[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I totally agree that the anti terrorism laws are a joke. The first person arrested under them was an old man who stood up and shouted abuse during a labour party conference.
Also the incitement to racial hatred laws are wrong there should be freedom of speach and freedom of the press.
Those are both things that I agree are wrong with Britain. Interestingly a lot of this type of legislation seems to have been copied from US laws.
To which US laws regarding “the incitement to racial hatred” (or lack of “freedom of speach and freedom of the press”) do you refer?.
Title 7 of the Civil rights act 1964
18 U.S.C �??�??�?�§ 2101
18 U.S.C. �??�??�?�§ 245
You do not know what you are talking about.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
To circumvent limitations on congressional power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause imposed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases, the law was passed under the Commerce Clause, which had been interpreted by the courts as a broad grant of congressional power. Once the Act was implemented, its effects were far reaching and had tremendous long-term impacts on the whole country. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U.S. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Powers given to enforce the bill were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years.
Title VII
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. �??�?�§ 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. �??�?�§ 2000e-2[21]).
Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.[22]
In very narrow defined situations an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between sex and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the “essence” or “central mission of the employer’s business,” and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on sex (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer’s preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School Ã??Ã?¢?? Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the “unlawful employment practice” for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[citation needed]
There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:
Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to the federal government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
Native American Tribes
Religious groups performing work connected to the group’s activities, including associated education institutions;
Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. �??�?�§ 2000e-4[21]). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Every state, except Arkansas and Alabama maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for more than 19 weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.[citation needed]
In the late 1970s courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal is a notable Title VII case relating to sexual harassment that was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. In 1986 the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998). Title VII has been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act[23] , Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
Again you post a wall of text without understanding it. You must be about 0-100 on facts by now.
Title VII is one of the bits of legislation that is used to prosecute so called hate speech as employers can be prosecuted for tolerating hate speech by their employees.
You posted a couple of numbers with nothing to put them into context with the point that you are trying to make. Then you want to act like we are idiots because we don’t know the relevant case law and know exactly what you are refferring to. That’s bullshit. If you can’t support what you are saying with actual examples don’t waste our time. [/quote]
I was asked a simple question as to which laws. I answered. If you are too dense to do a google search for them then sorry. btw, this line of argument was considered by you to be good enough for push
