Religious hatred

Oh no ! Polly Toynbee is one of my most reliable opinion formers, in that whatever she says can be guaranteed to be the absolute opposite of what any sensible person should think (William Rees-Mogg is another.) But I agree with every word of this. If we have this Act and ID cards in this parliament then the UK really will be becoming a very much less free country...

Quote:

---

My right to offend a fool

Race and religion are different - which is why Islamophobia is a nonsense and religious hatred must not be outlawed

Polly Toynbee
Friday June 10, 2005
The Guardian

A mandate is a wonderful thing, even if this government's rests on just 22% of the electorate. A bad bill already twice rejected with a big rebellion on Labour benches was tabled again yesterday, regardless of the strength of opposition to it. The incitement to religious hatred bill is back, although it lost the argument resoundingly on every other outing. Forward not back? No, back for the third time.
Why? To appease a Muslim vote that elected George Galloway in Bethnal Green and gave a fright to several other MPs. It is an appeasing gesture strongly lobbied for by the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain. But its unintended consequences will stir up exactly the religious hatred it seeks to assuage.

Last time, this misbegotten bill passed through the Commons after a very rough ride and was stymied in the Lords. The difference now is that the Lords by convention pass any bill "mandated" in a manifesto, even one line on page 111. If the Lords defy the convention, the government will use the Parliament Act to push it through.
But another parliamentary convention might consider this bill a matter of conscience for secularists and not something to be pushed through on a party whip. It would be entirely reasonable for secular Labour MPs to plead conscience on this, just as the religious are excused the whip on matters that trespass on their faith. This touches on freedom of thought and ideas, with far-reaching consequences for the values of the Enlightenment that are under growing threat from a collective softening of the brain on faith and superstitions of all kinds. Contemplating Galloway should stiffen Labour MPs' resistance to a political expediency that seeks support from religious lobbies.

The government claims this bill is designed to stop the BNP using "Muslim" as way of inciting racial hatred by getting round race hate laws. It talks of protecting Muslims from abuse in the street, which sounds reasonable, though the law already protects everyone from abuse and harassment. Labour's own 2001 act already adds "religious aggravation" as a reason for tougher penalties where incitement to violence has an anti-religious motivation.

Fierce opposition is lead by the National Secular Society, whose leading member, Lib Dem MP Evan Harris, proposes a neat solution. His amendment would ban "reference to a religion as a pretext for stirring up racial hatred". Why was that solution rejected by Labour, since it stops the BNP using "Muslim" as a proxy for race, without trespassing on free speech?

The government claims that Muslims of all races need equal protection with Jews and Sikhs, who are already covered by race laws. But if Labour were advocating equality between all religions, they would repeal the blasphemy laws that only cover Christians, remove the bishops from the Lords and abolish religious state schools: 30% of state schools are religious, almost all Christian controlled. These privileges for Christianity cause great resentment among the other faiths: many think this is their blasphemy law.

This bill is not "closing a loophole" as Labour claims, but marches right into dangerous new terrain. Here is an example: it is now illegal to describe an ethnic group as feeble-minded. But under this law I couldn't call Christian believers similarly intellectually challenged without risk of prosecution. This crystallises the difference between racial and religious abuse. Race is something people cannot choose and it defines nothing about them as people. But beliefs are what people choose to identify with: in the rough and tumble of argument to call people stupid for their beliefs is legitimate (if perhaps unwise), but to brand them stupid on account of their race is a mortal insult. The two cannot be blurred into one - which is why the word Islamophobia is a nonsense. And now the Vatican wants the UN to include Christianophobia in its monitoring of discriminations.

Already this proposed law has cast a long shadow. Christians expect it to stop something like Jerry Springer - The Opera ever being screened. Sikhs who drove the play Behzti off the stage expect this law to prevent any future insult to their faith. When a Telegraph writer accused the Prophet of paedophilia for marrying a nine-year-old girl, Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council said this was the kind of insult against their faith that made Muslims want "safeguards against vilification of dearly cherished beliefs".

The government swears they will all be disappointed. No, says Paul Goggins, minister responsible, he'd never do anything to stop Rowan Atkinson making jokes. But if he's right and the law catches just four or five BNP cases a year, then he faces outraged religious extremists furious at betrayal of a blasphemy law they thought they were promised.

But even if he is right and Atkinson is never up before the beak, the religious are already getting their way in more insidious ways. For the chilling effect of this law is here now. There is a new nervousness about criticising, let alone mocking, any religious belief, a jumpiness about challenging Islam or Roman Catholicism. This most secular state in the world, with fewest worshippers at any altars, should be a beacon of secularism in a world beset by religious bloodshed. Instead, our politicians twitch nervously in a lily-livered capitulation to unreason.

Why? Because this clever blending between race and faith has tied all tongues. This law springs from a cult of phoney racial/religious respect that makes it harder than it ever was to dare to criticise, let alone mock. There is a new caution about "causing offence". What kind of offence? Not to people's race but to ideas in their head. If I want to write that I find the hijab a gesture of obeisance to the nasty notion that women are obscene and should be modestly covered up, I may offend a lot of Muslim women. I am not for banning it or tearing it off them, nor am I being racist. But that is becoming an argument that growing numbers of feminist women no longer dare articulate. Unless the Commons comes to its senses, there will be those who regard this view as religious hatred and will expect the law to stop it. (This crime attracts a seven-year sentence.)

Laws change cultural climates: it's what they are for. Religion will become out of bounds in many spheres. Schools, universities, the arts, broadcasting, will feel social pressures that induce self-censorship. A small example: if you wonder why there have been no penetrating exposes of cults like Scientology in recent years, it is because they have sued so often that the media caved in - fear of litigation outweighs the story. That is how the law cast its shadow.

The irony is that those spending most time in the courts will be the religious themselves. A similar law in Australia brought a burst of litigation and demands for arrests from one bunch of fundamentalists against another. Hate-filled evangelicals were creeping into mosques to take notes on imams' hate sermons. So extreme Jews, Muslims, Hindus, papists and Paisleyites will all challenge each other's fiery thought crimes while the Bible and the Qur'an incite enough religious hatred to be banned outright

---

Dude, get used to it. If the UK is at all like the US, muslims are becoming a protected minority, and even talking about 9/11 can get you brought down to HR for senstivity training, if not a warning.

Bmolsson, Faisal, et. al, no offense, but if your fellow muslims here in the US really want to fit in, and not take over, they should go along to get along a little. Screaming 'intolerance' and asking for legal action every time somebody says something you don't like is not the way to join the crowd. I personally refuse to discuss politics or religion at work if there's any muslims around, because I'm afraid I'll get cited for being insensitive.

I completely agree, it is a disgusting law and if passed would be one of the biggest mistakes this govt has done in power.

We were discussing this in college and I stated how the law if passed would be an abomination.. The first thing a muslim girl shouted at me? "Racist!" Now, I am not racist, never have been, this law will breed a culture of censorship and it should not be passed.

Ah! There is at least one advantage to living in France: you're not constantly annoyed by religious' quarrels and their petty demands.

Religion is a plague

Sad. So we wont be able to poke fun at religion? What ever happened to sense of humor? :no:

You'll be able to poke fun at Christianity all you want. These sorts of laws only get enforced in favor of protected minorities.

The fact is that Louis Farakhan can say whatever he wants about white people, and frequently does (we're the creation of an evil wizard; because we evolved on ice floes, we're biologically predisposed to violence; we've never contributed anything to civilization but stolen Asian and African ideas....)

If he was white and spoke about black people, saying the same things, in most states in the US, he'd be brought up on hate crimes charges.

The name & wording of the legislation aside, if it's anything like the protection bills here in the US, it's the 'can't say anything bad about Islam' law.

So much for treating everyone as equal, this will only make matters worse.

Quote:

---

The name & wording of the legislation aside, if it's anything like the protection bills here in the US, it's the 'can't say anything bad about Islam' law.

---

Call it the "****. Those damn muslims aren't voting labour any more, we'd better do something quick" Act and you would be about right.

We need a French style secular state and we need it NOW.

Quote:

---

The name & wording of the legislation aside, if it's anything like the protection bills here in the US, it's the 'can't say anything bad about Islam' law.

---

I seem to have missed the passage of laws restricting free speech, and go about saying things about lots of different people. Now I'm worried about it.

I'm familiar with the Civil Rights Act, but don't think it restricts what I can or cannot say. There are powerful market forces that constrain hateful speech, but . . .

could you cite a 'protection bill', one that prohibits saying something bad about Islam?

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

We need a French style secular state and we need it NOW.

---

You've risen high in my esteem ~D Not only is it the fairest system possible when you're crippled by several religions in your country but it's the only one that guarantees the Humans Rights, for states influenced (or worse) by religion violate this:

Art 18 - UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Quote:

---

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

---

You just have to see what happens to religious minorities in countries following the Islamic Law to understand what I mean.

No offense intented to muslims, it's a statement of facts. Turkey has proven one can be muslim and live in a secular country.

That is exactly it. It is obviously unfair for there to be church of england schools and not muslim schools, for there to be bishops in the house of lords and not rabbis.

Therefore we have either to have schools of all faiths, and all sorts of religious leaders in the house of lords, or none.

Never let it be said I will not give the French credit where it is due. Or the Turks for that matter. They are right on this and we are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

I seem to have missed the passage of laws restricting free speech, and go about saying things about lots of different people. Now I'm worried about it.

I'm familiar with the Civil Rights Act, but don't think it restricts what I can or cannot say. There are powerful market forces that constrain hateful speech, but . . .

could you cite a 'protection bill', one that prohibits saying something bad about Islam?

---

I'm glad you asked big guy. No, I'm not talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Howver, at the federal level, the US criminal code was ammened: 18 USC Section 245, in 1968.

I believe the most recent federal lesiglation was the 'Hate Crimes Sentancing Enhancement Act" of 1994.

In addition, 41 of 50 states have their own 'Hate Crimes' laws, which makes 'speech determined to be a threatening or offensive nature based on race, religion or ethnicity' unlawful, although there's a wide array of what happens to you should you be convicted.

And this is just what's enshrined in law. Go read the Human Resources Policy manual for any major American company. Basically, if somebody chooses to be offended by what you say, you're on probation, facing possible firing.

I'm not arguing against punishing somebody who burns a cross in their neighbor's yard, or paints a swaztika on a synagogue's doors. But there's already laws for dealing with these crimes. Hate Crimes statues are a measure towards though control, because they now bring the level of criminality to 'did the victim feel threatened or targeted', regardless of whether that was the intent of the criminal or not.

If I say "god, you're a lush, slow down" to my buddy at the bar tonight after work, that may have been 1) innocent humor or 2) concern for an individual. But what if he's of Irish hertiage and takes that as an ethnic slur. What if he decides he was threatened by that remark... that I was hinting I might besmirch him back at work. Well, I'm up the creek without a paddle according to most Hate Crime statutes. Now, had I said "quit drinking you stupid mick, or I'll beat your ass", even without Hate Crimes laws, that's clearly communicating a verbal threat and I could be prosecuted.

I think what we need is tolerance and everyone realizing that religion doesn't really matter as opposed to not allowing people to insult people based on religion. It's trying to stop the result of intolerance by saying that it's illegal as opposed to trying to stop intollerance in the first place.

Now I will go and think about how such an end can be achieved... I'll come back in a few decades, mabye I might have a few ideas by then. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

I completely agree, it is a disgusting law and if passed would be one of the biggest mistakes this govt has done in power.

We were discussing this in college and I stated how the law if passed would be an abomination.. The first thing a muslim girl shouted at me? "Racist!" Now, I am not racist, never have been, this law will breed a culture of censorship and it should not be passed.

---

Absolutely. It's no different to insulting somebody's politics-not that this is polite or a good way to argue, but it's not illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

. . . Howver, at the federal level, the US criminal code was ammened: 18 USC Section 245, in 1968.

---

Section 245 might prohibit me from threatening the use of force, but it doesn't restrict my right to tell a person how I feel about them. Let's look at Section 245:

Quote:

---

Summary:

The portion of Section 245 of Title 18 which is primarily enforced by the Criminal Section makes it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person's race, color, religion or national origin and because of his/her activity as one of the following:

A student at or applicant for admission to a public school or public college

A participant in a benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by a state or local government

An applicant for private or state employment; a private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in a labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through an employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall

A juror or prospective juror in state court

A traveler or user of a facility of interstate commerce or common carrier

A patron of a public accommodation or place of exhibition or entertainment, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas or stadiums.

This statute also prohibits wilful interference, by force or threat of force, with a person because he/she is or was participating in, or aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

---

So I don't see this as prohibiting hateful speech, only prohibiting hateful speech that intimidates by threatening useof force. Do you know of any case law where a person was prosecuted under 245?

Quote:

---

I believe the most recent federal lesiglation was the 'Hate Crimes Sentancing Enhancement Act" of 1994.

---

This Act became section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It allows the addition of penalties to sentencing for Federal crimes if it can demonstrated that the victim was selected based on race, color, etc. I don't think this prohibits hateful speech.

Quote:

---

In addition, 41 of 50 states have their own 'Hate Crimes' laws, which makes 'speech determined to be a threatening or offensive nature based on race, religion or ethnicity' unlawful, although there's a wide array of what happens to you should you be convicted.

---

The following was taken From this site

Quote:

---

Are the free speech concerns of conservative Christians reasonable?

According to the People for the American Way, the answer is no. It is of paramount importance to realize that only crimes can become hate crimes. That is, some criminal act -- assault, murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, etc. must happen first. Only then can the crime be considered a criminal act.

* Can members of the clergy be charged on the basis of their sermons? No. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that a member of the clergy, or any other person for that matter, can preach, write, post on the Internet, state, or publish an attack on anyone or any group. As proof of this consider:

* The many conservative Christian web sites that attack Wiccans on the Internet with statements that are totally divorced from reality.

* The beliefs and teachings of the Creativity Movement (formerly called the World Church of the Creator), some of whose members allegedly murdered strangers because of their race.

* Religious sermons, particularly during the 1960s, which vilified African-Americans seeking equal rights.

* Decades of Anti-semitism on the radio, on television, in books, in sermons etc.

* In another case, the Virginia Supreme Court decided on 2001-NOV-2 that cross burning -- surely one of the most offensive form of speech -- was protected by the U.S. Constitution. The New York Times commented on the case: "The [Virginia] court said the First Amendment prohibits the government from "silencing speech on the basis of its content." The justices struck down a St. Paul ordinance making it a crime to engage in speech or behavior likely to arouse "anger or alarm" on the basis of "race, color, creed, religion or gender."

Several legal experts said yesterday they doubted that the Supreme Court would agree to review the Virginia case.

"The Supreme Court has largely said racist speech is speech, and it is difficult for states to single out racist speech for criminal prosecution," said Robert A. Schapiro, a constitutional law professor at Emory University in Atlanta...

A. E. Dick Howard, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia, said many courts had accepted the idea that even offensive communications are protected by the First Amendment.

"The thinking is," Mr. Howard said, "one man's offensive speech is somebody else's free expression."

If these individuals or groups have never been convicted of a crime, it is very doubtful that a clergyperson preaching a sermon of hate against gays and lesbians would ever be charged. Hate crimes legislation would in no way overrule the First Amendment.

* Can Christian clergy be "prosecuted for conspiracy or subjected to civil lawsuits"? No. Quoting the Liberty Council web site mentioned above: "A conspiracy requires that two or more people "reach an agreement to pursue an objective...in an unlawful manner." No conspiracy is present if a clergyperson preached hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality to a congregation, radio audience, or TV audience, and if someone listening to the sermon subsequently engaged in gay bashing. To be guilty of conspiracy, the perpetrator would have to engage in an agreement to commit a criminal act. For example, the individual would have to contact the clergyperson, explain that he/she was going to engage in gay bashing, and the clergyperson would have to agree with that course of action. In other words, the pastor, priest or minister would have to discuss and agree on committing a criminal act.

If there were some way to charge a clergyperson with conspiracy, then charges could be laid whether hate crimes legislation were in place or not. After all, a crime had been committed But, as explained above, there is no way to implicate a clergyperson unless they were directly involved in the planning of the crime. And if they were directly involved, they should be charged.

* Are hate laws effective? Jonathan Kozol's comment mentioned above: "We cannot rebuild society by legislative penalties for insensitive acts and utterances," bears no relationship to hate crimes legislation. Recall that such laws only kick in if a crime has been committed. "Insensitive acts and utterances" do not normally constitute a crime.

---

Maybe we can pick out a state or two and look at their specific hate crimes laws and determine if they restrict free speech, and if anyone has been prosecuted for hateful speech (as opposed to threatening/intimidating).

Quote:

---

And this is just what's enshrined in law. Go read the Human Resources Policy manual for any major American company. Basically, if somebody chooses to be offended by what you say, you're on probation, facing possible firing.

---

Yes, corporate behavior is odd, but I was referring specifically to laws.

Quote:

---

I'm not arguing against punishing somebody who burns a cross in their neighbor's yard, or paints a swaztika on a synagogue's doors. But there's already laws for dealing with these crimes. Hate Crimes statues are a measure towards though control, because they now bring the level of criminality to 'did the victim feel threatened or targeted', regardless of whether that was the intent of the criminal or not.

---

I don't want to argue about the propriety of hate crime laws, but simply to delve into the statement that laws prohibit me from saying bad things about Islam (or any other group).

Quote:

---

If I say "god, you're a lush, slow down" to my buddy at the bar tonight after work, that may have been 1) innocent humor or 2) concern for an individual. But what if he's of Irish hertiage and takes that as an ethnic slur. What if he decides he was threatened by that remark... that I was hinting I might besmirch him back at work. Well, I'm up the creek without a paddle according to most Hate Crime statutes. Now, had I said "quit drinking you stupid mick, or I'll beat your ass", even without Hate Crimes laws, that's clearly communicating a verbal threat and I could be prosecuted.

---

I disagree completely. In what state is it illegal to call an Irishman a booze hound? Under what law?

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Bmolsson, Faisal, et. al, no offense, but if your fellow muslims here in the US really want to fit in, and not take over, they should go along to get along a little. Screaming 'intolerance' and asking for legal action every time somebody says something you don't like is not the way to join the crowd. I personally refuse to discuss politics or religion at work if there's any muslims around, because I'm afraid I'll get cited for being insensitive.

---

In my honest opinion, you are right, then again calling someone intolerant is also a form of freedom of speech, isn't it? ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Dude, get used to it. If the UK is at all like the US, muslims are becoming a protected minority, and even talking about 9/11 can get you brought down to HR for senstivity training, if not a warning.

Bmolsson, Faisal, et. al, no offense, but if your fellow muslims here in the US really want to fit in, and not take over, they should go along to get along a little. Screaming 'intolerance' and asking for legal action every time somebody says something you don't like is not the way to join the crowd. I personally refuse to discuss politics or religion at work if there's any muslims around, because I'm afraid I'll get cited for being insensitive.

---

I agree with you, so no problems.

A reflection though, it seems like the modern society all over the world have large problems dealing with fanatics and fundamentalists. It seems like the strong will to freedom of speech and large tolerance makes the concept of the same very difficult to keep and protect.

With a more practical approach, some reaction from society on "hate crimes" are needed to keep the fanatics at bay......

Nonsense, it's good. It's really going to ruin all those silly short sighted religious institutions who want it. Why?

Imagine there is a preacher. Faith is unimportant. He now feels protected by the new law. So he insults some other faith (as this seems to be what the extreme religious elements do). Some law abiding citizen hears it, gets him arrested. Down one religious fanatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

I agree with you, so no problems.

A reflection though, it seems like the modern society all over the world have large problems dealing with fanatics and fundamentalists. It seems like the strong will to freedom of speech and large tolerance makes the concept of the same very difficult to keep and protect.

With a more practical approach, some reaction from society on "hate crimes" are needed to keep the fanatics at bay......

---

It aren't really the fundamentalists that are the problem, those are just a few nutjobs. The problem with our muslim society is that they have no intention to fit in at all, they seem to think they should have more rights then the rest of us, they feel special and morally superior. Screw blind hate, silent contempt is a lot more dangerous. No offense but if I had my way I kicked them all out.