Religous Intolerance Law

I completely understand and empathise with the objection - it almost seems like you are creating a "thought crime". But I don't believe your quote above truly represents the spirit or letter of the proposed law. It's not about outlawing ideas or debates, or limiting criticism of a religion. It's a law which makes it a crime for people like Combat 18 to say "I think we should go and nail bomb a mosque" or an Islamic extremist group to say "Christians should be beheaded". You can certainly make the case that all thoughts and speech should be above the law, and that only actions should be subject to criminal proceedings. And that's the case I think you're making. But it's a mistake to say that this law is intended to limit even the most strenuous criticism of anyone's belief. It's not that at all. It's against stirring up active hatred against individuals.

For instance, Mad Jonny up there can say "Islam is a religion of hatred and intolerance and is going to cause the collapse of our civilisation". What he can't say is "Muslims are responsible for the collapse of our way of life, so let's go and strangle some - kill the lot of them!" There's a difference.

I'm not supporting this law at all, but I think people should be a little less alarmist and see it for what it is.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3888419.stm

ken livingston invites the guy who wants kill "perverts" like homosexuals back to london again
peter tatchell gay rights activist who is a real hero i think, organised a protest against ken livingston having this guy here

I think ken livingstons gay Im not sure but I think he is, what the hells wrong with him ? is it just a general marxist thing to support these bastards or is he really that fucking stupid

"but if you denigrate people and incite hatred against them based solely on whatever nonsensical fiction they choose to believe, then that would be outlawed"

does schindlers ark make people hate nazis if I made a film showing stoning and Crucifixion amputation of limbs ect ect. all the sort of thing that islamists want to bring in as law in this country at some time in the future and it made people feel hated for the people who wanted to bring those laws would I be jailed

surely informing homosexuals that a group of people intend to kill them would make those homosexuals feel hatred towards the people who intend killing them .... what should we do not tell the people who are the intended victims of murder that someone plans to kill them

why protect a religion and not a political belief

so far these kind of laws have been used to attack critics not take on bnp types
some times the laws have backfired really badly
this is a very silly and dangerous idea

 

You're misunderstanding the issue and conflating two quite distinct matters. If you made a film inciting active hatred against Muslims and implying that hostile vigilante action should be taken against them, then you're inciting hatred and adding to the problem.

If you made a film analysing Islam, describing the objectionable nature of Sharia law and warning people of its dangers then that is your perfect right and such an analysis and free expression would be encouraged and welcomed.

Please don't confuse these two matters, think about it a little bit then report back.

 

Postscript: you can hate a belief, a mode of behaviour, a culture, a way of life as much as you want, but when is hating people ever a good idea?

 

I think there is a great danger that this law may be misinterpreted.

While I do agree in principle that the law is a good idea, there will always be the people who will interpret religious criticism as incitement to religious hatred.

It doesn't take a wise man to work out that most religions of the World see themselves as having the only "true god". So if a Christian criticises the Jewish beliefs is he promoting intolerence for Judaism or is he just promoting his own beliefs?

Or if I say "all Jehovahs witnesses are potentially cruel to their children for refusing them blood transfusions" am I inciting religious intolerence or am I expressing a common sense opinion?

Or how about "Sikhs should be forced to wear crash helmets"? Is that expressing intolerence or is it expressing concern?

This is so different from the race issue because people can choose their faith but they cannot choose their race.

 

Hmm, again, it's not about intolerance, which arguably should be one of our freedoms... it's about hatred, which according to my concise oxford is active dislike or enmity. Hostility suggesting a personal threat to individuals based on their beliefs. There is indeed an interesting question about where incitement to hatred begins and ends and how this would be interpreted by the courts, but I think many people replying to this thread are replying about a mistaken idea of what they think the law would mean... Hatred of a person is not the same as criticism of a belief which is not the same as intolerance towards a way of life. The words you use are important!

 

for the homosexual hating the people who plan to stone him is a good idea

for the jew hating the nazi that plans to gas him is a good idea

I can think of a couple of cases where these type of laws have been used abroad and they dont attack bnp types but people that are real critics of islam.
both of the ones that come to mind are christian priests one in canada, and another in australia, the canadian priest was convicted. and he wasnt organising attacks on muslims, or saying they should be attacked he just said that muslims were dangerous because of their beliefs

the australia one I think is still being fought

the priest in australia is something of a islamic expert and I think the people who brought the case against him must be pretty sorry they started it as hes putting up a good defence

ibn warriq would be in court

I have books written before the second world war that would make me hate nazis

the people writing those books would be jail

 

I thought it was about incitement to either. That is where I see the danger ... I reckon within no time at all there will be a couple of test cases where a vicar or rabbi has simply expressed an opinion and it has been met with a bad response.

There is a church near me (Whitechapel) where a local mosque prosecuted a church in order to have the statue of the Virgin Mary taken down as it was facing Mecca and 'causing offence'. Needless to say the Mosque lost the case, but it is things like this that I fear could cause even more trouble in the future for both sides.

 

Ahh, dear, you didn't put in the thinking did you?

I think, in your cloudy little way, you're trying to make the point that it's OK to hate the person that hates you; that it's OK to make personal threats towards and incite violence against the person that would do the same to you. What laws such as the "incitement to hatred" laws propose is that no form of extremist, threatening, abusive behaviour or encouragement of such behaviour is acceptable. If you choose to respond to extremism with further extremism then you are just as bad as your enemy; if someone threatens to behead you and you in turn suggest that we should behead that person right back, then you are just as bad as them, and are causing further hatred and encouraging violence. Laws such as that proposed are an attempt to disrupt this cycle of vigilantism rather than, as you seem to advocate, perpetuating it. Laws such as that proposed state that in a civilised society, we can criticise a belief, a culture, a behaviour, a way of thinking, but we cannot threaten people with violence. With what part of that do you disagree?

The issue of anti-Nazism is a complete red-herring here and is certainly utterly irrelevant to the proposed law being discussed in this thread. Under the race hate laws currently in place, the authors of Nazi literature would be prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred. Authors of books such as you describe which rip Nazism as a political movement to pieces and criticise it in the most robust terms would not be prosecuted. Unfortunately you haven't understood many of the subtleties here Jonny.

There are many potential problems with this proposed law, one of them as Paul rightly says is how you define incitement, and how this notion of incitement is open to misinterpretation. But despite these potential problems, the thinking behind it is good. It is an attempt to enshrine in law the idea that threatening, abusive, hateful behaviour is wrong, and that those who encourage others to perform threatening, abusive and hateful acts are in some way responsible for the consequences of their actions.

 

I would beg to differ here, reason being that there are two Muslim Clerics who we have 'let' into the country only to be trailed around by people ready to throw them out at the merest hint of incitement. They came here to express their views to a group of people and I don't think they should be thrown out of the country for this, the way forward is rational debate not intolerance of personal opinion. I know that rational debate with a fundamentalist of any group is a hard thing to do due to the brainwashing style of teaching but it's not impossible. Although you are quite right to say that the law does not limit the criticism of religion.

I am making the case that all thought and speech should be above the law, optimistic I know but it's a personal belief of mine that I hold quite high. I honestly think that if someone in Combat 18 does want to say "I think we should go nail bomb a Mosque" then they should be allowed to (say it that is!), not because they're right to bomb Mosques or hate people for their religion but because if they don't say the things that they feel they need to then they will never be opposed by anyone and may well just go do it anyway.

The presumption of this law that communicating incitement is the start of religious crime is a bit too hopeful but not nearly as optimistic as actually stopping people talking about things they feel very strongly about.

Yeah there's a difference but not much of one and if either one of them is him opinion then I'll defend his right to say it even though I'll argue against the point. These are both comments that can lead up to religious hatred if aimed at the right audience though as just about religious comment can be, note tabloid newspapers effect on the general world view...

Fair enough, it's not likely to impose on many people on this board so maybe it is a little alarmist of us to be up in arms about it but the law continues a trend of reactive laws aimed at restricting what we are allowed to think and say. I'd rather as many people as possible were alarmed by this now so that if it does start encroaching on any opinions I might hold I'll have people on my side if they agree with what I'm saying or not.

 

showmet this law will not be applied against for example the quran or muslims
even though their scripture calls for the stoning of homosexuals. it wont ban the quran and close mosques even though they preach hatred

I went to a talk given by the fake anti fascists group that have Dr siddequi the man who organised the hate campaign against salman rusdie as a honoured anti fascist when I was in glastonbury.

and they know who he his and what he did and they dont care .

and they expressed hatred against the bnp in fact the guy giving the talk openly said his group attacks bnp members and he like to attack them when he and his group have the odds 98 to 2 in their favour and give them a good kicking he isnt going to be prosecuted .

Dr siddequi wasnt prosecuted, cat stevens wasnt prosecuted, no muslim was prosecuted for incitement to the murder of salman rushdie.

in fact when people went to the police demanding that they prosecute the muslims involved in the campaign against rushdie they were threatend with arrest by the police.

the law is biased , these laws are being called for to protect a very nasty religion

and its just a step in gradual dhimmitude the aim is no criticism of the religion
gradually islamists are getting closer to that aim
this is how we get to the point where you have countrys becoming islamic states

if you have a religion where hardly anyone ever leaves, and the people in that religion have a really high birthrate , plus very high immigration and there is no real criticism of that religion
eventually that religion will rule that country.

more people go to the mosque in this country than go to church in france at the moment you have about 8 to 10 million muslims its doubles every ten years

no one in politics is going to be critical of islam hell ken livingston is bear hugging the man who wants to kill "pervert homosexuals" like himself thats how much the left understands islam
conservatives are pretty much the same they do business with places like Iran

 

I agree with this.

 

I'm sorry but this is alarmist rubbish. If you read the reports about Blunkett's announcement, he made a veiled comment referring to Abu Hamza as the kind of person this law would be used against. The Islamic Human Rights Commision has expressed concern that this law would be applied to silence a minority of Islamic groups rather than affording them protections. The announcement made clear that the law would be used to tackle the hatred spouted by rightwing Christian groups just as much as that spouted by fundamentalist Islam, but it has quite clearly been designed with radical Islam in mind! You're simply talking ill-informed drivel if you think this is a creation of Islamic groups in order to protect themselves from criticism. This assertion has no basis in fact; it's a fantasy of your own making. It is part of the anti-discrimination law we have in this country which protects you from those who would make threats against you. Part of that is obviously that you cannot make personal threats against Muslims because of their faith - is that a right you feel you ought to retain?

What evidence do you have that the law is biased? That this law would only be applied in this country by Muslims against critics of Islam? Or that the aim of this law is "no criticism of Islam"? You have no evidence of this, you are making an assumption which is in direct contradiction of its stated aims. That end might well be the aim of radical Islamic groups, it is not the thinking behind this proposed law - read about it, think about it, all you are doing is imposing your own agenda here. You're not actually talking about the law as proposed, you're making huge assumptions about the potential misuse of this law should it ever get through the Lords. Try to think it through a little and respond about the actual nature of the law, not what you think might happen should this law be twisted to become the opposite of what was intended.

I ask you again, are you in favour of people having the freedom to make threats of violence? Are you in favour of an Islamic group inciting hatred against non-muslims? Of Abu Hamza preaching hatred? If you read a little about it, you will discover that this is the very thing this law has been designed to tackle.

 

Incitement to hatred would have to be proven in a court of law... there is no law against people scrutinising the words of others, criticising their beliefs and the views they express. This is one of our protected rights! If the Muslim clerics you mention did begin to incite hatred, and this were proven, then what is the problem? You seem pessimistically eager to state that this law would be applied frivolously and easily to "throw people out" at the "merest hint of incitement". This is what I meant about alarmist talk - it's not about the proposed law, but about an assumption of its misuse.

That's a perfectly fine philosophical position to take, and I think I would personally agree with it. But "hate speech", "incitement" and "intent" are parts of our law and this is unlikely to change. As I said before, I'm not defending this law, I'm just pointing out that people are making wild assumptions about it without really understanding what it is about.

I think the difference is there, although clearly it's open to misinterpretation. I don't think the law would be used frivolously to silence criticism of anyone's belief. There is a distinction made clear in the proposal between protecting the believer not the belief. It's about active enmity and personal threat towards individuals. It is not about "leading up towards hatred" either - a robust criticism of Islam denouncing it as a religion of intolerance and hatred is not incitement to hatred just because somebody reads it and goes to bomb a mosque. Incitement would need to be present in the speech of the person accused of incitement - for example if they had suggested that people should go to bomb mosques. I think the difference is clear enough and our principles of freedom are clear enough that a distinction would be drawn by the courts in favour of protecting our right to express our views up to the point where they tip over into threatening behaviour. The BNP's political broadcasts and pamphlets are extremely critical of other races, arguably to the extent that they encourage the likes of Combat 18 to take action, but they are not often silenced under the race hate laws because they do not make threats or directly incite violence or hatred.There's no reason to assume that the religious hatred laws would be used differently.

 

Showmet the people originally calling for this law are fundamentalist Muslims. although to be honest the word fundamentalist is really over used because the non fundamentalists believe in things like crucifixion.
It’s just a ruse that our governments use to fool us that the majority of Muslims aren’t a threat.

And those Muslims that pushed for this law are still pushing for this law.

And you may get this Islamic Human Rights Commission saying they are worried that people like Abu hamza might get into trouble, but that doesn’t mean this law wasn’t made to attack critics of Islam in the first place. Just that they are scared that some of their nasty high profile mates might get hit too


You would think that ken Livingston has a feel for where this legistration is coming from and he said that the way the papers dealt with his homosexual stoning and burning friend showed the need for the home sectaries new laws.


The news papers as far as I know were not saying go out and firebomb anyone they just wondered why we should welcome and ask back a man who openly wants to slowly kill a large number of our population because of their sexual orientation.


Why is ken Livingston bear hugging this man? …Why is the man who organised the campaign against salman Rushdie, and then collected money that was given to mujahadeen in Algeria, who very likely used it to cut girl students throats a anti-fascist ?


Why is the left embracing these people

Showmet I’ve called you a fake in the past and that’s what you are or misguided. ken Livingston is a fake and the human shields that just attack the Jews and ignore the human rights abuses the muslims are doing; I didn’t see any human shield in Sudan or iran even though there have been far worse human rights abuses there than in Israel.

in a earlier thead you were complaining that george bush fought a war because he wanted regime change and you said that under international law you cant use compassion as a reason for going to war

so you can only fight a war if you are attacked or given a real threat not to save lives

under international law a diplomat can come into your house and rape and kill you or a member of your family these sort of things go on all the time its called diplomatic immunity

there was a case of a serial rapist in the uk and then in america who was caught twice with loads of evidence and they had to let that man go
legally you couldnt do anything
and if lets say you shot the diplomat in the head you would be called a criminal

now I dont know but under those circumstances if the law didnt protect me and didnt have much to do with justice

Id say fuck it and become a criminal

so technically lets say if someone did that nasty thing of starting a war for that terrible thing called compassion I personally wouldnt feel that bad towards them.. even though technically they were criminals
robin hood was a criminal