Religious hatred bill

[NGONGE]

The following speech is from the debate that was held in the British parliament regarding the Religious hatred bill which the Blair government wants to make into law. I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence that this bill is being discussed at the same time as the furore about the Danish cartoons. Still, I think some of the arguments make great reading. They might even answer some of Castro’s questions in the other thread.

 

Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): It is a great privilege to be called to speak after my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). In their speeches, both were tremendous advertisements for independence of mind.

 

It is independence of mind that is under assault in the Bill before the House this evening. If the Government get their way and their amendments are carried, we will see not only a significant curtailment of freedom of speech in this country, but perhaps the most significant undermining of religious liberty since 1688. I mention the 17th century advisedly, because that was the last time in this country when questions of political and

religious strife put lives at risk on the mainland of the United Kingdom. During that period of the 17th century, one of our greatest writers, Milton, even at that time of strife, made a heartfelt plea for liberty in his work, "Areopagitica". Milton pointed out that truth did not need the law to suppress falsehood in order to prevail. In open debate, those who are confident of their beliefs will not want the state to intervene on their side, because the confidence in their beliefs will be enough to sustain them.

 

It is significant that almost all the religious groups in this country which are organised and respectable are opposed to the Bill. They have sufficient confidence in the strength of their own beliefs not to pray the state in aid. It is striking that there are only one or two significant exceptions to that rule. One of them has been the Muslim Council of Britain. Its head, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, has throughout his career been a doughty fighter against prejudice against those whom he represents.

 

I would happily acknowledge that there is much that can be done by Government and by all politicians to fight prejudice and racism against Muslims and other minorities, but I suspect that in the past few weeks Sir Iqbal and others have begun to realise how dangerous it is to criminalise free speech in this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald pointed out, Sir Iqbal himself was on the receiving end of the attentions of the police for words that he uttered on Radio 4—words that I find offensive, but which I believe that he has every right to utter on whatever platform is given to him. Because of that intervention in Sir Iqbal's right to speak freely, we can all see the dangers of criminalising speech.

 

Sir Iqbal was referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in the context of the debate about "The Satanic Verses". It is appropriate that we consider for a moment the controversy that surrounded the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel. If we imagine that the law that the Government intend to pass today were in place then, I submit that "The Satanic Verses" would never have been published by Penguin.

 

Let us look at proposed new section 29K and the references to abusive and insulting behaviour and to recklessness, and ask ourselves this question: if we had been executives at Penguin and had read that text and calculated the effect that it was likely to have on the Muslim community in this Britain, would we have calculated that it would abuse the Muslim faith? We would certainly have made that calculation. Would we have known that individual Muslims would be insulted? Of course we would have recognised that. Would we have known that, by publishing, we could have been accused of recklessness? We would have been aware that that accusation would be flung at us.

 

Would we therefore have taken the risk of publishing? I suspect that we would not, and that, to me, would have been not just a loss for freedom of speech, but an attack on the creative spirit and a loss of what makes us a distinctive and cherishably free country. That chill factor, which would have applied to "The Satanic Verses" if the legislation had been in place, has been mentioned by several hon. Members. It is a worrying curtailment of liberty and an ominous extension of state power.

 

There are two other areas that I shall cite briefly where the state extends its power in an ominous way in the Bill. First, there is an unwarranted and ominous extension of Executive power in the reliance that the Minister places on guidance to the prosecuting authorities and to the police. As nearly every hon. Member who has referred to the guidance has pointed out, we all have complete faith in the Minister to frame guidance that would be sensible and proportionate, but whatever our beliefs about the immortality of the Minister's soul, we know that he will not be permanently in office. We cannot trust future Ministers and future Governments necessarily to frame guidance that will be proportionate and correct. It is quite wrong for us to trust the Executive to decide what prosecutions could and should be brought in the future. We should decide now and write that into the Bill as we discuss it.

 

There is one final area where the state arrogates to itself unwarranted power in the Bill—that is, in the very definition of what constitutes religion. It is wrong that the state should be able to extend to any group of believers a privileged status by saying that they constitute a fit and proper religion. If we consider recent reports about what happened in the Navy when an individual officer claimed for himself, on the basis that he was a Satanist, a safe religious space in which to enact his rituals, we can see that the present Government and future Governments may extend to all sorts of cults and other unsavoury groups the protection that is in the Bill.

 

I have no hesitation in saying, safeguarded by privilege as I am, that I regard Scientology as an evil cult founded by an individual purely in the interests of enriching himself and sustained by those who are either wicked or wayward. But if the Bill were to pass and I were to repeat those comments outside this House as an ordinary civilian, I would lay myself open to prosecution simply for having sought to point out the dangers of a fraudulent organisation masquerading as a religion.

 

I have pointed to three dangers—three extensions of state power—which are three very good reasons why I believe that the Government should withdraw their amendments and we should accept the wisdom of the other place.

 

PS

 

1- Michael Gove is a Times journalist turned Member of Parliament

2- The bill was rejected by the House of Lords and they suggested some amendments that the government refused to introduce

 

3- The government was defeated by one vote when this bill was discussed two days ago.

Source

[Khayr]

All they need is some 'terrrorist scare and/or an incident' to take place in their backyard, and that Bill will get PASSED!

 

Also, I think that TIMING might have had something to do with it.

 

In anycase, LEGISLATING RELIGIOUS THOUGHT is where things are headed at. La qadra Allah, it could be that a friday khateeb can't read ayats or a hadith about adultery, fornication, qawuumo loot etc.

[NGONGE]

^^^ Isn’t that what I alluded to in my first post in that other thread, saaxib? :confused:

[Castro]

^ And had you been a member of the house of lords, you would vote for or against the bill, good Ngonge?

 

My guess is you'd vote it down, i.e. vote nay. You'd tolerate insults of the prophet in the name of freedom of speech. But what's the alternative to tolerance, you scream. The alternative to that is to make sure freedom of speech/expression does not infringe upon another freedom, that of religion.

 

I'm gonna eat. Come back later.

[NGONGE]

I would vote against it of course. Because, as I said earlier and Khayer said above, I stand to lose more with such a law in place than I would gain as a Muslim. A bill that bans religious hatred will be interpreted in so many ways and none of them would be helpful to Muslims in the west. Now, do I rather be able to actively practise my faith.

 

As for one not cancelling out the other (i.e. freedom of speech v freedom of faith), it is assumed that those installing the law would make allowances for that. However, there will always be grey areas and most those insulting a faith will claim not to mean the insult. With a lack of proof of someone’s intentions, how could we demand that such opinions and acts be curtailed? Would you suppress something because there is a chance that if you don’t, it might lead to things that might offend people?

 

Again, on the insulting of the prophet point, I reiterate my point that it should not raise nothing more than pity and distaste. Anger is a disproportionate emotion to apply to the actions of a disbeliever.

 

I believe that for us people living in the West it’s a very dangerous thing to attempt to suppress the freedom of speech. It’s one of the only things that allow us to express our ‘alien’ opinions without fear of gagging or censorship.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Castro:

The alternative to that is to make sure freedom of speech/expression does not infringe upon another freedom, that of religion.

Atheer, has freedom of expression been redefined? or a watered-down freedom of expression is what you demand?

 

Now eat n hurry back.

[Cara.]

It is a worrying curtailment of liberty and an ominous extension of state power.

'Nuff said.

[Jacpher]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

I believe that for us people living in the West it’s a very dangerous thing to attempt to suppress the freedom of speech. It’s one of the only things that allow us to express our ‘alien’ opinions without fear of gagging or censorship.

I would have agreed with you there Ngonge, but freedom of speech tends to favor others, not Muslims. I don’t know if that’s how it’s designed or we fail to understand its practices but I find most of the time, when a Muslim speaks out on certain issues, it’s not freedom of speech, but rather a hate speech. Has anyone noticed that?

[Castro]

Ah, you had to use the I word, good Ngonge. You just had to go there. It's all about the intent, isn't it? And what a difficult concept to prove. No one has access to another's thought process. If we did, and we knew what the caricaturist intended with those depictions, we wouldn't be here, would we? But motive can be proven. And in the case of the cartoons, it is quite clear the statement that is being made.

 

In this era of political correctness, it's easy to lose sight of why freedom of expression, if gone unchecked, might cause other freedoms to be curtailed. You've heard of the term hate speech, haven't you? I'm sure you have. Well here's the definition of hate speech:

 

Speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his/her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.

 

At least, according to the definition above, the cartoons made by the Danish newspaper are considered hate speech. Other, more familiar, examples of hate speech are those that speak of blacks as inherently inferior or inherently violent. Drawings that show blacks being lynched and some such rotten "art". Let's look at this supposed art for a moment. The Danish paper depicted the prophet with a bomb underneath a head covering. The unambiguous implication therein is that Islam is one that institutionally endorses violence. What else could the depiction imply? Clearly, that is a statement of hate. It overtly shows hatred of the prophet and the alleged violence that is attributed to Islam. That the implication is a patent falsehood is not of the newspaper's concern.

 

Denmark, allegedly, pioneered free speech but that hardly makes what comes out of it unhateful speech. That they would reject the condemnations by muslims in the name of freedom of speech shows what little they understand of other cultures and faiths. Even worse, that the newspaper would admit the grave offence such cartoons have meant to muslims yet they would do it again is unconscionable.

 

Boycotts hardly ever work. Granted. Worse still, as in this case, those leaders advocating for it and have withdrawn their embassies couldn't recognize freedom of speech if it hit them in the face. No matter. The offence stands on its own demerit. And the choice by some to condemn it, ask for a rectraction, demand an apology or boycott the products of Denmark in protest is a perfectly legitimate response to a very legitimate grievance.

 

If we are sensitive to the rights of minorities (of color or sexual orientation) not to be harrassed in the media, it is not unreasonable that the same protection be afforded to the sacred beliefs of others.

[Alle-ubaahne]

Castro,

it is not unreasonable that the same protection be afforded to the sacred beliefs of

others

.

This time its us , sxb, not others ! Ee maad iska deysid aashuunka aad ku adimeysid, xaajadu waxay mareysaa ninkii dhiig lahoow kac!

 

[Castro]

^ Heh. I meant other than people of color or different sexual orientation. That kind of other.

[Alle-ubaahne]

^Ma shaash baa?

[NGONGE]

The article below does not deal with the Danish problem. In fact, it could have been a whole new thread (and debate) on its own. However, because it deals with the issue of the Freedom of Speech I thought it might be relevant here.

 

 

 

We can't deny the deniersBEN MACINTYREAustria's action in locking up David Irving, the extremist historian, is offensive to free speech

 

 

TODAY DAVID IRVING, the infamous and discredited British historian, languishes in an Austrian jail. Just writing that sentence makes me feel happy. The next sentence is much harder to write. He should be released. Irving was arrested in November during a visit to Austria to address a right-wing student group. He was charged with denying the Holocaust, a crime in Austria, in two speeches he had given in that country in 1989. The indictment quotes his description of the Nazi gas chambers as a “fairytaleâ€, and his claim that Hitler knew nothing about the slaughter of Jews: “There were no extermination camps in the Third Reich,†he is quoted as saying. If convicted, he faces up to ten years in prison.

 

Irving’s views are repulsive and wrong. He is a deeply offensive crank, and a litigious one, who has tried to use the libel laws to silence his critics. Five years ago, he sued the American historian, Deborah Lipstadt, after she described him as a Holocaust denier, and lost. In a withering 333-page judgment, Mr Justice Charles Gray described him as an anti-Semite, a racist and a neo-Nazi sympathiser who had “persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidenceâ€.

Irving’s opinions are indefensible; his right to hold them, however, must be defended. For reasons of both principle and expediency, he should go free. Freedom of speech includes the right to be hopelessly, demonstrably and repeatedly wrong. It is not to be applied selectively, depending on the nature of the speech in question, but universally and consistently. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is unequivocal: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.â€

To defend free speech when we happen to share the speaker’s opinion is an easy task. Take Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish writer who is facing trial for saying, in defiance of the official Turkish view of history, that his compatriots carried out the genocide of Armenians during the First World War. Many writers (including this one) have defended his right to do so. Far harder, but just as essential, is the defence of speech that we find morally disgusting and intellectually bankrupt. When a conference in Turkey on the Armenian question was cancelled under state pressure, the liberal West was outraged; when Iran recently announced a conference to question the authenticity of the Holocaust, the West was, once again, outraged. But in the case of both Irving and Pamuk, the issue should be settled in the court of public discussion, not the law courts; so long as speech does not directly incite racial hatred, it must remain free.

In 1947, when the Austrian law against minimising Third Reich atrocities was promulgated the fear of resurgent Nazism was real. But should it still apply today, when Holocaust denial has been so thoroughly exposed for the malicious nonsense it is? There should never be an official version of history that cannot be questioned. History will often fall into the wrong hands, where it may be twisted to suit a preconceived prejudice, but that is a lesser evil than undermining freedom of speech.

Lipstadt herself, after a career spent destroying the arguments of Nazi apologists, believes that Holocaust denial should not be a crime, and that keeping Irving in Josefstadt prison is counter-productive.

The trial of Irving, due to start next month, risks saving him from the intellectual oblivion he and his views so richly deserve. Before the Austrian police arrested him, he was a fringe academic addressing a group of loopy far-right radicals wearing silly hats in a basement in Vienna. Now there is a real danger that he will become a martyr for the extreme Right. After his humiliation in the High Court, Irving all but vanished from the world’s attention; his arrest has generated headlines around the world, and by putting his views on trial, they will gain a credibility that they simply do not merit.

For Austria, beset by the rise of the far Right in the unpleasant shape of Jörg Haider, Irving has appeared at a politically opportune moment. Sticking the “revisionist†in prison for something that he said 16 years ago, based on a law nearly 60 years old, is a neat way for Austria to demonstrate its liberal bona fides. Of the nine countries with laws banning Holocaust denial, Austria is the strictest. Yet the country has too often shied away from admitting its Nazi past.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre estimates that some 40 Nazi suspects are still living in Austria, and accuses Austria of a lamentable record in apprehending war criminals.

Irving is in prison for writing about the Holocaust, in a country where people who took part in the Holocaust are still at liberty. Irving would be able to argue that the people who operated the gas chambers should be prosecuted before people who make speeches about them, except that he is on record as saying that the gas chambers never existed. Ironies don’t come much more savoury than that.

Irving and his like have caused deep anguish to survivors of the genocide and their families. But the vast majority of people know that the Holocaust happened, that Hitler caused it, and that those who argue otherwise are not interested in the truth. We should not need laws to enforce that knowledge.

The way to arrest the pernicious myth of Holocaust denial is not through the police, but with rigorous analysis, followed by disdain. When the deniers assemble in Tehran for their “scientific†conference on the Holocaust, their claims should be listened to attentively, demolished scientifically, and then laughed off the stage and forgotten. They should not be arrested.

Let Irving go. In Lipstadt’s words, “let him fade from everyone’s radar screensâ€. He is a blip, a tiny spot beyond the outer edges of rational debate that has attracted unwarranted attention. He has a right to be wrong; and once he is at liberty, we can all exercise our own inalienable right to ignore him.

Source

[Castro]

^ What are you doing?

[Johnny B]

^^ he´s trying to bang a sense in your head.

Don´t you see the relevance?