# Laws re incitement to religious hatred



## cuchuflete

Rich696 said:
			
		

> It worries me to think that within a few months, if the religous discrimination laws pass the British Parliament, many of the opinions expressed so far in this thread will be illegal and could result in imprisonment. Tony Blair is slowly silencing freedom far more effectively than Hitler or Stalin ever did!


The quotation is from another thread, which discusses attitudes towards Islam.

What are these proposed laws?  Do they propose to constrain free speech?  Under what circumstances, and for what reasons?

Is it this?  





> to create new offences relating to incitement to religious hatred; and for related purposes.


 This is from a transcript of the UK Paliament, 1998  http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:zmBsmyYzfXkJ:www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980303/debtext/80303-06.htm+%27british+parliament%27+%22religious+discrimination+law%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4


----------



## feuerbach

Are we talking about extending the current anti-discrimination law to offer protection to people abused or targeted because of their religion, e.g. Muslims? 

I don't think it's a good idea. Believe or not, Britain doesn't have a Bill of Rights like the one Canada and the United States have. These sets of laws are higher than the regular laws laid down by parliaments or congresses and the courts. They would be passed by the British Parliament on behalf of the people and couldn't be easily changed. 

I'm not saying that more specific laws shouldn't be passed. I'm saying that Britain needs this other legal framework to protect the rights of the individuals.


----------



## diegodbs

Perhaps the British Parliament wants to adopt a new concept of democracy, an Algerian concept of democracy so to speak, or an Islamic concept of democracy.


----------



## annettehola

But that would be *TOTAL* crap, man! What would justify such attitude? Treating a group of people differently and having laws supporting this? For what reason? This actually is called discrimination. What nonsense! What total bla-bla!
In this case the muslims really are under attack now, because they are being put in a position as the weak ones the law protects. They are victimised and being put in a position of those that, though weak, can punish. How distasteful of the British government! Really! Not fair, Blair!
Annette


----------



## diegodbs

Picky Blair. He didn't seem to care that much about supporting an illegal war. He thinks words may offend and foster religious hatred, bombings not.
As annettehola said: not fair, Blair.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> What are these proposed laws?  Do they propose to constrain free speech?  Under what circumstances, and for what reasons?


Racial and Religious Hatred Bill Approved
Atkinson attacks 'draconian' law


----------



## panjandrum

It is worth pointing out that the second of the two links provided by Outsider quotes Rowan Atkinson's views of the bill before the modifications mentioned in the first link.

Try this link for a more current opinion from the same source.
Arts world hails hate law defeat.

I am no expert on the current version of the Bill, but my limited understanding is that it would make illegal the kind of offensive statements that are considered to be unacceptable in many contexts - for example in these forums


----------



## annettehola

And I tell you, Panjandrum, that I am against an attitude that claims to be in its right to judge that way. This is not about being rude or not rude. It's about being right or wrong. It is unacceptable to have Blair define that in my opinion. Sure it would "make illegal the kind of offensive statements that are considered to be unacceptable in many contexts....(..)" This is the very purpose, man! But that's not the real point in question here. The real point that really counts is this as I see it: *WHO*, man, and *WHY, *man, is supposed to determine this?
Annette


----------



## cherine

I'm not pro nor con this law, I personally think it doesn't have any value.
The first link given by Outsider says :


> The final bill was altered by the Lords in two key ways:
> 
> Only threatening words or behaviour will be classified as criminal. Generally abusive or insulting words about religion that are not actually threatening will not be illegal.
> The burden will be on the prosecution to prove the speakers intended to stir up racial hatred – the bill has strong safeguards for free expression.


So, the cartoons insulting the Prophet -for example- or showing muslims as terrorists, or even clearly calling muslims all the bad names in the worldn are not illegal according to this law; *ONLY THREATENING* words are, and on the condition that the offended proves the *INTENT* of the speaker ! Do you think it's a doable thing ? Do you think such a law can change anything ? I don't. This is why I think it's just a political -or more of hypocrite- act of the British gov. to please the muslims.
Yeah, not fair Blair.


----------



## cuchuflete

I agree with Cherine.  It's a political ploy...even though it began months before the publication of the bomb-in-turban cartoon.

What is "acceptable speech" in a forum such as this, or at your neighbor's dinner table, has little to do, I think, with what one has a right to put in a newspaper editorial column, or shout in Hyde Park.  

What is deemed offensive in one context may be totally appropriate to a heated debate in another.  As to "threatening", just as with "offensive", this is highly subjective.
I've seen lots of comments in these forums which disparage, however politely and subtly, one group or another.  Taken to an extreme interpretation, such less than complimentary remarks could be perceived as creating a hostile, and eventually threatening, environment for members of the groups so described.  Personally, I don't trust any goverment official to do the interpreting, as they are apt to act in accord with whatever way the politically kerrect winds are blowing.
The free exchange of ideas will be suffocated by fear.  

I would rather risk being offended or insulted in a heated exchange than risk having a government official decide what
I'm allowed to say.


----------



## cirrus

Until the precise wording of the law is settled, all this is mere speculation.  The bill hasn't been to the Lords yet and hasn't had its final reading so what is being approved here isn't the final measure.  It isn't just about Muslims but also Christians and Jews and Hindus and other faiths.  In terms of regular attendance at mosque, chances are the UK has more  Muslims than it does practising Catholics or Jews put together right now.    

Opinions here regarding the proposals are split on a variety of fronts.  For myself I suspect it will be unenforceable.  The nightmare will be if someone uses a religious position to victimise someone who doesn't share their religious view to stir up hatred.  From what I see established religions have hardly developed a distinguished record on gay rights over the last millenium.


----------



## cuchuflete

Cirrus makes an excellent point.  Perhaps there is a greater need for a law to prohibit religious speech which condones or promotes hatred.


----------



## annettehola

There is no need for any law that prohibits speech. It is a total misunderstanding to do so. Reason? Because no one can prohibit the thoughts of others. Words are expressions of thoughts or feelings, you know. We are in a moral dilemma here. My neigbor is a Nazi, say. I do not agree with that neighbor. What do I do? Invent a law that silences him and if not, punishes him? That would make me a Nazi, actually. What other alternatives do I have? I can avoid him. I can also find another place to live, or I can make life difficult for him. Terrible alternatives all of them. If this really was the situation, then I would just keep a low profile with that person, but - obviously - if he harmed me in any way I would speak up. I would tell him off. With arguments based on that in his behaviour that did me wrong, not his political attitude as such. 
That Bill is intolerable. You don't agree with someone over something? Well; that's just fine. No one forces you. But you can't stop that argument from being an argument in its own right, just like yours is. And certainly not by having it prohibited by law.
Turn my argument upside-down, please. You will find that it applies equally to both sides: Those with whom you agree and those with whom you do not.
*Bla*-*bla*-*Bla*ir doesn't care.
Annette


----------



## annettehola

By the way..I now got this thought: What, is humour included in the very programme of the new Bill? Is sarcasm? Is farce? Are nuances of any kind? No, Mr. Jones, I don't really think so. So the world is now more black and white than ever. That's also easier. 

It's like a farce in itself this bill. In an attempt to control reality we deprive reality of its real qualities.

Annette


----------



## cuchuflete

Politically Kerrect speech is exactly what Annette fears:  It is no more than an attempt, through language, to control thought.


----------



## Rich696

Many people in England recognise that the new bill is farcical.  It is a direct assult on freedom of speech, as my quote in cuch's first post was intended to show.  However, there is legislative precedent for this.  In the 1960s what most people see as the first bill against "religous/racial disrimination" passed the British Parliament, and there have been numerous other over the last four decades.

Many of you might know of the famous "Rivers of Blood" speech by Enoch Powell - and the follow-ups - which were based around the laws against racial disrimination which were in parliament at the time.  They are a very interesting read - you can find them online.

Annette, comedians have protested so strongly against the bill because their livlihoods are going to be directly effected by it.  Many of their sketches play off inoffensive religous divisions, more Christian and Jewish than Muslim or Hindu, which will, if the law passes, be prohobited.


----------



## cuchuflete

If the bill, as originally proposed, were to pass, then Mr. Bull-air
might have to take a page from the Chinese book on internet control, asking Yahoo, Google, and others to censor what English citizens could see on their screens.  

The sad truth is that, at times, real facts may be an incitement to violent action against a group, including one with a common religion.  Imagine some weird religious sect--we have seen such in recent years--that decides to enforce a mass suicide and murder, including infants and children.
On learning the facts, reasonable people might be tempted to do serious harm to the leaders of such a group. Thus, presenting the news would be an incitement to hatred and violence.  Welcome to the world of political kerrectitude.

It's not green.  It only appears to be green.  Green is a retrograde term that breeds hatred and contempt.  Let's call it lavender. There. Now all is peacefully in order.


----------



## nycphotography

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> What is deemed offensive in one context may be totally appropriate to a heated debate in another.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I would rather risk being offended or insulted in a heated exchange than risk having a government official decide what
> I'm allowed to say.


 
Particularly since politically motivated people have a remarkable capacity for warping context to suit their perverse purposes.


----------



## maxiogee

Rich696 said:
			
		

> Many of you might know of the famous "Rivers of Blood" speech by Enoch Powell - and the follow-ups - which were based around the laws against racial disrimination which were in parliament at the time.  They are a very interesting read - you can find them online.



(on a point of interest - and not wishing to endorse anything he ever said in his entire life!)
The one thing I know about the Rivers of Blood speech is that he never used that phrase.
His only use of the word "blood" was in this expression....

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding;  like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood".

Enoch was - whatever else he may have been - a classically educated scholar. He was quoting Virgil.


----------



## annettehola

*Political Corrumpectness:*

To that I answer: I, Lords, myself have never been able to control my thoughts. They come and go as they bloody well please. There, Lords, is nothing I can do about it. Except, that is, for surrender. And I have to tell you, Gentlemen of the High and Powerful Houses, that I am so corrupted that I do so gladly. And on a daily and nightly basis. They never leave me alone, those little rascals! No, never. And so, I go with them. Or rather; fly.

And now you wish to pass a Law against them? Well; can your Law fly? If not, then I don't think they would follow Thee, to be honest. But what do I know? I'm just a-flyin.'  You, Yourselves possess far more..ehm..reason. Ooh, to possess so much reason makes me..jealous! But what can I do about it, I ask you?

Ohh; no! Watch out! There's another one coming up...slowly sneeking its way to consciousness..I know them! They're just like that! Who on Earth could help me?

And the Thought said:"Will you fly with me into, say, the year 2057?"

"Look! There's a platform. Let's land there. How grey everything is! It's incredible! Have you seen?"
"No," I answer and get off. "Where are we?"
"In the land of those that speak and speak and will not say a word you can understand and so, have passed a bill," is the answer.
"I'll have a look around" I answer.

I walk out into the sun and then I notice the temprature hasn't changed at all. How strange everything is here.

I make my way to the nearest cafe, thinking I'll meet people there that could inform me a bit of all I find so alien. The cafe is called "Welcome." There is a bar and a bartender. "A glass of beer, please" I say. The bartender loo....no! what is this? He has a face but there are no eyes in it...I repeat my order. The bartender says:"No beers here or in the entire country. That was abolished long ago. You must be a foreigner. We can't allow that here. Imagine..oh, no! sorry!..think, what the House would say..that we mock the teetotallers or those that can't afford a beer, no-no but we do have apricot juice and peach melba delight at a price all can pay. There is also water in the pipes for free. One can never go wrong on that, never."

I swallow it and step outside. I can't imagine where the sun is.

I decide to do what I have always thought best in a situation like this: To walk on and just take it all in. Then react.

When I come to a cross roads it turns out passing it has been prohibited. I ask a passerby what that is. She (or he, I can't tell, they all look alike, they really do) tells me:"But don't you know? It's so as not to create distinctions and divisions between people. There cannot be Another Side, Blair forbid! You should know better, really, than to ask!"

With this I am left on the pavement. But I still make my way forward, looking..no! By now gaping, actually. I cannot imagine what it is I am not hearing...There really is no music. No, none! The doors of everybody's houses..the restaurants..the bars..the schools..the..all are ajar..and yet..there is no music coming out..no, nothing! This cannot be, I tell myself, no, no, Annette, such is not reality..you are..you must be..mistaken..of course, you are! There will, there is bound to be a place where sound of some kind at least..will..but no! All is silence..beyond what I have ever, ever..not..heard before..-

Then it is, that this happens: I just stand there on that pavement in the missing sun and..a gate opens up. It's the gate to the park, now I see it clearly..two people come out, a man and then a woman. I don't know why but a smile forms on my lips. I think they look fine and good. I move closer to see better. The man says in a low voice:"Thanks for spending the afternoon with me..you are good company..your eyes..-" I walk on a little so as to not disturb their exchange of words. But close enough to see the woman lean over to kiss the man. I feel happy now for I imagine having seen that Understanding and Love in the country of those that speak and speak and never say a word you can understand does exist, is a real thing.

WEEEEOOOOAAAAHH!  WEEEEOOOOAAAAHH! What now is..that?? Sirens? Oh, but..-

I, amazed, look around...the woman has fallen to the ground..the man..is helping her to her feet..I run to them to assist..sirens..what..the police..their car..a sign on it that says:"*Be at ease with the Speech-Police*"...I must be dreaming..I -

....I wake from my dream on the Speech-Police station..A bloke with huge biceps shouts in my face why I support people that believe in afternoons when there are people that don't, why I listen to people that believe in good company when there are people that could be offended by this as they have never experienced such company, why I listen to people who talk about eyes when there are so many blind folks around that could feel inferior because of that, and..by the way, such people are called visually challenged, yes, they are..-

I have enjoyed the time with you here in the forums. Now I must go back to my cell that I share with that man and that woman. We were sentenced to life time. For loving language and saying what we think.

But in the long hours here, there is one thing that inspires me about their bill: Imagine! Making a dictionary for them...I should not hesitate. The title? _*"Kill your own language and those of others. Unabridged edition. More entries than you'd ever have thought possible. So don't think."*_

Annette


----------



## cirrus

So do you think that absolute freedom of speech is based on insulting other people's religions then?


----------



## annettehola

I take it this question is for me, cirrus?

Well; man! *OBVIOUSLY* not! Do you? I mean, I don't know anybody who does, and yourself?

What a question, man! But it also has its good side: It is so..oh, I don't know..that it MUST be attended to carefully.

Please listen: no matter how you turn the thing around in your head, on paper or elsewhere one single fact remains; this one:

We are different, man. People think and feel differently. For this reason we all speak differently. It cannot be any different. This is why dissagreements appear once in a while. 

Now; How do we solve this? Look; says Blair, We take a piece of paper and write a law that prohibits speech that could lead to disagreements and hatred and all those other unpleasant things life is full of.

I ask: Why? And I ask: Who is supposed to define what is and what is not "proper" language? I tell you, I feel sick to my heart when I hear such a term. No language is proper. It is simply a fiction and a very bad one at that.

This is my opinion.

Annette


----------



## Benjy

agreed, to be honest i don't think the law will work but i don't see why everyone is so dead set against the principle. what community that wishes to survive lets people come and live within in it whose sole intent is to create social unrest and undermine the existing social order?

i think the laws are already there is place.. there is no need for this stupid bill. i just whish the goverment would do a little more acting and a little less posturing


----------



## nycphotography

cirrus said:
			
		

> So do you think that absolute freedom of speech is based on insulting other people's religions then?


 
I think that absolute freedom of speech is based on not expecting other people to subscribe to my own list of sacred cows, not expecting other people to not insult my religion.

If I am not secure enough in my beliefs to withstand scrutiny, ridicule, and derision, well my friend, that is my own problem, one that only I can fix somewhere deep inside my twisted broken little psyche.

_To Offend_ is NOT _To Harm_. Rather, _To Take Offense_ is, because the taking of offense is to pretend an injury where no real one exists.


----------



## maxiogee

annettehola said:
			
		

> *Political Corrumpectness:*
> 
> To that I answer: I, Lords, myself have never been able to control my thoughts. They come and go as they bloody well please.



You strike a bell with me there.
In the depths of a bout of severe depression I was seen by a psychiatrist. During the course of the conversation I tried to explain to him that I couldn't sleep at night due to 'racing thoughts' which I could do nothing to restrain, they flitted from one thing to another with no apparent relation between them. If you've ever had it you know how disconcerting it can be, and if you haven't had it it is difficult to understand how desperately one tries to quell the clamour.
I said to the psychiatrist: "I cannot control my thoughts".

He was not a native-English-speaker and, for some reason I'll never understand, took this to mean that I felt someone else was controlling them.

It was only after the conversation was going into very strange territory I realised that he had misunderstood me.

You'd want your wits about you when you go talking to them boyos!


----------



## cirrus

I used to do a lot of conflict resolution work.  Instead of allowing people to say something like "I had to hit him", we would get the whole group to look at what was happening.  

Imagine someone insults you.  You could just go right ahead and hit them.  There are intermediate stages which people tend to overlook.  First you realise the person wants to hurt you.  Then you might consider whether you want to retaliate.  What might be the best way to do this.  What options are open to you?  Should you walk away?  Could you feign deafness?  Could you ask them why they are so upset and what is going on?  What would help you to retain your self respect and that of the person who wants to insult you.  When would be the best time to sort this out?  Does someone who is waving their fists at you look like they are ready for creative discussion?  If you were that angry what would calm you down?  Has not being listened to ever improved your mood?

We would get the people on the course to place people in different places in the room and each would voice these stages in the chain of reaction and get them suggest options.  This was a very powerful exercise and really brought home how we aren't on autopilot.  Despite daily examples of repeated crass stupidity across the world humans really can be very bright.  Trouble is we all too easily forget this.


----------



## maxiogee

Well put, Cirrus.
if I go to bed angry with someone and plotting revenge and mayhem - *I'm* the one who has the sleepless night!


----------

