Return of the Repressed
It’s back, as the saying goes. The incitement to religious hatred law.
The bill extends the offence of incitement to racial hatred, under the Public Order Act 1988, to religious hatred, so that multi-ethnic faith groups are covered, as Sikhs and Jews are at the moment. Sadiq Khan, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said the bill closed a loophole which meant those who incite hatred against Christians and Muslims could not be prosecuted. “The law will not mean that comedians like Rowan Atkinson cannot take the piss out of religion,” he added.
Well why not? How do you know? How do I know? How do comedians like Rowan Atkinson, and bloggers like OB and journalists like Christopher Hitchens and science popularisers like Richard Dawkins and philosophy popularisers like A C Grayling and secularism popularisers like Ibn Warraq and Maryam Namazie and Azam Kamguian – how do any of us know? We don’t. That’s just it. We don’t know at all, and some spokesman just saying so doesn’t help. Sadiq Khan doesn’t know what sort of prosecutions would be brought under such a law, does he. How could he know? So where does he get the calm assurance of that assertion? Who knows.
And that word ‘loophole’ is deceptive, too. Loophole shmoophole. One might as well say a new law against incitement to political hatred ‘closes a loophole’ which means that those who incite hatred against socialists and libertarians cannot be prosecuted. It’s not a ‘loophole,’ it’s the essence of the thing. Just as it’s not a ‘technicality’ to say that the police can’t extort confessions by torture, so it’s not a ‘loophole’ to say that ideas must not be protected from criticism by threats of prosecution and imprisonment. In fact this new law would not so much close a loophole as create an absurdity, as Rowan Atkinson points out:
And a law that attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas, as long as they are not religious ideas, is a very peculiar law indeed.
There is nothing very reassuring in the explanatory notes that accompany the bill:
Explanatory notes accompanying the Bill say the offence would apply ”to the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service and the possession of written materials or recordings with a view to display, publication, distribution or inclusion in a programme service”. They add: ”For each offence the words, behaviour, written material, recordings or programmes must be threatening, abusive or insulting and intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.”
Must be threatening, abusive or insulting. Oh well that’s all right then! Because it’s well-known how calm and equable religious believers always are when non-believers challenge their beliefs. Believers will never see an ‘insult’ where other observers might see simply a difference of opinion. Oh hell no. And all those corpses littering the landscape, all those death threats, all those politicians under police protection, all those novelists and journalists who have gone into hiding – that’s just – um – a misunderstanding, which will never happen once this splendid law is in place and nobody is allowed to insult religion any more. Excellent.
“The incitement to religious hatred law.”
concludes
“and intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.”
Not the brightest lawmaker at work I’d say (but it’s Xmas season so maybe it’s just a way to spice up the stand-up comedian acts – everything to boost the economy).
By the way – was it permitted to stir up racial hatred intentionally?
I wondered how ‘racial’ got in there. But that’s the quotation. Rather odd…
Let’s try the T-shirt test:
Which of the following T-shirt captions should we prohibit people from displaying in public on grounds of ‘incitement to hatred’?
The Bible sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Christians
The Torah sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Jews
The Koran sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Muslims
‘Mein Kampf’ sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Nazis
‘Das Kapital’ sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere Communists
‘The Origin of Species’ sucks – offensive and insulting to sincere evolutionists
If we prohibit one, why not all?
And why is ‘incitement to religious hatred’ any worse than ‘incitement to political hatred’?
Discuss.
Okay, I’ll discuss.
:-)
Religious beliefs are fundamentally metaphysical and not amenable to reasoned argument or empirical proof, and so cannot be truly said to be true or false. It’s wrong to hate people for beliefs that are neither true nor false. But it’s okay to hate people for false beliefs, and political beliefs can be false.
People who believe that laws like this are anything but moronic do in clear fact have a false belief. I hate them for their false belief.
Er, and so should you. (Had to fit ‘incitement’ in there somehow…)
It is false that the world was created 3000 years ago in a seven day period. So there.
A sad story of religious hatred:
Somewhere in a remote place of Flanders – more than 50 miles from Brussels, that is – the boss of a small company gets threats (that they will torture his children & the like) if he does not force (alternatively, fire) a female employee wearing her little head scarf whilst working in his factory.
He stands firm; the woman works their for 8 years to their mutual contentment & she is integrated to the extent of speaking quite badly Dutch as folks in the West of Flanders use to do. Then he gets new threats, now with more details on what exactly would happen if he does not give in to the demands.
The female employee talks to her husband & they decide voluntarily to give in to the demands. She additionally has to go through the motions of explaining all of it on television given that the threats could come from anywhere (probably from some people that also set fire to some mosque in Holland in the post-Van Gogh neo-fascist recovery of that murder) & bears her humiliation as best she can.
It all sounds as a hoax (maybe it is) – but if it isn’t: there’s no need for any an additional law to deal with this. The existing laws, without referring to even remotely to religion, serve quite well to prosecute the bastards.
Let us hope she can wear her head scarf again soon. Then let’s hope she doesn’t feel compelled to wear it, or have her children wear it, if she (they) doesn’t (don’t) like to wear it.
Before making his ridiculously optimistic statement, Sadiq Khan should have looked at the cases which a similar law has produced in Australia.
What is it about the tolerant and understanding folk who supported the fatwa on Salman Rushdie which leads him to conclude they will hold back if this proposal becomes law in Britain?
JoB – sure an adult in Flanders can wear what she wants on her head. But does this demonstrate a specific need for legislation against incitement to religious hatred?
The people issuing the threats were . . . issuing threats. Saying to an individual “Do _X_ or I will torture your children” is surely an offence under Belgian law in any case, whatever _X_ is. I hope. If not, it should be.
“But does this demonstrate a specific need for legislation against incitement to religious hatred? “
Exactly. I defy anyone to come up with a scenario in which wrongdoers are going unpunished for want of such a law.
Chris & Chris,
I said: “there’s no need for any an additional law to deal with this. The existing laws, without referring to even remotely to religion, serve quite well to prosecute the bastards.”
Is it because I sometimes have a differing opinion that you assume I’d welcome such a stupid law.
I offered the story because a. it shows a real-life story of how oan go too far in opposing something & b. because it’s clearly showing no additional laws will be necessary in these cases.
On top of that, I sympathize with this woman. I really do.
(You forgot a Chris)
‘What is it about the tolerant and understanding folk who supported the fatwa on Salman Rushdie which leads him to conclude they will hold back if this proposal becomes law in Britain?’
Exactly so. There are quite a few people out there all ready and willing to jump out of the woodwork and shut up people who make ‘offensive’ comments about religion. The Rushdie affair made that depressing fact all too blindingly obvious.
I am not sure if I am amoungst the two Chris’s you are referring to (cos three of us all posted in quick sucession, we seem to be everywhere), but my comment was a general comment on the uselessness of a religious hatred law, and was not in reference to anything you had said. I am not even sure what point you were making with your Flanders anecdote, so I was certainly not responding to that. I was responding to, and agreeing with Chris Williams comment on the law.
“Is it because I sometimes have a differing opinion that you assume I’d welcome such a stupid law.”
Far from it. I am not altogether sure what your opinion on the law is; I have not been able to work it out from your posts on it, although you mentioned being an atheiest, so at a guess I would imagine you are not in favour of it.
Fair enough.
Rowan Atkinson’s speech was excellent and his case compelling.Freedom of speech is essential and all ideas should be subject to analysis,criticsm and lampooning.As an atheist I think all religions are fantasy and stripping out the’divine’ content most of their ideas irrational,absurd or insane to boot.Being partial to a glass of wine and a bacon sandwich myself I can insult a billion people at one snack.Survival of the fittest or blessed be the meek?.. the truth is blatently obvious-ask any carthaginian,tasmanian aborigine or full blooded carib indian.They werent strong enough so none survived.If the law is passed would I go to prison for saying the aove?Who knows?Is a group of home office spokesmen eligible to mount a class action as subject to racial or religion persecution if I say that they are traitors to free speech,their,country and their fellow countrymen and that collectively they want their heads examined.What if I say Blunkett is something else if he wants to lumber us with his ideas gag while at the same time,committing adultery,practicing unsafe sex, stealing taxpayers money to provide rail tickets for his mistress and using his influenc to illegally admit an immigrant..Disability discrimination???Hmmmm
It is currently legal to distribute certain kinds of blood libel in the UK, due to a genuine loophole in the Public Order Act 1986. In plain language, the statement “Jews drink the blood of Gentile children” is illegal, because it is “insulting abusive or threatening” to an ethnic group (Jews). However, the statement “The Jewish religion contains rituals which require the drinking of the blood of Gentile children” is (arguably, case law is sparse) not illegal because it does not refer to a racial group. In general, however, the main effect of the law will be to extend to Muslims the protections already extended to Jews – Jews are considered to be an “ethnic group” by the UK courts but Muslims are not, except in cases where it is obvious that “Muslim” is being used to refer to Pakistanis, Arabs, or some other racial group.
Atheists are very definitely considered to be a religious group for the purposes of UK law (they’re “a group defined by religious beliefs”, and not believing in God is a religious belief), and as a result of this, a fair few Muslim clergy are going to have to watch what they say about “infidels”.
And finally, nobody yet seems to have noted that this is new legislation for England & Wales and Scotland, but not new for the UK. An offence of incitement to religious hatred has existed in Northern Ireland for quite some while, for obvious reasons. In response to Chris’ challenge to come up with “a scenario in which wrongdoers are going unpunished for want of such a law”, I’d suggest that about a dozen such scenarios are acted out every day on the streets of Glasgow. However, under this law, it will now be illegal to go into a pub just outside Ibrox, get everyone chanting “No Popery” and then lead them out onto the streets just as the local Catholic school turns out.
None of the t-shirts described above would be illegal, and Rowan Atkinson is flat out wrong to think that his material could, because there is no sense in which anyone could seriously consider them to be intended or likely to incite hatred. Context is everything, obviously; Holocaust denial is not illegal in the UK in and of itself, but Holocaust denial literature can be part of an offence if it is distributed in a context in which it is clear that the intent (or under the new law, likelihood) is to stir up racial hatred.
The word “hatred” means what it says, too. You are currently allowed to mock racial groups in the UK; you can say that Pakistanis talk funny, or that black men are lazy and have large penises. I would extend a different challenge; can anyone find one single case under the existing UK law where someone has been found guilty of inciting hatred, but was merely criticising or lampooning a racial group? Ophelia is wrong to say that “we” don’t know what kind of prosecutions would be brought under this law; we do know that they would be almost exactly the same kind of prosecutions that are brought under the existing racial hatred laws, or the same kinds of prosecutions that have been brought in Northern Ireland under the sectarian hatred laws. We know this because the wording of the law is almost exactly the same (apart from the weakening of the “intent” test, which is a proper object of civil-liberties concern), so it beggars belief to assume that the courts would not work off the existing case law.
And there is a mistake in the final paragraph, which appears to have been caused by a common B&W failing; the tendency to go off at half-cock after not having read something properly. The test is not “threatening, abusive or insulting”. It’s (terms grouped for clarity) “(threating, abusive or insulting) AND (intended or likely to incite hatred”)”. The second part of the test is a fact to be determined by the courts and has nothing to do with what a religious believer or nonbeliever might take to be insulting. This paragraph also has a couple of factual errors; there are no corpses littering the landscape in the UK since the gravediggers’ strike ended.
“Jews are considered to be an “ethnic group” by the UK courts but Muslims are not”
Yeah…because they’re not. Right? Not that ‘ethnic group’ is a very meaningful term either, but to the extent that it has a meaning, Muslims don’t fit that meaning.
“not believing in God is a religious belief”
No it isn’t. That’s exactly what it isn’t. The rejection of, refusal of, abstention from religious belief is not religious belief. (The parenthetical phrase does not make it quite clear whether that’s the law’s view of the matter or a personal one.)
The ‘no Popery’ scenario – so there is no law on the books about inciting to riot? If not, surely that would be a better solution than a law against inciting to religious hatred.
“Rowan Atkinson is flat out wrong to think that his material could, because there is no sense in which anyone could seriously consider them to be intended or likely to incite hatred.”
Well, that’s blissfully optimistic. I don’t know where that confidence comes from any more than I know where Sadiq Khan’s comes from. Yes I do; I tell a lie; at least I have a wild surmise: it comes from wanting to think so. What is to stop anyone from, for instance, unseriously considering them to be intended or likely to incite hatred, and bringing a prosecution anyway? Eh? Is the concept of malicious lawsuits so unfamiliar in the UK, with its notoriously harsh libel laws? How serious was David Irving?
“can anyone find one single case under the existing UK law where someone has been found guilty of inciting hatred, but was merely criticising or lampooning a racial group?”
Not so fast. You’re shifting the terms, there. The worry is not only about being found guilty, is it. It’s about being sued or prosecuted at all, and the chilling effect that worry could (would, I would say) have.
“The test is not “threatening, abusive or insulting”. It’s (terms grouped for clarity) “(threating, abusive or insulting) AND (intended or likely to incite hatred”)”. The second part of the test is a fact to be determined by the courts and has nothing to do with what a religious believer or nonbeliever might take to be insulting.”
Why do I not find that reassuring, I wonder.
“Not that ‘ethnic group’ is a very meaningful term either, but to the extent that it has a meaning, Muslims don’t fit that meaning. “
Yes. That’s the loophole. The bill extends the same protection to multiethnic religious groups that is currently extended to monoethnic religious groups.
“The rejection of, refusal of, abstention from religious belief is not religious belief”
It’s a belief defined by being about religion, so for the purposes of UK law it defines a “religious group”. Therefore, people like the Finsbury Park mullahs would be prohibited from inciting ahtred against such groups as “non-Muslims” or “infidels”. Therefore, the British Humanist Association would be protected, which is presumably why they have expressed qualified support for a religious hatred bill (not sure what their view is on the specific draft bill). This stuff is all available on the Home Office website for anyone who takes the trouble to find out what they’re talking about, which is presumably too postmodernist, obscurantist and elitist to be a popular pastime these days.
“I don’t know where that confidence comes from”
I told you where it comes from; it comes from spending a couple of minutes reading a summary of the last ten years’ worth of case law on the racial hatred laws, plus the stated intentions of the lawmakers, plus the case law on the Northern Irish religious statutes, plus the case law on “religiously aggravated offences”, plus the case law on the European Convention on Human Rights.
As far as I can see, the official position of B&W is that “Pride and Prejudice” is a settled text with a single meaning that can’t be questioned by literary theorists, but the common law of England & Wales is a Derridean deferance for which any one of a variety of conflicting interpretations is equally valid. These views are wrong independently of one another and the combination of them is actually inconsistent.
What is to stop anyone from, for instance, unseriously considering them to be intended or likely to incite hatred, and bringing a prosecution anyway?
Probably the fact that private prosecutions are not allowed under the Bill.
How serious was David Irving?
The law on libel is civil law; this is a proposed adjustment to the criminal law. These are completely different things and I suspect you know it.
The worry is not only about being found guilty
OK then, let’s have an example of someone even having been prosecuted under the racial hatred laws when they didn’t quite obviously deserve to.
Why do I not find that reassuring
Because, to put it bluntly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There are genuine civil liberties concerns with respect to this Bill; you and Roawn Atkinson have managed to identify precisely none of them.
The other question is: what’s morally wrong in certain circumstances about hating certain individuals or groups, or inciting others to hate them? Aren’t some individuals and groups DESERVING of hatred? Isn’t it a moral imperative to hate (or at least to despise) people who neglect or abuse their children or rob or steal or murder their fellow-men? Isn’t it a moral imperative to hate people who, say, believe that Jews or kulaks or queers or lesbians should be exterminated and who are just waiting for an opportunity to do so with impunity? Isn’t it a moral imperative to hate those who believe that Salman Rushdie should be executed for his beliefs? Isn’t it a moral imperative to ‘incite’ our fellow citizens to hate those who subscribe to such beliefs? By ‘hatred’, of course, I don’t actually mean that we should attack such people on the streets, but that we should at least try to ensure that there are as few of them resident in our society as possible and quite openly discriminate against them on grounds of their beliefs, if these beliefs are incompatible with the survival of a tolerant and open society. Isn’t ‘Islamophobia’ at least as rational as ‘Naziphobia’?
Whether hateworthy beliefs are inspired by some allegedly supernatural source, such as God, or by some pseudo-scientific ideology, such as Nazism or Communism, seems to me pretty much beside the point.
Cathal, none of those groups (child-abusers, robber, murderers, anti-Semites, Stalinists, homophobes or Salman-Rushdie-fatwa-supporters) are protected by the draft Bill. What is ruled out by the Bill is behaviour which attempts to suggest that Muslims in general are child abusers, robbers, etc, etc. If you want to incite your fellow citizens to hate the people who tried to kill Salman Rushdie, then you are still allowed to. Unless, of course, you are doing so in a context where it is clear that your actual intention is to incite hatred toward all Muslims (compare those who fulminate against “bogus asylum seekers”, a group who are not protected by the racial hatred laws, but most of whose critics are also pushing a racial agenda and have on one occasion got copped for doing so).
Isn’t ‘Islamophobia’ at least as rational as ‘Naziphobia’?
No it isn’t. I’m guessing that from your first name you’d object to my saying that “the Irish are murdering scum who put bombs in shopping centres” (and so would the Public Order Act 1986), so you should extend the same courtesy to the Muslims.
By the way, Cathal’s comment gives me a good opportunity to comment on how the case law is applied. In the right context, the sentence I quoted above could certainly be criminal under the new Bill.
That would have to be a context in which it was clear, however, that it was intended to incite “hatred” (which has a fairly closely defined meaning under the case law of the race relations act; simply saying “I hate blacks, me” doesn’t usually reach the legal standard of hating blacks) or that it was likely to incite. Given the context, however, in which it is clear that Cathal is commenting in general terms and thinking analytically about the kind of society which a liberal democracy ought to be, there is actually no case here. But I would be careful if you were to suddenly get the urge to make 1000 photostats in red ink of that phrase, add a few pictures of dead bodies and start handing them out outside Seven Sisters tube.
“Yes. That’s the loophole. The bill extends the same protection to multiethnic religious groups that is currently extended to monoethnic religious groups.”
I know that. That’s the point – that there is a difference between protecting ethnic groups and protecting religious groups. I don’t think the ‘loophole’ is a loophole.
“As far as I can see, the official position of B&W is that “Pride and Prejudice” is a settled text with a single meaning that can’t be questioned by literary theorists,”
Really? Is that really as far as you can see? I’ve never said anything like that.
“The law on libel is civil law; this is a proposed adjustment to the criminal law. These are completely different things and I suspect you know it.”
No, actually. Mea culpa. You’re right that I need to find out more.
“Because, to put it bluntly, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Well which is it? Lying, or pig-ignorant? You don’t get both.
From the Home Office FAQ:
“The Government is determined to protect both the rights of free speech, which have been long respected in this country, and the right to lead a life in which one can peacefully practise one’s own religion without fear.”
The trouble with that is, leading a life in which one can peacefully practise one’s own religion may mean leading a life in which one can peacefully teach one’s daughters that they are inferior and subordinate, in which one can teach all one’s female relatives that they are inferior and subordinate, in which one can teach everyone that Dalits are inferior and subordinate, and so on. To some it can mean killing female relatives who have brought ‘dishonour’ to the family, or forcing a very young girl to get married. ‘leading a life in which one can peacefully practise one’s own religion’ covers a multitude of sins. Practising one’s own religion means different things to different people, and not all of them are automatically harmless or beneficial, nor are they necessarily freely chosen. One person’s leading a life in which [he] can peacefully practise [his] own religion may mean a life in which other people lead lives that they don’t want and haven’t chosen. So warm fuzzy words about peacefully living a life are misleading.
“In response to Chris’ challenge to come up with “a scenario in which wrongdoers are going unpunished for want of such a law”, I’d suggest that about a dozen such scenarios are acted out every day on the streets of Glasgow.”
Could you be more specific about what these scenarios are rather than just asserting they exist in abundance? Because I very much doubt that the sort of things you may have in mind are not already covered by existing laws. Of course if you come up with such a scenario, I will stand corrected.
Dsquared writes about “a common B&W failing; the tendency to go off at half-cock after not having read something properly”. Perhaps he has a point – and yet I think this may be one of those failings that has its own forte.
The point is that sometimes it’s safer to be uncool, assume the worst and shoot from the hip. The inevitable ad Hitlerum (just to get it over with): Jews who were ‘uncool’ about the Nazis, who ‘freaked out’ when Hitler took over and immediately emigrated certainly had better chances of survival than the ‘cooler’ ones that stayed on until 1940.
Ophelia, like most rational people, just smelt a rat when she read about the plans to push through an ‘incitement to religious hatred’ act. We don’t all have time to go to night school and familiarize ourselves with the ins and outs of UK criminal law. But when a draft act introduced by the thought police looks like a piece of grovelling-to-Muslims, politically correct crap, waddles like a piece of PC crap and quacks like a piece of PC crap, then there is at least a 10% possibility that it is a piece of PC crap.
Dsquared has certainly done his homework, and he’s probably (90%) right that the sky won’t cave in if this legislation is adopted.
But I’d prefer to be 100% certain, to be sure rather than to be sorry.
Oops, just read ChrisM’s posting.
Yes, ChrisM — you really have put it all in a nutshell. That’s the question: what isn’t already covered by existing law anyhow?
Writhe, dsquared, writhe ….
And the thing is, the sky falling in is not the only possibility. I’m more worried about subtler effects of such a law: of reinforcing the already existing hesitation to criticise Islam, of reinforcing the already existing confusion of race with religion and religion with race, of reinforcing the already existing failure to pay attention to secularist feminists like Maryam Namazie and Homa Arjomand lest one seem to be ‘bashing’ Islam.
It’s not that I necessarily think the sky will fall in, but I do think the law could make some existing trends worse.
The questions about existing law. Yeah – I said that in my first answer.
“The ‘no Popery’ scenario – so there is no law on the books about inciting to riot? If not, surely that would be a better solution than a law against inciting to religious hatred.”
And didn’t get an answer in return. Really – isn’t there a law against inciting to riot?
I love the way that you guys are in one breath claiming not to know the difference between civil and criminal law and in the next lecturing me on what might or might not be covered by the “incitement to riot” laws.
Here’s your example. In Northern Ireland and in sectarian parts of Glasgow there used to be (and probably still is) a charming custom whereby one might gather outside the house of a Catholic family, or a business run by Catholics or, for preference, a Catholic school and chant “filthy Taigs!” at the Catholics as they came and went. This isn’t illegal, unless there are too many of you and you end up committing a public order offence. You’re clearly not “rioting” because you can’t riot simply by standing around and shouting. You’re also not inciting racial hatred, because Catholics aren’t a race. However, it was felt in Northern Ireland that this was something that Catholics ought to be protected from by the law of the land. Now it’s going to be law on the mainland.
It used to be considered an “Enlightenment value” to bother to find out about something before expressing an opinion on the subject; apparently, no more.
By the way, it is, always has been and always will be, legal to tell your daughters that they are inferior, if that’s what you believe. It’s protected speech in the USA and everywhere else and always will be, because how ever undesirable it is that people should do such a thing, the level of state interference that would be necessary to stop them would be worse. It’s even legal to bring your children up to hate atheists and Blacks because the incitement laws have a specific exemption for statements made in private dwellings. What you don’t have the right to do is go out into public spaces and stir up hatred against other people.
Dsquared, are you seriously claiming that the use of vulgar or abusive language in public (such as ‘filthy Taigs’) is not an offence in th UK already? It certainly is in the United States and, as far as I know, in virtually every civilised society.
The argument — how often does one have to make the point — is why
[sorry, got excited, pressed ENTER by mistake] — is why RELIGION is to be singled out for special treatment.
Why is it deemed more offensive or repugnant to holler down main street that ‘Muslims are bastards’ in a way that it is not deemed offensive to holler ‘Germans are bastards’ or ‘Tories are bastards’?
Perhaps I should consult a lawyer …
Shouting in public might be a public order offence but might not, depending on circumstances. Simply calling someone a filthy Taig on the production line every time you see them could never be a public order offence, and they do that too in some factories. In general, it’s not hard to come up with examples of religious bigotry if you know even a little bit about it, and not all of them fit in particularly well with the existing law, which is why they made a new one. Drunk driving might be covered by the existing law on dangerous driving, but we decided it was worth having a special law for that, and now for mobile phones too.
It is already illegal to shout “Fuck the Germans” if the context is inciting racial hatred because Germans are an ethnic group for purposes of the Public Order Act 1986, with decent precedent. Inciting hatred against Tories is currently legal (unless you’re committing a public order offence), but that’s where society decided to draw the line; since there have been relatively few incidents of persecution of Tories over the last twenty years, I suspect that there would be little support for your proposed amendment.
In general, could you at least recognise before shooting your mouth off that we are having a discussion about UK race relations law here, which is a subject on which I am in control of the facts and you are not? If you want to disagree with me from now on in, please do so by making specific comments on specific claims of law or fact, not general expressions of incredulity like “are you seriously claiming …?”
“By the way, it is, always has been and always will be, legal to tell your daughters that they are inferior, if that’s what you believe.”
No kidding. I didn’t say it wasn’t, and I didn’t say it ought not to be. I was simply pointing out a flaw – a ‘loophole’ if you like – in the pious-sounding sentiment in the FAQ. Simply pointing out that it’s not quite as sweet and benevolent as it sounds.
And I didn’t ‘lecture’ you – I asked a question. Twice. It was a question. Here’s a lecture though: try to disagree without being obnoxious. Never mind about the Churchill/Swift/Whoever bit.
I actually agree about the inciting hatred thing – it’s just that I think that should be a blanket law. I don’t think people should gather in groups and whip up hatred against anyone, not even a mere hapless individual person that other people find boring or annoying or unattractive. I don’t see why it’s necessary to add adjectives to the mix (and think it’s a bad idea for the reasons mentioned).
I notice you didn’t answer the question about Pride and Prejudice and the one true meaning. I thought you wouldn’t. Just a little obnoxious hyperbole that doesn’t happen to be true, eh. Well, as I said: try to disagree without being obnoxious, and as I didn’t say, also without saying things that aren’t true. (And don’t bother telling me how prissy that is, either; I’m not interested.)
Since the entire context of this discussion is you writing things that aren’t true (again), I think I’ll be ignoring that, thanks. It would also be nice if you could correct the mistake I identified earlier; the UK does not have dead bodies littering the landscape.
Right. Go away then. You have an avowed taste for Churchillo-Shavian rude personal comments; I don’t; so go away.
Hey, how come dsquared always picks on OB but refuses to lecture me at great length about how wrong I am about Derrida or whatever? I don’t mind trading snotty remarks with trollish creatures. Come on, DD, pick on me for a change. Please.
This is way way off-topic, but will dsquared please tell me what is wrong with Brian Leiter’s criticism of Derrida’s work?
I think dsquared has made some very valid responses to the concerns expressed about this proposed legislation, and I must admit to being rather disappointed that in a supposedly rationalist forum the response has primarily been a mishmash of ad hominems, tu quoques and staw men…
For one thing, (s)he has observed that there are indeed things to feel concerned about in this legislation; yet no one has picked up on this, even when prompted. Of great concern to me is the phrasing ‘intended or likely to incite hatred’. Why? Because with intention alone, or a combination of intention AND likelihood, the requirement at the very least requires the demonstration of both prejudice and malicious intent (not necessarily covered by incitement to violence or rioting legislation, as these require a level of immediacy which may well not be present). With mere ‘likelihood’ added to the mix, context could mean that a careless statement, misjudged action etc. could become criminal.
As to the point re. this legislation preventing criticism of (to use to most oft-cited example) Islam, in practice it may simply force secularists to be a little more cogent in their criticisms. Much of what is attacked and condemned in the pages of B&W (forced marriages, for example) are not in fact central to Islamic belief per se but are either contested or against the teachings of the faith. Who knows, maybe secularists will actually have to learn something about the religions they attack?
In any case, as some of the Conservatives opposed to the Bill have pointed out, it will be equally applicable to hellfire preachers and fire-and-brimstone Imams. Some of the comment in parliament seems to have been be at least partly based on the idea that this will in fact attack and limit the ‘rights’ of religious leaders to incite hatred of secularists and those of other faiths (something which, incidentally, is also barred by the Qur’an – at least in the more moderate nterpretations thereof). Before anyone comes out with the canard of non-belief not being a religious belief at all, I’ll point out it is explicitly defined as such by the bill…
Finally, I’ll offer one thing which I feel to be a potential problem: could prosecutions brought under this legislation end up forcing British courts to adjudicate on religious interpretation? Certainly there are many different interpretations of the rules set out in the Qur’an, for example. Could a situatin arise where a secular court might end up having to rule on whether a particular set of actions, for example, are or are not consistent with the teachings of a religion?
Sorry this post is a bit slack; I’m at work and can’t really take the time to draft more carefully.
Paul,
Maybe so but after reading the before, it is not like ds offered arguments – on top of having the superior knowledge – why it (the legislation) should be linked to the religion one is a part of.
JoB
I’m not particularly interested in defending this legislation from intelligent, factually-based criticisms of the propriety of extending protection to religious groups against hatred.
Well, since no one has attempted to put forward an argument in favour of the protection of religious belief from hatred per se, I’ll have a go. I’m not committed in my opinion on this either way as yet – but since there’s no way to investigate this without finding arguments for both sides I’ll give it a try. Certainly my arguments will be contentious – in all cases please bear that disclaimer in mind:) (FTR, I’m a firm atheist, though that shouldn’t need to be said.)
Thesis one: belief is not – as seems to be the prevalent consensus here – something one ‘chooses’ in any meaningful sense of the word. Bear with me on this, OK? When one believes in something one can test this by examining the foundations of that belief and by testing its implications. Where the necessary data is denied us we do not generally suspect belief: for example, I believe that no teapot orbits the sun. The fact that I cannot subject that belief to any kind of empirical test does not undermine my belief that no teapot orbits the sun (this is of course a reversal of the normal way this model is posed, but that’s the point).
The fact that the lack of evidence either for or against the teapot fails to change my mind is only half the picture. For a hypothesis about belief as a choice to be true, it would seem to me to be imperative that I could consciously choose to believe in the orbiting teapot. Need I say I cannot – just as I cannot choose to give any credence to the idea of giants walking the earth?
Of course, belief in a god is somewhat different; the orbital teapot having been used as an argument against faith, though, I feel it’s fair enough to revive it here. Indeed, when one believes in a god, and in the message of that god, any element of ‘choice’ goes out of the window. One may excperience revelation and thus be converted or lose one’s faith, but this is something that happens outside the frame of ‘choice’… Disagree? Prove it, and choose to believe in a God. I’ll be liberal in my demands: since that god will not be able to be wholly in conflict with your perceptions of reality I won’t ask that it be an all-loving, benevolent God, but omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence etc should all be easy enough to balance.
No?
If it is accepted that belief (or disbelief) is not in any meaningful sense a choice then it seems reasonable to suggest that no one should be made to suffer (beyond the demands of their faith, heh heh…) for belief or lack thereof.
Thesis two: laws are generally reactive, and arguably should be so. The definition of a law preventing incitement to religious persecution (essentially what this is about) is a reaction to a practical reality where this is becoming a problem – and a problem which risks blowing up into far more in today’s troubled world.
It would take a blinkered person to deny that there is now increasing conflict between faiths and between faiths and secularism, and a foolhardy one to claim that this is not faith-based. In that context to legislate to limit the extent to which putative hatreds can be aroused is a sensible measure: part (and yes, I do mean only part) of the responsibility of govermnent is to keep the peace. This legislation is intended to prevent real problems – to prevent faith leaders from siccing their followers on each other and to safeguard the right of people to live as they choose provided that is within the law.
“and I must admit to being rather disappointed that in a supposedly rationalist forum the response has primarily been a mishmash of ad hominems, tu quoques and staw men…”
I know; that’s my point. Substantive disagreement good; rude personal remarks not good, will be erased.
Paul,
“Much of what is attacked and condemned in the pages of B&W (forced marriages, for example) are not in fact central to Islamic belief per se but are either contested or against the teachings of the faith.”
Sure. But when I cite things like that I’m responding to woolly generalities about, for instance, ‘the right to lead a life in which one can peacefully practise one’s own religion without fear.’ The woolliness is part of the point – wool meets wool. The whole subject is riddled with imprecision, and that’s what I’m trying to get at. That phrase ‘practise one’s own religion’ can mean anything. The ‘one’s own’ bit makes it especially dodgy. Anybody can have one’s ‘own’ religion, so the fact that a particular custom is disputed or not in the Koran or the Bible or the Talmud is beside the point in that context. That ‘beside the point’ is the point. The phrase sounds good, it sounds noble, fair, rights-protecting, freedom and privacy protecting, and so on – but it is decidedly not precise. And the reality is that to many people, many male heads of household in particular, their ‘own religion’ does indeed mean forced marriage for very young daughters, among other things. The fact that they may be technically or Koranically wrong about that is unfortunately irrelevant, since the issue is practice.
“and to safeguard the right of people to live as they choose provided that is within the law.”
Well, again, the same sort of problem. That covers a multitude of – stuff. Which people? Who chooses? Sometimes one person’s way of living as he chooses entails chopping off his daughter’s genitals, forcing her to wear a hijab, not letting her leave the house, arranging her marriage and not allowing her to refuse. What about that daughter’s right to lives as she chooses? What if it’s in tension with her father’s right to live as he chooses?
Note, I’m not saying therefore the state should intervene (which is not to say I don’t think so, just that that’s not what I’m saying); I’m just saying that talking about people’s right to live as they choose provided it’s legal, doesn’t quite deal with the issues. One of the reasons secularists criticize religion, and are so keen to hang on to the right to do so, is that fundamentalist religion tends to make it impossible for large groups of people ever to have a chance to ‘live as they choose’. Fundamentalist religion tends to invest that possibility and power with some people at the expense of others. It’s no good blinking that.
“I’m just saying that talking about people’s right to live as they choose provided it’s legal, doesn’t quite deal with the issues.”
How not? The examples you gave are quite illegal in Western societies. It is even quite illegal to chop one’s own genitals off. That these things are in some state not illegal is besides the point. Nobody said that “provided it’s legal” is to be understood for “any” legal.
“One of the reasons secularists criticize religion,”
Well, that’s an unfair generalization of the woolly kind. I’m a secularist & I am not criticizing religion. You make it as if one group is against another group, & that’s neither true nor helpful. I´ll be dancing for joy when religion ceases to be a point of discussion – &, sure, the required effort to make it so is to the largest extent on the religious (but, at the rate a politically correct discourse is shifting with light speed from a left to a right that mayn’t be forever the case).
” (..) is that fundamentalist religion tends to make”
Sometimes qualifying “religion” with an adjective “fundamentalist” & other times not is also definitely woolly.
If anything it shows not all religion is fundamentalist, & hence not all religion is suspect from a secular point of view. Vice versa, fundamentalist secularism is suspect from a secular point of view, as the latter point of view only judges the adjective & not the noun.
“Fundamentalist religion tends to invest that possibility and power with some people at the expense of others. It’s no good blinking that.”
Nobody is blinking at that. Stating that something may be the case when something is in fact not the case is very woolly – utterly woolly.
JoB
PS: after that, I hope you’d help me in looking for the meaning of “blimp”. I’d be much farther in solving world issues if I’d be able to make out what it does mean.
Actually before that, because it’s easier and quicker. Blimp is a funny word – it refers to those slow-moving airship things – you know, those huge ovoid balloon-like objects with a small vehicle attached to the bottom like a barnacle. But it also used to be a slang term or colloquialism or idiom, for a certain kind of red-faced Tory, around the time of WWII. That’s vague – I’m sure other people will do better with the etymology. I think I once knew where it came from, but I forget.
“The examples you gave are quite illegal in Western societies.”
Are they? Are you sure? I’m not.
“Nobody said that “provided it’s legal” is to be understood for “any” legal.”
Well how else is it to be understood?
“Well, that’s an unfair generalization of the woolly kind. I’m a secularist & I am not criticizing religion.”
No it’s not – but it is a sort of artifact of language, so perhaps it amounts to the same thing. There’s an implied ‘when they do criticize religion’. I could have said ‘that’s one reason secularists who criticize religion, criticize religion’ – but it would have been awkward.
“Sometimes qualifying “religion” with an adjective “fundamentalist” & other times not is also definitely woolly.”
Maybe so, sometimes. But if I mean religion when I say religion, and fundamentalist religion when I say fundamentalist religion, I’m not sure that’s woolly.
“& hence not all religion is suspect from a secular point of view.”
Well that depends. All religion is suspect when certain issues are being discussed. Other times, not.
“Nobody is blinking at that. Stating that something may be the case when something is in fact not the case is very woolly – utterly woolly.”
Yes, JoB, people are blinking it, for instance in the quotations I gave. That’s why I gave them, and then criticized them the way I did. You’ve worn the woolly joke out now, and you’re not backing up what you say. Just announcing ‘nobody is blinking that’ is not convincing.
rude personal remarks not good
To make it clear, none of my comments above contained rude personal remarks, including the deleted one.
Ophelia,
Thanks – the former sense of blimp is the one I needed so don’t worry about another one. Thanks a lot, in fact.
As to the rest, I’m not convinced but I spare both of us the on & on (we got one another’s points).
Taking issue with arguments as woolly is tactics often exercised at B&W. So I’m nonplussed by being reproached for using it so often it turns into a joke. Your responses are evasive manoeuvers (as in Han Solo being out of torpedoes & attacked by the Emperor’s fleet).
I do not doubt you mean it well but I do get scared by the fact that this becomes an anti-Islam i.s.o. a pro-reason site.
Dsquared,
To give you your due, you seem to know what your talking about and a Socratic dialogue is possible with you when you’re not metaphorically kicking discussants in the bollocks.
Now I have a question. In today’s Daily Telegraph (see here), Charles Moore in an opinion peace writes that David Blunkett, last Tuesday, said that under the new dispensation it would illegal to state that ‘Muslims are a threat to Britain’ (though I couldn’t google-source this).
My question is:
Does Plunkett know what he is talking about or doesn’t he (presuming he did actually say this)?
Because if Plunkett’s interpretation is correct, then the new legislation really does spell the beginning of the end of freedom of speech in the UK.
“The examples you gave are quite illegal in Western societies.”
That is only because at some point in history, those societies thought it would be a good idea to make such practices illegal. Clearly it is a possibility that there are still some practices which are not currently illegal, but which many people feel ought to be. In fact it would be the height of arrogance to think that this generation is the one that has perfected how to order a society.
“Because if Plunkett’s interpretation is correct, then the new legislation really does spell the beginning of the end of freedom of speech in the UK.”
And “Plunkett” (haha, love it) himself seems to spell the end of freedom of speach. Still I am enjoying every lurid headline at the moment claiming to expose aspects of his private life. It is almost enough to make one think their may be a god after all.
“That is only because at some point in history,”
It is by & large the same point in those histories at which freedom of religion – suitably reducing its expression in acts that limit other people’s freedom of it – became incribed.
Without qualification “religions that we believe are tolerable” but normally with qualification “except in case of sects”.
Is Islam a sect?
“It is by & large the same point in those histories…”.
Meaning what? Within a year? 10 years? a generation? A lifetime?
“…suitably reducing its expression in acts that limit other people’s freedom of it…”
Well that just seems to be begging the question. A law which limits critism of religion acts to limit my expression of freedom of religion (i.e. none).
Cathal; context is everything. It would be, under the new law, illegal to say “Muslims are a threat to Britain” in precisely the same set of contexts and circumstances as those in which it is currently illegal to say “Jews are a threat to Britain”.
Both items are in the Code Napoleon, i.e. for those countries “really” enlightened (allow me the joke): exactly the same time up to the minute.
I have never supported this law. I merely addressed a number of opinions that go in my opinion equally to the wayside.
Yes, as atheist you have exactly the same rights to express your atheism as theists have. Do you need more? On what basis? Did Somebody reveal to you that you were right & they wrong?