You're defending the criminalization of "hooliganism" - a vague, general habitus, which can be declared ex post facto, as opposed to a concrete set of actions delineated ahead of time. Basically a blank check to prosecute anybody, at any time, for any reason, as long as you can stir up enough manufactured outrage in the "old white ignorant fuckwit" demographic.

Even the fucking Romans - hardly the brightest beacon of enlightened jurisprudence - understood why ex post facto laws were a shitty idea. But what you're defending here isn't even simply an ex post facto law. It's a declaration of open season for retroactively prohibiting any behavior that riles up a large enough number of thin-skinned old grannies.

And you're defending an interpretation of "incitement of religious hatred" which is broad enough to include mockery and bad language. I wonder what you make of Simon Singh and the British Chiroquacktor's Association. Or Dara O'Briain and homeoquacks? Or do chiroquacktors and homeoquacks not count as a religious group? If not, why not? It's not like there's any practical distinction between homeopathy and faith healing.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.