The Head Heeb has a discussion of what we think the conditions for the correct application of the term apartheid are. My tuppence worth: a state which claims to be democratic, but systematically, through legal or quasi-legal institutions, excludes some group, defined on ethnic grounds, under its rule from participation in the common life, including, but not limited to, its political life, of that state, on the grounds of its ethnicity.
Stumbling and Mumbling asks whether it's possible to justify utilitarianism. My tuppence worth: it's not.
Jim Bliss plays Devil's Advocate over the proposed law banning incitement to religious hatred. My hopefully provocative question: since those who tend to oppose this legislation tend to draw a disanalogy with laws banning incitement to racial hatred by pointing to a distinction between what is chosen and what is unchosen, with race not being chosen and religion being chosen, does it matter whether sexual identity is chosen when considering laws against discrimination or incitement of hatred towards particular sexual identities?