Rebecca McNeil/ I
Q9(b) 'Finally, bath the European Caurt af
ethical
Human Rights and English law recognise the
ind1st1nguishabil1ty
need ta address Inciting hatred based an
workable; proponents would argue that
Ve;deland articulate best by this was
sexual arlentatlan. These are Important and
sexual orIentatIon Is a relevant factor
needed,
pas/five developments, but much mare needs
to
preJudic1al horrors. It cannot af ford the
ta be dane ta ensure that this farm af hate
ethically.
speech Is addressed appropriately.' Discuss.
values
are
neutral
plurality.
Mark breakdown:
Both the
160
ECHR and
English law has
framework.
Justify
this may
dist1nct1on However.
of
as
idea
of
investigate
not
be
violate Art8. 14 and 13. The Judges in
treatment
the
increasingly this
ECtHR's
based
renders
rel1g1ous
on such
distinction
on
grounds
unJust1f1able
Furthermore. there is more
such
due
luxury
of
speech.
to
Europe's
an
necessitates
will
history
American
approach to free speech approach
they
of
absolutist A utilitarian
weight
to
be
given to the protection of historically marginalised groups in order to deter
recognised the need to address inciting
evidence to Justify d1st1nct1on In favour
future atrocItIes
hatred
of more protection for
substantive equality rather than merely
based
on
sexual
orientation
sexual minorities
This essay will discuss 1) why such an
than religious or racial groups. This Is
address was needed. ii) why this was a
due to the fact that less than half a
posItIve development and 11i) why more
century
needs to be done to ensure that this
effectively
ago.
their
1dent1t1es
criminalised
In
were
the
UK
This serves to ensure
formal equality.
Is this an important and positive development?
form of hate speech Is addressed on principled rather than political grounds
Similarly
on
inciting
the
hatred
European based
Is the need to address inciting
orientation
Is
hatred based on sexual orientation
addressed
Strasbourg
being
Ve;deland v Sweden
recognised?
on
plane.
Proponents
sexual
Dworkin.
recognised
and
exemplified
In
and Lll/iendahl v
of
free
speech,
such
as
would have argued that the
further cr1m1nal1sat1on of hate speech was an important but not a positive development
He argued that freedom
Iceland that they will not protect Art10
of
On the domestic plane. the IncItement
rights
democratic leg1t1macy of the other laws
for
hate
speech
which
Is
However.
by Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986
democratic
strongly opposed the argument that we
was
mInorItIes
protect
minorities
Waldron would disagree
He
Penncek. the Grand Chamber held that
have
a fine
was Justified
paralleling this to the fact that we do
for
under Art10(2) and indicated that It is
not have to tolerate conduct that harms
Therefore, campaigners have
particularly 'sensitive towards sweeping
US.
principle.
needed
The
IncItement
of
hatred suffered by ethnic and religious has
decades
to
the
Justified under 10(2) as 'necessary In a
This
need
to
homophobic - such violations
In
we
crucial
of hatred based on sexual orientation
Furthermore.
that
Is
has been recognised and criminalised
society '
will be
expression
been
cr1m1nal1sed
for hate speech
rightly used
'cumulative Jurisprudence'
statements
(Heinze)
argue
negative light entire ethnic. religious or
to
or casting In a
tolerate
Indeed,
hateful
following
'liberty
speech.
Mill's
consists
harm In
the
as
sexual
the
same
other group [which appears to include
no one
oppression - it Is logical to extend such
the LGBTO community].' Bmzaras and
those to whom It Is directed to, It Is
minorities protection course.
that
attacking
to
suffer to
from
them
following
a
as
a
else;'
as hate speech harms
Of
Lev1ckas v Lithuania (2020) also showed
logical that such liberty of free speech
religious
that 1f domestic authorItIes refuse to
should be l1m1ted
group.
Western
freedom to do everything which inJures
14