And so, the self censorship begins

[English assassin]

Briefly, in the weeks before the UK parliament considers making incitement of religious hatred a crime, a major UK gallery refuses to show a piece of art because it may offend Muslims. (Incidentally the art is rubbish IMHO but that's not what this thread is about)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ts/4281958.stm

God Is Great consists of a large sheet of glass and copies of the Koran, the Bible and Judaism's Talmud that have been cut apart. The pieces are mounted on either side of the glass to make it appear that they are embedded in it.

Latham was angered by the decision and said that the work, made 10 years ago, was "not offensive to anybody". "It shows that all religious teaching comes from the same source, whatever name you give to it," he told BBC News.

Now, the first point here is that the sentiment the artist says his piece expresses is perfectly unobjectionable. Indeed, if it can be criticised at all it is for being bland and uninteresting. Sure, you may not agree with him, but he has a right to say it. He's not saying religion is rubbish, he's not saying Islam is a primitive belief, he's trying to illustrate his view that it all comes from one source. He is doing it in an artwork rather than, say, an interview, but that is simply one way amongst many to make a point.

And yet:

The London gallery removed Latham's piece God Is Great, concerned in particular that it could upset Muslims following the 7 July London bombings

The mind boggles. Have I missed something here? Is the lesson of all this that if extremists murder innocent people, we respond by worrying that their co-religionists might be upset (as opposed to all the non-muslims in the UK whose views on the chances of being blown up by fanatics are presumably of less concern). And we respond by denying freedom of speech to an artist, not on the basis that he was in fact criticising Islam, but on the basis that others may wrongly perceive him in that way?

In short, the terrorists have won, haven't they? Apparently I live in a country which is prepared to put the (catagorically wrong, in this case) concerns of a minority above the rights of free speech and the interests of the majority?

What the hell is happening here?

[Dâriûsh]

Yes, I can see why we should be offended… I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

No doubt, though, that some of the extremists in Britain will find this offensive. But then again they find everything offensive.

[yesdachi]

I am very against censorship (I do believe in age restrictions thou ) especially from the government but this is a privately owned gallery and it is their right to show or not show whatever they desire. I don’t think the piece of art is that offensive and have seen way more offensive pieces that have been shown without being censored. The same gallery has probably even shown more offensive pieces, I’m not sure why they would not allow this piece unless they wanted to draw attention to it. By refusing to show it they have given attention to it, had they shown it in a less conspicuous area of the exhibit I doubt many people would be talking about it? Any major gallery knows how to work the media; it could be a PR maneuver?

[A.Saturnus]

What the hell is happening here?

A gallery expresses its right to be outragously silly. I think that is not uncommon behaviour for art galleries and it is certainly nothing to be worried about.

[Don Corleone]

Just out of curiosity, is the incitement protection for all religions or just Islam? If the law passes, will the DaVinci code be banned in the UK?

[Spetulhu]

What the hell is happening here?

It would appear the gallery refuses to show a piece of rubbish that consists of damaged holy books. Pointing out moslems in particular might just be an attempt to not sound like christian nutjobs themself.

[English assassin]

Sorry, I should have given some background on the Tate. From their website:

Tate now ranks with the National Gallery, British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum as one of the great museums of Britain. It continues to develop its dual role as the national collection of British art and as the national collection of international modern and contemporary art

It is not some two bit commercial outfit trying to flog a painting, it is one of the world's great galleries. Think Guggenheim or similar.

[English assassin]

Just out of curiosity, is the incitement protection for all religions or just Islam?

All religions. As we have recently had Sikhs rioting about a play they didn't like, and Christians picketing the BBC for showing Jerry Springer- The Opera, the idea of giving them all the criminal law to play with is just wonderful. Iqbal "Mr moderate" Sacranie has already been touting the idea that merely to use the phrase "islamic terrorist" will be a criminal offence. Even if it is applied to a person who is Islamic, who is a terrorist, and who announces he commits his terrorism in the name of Islam.

So in answer to the Da Vinci code, yes, probably, provided we can find a catholic group mad enough.

[Kanamori]

A gallery expresses its right to be outragously silly. I think that is not uncommon behaviour for art galleries and it is certainly nothing to be worried about.

When a law, or speculation of law, starts self-censorship that isn't even necessarily required under that law, the government is hindering freedom of speech before it can even happen. Not to mention, I think the law is silly anyways. No offence Muslims, but I don't really think speech should be regulated because you may find it offensive. If people hold a rally and start drawing up plans to harm specific people, by all means, they have crossed the line where they are no longer free to speak.

[The_Doctor]

So if I shouted "there is no god" or "Jesus is not coming back", etc, in a public place (which I would not do) I would be arrested?

What if somebody is trying to convert me and defend my views and it upsets them, would I be arrested?

*900th post*

[Brenus]

“incitement of religious hatred”: Here we have the major misunderstanding. This law will not protect the innocents from religious extremists but the Religions to be protected from speeches of hate. And because as atheist I can’t know what is offensive (and here there is a move from hate to offensive), the Religious leaders and their groups will decide what is what.
From the beginning I thought this law was for the ban of all extremist preaches, kind of forbidden to call to kill all the unfaithful and jihads or crusaders things. But no, it is to prevent people like me to be able to discuss the absurdity of all religions. It is the end of the time of free minds. No right for the philosophers to write that God is dead, that offences all religions.
In fact, this law will give more power to religions than to the seculars…

[Don Corleone]

There's also the question of how does the law attempt to reconcile incompatible belief systems? Christianity is predicted on the belief that Christ came as a sacrifice, and in His justification of man's sinful nature, the Law was no longer necessary. What if a Jew or a Muslim are offended by that assertion, as they both still believe complete compliance with Mosaic Law is a requirement for righteous living?

Cannot one's beliefs be viewed as hateful and a threat to another's? Can the assertion that "Only through Faith in Christ can be saved" be viewed as a violation of this law?

[Crazed Rabbit]

So, althougth this exhibit features the same thing being done to the Bible, Torah, and Koran, they censure it only because its offensive to Muslims, though it is obviously equally offensive to any of the three religions represented (perhaps even most to Christians or Jews)?

I think a greater problem for Britain is not yobs or violence or even terrorism, but that surrender of self respect and pride, the feeling of shame at deeds done well (The Battle of Tralfagar reenactment, for example), and what appears to be a caving in to every possible extremist demand-like Mrs. Blair helping Muslim parents force their daughters to wear body covering garments.

It is, I think, a most troubling disease.

Crazed Rabbit

[Geoffrey S]

Double standerds suck, and this law is certainly going to lead to more than a few of those.

[Ianofsmeg16]

We have a saying here....come to the isle of man, the mainland's going down the toilet!

I think that applies here, Religious censorship my foot! they're just worried they're going to be blown up again......i ask all british folks here (especially those in london) are you scared about getting blown up?

bloody labour government

grumble, grumble..

[A.Saturnus]

In fact, this law will give more power to religions than to the seculars…

Not necessarily. Since atheism is now recognized as religion, stating that there is a god violates
my
religious
feelings!!

Just kidding

[Crazed Rabbit]

Stating that there isn't violates my feelings!

Now that we're both offended, let's just both go about our lives.

Crazed Rabbit

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I want to go home, "get" religion and then take loads of people to court, just for the hell of it.

I may take up Judaism as that would mean I could take all sorts of people to court, all the time. Good job.

If only court were fun...

[Soulforged]

This happened here too with art about Jesus, the government just let the mob destroy all piece of art (it reminds me to an story that happened in Florence centuries ago). This is clearly politics. Maybe to not heat the things up more than they're. I'm not saying that I agree with that kind of policy, but I don't live in Britain and I'm not a politician.

[A.Saturnus]

Stating that there isn't violates my feelings!

Now that we're both offended, let's just both go about our lives.

Crazed Rabbit

Good idea, that way, we can both be unhappy

[Crazed Rabbit]

Perhaps, as per the other thread, England is getting worse because of the increasing amount of Muslims. Of course, I don't think that study wanted to insult all religions with flimsy statistics, just Christianity. Perhaps they should have correlated Muslims with oppresive countries.

Crazed Rabbit

[Mongoose]

I think that the .org should be forced to pay for moderators from the government*. That way when you post something that might hurt SOME ONES FEELINGS , they can track you down and give you a jail sentence for, say, 20-50 years? And i don't want any of that "Right to a free trial" Crap. Just declare them insane, and ship 'em off to the nearest asylum for afew decades!


Also, posters should have to inform the moderators about gender/race so we can have some double standards too(I don't care if it favors blacks or whites, men or women as long as SOMEONE is getting the shaft)


The constitution isn't something that you have to follow all the time, it's more of a tool that you try to abuse so it supports your argument!

*The workers will have a union plus a three hour luch brake. And they only work one day a week. but the can make up for that by closing down the .org when there not there or if they just feel like it.

[Zalmoxis]

I can't wait for the banning of news papers.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It will be a silly law, but not quite as silly as the comments on this thread suggest. It will not be illegal to insult religions, but it will be illegal to incite hatred on religious grounds. The exhibit described would not break the new law, because, although very offensive to Moslems, it does not incite hatred. I don't think any of the other suggestions on this thread involve incitement to hatred either. I also expect that Atheists will be covered too, so it would be ilegal to say that atheists are amoral godless pagans who should be ostracized, because this does incite religous hatred.

We don't have the same respect for freedom of speech whatever is said that the Americans do. It is already illegal to incite racial hatred; Jews are already "protected" under this law, because Jewish is judged to be a race as well as a religion.

People do experience intollerance and discrimination based on their religion, but this law will concentrate on a small area and will not prevent the discrimination happening. It will probably create unrealistic expectations and also encourage the attitude that if one persons religion is protected, then mine should be too. In this way, it might increase religious intollerance. A very bad law, but not as bad as some people think

[Shahed]

Yes, I can see why we should be offended… I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

No doubt, though, that some of the extremists in Britain will find this offensive. But then again they find everything offensive.

LOL! That was nice embedded link. That guy is such a moron, if only he wasn't dangerous he'd actually be funy.

[English assassin]

It will be a silly law, but not quite as silly as the comments on this thread suggest. It will not be illegal to insult religions, but it will be illegal to incite hatred on religious grounds. The exhibit described would not break the new law, because, although very offensive to Moslems, it does not incite hatred. I don't think any of the other suggestions on this thread involve incitement to hatred either.

On the contrary it will be even sillier than the comments in this thread suggest. The very same government which claimed that section 28 prevented TEACHERS dealing with HOMOPHOBIC BULLYING (because teachers are apparently such morons they couldn't read that section 28 in fact applied only to LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES promoting HOMOSEXUALITY) through self censorship alos claims there will be no self censorship at all when applied to the much less clear concept of inciting religious hatred.

Fact: no prosection was ever brought under section 28, yet the entire left of centre world regarded it as satan's own law. The same world that mostly looks on approvingly as religious hatred becomes a crime to appease a bunch of religious nutters whose views are far, far right.

Bonkers

[Divinus Arma]

Squahnk.

[Duke of Gloucester]

EA, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that some people may interpret the law more widely than the statute intends; probably true I am afraid, and comments on this thread about protecting against offense, back this up, don't they? However the law itself only protects agaist incitement to religious hatred. Since the damn thing is likely to make it on to the statute book, the more people are reminded of this, the better.

I don't think your art gallery example is the same has anything to do with the propose law at all. Either they realised that the exhibit was offensive and removed it, because people are entitled to have their religous sensibilities respected, which I would aplaud, or they were afraid of becoming targets themselves, which shows comtemptible cowardice. If the latter is correct, it is saying that only those who threaten violence get to have their religion respected. It would also seem that the artwork was not as offensive to muslems as the gallery thought.