Abstract
In 2016, as requested, the UK Government submitted written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee's inquiry into hate crime and its consequences. Among all the offences listed as part of what was called a robust legal framework to combat online hate, there was one set of offences surprisingly missing. The stirring up hatred offences (ss. 18-23 and 29B-29G of the Public Order Act 1986), at least comparable to those envisaged in Article 510 of the Spanish Criminal Code (that is, punishable hate speech), were laid incomprehensibly out of play. Hence, this research study first aims to determine whether this decision is understandable. Then, we will focus on some legal hotspots concerning those offences to visualise better how they operate in practice. Finally, by way of conclusion, a comparative endeavour will be made with the Spanish legal system, bringing to the forefront the conflict points already dealt with.
En 2016, tal y como le había sido requerido, el Gobierno del Reino Unido facilitó pruebas documentales a la investigación en curso sobre delitos de odio y sus consecuencias llevada a cabo por la Home Office Affairs Committee (comité multipartidista de parlamentarios que trata asuntos de estado). Entre todos los delitos enumerados como parte de lo que se denominó como un marco jurídico sólido para combatir el odio online, sorprendentemente faltaba un conjunto de delitos. Los delitos de fomento del odio (arts. 18-23 y 29B-29G de la Public Order Act 1986), cuando menos equiparables a los previstos en el artículo 510 del Código Penal español (es decir, el discurso de odio punible), quedaron incomprensiblemente fuera de foco. De ahí que el presente estudio de investigación pretenda, en primer lugar, comprobar si esta decisión es o no entendible. A continuación, nos centraremos en algunos aspectos legales conflictivos relativos a dichos delitos para visualizar mejor cómo operan en la práctica. Finalmente, a modo de conclusión, se realizará un esfuerzo comparativo con el ordenamiento jurídico español, poniendo sobre la mesa los puntos conflictivos ya tratados.
Publisher
Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law
Subject
Law,Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Reference48 articles.
1. Bakalis, C., 2021. Gender as a protected characteristic. A legal perspective. In: I. Zempi and J. Smith, eds., Misogyny as hate crime, London/New York: Routledge, 65–78.
2. Barker, K., and Jurasz, O., 2019. Online misogyny as a hate crime. A challenge for legal regulation? Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
3. BBC News, 2017. Sadiq Khan launches London online hate crime hub. BBC [online], 24 April. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39692811
4. Beever, S., 2021. Woman arrested over ‘racially aggravated’ comments online over death of Afghan refugee in Sheffield as MPs demand ‘urgent answers’ over Home Office accommodation. Yorkshire Post [online], 22 August. Available at: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/woman-arrested-over-vile-online-comments-about-afghan-boy-who-died-in-sheffield-3355342
5. Bindman, G., 1977. Restraint on incitement. The new British law. Patterns of Prejudice, 11(2), 5–9.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献