Free speech and religious (in)tolerance (again)

News from Blighty today that a group of Muslim men are on trial for hate crime after handing out leaflets calling for homosexuals to be hanged.

Left to right, Ihjaz Ali, Mehboob Hussain, Umar Javed, Razwan Javed and Kabir Ahmed.

I’m sure I know how most Americans would feel about this, whether they agree with the homophobic message or not – But speaking for myself, I’m torn.

On the one hand, this is certainly a form of censorship. On the other hand, it’s censoring a group of extreme bigots who are trying to promote hatred to the point of actual murder.

At the moment I’m leaning towards this prosecution being a good thing – This is not a thought-crime, it’s attempted incitement. They actively promoted murdering innocent people. That’s the point where I think they lost their right to free expression. That said, I’m still open to persuasion.

Unfortunately, extremists like this will also raise questions about why Britain is so accepting of Muslim migrants (albeit these men seem to be second-generation, born British) who have no intention of adapting to Western values. I’ve argued many times that there is no such thing as an indigenous Brit, and that we are a country made up of migrants and the descendants of migrants. I’ve also said many times that there’s real strength in diversity. But here I’m forced to wonder if there is not such a thing as a British culture and British values, and if this kind of diversity really brings strength, or if it only brings division. Of course, it is to be hoped that these men are a minority within a minority, and that their time will soon pass. We shall see.

For now, I’ll throw this open to the floor: Where do you fall in this discussion, and what’s your reasoning?

  • Brocasbrian

    It’s right on the free speech line imo. If I say violence should be done it’s slightly different than saying you should go out and do violence. I guess I’d have to see the pamphlet. It’s clearly despicable.

    • Revyloution

      I agree, free speech should be inviolate. But I also have some really good reasons not to limit speech like this. The first reason is that prohibiting it won’t change the minds of people who hold these ideas. The only thing that banning their speech will do is martyr them. Once these ideas are driven underground, they can fester and even grow. Another thing to think about; when idiots like this show their bigotry in public, it’s easier to keep track of them.

      Now, saying they should be able to say these things doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished. Actions like this need to be tried in the court of public opinion, and punishments need to be meted out with the firm hand of ridicule. I think Michael Moore gave a perfect example of this with his Gay Bus, where he had a bus full of flamboyant gay men who danced and partied in front of the Westborough Baptist Church. A great way to handle these Muslims would be to get a 6’2″ muscular transvestite to follow them around with streaked mascara crying ‘Why did you leave me? You said you loved me!! I don’t care if your penis is tiny, I still LOVE YOU! WAAAHHHH!!!’ Or perhaps all of the gay policemen and women in London could show up and counter protest them. Let your imagination soar, the joys of harassing these fellows is endless, unless we jail them just for speaking their mind.

      I have to quote some Hitchens at this point. The only response to bad speech should be more speech.

  • SpellingBeeChampion

    It’s “speech”, not “speach”.

    • Custador

      Indeed, proof-reading is my friend :-p

      • UrsaMinor

        Or you could just plead Britishness and rely on the general American ignorance of spelling to help you get away with it.

        • Len

          We probably already do that for too many other things.

  • FO

    “Group X should be killed” is one of the very few, painful limits I want on free speech, and exclusively for practical reasons: at those words too often actions follow.

    • Kodie

      How do you handle people who say, for example, “people who have more than 12 items in the express lane at the grocery store should die”?

      • Len

        What is the intent behind what is said? Do the supermarket people really want checkout-lane-misusers dead?

        • Kodie

          You never know if they will or won’t choose that moment. People hate waiting in line.

          • Len

            This is true.

      • Sunny Day

        That thought occurred to me also. I’m ok with a discussion about whether or not to kill gays or 13+ item people.

        In the case of the pamphlets the discussion has already moved past what I see as permissible, into the area of “Here are three methods we can use to kill gay or 13+ item people.” They are not discussing the rightness of the action but now are quibbling over execution strategies.

        So fuck those guys, Fuck them with a giant steel dildo.

  • Hamish Milne

    For me, free speech stops at inciting violence, which I’m not sure this does. What about capital punishment in general? I’m personally against, but if the leaflet said “murderers should be hanged” I wouldn’t complain too much. If it was like “everyone go out and kill the gays” it would be too far, but it sounds like they wanted it to be through a court of (religious) law, which is still despicable, but different. It’s likely illegal in the UK as it is directly against a specific nationality, race, religion, medical condition or sexual orientation (etc.), and I’m 50/50 on that aspect of the law.

    Ah, after looking at the quotes from the leaflet, I’m fairly sure it does incite violence. But it’s tricky. It’s quite plain to see why they charged them for ‘hate speech’ rather than inciting violence.

    • Sunny Day

      ‘The Death Penalty? leaflet – which suggested three different ways to murder gay people ”

      I think pamphlets with of 3 different execution methods is incitement to violence and should be considered threatening.

    • DMg

      I’d make a distinction between
      “murderers should be hanged,”
      and,
      “the sentence for murder should be hanging.”

      The latter is a statement of opinion about how the country’s justice system should operate. The former can’t be distinguished from a call to vigilantism.

  • http://www.NoYourGod.com NoYourGod

    I am a big fan of free speech, but as others have pointed out – incitement to violence fails any free speech test. Some may dispute “should be hanged” is different than “hang them”. There is no difference – one uses a passive voice, but both incite violence.

    • Noelle

      Do violent irrational types tend to scrutinize the grammar and tense of leaflets?

  • Sam

    That doesn’t sound like a very serious threat to me… These men sound serious.

  • andyinsdca

    What anyone (you, me, whatever) thinks about the content of the speech is really irrelevant. Prosecuting someone because they have detestable views is really prosecuting a thought-crime and anti-liberty/freedom. The only bright line in I can think of when it comes to speech content is child porn, specifically because an indefensible person is harmed in the making of it. But beyond that, there shouldn’t be restrictions on speech, no matter how offensive we may find the message.

    • Hamish Milne

      This is one of the things I find very strange. What is child porn but a recording of a crime being committed? What about the various beheading videos circulating the internet, should they be illegal to possess too? What baffles me is that possession of child pornography can get you many years in prison, esp in the US, but for material of the physical harm or even murder of children (or anyone for that matter) wouldn’t get you nearly as much, or anything at all. They certainly don’t have witch hunts related to it. Of course, all this stuff should always be illegal to create, and possibly to distribute, but I don’t get the possession. It’s the same with drugs.

      • Kodie

        Possession strongly implies a market for child porn, encouraging the production of more, a direct implication in the act of creating child porn and the harm of a child. If you own it, you’re accessory to it.

        • Hamish Milne

          Personally I don’t really accede to that whole line of thinking. Same for piracy, drugs, and ‘offensive materials’. The whole ‘accessory’ thing is far too shaky to justify being a criminal offence, which by my logic has to cause direct harm to another human.

          Let’s use piracy as an example. You download a game, yes you haven’t paid money for it, so the company who made it loses out. But how much of that money goes to retailers, distributors, importers etc.? What if you buy it second hand? What if you were never going to pay for it anyway, you only downloaded it because it didn’t cost anything? It’s completely hypothetical.

          Essentially under your logic, any recording of a crime being committed should be illegal to possess, as should all recreational drugs, and copyrighted material, as one would be ‘accessory’ to, respectively, crimes being committed, the drugs trade and all the murder and extortion that accompanies it, and the loss of millions from the creative industries.

          • Kodie

            Why would you download child porn?

            Think it through.

            • Hamish Milne

              I’ll assume by ‘you’ you mean ‘one’. I’ll state this outright: just as I wouldn’t watch a video of someone being beheaded, I wouldn’t watch child porn.

              And TBH I don’t care what people do in their own time, and it’s not my business to care, nor the government’s. I just want laws to be consistent, then fair. It is not consistent to criminalise a single category of material simply because it is abhorrent to society (If the Christian majority of America declared atheist literature to be abhorrent, that alone does not justify criminality) and it is not fair, in my opinion, to criminalise being an ‘accessory’, as in my previous argument.

            • Kodie

              You’d be creating a market for it. The sickos who produce it are doing what their customers demand. Videos of beheadings aren’t to satisfy a market demand. Videos of “BJ and the Bear” are about a man driving a truck with an orangutan.

            • Hamish Milne

              Videos of beheadings aren’t to satisfy a market demand

              What if they were? Should it be illegal then? So X should be illegal if people are creating it for the benefit of others, which works for child porn but for no other material?

              Another example: A man was prosecuted in the US for making videos of dog-fights (they were very vicious and gruesome btw.). However the material itself was perfectly legal to possess. With your logic, the possession of dog-fighting material would lead directly to more being created, and so more animals being killed. Should it therefore be illegal to possess, paid for or otherwise? This guy was certainly creating the films for sale to a target audience.

            • Kodie

              Yes.

            • Hamish Milne

              Right, so if there has been at least one case of someone producing a video of a crime being committed, for sale to a target audience, that category of material should be forever made illegal to possess.

              I’m sorry, but I simply don’t like laws based on knee-jerk reactions to events (e.g. ‘anti-terrorist’ type stuff after 9/11 and 7/11, UK banning of handguns and semi-auto centrefire after a shooting spree using those weapons). Laws should be based on principle, not just what has happened so far. Consistency should be our primary goal.

            • Kodie

              Ok.

            • UrsaMinor

              I think we’re straying into some murky territory here. Kodie’s position appears to be that all possession of recordings of criminal acts should be illegal (not merely the sale thereof). What about the case when a news crew records a crime, say, an assassination at a political rally that they’re covering? Or a private citizen with a cell phone camera catches the police illegally pepper-spraying unresisting protesters at a demonstration?

            • Hamish Milne

              Exactly, it’s an impossible position to take. I think she agrees with the first paragraph of my previous post.

              Ah but that wouldn’t work if it were, say, a documentary, for sale to, guess what, a target audience.

            • Kodie

              You think that’s the same as downloading child porn? I mean, police have to take and presumably watch porn, so that is possession and viewing, but in order to establish a crime and perhaps locate missing children. The “why” is important. Why is it illegal is because why would you have it? For some reason, I think Hamish is saying but what if you pirated it? Then you wouldn’t have paid someone and you could still watch it, then that would be ok. Or whatever you want to watch for entertainment is ok. Watching a beheading might be entertaining, watching a pepper spraying police officer might be entertaining. But for the most part, those instances aren’t created or distributed in the first place for the express of entertaining. I’m not really interested in going on with this discussion though, it seems too heated to be friendly, and just sort of let’s see that impasse now, and avoid a lot of trouble typing words for no real end.

            • Hamish Milne

              I’m sorry about that. Maybe we can agree to disagree?

            • Kodie

              I might have misunderstood you or whatever, but I know I don’t feel like going to the trouble to try to change your mind. I may also be overlooking something important in your argument, but I don’t think it’s going to cause more abuses of children today than there would be if I don’t argue with you than if I commit to “my logic” and carry on.

              So, ok. :)

            • Sunny Day

              “Should it be illegal then? So X should be illegal if people are creating it for the benefit of others, which works for child porn but for no other material?”

              Yes.
              The world is a complex place and simple laws don’t fit every situation. The best we can do is to error on the side of caution, craft the best rules we can to cover a wide range and more specific laws to target the atrocities.

            • Bill

              I can’t believe we have somebody defending possession of child pornography.

              Kodie is dead on here. This type of material is illegal to possess because of the market possession creates. The acts required to make it are so abhorent that we as a society have decided that protecting the victims of those acts trumps all other rights a play. It seems like a no brainer.

              I suspect that if we suddenly found a widespread market for snuff films leading to the abuse of innocent victims, possession of those films may well be illegal as well. (Hell there could be jurisdictions where it already is. I don’t know.)

              We as a society make value judgments about what should and shouldn’t be illegal all the time. I often disagree with those judgments, but this one seems non-controversial to me.

            • Hamish Milne

              I’m not defending anything, I’m just saying that we need to be consistent in the application of our principles, and not shy away from discussion simply because something’s taboo.

              I suppose it’s the old utilitarian/duty ethics dichotomy.

              Sorry if you don’t agree with me.

            • UrsaMinor

              I didn’t think the discussion was too heated; I’ve seen worse.

              My question was more along the lines of, can we come up with a definition that identifies things like possession of recordings of child porn and dogfights as punishable offenses, but excludes possession of recordings of other crimes in a non-arbitrary manner?

              Perhaps a topic more suited to the forums anyway.

            • Bill

              Hard cases make for bad laws.

              Blanket rules, while emotionally appealing and easy to apply, rarely make for good law.

              And you are defending possession:

              “And TBH I don’t care what people do in their own time, and it’s not my business to care, nor the government’s.”

            • Bill

              “My question was more along the lines of, can we come up with a definition that identifies things like possession of recordings of child porn and dogfights as punishable offenses, but excludes possession of recordings of other crimes in a non-arbitrary manner?”

              This depends on what you mean by arbitrary. Possession is made ilegal basically because we consider the acts so bad that we want to discourage any market for the product. The determination of what is “so bad,” could I suppose be seen as arbitrary but any law makes such distinctions.

              After all laws are just rules made by society. We decide all the time that some acts should be illegal while others shouldn’t. I’m not sure I’d call that arbitrary.

            • Kodie

              @Ursa – I guess heated wasn’t the right word. Intense? I just decided to step aside because I don’t have the attention span or the clarity of expression to devote to the debate, but I’ll read it later.

            • Hamish Milne

              Well all right then, you can look at it that way. And I stand by my position: It’s not the government’s business what anyone does in their own time. People have said it time and time again on this very blog.

              Blanket rules, while emotionally appealing and easy to apply, rarely make for good law.

              Interesting. A bit like how in the UK rather than having a single codex for law, we have a myraid of acts, some repealing others, superseding others. And then there’s the ‘precedent’ rule. All to make the law as ‘fair’ as possible. Have you really committed tax fraud? Let’s look at the 1892 case of Crown vs Smith and let them decide. Really fair.

              I hate to point this out, I really do, but as a lawyer, like it or not, you have an interest in the law being as complex as possible. You also support a system whereby how much money one has directly affect’s one’s chances of winning the case. And you can’t just stroll up to the law society and learn their ‘secrets’, oh no. It takes years and years of training just to understand the principles our society lives by. And then the government has the nerve to say ‘ignorance is no defence’.

              An example: I saw a documentary about the emergency services, the firefighters and police officers were complaining about how they were not allowed to rescue people in certain situations, as health and safety did not permit it, it had not been cleared, et cetera. In fact, people have died because of this, and the men and women in question would in fact be sacked had they tried to save their lives. Cut to a health and safety lawyer, who of course talks about how these regulations are a good thing. Were there less regulation, he would have less work.

              I know this isn’t directly relevant, and who knows, maybe you don’t support this system, and you’re just trying to help people who have been screwed over, my sincere apologies if that’s the case.

            • Len

              It’s not the government’s business what anyone does in their own time.

              As long as what they do doesn’t harm anyone else. Including people who – by virtue of age or any other reason – cannot consent to said actions.

            • Hamish Milne

              Uh-huh. The question is, does possessing something harm anyone?

            • Len

              Does the act of possessing something harm anyone? No. But was anyone harmed (in the way I mentioned before) in the making of what that person possesses? If yes, then there’s a problem – also with the possession of said thing.

            • Kodie

              I still don’t really have time for it – but are you, @Hamish, saying that because a person might assume since he or she doesn’t abuse any children in the act of owning and watching child porn, and especially if they may have obtained it “illegally,” pirated, has not contributed to and has even stolen from the perpetrator of the illegal act, that they aren’t doing anything wrong? That one needs to have a law degree to figure out the complexities of how the market demands that the crime be committed in order for them to have something to consume, whether or not they paid for it? That someone may be told something is illegal and justify it, say, drug use and pirating videos, makes it ok to do whatever one wants because it’s none of the government’s business and they’re not actively hurting someone?

              Tell me if that’s what you’re saying or if that’s not what you’re saying, so at least I know what’s what here.

              Oh, and I’m going out in 10 minutes for the evening, so I probably won’t be around for any more comments.

            • Hamish Milne

              a person might assume since he or she doesn’t abuse any children in the act of owning and watching child porn, and especially if they may have obtained it “illegally,” pirated, has not contributed to and has even stolen from the perpetrator of the illegal act, that they aren’t doing anything wrong?

              Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Sorry.

              That one needs to have a law degree to figure out the complexities of how the market demands that the crime be committed in order for them to have something to consume, whether or not they paid for it?

              Ah, it that how it came across? Sorry, that was referring to how you need to have a law degree in order to defend yourself in court successfully, in general.

              That someone may be told something is illegal and justify it, say, drug use and pirating videos, makes it ok to do whatever one wants because it’s none of the government’s business and they’re not actively hurting someone?

              Well, yeah. I was just saying that, in order to remain consistent, you would have to be completely against piracy and recreational drugs. I detest drug use, it can completely destroy your life, but by taking them, you’re not actively hurting anyone but yourself.

              It’s quite clear to me now that people don’t want to be consistent. That’s fine. But I stand by my principles.

            • Kodie

              I think child porn, video piracy, and drug use are 3 different crimes that are better dealt with as 3 different crimes and not as if they were the same type of crime.

            • Kodie

              Also thanks for clarifying. My reading comprehension can be a little off sometimes, really gotta go now though.

            • Bill

              “I hate to point this out, I really do, but as a lawyer, like it or not, you have an interest in the law being as complex as possible. You also support a system whereby how much money one has directly affect’s one’s chances of winning the case. And you can’t just stroll up to the law society and learn their ‘secrets’, oh no. It takes years and years of training just to understand the principles our society lives by. And then the government has the nerve to say ‘ignorance is no defence’.”

              Really, this is where you want to go? Ok let’s take a look at your “simple laws” approach.

              Law: It’s illegal to kill another human.

              You are accused of violating this simple law. Hell, everyone can agree you shouldn’t be allowed to kill another person. We all have an interest in not having people killing each other.

              But wait – you claim the person you killed broke in to your house. You were defending your family.

              Tough shit, we have simple laws that are universally applied. You’re going to jail buddy.

              But you may be saying, hold on a minute evil lawyer with an interest in complicating the system, you’ve oversimplified things. We call all agree that self defense should be a defense to that no killing rule.

              Well yes it should, but it is a complication of that simple rule. Something you said you oppose. But hey, let’s allow for one small complication.

              But the prosecutor says you never even announced that you had a gun. As a matter of fact, he claims you shot the “intruder” – who was really just a drunk kid who wandered in to the wrong apartment which you accidnetally left unlocked- in the back as he was leaving upon realizing his mistake.

              Now some people might claim we can’t just have random people shooting other people in the back over silly mistakes, but that’s a complication. To hell with that “castle doctrine” for everyone. No complications allowed.

              You see, the law is complicated, not always because people with an interest in making it complicated make it so, but because resonable minds disagree about what is just. Cases need to be decided on different facts, and the law needs a frame work that allows for consideration of those facts to create a just result.

              And in this admitedly simple example we can conjur of dozens of scenarios that complicate what is just to the point where the original blanket rule almost appears to not exist any more.

              You want a simple system. It’s possible, but you may go to jail under circumstances that don’t seem very fair. Is that really what you want?

            • Bill

              “I think child porn, video piracy, and drug use are 3 different crimes that are better dealt with as 3 different crimes and not as if they were the same type of crime.”

              This.

        • Hamish Milne

          I just don’t get the idea that, say in Arizona you can get 10 years in prison for downloading a picture.

      • Custador

        Another semantic point: In the UK, I would be perfectly within the law if I had consensual sex with a 16 year old, but if I watched a video of the deed, I would be guilty of viewing child pornography. The law is an ass.

        • Hamish Milne

          Thankfully there’s no law (yet) against playing pirated games, or taking illegal drugs, or viewing illegal material, it’s just creation, distribution and possession.

    • Custador

      They’re not being prosecuted for having detestable views, though – They’re being prosecuted for acting on their detestable views. That makes all the difference in the world.

  • http://www.brgulker.tumblr.com brgulker

    This is a tough case for me.

    I wouldn’t want to limit anyone’s right to petition the government, spur people to call on their government to change. If in fact, these people were arguing that homosexuals should be tried and convicted of a crime under the process of the law, that should be legal (even if it’s absurd).

    If it’s a cry to simply hang other citizens in the street, then it’s clearly an attempt to incite violence and should be illegal.

    • andyinsdca

      What’s the difference between “If it’s a cry to simply hang other citizens in the street” and saying that they should be executed by the state for the crime of homosexuality?

    • Bill

      brgulker – I agree, sort of.

      Really the line you are drawing – and I think it’s the right line – is a question of political speech vs non political speech. If these pamphlets say something like: “Join the We Are Hateful Theocrats Party. Help us change the law so all homosexuals are tried and hung for their homosexuality.” Then I think the speech is deplorable but should be protected. It’s political speech aimed to change the way government operates.

      If the pamphlets say somethings like: “You, holding this pamphlet right now. Go out right now and hang the first person you think might be a homosexual.” Then I think it is an attempt to incite violence, and should be considered criminal.

      But what about something like: “We are a group of devout Muslims. We belive in the holy message of Allah, and that Allah hates all homosexuals. Join us in our holy quest to eradicate homosexuals from our culture by making sure they are hung.” That is a closer call, and can be intepreted as falling on either side of that political vs non-political line. I tend to favor protecting speech in close calls. But I admit it’s a close call.

      I also think the context of the speech matters. If any of the above pamphlets are handed to an avowed Quaker pacifist, I have a hard time seeing it as incitement.

      And let me be clear, all of these examples are deplorable. But it’s easy to protect speech we all agree with.

  • Hamish Milne

    As for the whole national identity thing, that’s a difficult one as well. In France they go for complete integration, which is a little extreme to my mind. Sure you could do something like “Oh you believe that homosexuals should be killed? Sorry, you’re not getting in,” but that could quickly become “Oh you’re not a god fearing Christian? You’re not getting in,” in the worst case. (maybe not so far off with Cameron busily converting every school into a faith school, hasn’t he managed to alienate everyone who would possibly support him?)

    The thing I really hate is exceptions being made for religious groups, e.g. you can’t wear a face covering in a shop, except if it’s a burqa. You can’t mutilate your babies, except if it’s a male foreskin. The worst case in a truly ‘multicultural’ society would be: you can’t kill women who have sex before marriage, except if you’re a fundamentalist nutcase.

    • UrsaMinor

      Although there are not many and their number is decreasing, there are, in fact, places in the world where if you belong to one religion, one set of laws applies to you, and if you belong to another religion, different laws apply. Cultural/religious affiliation as your primary legal identity is a much older concept than the modern notion of citizenship in a nation-state.

      • Hamish Milne

        Indeed, but those places tend to be quite…backward. I’m sure you’ll agree that that type of system has no place in a modern society.

  • LRA

    I think they should be prosecuted. It sends a message that you cannot call for violence (by whatever means) against a minority group just because you disapprove of their lifestyle (which is really none of your business).

  • hooper

    Whether directly inciting violence against a person or group of people should be illegal is a no-brainer for me. I’m perfectly content living in a country that calls for the arrest of insidious characters such as these.

    “If it’s a cry to simply hang other citizens in the street”

    I think we’re all perceptive enough to know that this is EXACTLY what was happening.

  • Will Powers

    The Supreme Court in the United States has already ruled on this among other limitations of free speech. You can’t yet fire in a crowded theater, and you can’t use speech to incite violence. Free Speech is limited tto time and place. You can’t sit outside your ex’s house and with a megaphone at two in the morning. If these guys were in the US, they would be prosecuted. I’m not a lawyer, but I am a journalist. I’ve read about these cases.

    A more interesting revelation is that Homeland Security is keeping track of journalists and bloggers, their tweets and their writings are under scrutiny. Beware what you say on the internet.

    • Bill

      I am a lawyer, and while this is not my area of expertise, I know enough to say that incitement cases are notoriously difficult to get convictions on. I invite you to read Brandenburg v. Ohio in which the US Supremes overturned the conviction of a KKK member who made public statements advocating vengance agaist monirties. The court basically said abstract calls for violence are insufficient to supress free speech, and that prohibited speech must involve a call for “imminent” violence.

      Something like: “Let’s all storm that minority owned business and burn it to the ground right now!”

  • Helen

    I believe people can *think* whatever they like.

    But actions are another thing. Inciting racial hatred, or homophobia, is a despicable action, whatever your religion, race or affiliation.

    For example, it’s fine to be ‘pro-life’, but I think anyone who distributes false medical information (which pro-lifers routinely do) should be prosecuted, because of the potential damage to human health.

  • vasaroti

    Missing from this discussion are the arguments that helped establish this British law in the first place. That’s what I’d like to read.

    At the risk of sounding all relativist, I do think context and culture matter. Advocating murder in a society where there is no capital punishment, and where the homicide rate is lower than in many countries might make such advocacy more shocking.
    Interesting map and stats here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    • Custador

      Scotland are letting the UK side down I see ;-)

  • Schaden Freud

    As far as I’m concerned, it’s incitement to violence. But, as Revy said, there are ways to deal with it that don’t involve legislation.

  • http://evolutionguide.wordpress.com/ William Bell

    Only slightly worse than WBC.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X