UK ban on incitement to religious hatred

[Dilettante]

I don't know if you have already discussed this, but the British government is planning to pass a law banning the expression of anything which can be seen as incitement to religious hatred. Well-intentioned as this initiative is, the problem lies in the difficulty of determining exactly when you have crossed the line, when criticism becomes incitement to hatred. While it is justifiable to persecute racial hatred (you cannot choose your race after all), it is harder to justify persecution of those who attack a system of beliefs. Aren't beliefs there to be compared, attacked and defended...isn't that the essence of democratic debate? There's also the substantive issue of whether other belief systems, such as political ideologies should be protected from criticism also. The projected law has found acceptance within mainstream churches, but it comedians such as Rowan Atkinson have joined freethinkers and, most surprisingly, conservative Christians in opposing the law. Christian evangelicals fear that the new law would make their aggressive proselytizing illegal, and comedians are afraid that they might have to stop making jokes about religious topics. I think this law is too problematic to enact. What do you think? For more info, click on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075831.stm

[potwalloper.]

I have to admit to being opposed to this law, however I do not think that within a liberal society like the UK it will, in real terms, result in a stifling of freedom of speech - there would be riots if such a prosecution were brought against a comedian - and I would be right up there with the rioters!

The main reason for the new law is that there are religious fundamentalists who are using their religious forums as a means to incite cultural conflict within inner cities in the UK - these are a minority but are having a measurable effect. They range from muslim clerics who promote terrorist activity to simple racists who use the fear of global terrorism to stir up racial conflict. Many muslims have suffered violence and intimidation in the UK since 9/11 - ranging from being spat upon on public transport (something I witnessed on a London bus a few months ago) to being set on fire (a muslim man had petrol poured over him by people he did not know and was burned to death in the street). Petrol has also been poured through letterboxes and ignited due to religious and racial hatred.

A good link explaining the reasoning behind the legislation is here:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/fa ... faq.html#2

[Dilettante]

Yes, I agree that in a liberal society such as Britain comedians would not suffer the consequences of this law. I also agree that, if someone is clearly advocating violence against a particular group (the majority or a minority) he or she should be prosecuted. But the law opens the door to persecuting anything which could be offensive, and that's where the risk lies. How can you define "offensive" with sufficient precision? Very tricky business.
French novelist Michel Houllebeq (don't trust my spelling) recently faced trial in France because he said that Islam was "the stupidest religion". Luckily he was acquitted. But it was troubling how, in the midst of the "Satanic Verses" affair, many blamed Rushdie for arousing the anger of Muslims, as if freedom of speech did not inlcude, like Orwell said, the freedom to tell people what they don't like to hear.
Lastly, attacking someone's race is a different thing. Anyone saying a certain race is inferior is ignorant of scientific facts. His or her opinions do not deserve a hearing. By contrast, someone claiming that a certain religion is primitive or inferior could, in theory, have a case. Her reasons might deserve a hearing.

[potwalloper.]

It is certainly a tricky business - the intentions behind the making of many laws can often not be reflected in it application - that is why I feel that it is bad law. We will just have to wait to see how it is applied in practice.

The Government statements on application do give me some comfort, for example:

5. What will the new offence not cover?

Of themselves, the following would not be caught by the offence:

criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers; for example by claiming that they are false or harmful;

proselytising one’s own religion or urging followers of a different religion to cease practising theirs; for example Christians claiming that Jesus Christ is the way the truth, the life and the only way to God, Muslims exhorting people to submit to the will of Allah, or Atheists claiming that there is no God;

telling jokes about religions;

expressing antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents.

Of themselves these activities do not meet the criteria of the offences. However if a person were to use threatening, abusive or insulting words, actions or material with the intent or likely effect that hatred would be stirred up whilst undertaking the actions listed above, then by definition, they could rightly fall into the scope of the offence.

My guess is that any prosecution will prove to be a prolonged and difficult process and could be challenged under the European Convention on Human Rights. We'll just have to wait and see.

Did you hear the one about the Christian, the Muslim and the atheist...?

[JamieM]

Hi all,

Is this the only post dedicated to this subject? Isn't this a major event?

I am not religious and recently joined to learn a bit more about Christianity and Religion.

I have also been watching some religious television and there was a programme on Revelation TV about this new Bill.

To be honest I can't quite believe it, I think this would be a huge mistake if the government implement this strictly.

Does anyone think this will go ahead?

Jamie