(no subject)
According to the BBC the nation is divided over the proposed new hate laws. Not very suprising that, but this unsurprising assessment is not what bothered me about the story. What bothered me was when I read the questions they asked and then started eye rolling lots.
Question one asks you to choose between "supporting laws to prevent abuses or inciting hatred on faith grounds" or "banning critisism of those with different religious beliefs is an unjustified curb on free speech". Funnily enough there was no answer that said both of the above and they are not mutually exclusive. Basically the question is trying to assertain something other than its direct content. If they want to know which way you would swing when it came to a compromise why don't they just ask. It would be a bit more honest and would actually result in the respondents thinking about the answer. The question is also first answer biased. If you agree with both statements you are more likely to plump for the first one presented. Thus giving a marginal lift to the "supporters" of the law in the case.
Question 2: "UK laws should respect and be influenced by UK religious values" Yes, No or Don't Know. Another cardinal sin of packaging. I am given the choice of not respecting religious values or having laws influenced by religions. I know exactly what my answer would be. It would be "Fuck of with both your answers and ask me two seperate questions you idiots."
Questions 3 and 4 are do you approve of homosexuals/women in high religions office. Yes or No. With no option to say I couldn't give two hoots since sex and gender are irrelevent to me when thinking about the subject. But again the question biases its result set by forcing you to pick a side. This may result in respondants allowing their view to be mis-represented because they do not want to be percieved as someone who actively supports or condemns.
Poor show BBC. 3/10. Must try much harder.