Laura Southern was just banned from entering the UK. She was labeled as 'far-right' when, in truth, she is just a moderate Christian conservative, and a very compassionate person actually! The irony is that those who do commit REAL hate crimes by going to fight jihads in Middle Eastern countries and then coming back to the UK, who have deep religious views that go against every single Western value and would actually murder people just because they are, say, homosexuals, THOSE are protected and welcome with open arms into the UK (and Europe) because they are 'a minority'.
See, this is why the current liberal way of thinking is so wrong. Being a minority does not mean you're automatically right or that you deserve protection - there is a reason you are a minority, after all. And some minorities not only should not be protected, they should be 'exterminated' with deep prejudice (and before you get up in arms, pedophiles and rapists are also a minority, for instance).
The fact is that the MAJORITY is being forcefully silenced, and you can clearly see that with Brexit. Personally I believe one of the major reasons so many people voted against staying in the EU was because of the migrant crisis, and this was the only way left for them to express themselves without being automatically labeled as 'racists'.
Laura Southern is an odious provocateur, who engineers shit like this: "On February 24, Southern was photographed outside Five Guys restaurant in Luton town centre alongside two other activists, displaying posters which stated “Allah is a Gay God” superimposed against a rainbow pattern."
I'm sure she was delighted by all the attention. Good for ratings.
> "On February 24, Southern was photographed outside Five Guys restaurant in Luton town centre alongside two other activists, displaying posters which stated “Allah is a Gay God” superimposed against a rainbow pattern."
She said that's specifically why all three were detained - under the Terrorism Act no less - and banned from Britain, while actual terrorists are welcomed with open arms.
A bit obnoxious, but that's activism. And obviously it works a lot better than politeness.
"A group of Christians shouting "Allah is a twat" would be enough to have them beheaded by members of the local Mosque."
No, no it wouldn't. The vast majority of Muslims would think you have said something idiotic and offensive. But not idiotic and offensive enough to incite beheading.
Just like saying Jesus Christ is a cum sucking slut would be enough to make most christians think it was something idiotic and offensive.
The fact is a minority of muslims and christians and jews, a swathe of buddhists and a smattering of people that worship the old one and a chap called Simon all rise up when they hear something they disagree with and start getting a bit stabby.
“Allah is a Gay God” is odious but I guess piss-christ is OK in your book...
There's a difference between an exhibit in an art gallery, where people have to go out of their way to see it, and plastering posters around the streets of Luton.
One of these things is Conduct Likely to Result in a Breach of the Peace.
That's what this is about: peace. No more, no less. If you're trying to make people so angry that they escalate to shouting and violence, then you're an enemy of the peace, no matter which "side" you claim to promote. And if you're doing that in a foreign country where you have no automatic right to enter and reside, you should bloody well expect to be barred from re-entering it.
Then you can go bitch and whine on Twitter about how your rights are being trampled by the oppressive librul establishment (like Twitter), and welcome.
The only wonder is that Facebook took so long to shut down their account. Britain First's founders are fascist thugs who are in jail for harassing innocent people and their families, who they wrongly suspected of rape. Their violence endangered the lives of others. Their hate speech encourages others to violence.
BTW Your call to exterminate minorities (but fudging this by conflating with rapists and paedophiles) is grotesque. There is nothing moderate or compassionate about Laura Southern, who is a Katie Hopkins troll but more dangerous, Jihadis who return to the UK are not welcomed with open arms. And If the "majority is being forcefully silenced", how were they allowed a vote on Brexit, and to vote in favour of leaving. Where were the liberals?
@DrewC > Your call to exterminate minorities (but fudging this by conflating with rapists and paedophiles) is grotesque.
First, I used 'exterminated' enclosed in quotes deliberately - cast out from our society as the evil they are is the proper response - and, in fact, that is exactly what happens when we put them in jail. Second, I used rapists and pedophiles on purpose to illustrate that minorities should not be protected *just because* they are minorities. Is there anything wrong with this reasoning? By labeling my argument as grotesque you seem to be implying that rapists and pedophiles should have a rightful place in our society - which not only is wrong on ALL levels, as it would make YOU a monster.
Second, the reason you call Katie Hopkins and Laura Southern 'trolls' is because they use the media to speak out what they and many others think and would like to say but are now either too afraid or do not have the audience. From my point of view, this is no different from what other liberals in the media (like our own Kieren here in El Reg) also do, except that, to me, it's the liberal ideology that is truly dangerous. To me, you are the trolls - but at least I am willing to debate the issue, and not shut other people down by calling them every name under the sun while covering my ears and labeling every attempt to discuss the issue in a serious manner as 'hate speech'.
This has nothing to do with race, and all to do with group cultural behavior. I don't care if you are white, black, gray, gypsy, blue, yellow or red: provided you behave in a civilized manner, you're ok in my book. But if you come to my own home trying to impose your own culture and values on me, threaten me or my family, and/or generally act obnoxiously, then you can go suck an Elf. I will not accept you and your behavior just because you belong to a minority - nor should I EVER be forced to. In fact, I don't care if you belong to a minority or not, I only care about your behavior. This is not racism, it's simple common sense, which is what liberals seem to lack completely these days.
As for Brexit, you're also proving my point: liberals never believed that the vote for Brexit would ever win, which is why they allowed the voting to happen. Whether the vote to leave will be a good thing for the UK in the long run or not remains to be seen - and I am not British, but I am still divided on that one: on one side the EU seem to be becoming a tirany run by people who were never elected for the job, on the other I like the feeling of all of us identifying as European. Unity is strength. Either way, good luck, I truly wish you all the best.
JCRabbit, your brainwashing is shown by the way you keep using the "word" liberal - in much the same your elders used the word "cmmies".
This "them vs. us" mentality shown here only exists in your sad deluded scared little brains.
The reason some of these people are referred as "trolls" isn't because their opinions are disagreed with - it's because a large number of them are simply exploiting the low IQ, lack of critical thinking, and constant state of fear inherent in you guys to make their money.
Lauren is just a hick actor who couldn't get a job at Fox.
The fact is that the MAJORITY is being forcefully silenced, and you can clearly see that with Brexit.
I wouldn't say forcefully silenced. But yeah, ignored by the media. When the media becomes self serving as it is now, it ignores the issues that matter to a wide range of different people. Without an outlet, those issues only get "discovered" after a vote.
All this censorship and banning is antithetical to to a healthy society. Luckily, the internet treats censorship as infection and just routes around it.
But yeah, ignored by the media
Given that you're from the US with its extensive range of rant radio stations and alternative-fact TV stations, I really don't believe there's any opinion, however swivel-eyed, that isn't being promoted by some part of the media somewhere. As it happens, you already correctly analysed the situation in one of your posts on a different topic:
if the problem is nobody is listening to you, the solution isn't a new platform
You're showing your mindset comrade.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with that description unless you have pre-conceived Ideas of Christians Conservatives not being moderate, in which case The US wouldn't be in the lefty pickle it is in at the moment.
"Laura Southern (snip) very compassionate person actually"
Not very compassionate towards refugees in boats as she supported a mission to hamper refugees being safely collected from the sea.
Personally I do not equate wanting to make refugees drown with compassion, but maybe I don't have alt-right / racist version of a dictionary which obviously has skin colour caveats applied to some words
Your political opinions are immediately suspect as you seem to conflate "liberals" with leftists. By definition, a liberal is someone who is neither left or right. If you find liberals far you your left, that means that moderate opinion is far to your left. Where does lat mean you are.
You say Laura Southern is a Christian Conservative. Please be aware that these words have pretty opposite meanings. What is defined as a "conservative" in the USA, is incompatible with being a Christian anywhere else. Things like love your neighbour, defend the poor, look after foreigners and so on do not fit in with destroying welfare and shrieking at brown people.
Certainly being a minority does not mean you are right. Some ideas, are minorities because they are impressively stupid. Being in a majority does not mean you are always right. Always consider ideas in the light of knowledge. If you come up with a brilliant phrase like "that is just your education speaking", then you have just defined yourself as without intellectual or moral foundation.
The majority is not being silenced. A very nasty little minority was repeatedly told to act in a civilised manner. They repeatedly didn't and so were told to take their views elsewhere.
As for Brexit, 37.5% of the UK electorate voted to leave Europe. There has been some statistical analysis of the makeup of this groupIf you know what "statistical analysis" is, try googling what the results of it are.
If there are other words to describe many peoples reasons for voting to destroy the British economy by leaving the EU, they are not obvious. They will have the same intelligence as any other group . Some of the ringleader politicians will be very clever. I supposed they voted for different reasons from the rank and file? There will be well informed and poorly informed people in the group. They should have a better grasp of recent European history since so many of them lived through much more of it than the 62.5% who did not vote for Brexit. If it was not racism, what reason would you give for such stupid and sociopathic behaviour?
There is no such thing as a moderate Christian Conservative. That's like saying there is an Austin Maxi somewhere with street cred.
It just ain't happening.
Even the least sociopathic ones have bigot written through them like Blackpool rock - all the way up to westboro baptists who attacked service people's funerals to such an extent the funeral cars ended up with protective convoys of bikers and off duty cops and in some cases gravestones were desecrated. Aka the "God hates fags" brigade.
Personally people like her and Jimmy Jihadi are lucky. If I was in charge of immigration they'd be taken behind a small shed and ole yeller'd. Save the world any more problems it frankly doesn't need.
...but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I appear to be in a minority so far (hence AC) but to me this is yet another step down the slippery path to totalitarianism. I do not agree in any way with Britain First, or what their leaders have done, but I am increasingly concerned at the continuing restriction of free speech, whether by the government through their "flexible" definition of "hate speech", by PC-opinion through shouting down anything that is the "target of the month" or by the social platforms such as FacePalm selectively applying their policies to some but not to others (and also claiming to be purely a carrier of content when it is most convenient for them, but a censor when they want to).
If we meet content we disagree with, surely reasoned argument is a better tool than removal? (and don't even get me started on the re-writing of history that is going on around us)
Now cue the down votes....
I guess it was not only hate speech but actually slander... (though that I would need some lawyer to enlighten me) - and because FB did not want to be squeezed by the (balls / ovaries) they had to do something? Dunno...
Also: Freedom of one person ends where the freedom of the next person begins. Those advocating for unlimited freedom should remember that.
FB and Google are positioning themselves to be the decider gods of good and evil content.
I wonder though, why didn't I get a vote on that?
Regardless, the internet is a big tent.
I am sure Evil will do quite well with or without interference from our corporate overlords. Good, too.
Facebook is working as intended according to all the commentards. I didn't realise that until now. You are being played, welcome player one and two and three and so forth. It's no coincidence the language they used and who they banned. Control comes from division, diversion comes from hatred, hatred allows control. Enjoy.
'If you had read the article, hell seen just the sub-title, you would know the police have arrested and jailed the leaders.'
And if you had thought about your comment just a wee bit before you posted it...
From here apropos the leaders you speak of.
'..Both were convicted over an incident at a takeaway in Ramsgate, in Kent, during which Fransen banged on the windows and doors and screamed “paedophile” and “foreigner”. Two children were playing in the middle of the shop and Jamshed Khesrow, a friend of the owners, was inside. '
'..Fransen was convicted on another count related to a visit to a house she wrongly believed to be the address of a defendant in the Canterbury trial, Sershah Muslimyar. Golding was cleared of uploading a video of that incident.'
'..Fransen was convicted on a third count over an incident at the home of Tamin Rahmani, during which she shouted racist abuse through the front door while his pregnant partner was inside.'
Note, not nice people..
Note, no mention of Farceboak there, the only mention of any online activity was a charge about uploading of a video of one of the incidents, which one of this pair was cleared of, so you're guilty of conflating their arrest and imprisonment on these charges with Farceboak's actions here as a woefully incorrect answer to the question the other AC asked 'Who have the police prosecuted over it?'.
Have Farceboak suspended their accounts? Yes.
Was this because of any Legal Process? No.
Was their arrest and imprisonment anything to do directly with their Farceboak material? No.
'But that was obviously too much work for you but embarrassing yourself obviously was not.'
I love these arguments, they display such fun levels of 'Pot and Kettledom'...
As the AC you responded to correctly pointed out '..After all, hate speech is a crime in the UK.' you do have to ask the question about where the Police investigation is of the material and the circumstances of publication and those who facilitated and continued to allow its promulgation.
'Hate Speech' is covered by a number of Laws in the UK, invoking the term as a justification for doing anything really does invite some sort of legal test/investigation/oversight, the Law of the land trumps Farceboak's 'community standards', as I understand it.
Farceboak's business model is such that they make money by adslinging, as such, up until they pulled the plug on the pages they were making money from this 'hate speech', unlike the people responsible for the now-objectionable content they were actively financially profiting from it, this warrants a legal investigation by someone.
Meanwhile, mate of mine is dealing with his neighbour's (now vacant) house dealing with a mob gathering outside, organising via facebook, because they'd heard a paedophile lived there and were "protesting" to make them "leave".
The house has been empty for weeks. This doesn't stop these numpties from showing up anyway, even to the point of yelling "we know you're in there" at an empty building.
The woman that used to live there wasn't a paedophile, either. Apparently her ex had some conviction and she broke up with him when she found out about it, but apparently that's worth calling the paedofinder general about. As for the police? They've not even bothered showing up.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019