This story is unavailable.

Ahh f*ck, I’ve caught an idiot! I see now. Only idiots use that line you see, because the definition is already non-partisan. I threw the law at you (which is why you sh*t yourself and can’t take what your brain is now doing to you) and you still didn’t see it.

OK, let’s see whether you stay that way. My bet is you definitely will. So as with all scientific hypotheses, let’s test it.

…wait, I just need to place the bet… Cool, done. About to make some monoeeeey.

Let’s go with the UK laws on the subject which align with the principles defined as part of the UDHR. The person definition you mentioned would relate to the following:

[Racial and] Religious Hatred Act 2006:

Meaning of “religious hatred”
29A; In this Part “religious hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

And

29C: Publishing or distributing written material
(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2)References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.

So, again, you’re caught!

Not enough? What else is covered?

29E Distributing, showing or playing a recording
(1)A person who distributes, or shows or plays, a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2)In this Part “recording” means any record from which visual images or sounds may, by any means, be reproduced; and references to the distribution, showing or playing of a recording are to its distribution, showing or playing to the public or a section of the public.
(3)This section does not apply to the showing or playing of a recording solely for the purpose of enabling the recording to be included in a programme service.
29FBroadcasting or including programme in programme service
(1)If a programme involving threatening visual images or sounds is included in a programme service, each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2)The persons are —
(a)the person providing the programme service,
(b)any person by whom the programme is produced or directed, and any person by whom offending words or behaviour are used.
29F Broadcasting or including programme in programme service
(1)If a programme involving threatening visual images or sounds is included in a programme service, each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2)The persons are —
(a)the person providing the programme service,
(b)any person by whom the programme is produced or directed, and any person by whom offending words or behaviour are used.
29G Possession of inflammatory material
(1)A person who has in his possession written material which is threatening, or a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening, with a view to —
(a)in the case of written material, its being displayed, published, distributed, or included in a programme service whether by himself or another, or
(b)in the case of a recording, its being distributed, shown, played, or included in a programme service, whether by himself or another,
is guilty of an offence if he intends religious hatred to be stirred up thereby.
(2)For this purpose regard shall be had to such display, publication, distribution, showing, playing, or inclusion in a programme service as he has, or it may reasonably be inferred that he has, in view.

Straight from the law! Lookie here!

None of that has to threaten violence. It can simple promote hatred and it has been applied. 15,442 prosecutions for such crimes in 2016. That is a straight snip from the Crown Prosecution Service, who only take on case where the burden of proof has been satisfied.

So, your statement about “non-partisan”, you don’t even know what that means. It doesn’t mean Trump’s agenda or what’s in the gap in Brexiteers’ mothballed minds. It means what is fact, pure and simple. So you go back to the source. If you haven’t gone back to the source, then you have nothing.

Now, if you’ll just add your next comment, so I can collect my winnings, I’d be really grateful.

Thanks in advance!

Signed — the guy who is about to become a millionaire!

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Ethar Alali’s story.