Peacefully
A little more on this argument about the proposed religious hatred law.
There is for instance number 8 in the Home Office’s 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.
That sounds unexceptionable, indeed benevolent, at first blush. But what about after a little thought? The difficulty is that leading ‘a life in which one can peacefully practise one’s own religion’ covers a lot of territory. Rather too much territory. Which is not (contra at least one of our commenters) to say that the government therefore ought to interfere with that right; it’s simply to say that the idea itself might not be as benign as it first looks. That’s the thing about phrases like that – phrases that sound good and kind and caring and concerned: they set us all up to read and hear them as benign and helpful when in fact they may not be, or they may be so only partly, or with a lot of further qualifications. In short, there’s rhetoric afoot. There are several hurrah-words that are meant to make us think the idea is a hurrah-idea – that’s how hurrah-words work. Right, lead a life, peacefully, one’s own, religion. They’re all gathered together there to block any impulse we might have to say ‘Wait, hang on, what about – ‘ I mean to say – how can anyone object to protecting all those things? People peacefully leading their own lives and peacefully practising their own religion – you might as well offer to burst into their living rooms and strangle their puppies.
But, as I mentioned, in reality the phrase covers a lot of ground. Practising one’s own religion may include subordinating, exploiting, and harming other people. Sad to say, one of the things religions do is erect and justify systems for, precisely, the subordination and exploitation and harming of other people. This is not a secret. So issuing blanket ukases about the peaceful practise of religion is not always as benign as it may sound. People who’ve grown up around milder forms of religion may lose track of this fact – and then phrases like the one under discussion help the process along. Religion is ‘one’s own’ – so obviously it can’t harm anyone else, right? Because it’s ‘one’s own’. My opinions don’t hurt you, yours don’t hurt me; everybody’s happy. But religious beliefs are not always inert, to say the least; they influence and justify behavior and action. Some fathers and brothers (and sometimes mothers) think it is right to murder daughters and sisters who have, say, run away from arranged marriages or married the ‘wrong’ man. From their point of view, they are indeed practising their own religion. So the phrase is misleading. Maybe that doesn’t matter; it’s just one phrase, after all; but the whole discussion all too often relies on phrases like that. I think that’s worth keeping in mind.
“to protect the rights of free speech”
Well, one could argue that that covers a bit too much territory as well. I do not think the absence of qualifications is a good basis to infer that the speaker did intent to deny all qualifications. But – if so – then the fair thing would be just to apply the inference on both sides of a statement like that i.s.o. of only on the one one is happy to take issue with.
The problem with the quote is not what is quoted but that it has naught to do with the law it alleges to defend.
“Well, one could argue that that covers a bit too much territory as well.”
Yup. One could, and it does, and I have. I’ve gotten into huge arguments with free speech absolutists about the implications of for instance the way radio was used in both Serbia and Rwanda precisely to incite hatred against groups. That tends to be a frustrating exercise too, because the f.s. absolutists I’ve had the misfortune to argue with won’t grapple with the issue, they simply wave it away.
“I do not think the absence of qualifications is a good basis to infer that the speaker did intent to deny all qualifications.”
No, and I don’t necessarily infer that. The point is just that statements like that need such qualifications.
One wouldn’t say a lot – if one needed to qualify thusly. Provided of course that a qualification presents itself in time for uttering before judgment is necessary and provided that all the qualifications that are given have a combined coverage that’s not smaller than the coverage of one that is not given – provided of course as well that such qualification is not irrelevant because assumed in the previous discourse & would, by repetition, express an overly generalized impression of such qualifying &c & so on.
Communication is a process that also has some element taking place in listeners & I take it that N° 8 didn’t intend to say that people should practice “mutilations of female genitals” “without fear”.
Sorry, JoB, I don’t buy it. Of course 8 didn’t intend to say that people should practice mutilations of female genitals without fear – that’s why it didn’t say it. But it may have intended, and anyway it has the effect of, drawing a cloud of warm-fuzzy feeling over the subject. That’s how people generally do talk about religion – in large inoffensive generalities. But religions are far more than large inoffensive generalities. Just for one thing, they are more than belief, they are also practice. They are not just what goes on in the head of individuals, one at a time, they are what people do to each other, and that is not always benign.
I see a slightly different difficulty with the Home Office formulation. The weasel words are “without fear”. Without out fear of what? Without fear of violence, certainly (unless we are considering attempts to pass off otherwise illegal activities as justified by religion). Also without fear of, e.g. employment discrimination.
But without fear of offence or riducule? I think not.
This goes to the question of how damaging one thinks that speech *independent of actions* can really be.
Also the extent to which examples of anti-religious harms can be remedied by specifically anti-discrimination laws. (E.g. assault of Jews or Muslims is already illegal. If such assaults are becoming a problem, we act to stop it working thorugh state and otherwise. It does not follow that a restricting free speech will make a significant difference.)
Third, there is the balance to be struck between the benefits from free speech in an open society and the harms that some people suffer through offence and insult.
In all three cases I think the weight is in favour of free speech.
Yeah, I noticed the weasel-potential of that phrase. But then on the other hand reading comments at a BNP site can give an idea of what kind of fear is meant.
“This goes to the question of how damaging one thinks that speech *independent of actions* can really be.”
Well that’s the biggy all right! That’s why all those arguments I’ve had with free speech absolutists have not gone anywhere, I think. We just have different ideas about the possible independence of speech from actions. (So in that sense I’m sort of seeing Blunkett’s point, which is inconsistent of me – but I think there is an inescapable tension here that really can’t be resolved – and I think that despite the point Blunkett has, the clause is not the way to enact it.) I do think speech independent of action (actions of the person doing the speaking, that is) can be as damaging as anything could be. The genocide in Rwanda wouldn’t have taken place if it hadn’t been for radio, as I understand it – it was radio that mobilized the entire country. One person speaking into a microphone can inspire the slaughter of millions, without ever performing any other physical action.
So…free speech can be not just offensive and insulting, but life-threatening (at one remove, at least). But then so can religion. So…there is a tension.
But since the risk of speech-inspired genocide seems pretty minuscule in the UK while the risk of turning a blind eye to the harms religions can do does not, I think Blunkett’s idea is a bad one. In a different time or place, I don’t know, I might be reluctantly in favour of it, or of a modified version of it.
“That’s how people generally do talk about religion – in large inoffensive generalities.”
That’s probably because, far from being a central issue of modern society, religion is generally inoffensive – both its words & its practices. Fundamentalist religion, sectarian religion &tc aren’t generally a reliable measure for a religion practised by the majority of individuals.
OB
“I think that despite the point Blunkett has, the clause is not the way to enact it.”
Personally (as I’ve made clear) I’m not sure it’s a bad idea to extend the race laws to protect religion – but I agree with you that this particular piece of legislation looks like a mistake. Any law affecting fundamental rights such as free speech needs very careful formulation, and this one seems rather clumsy.
Paul, you think the race laws should be extended to protect religion itself? Really?
No, that was a shorthand for ‘to protect people from being targeted with hatred on the basis of their religious belief or non-belief’, or somesuch confection. Lazy to phrase it thus, I know – I thought the meaning might be readily inferred.
Religion itself needs no protection; people, arguably, do. I think I advanced the case earlier that at the present time and in the present global climate measures to limit the extent to which hatred can legally be whipped up against people of any or no faith on the grounds of their beliefs may be worth considering. With all the reservations those qualifiers suggest…
Yeah, I almost added ‘or was that just shorthand’.
Yes, arguably people do. It sort of turns on the difference between saying ‘Islam X’ and ‘Muslims X’. The first ought not to be protected, the second perhaps ought. Which is appropriate in a way, because it’s possible to make factual statements about Islam, but is it possible to make such statements about ‘Muslims’? Apart from tautologous definitional ones, which don’t tell you anything, but just go in a circle.
Which just gets back to the idea that any kind of group hatred-incitement ought to be (prevented, interdicted, made difficult, watched carefully before it does damage – something), without specification. Without an adjective. Group hatred is volatile, dangerous stuff, and it’s not daft to be very wary of it. But attaching that idea to idea-prevention is a whole different thing, it seems to me.
Yes, I agree with you; but it is something difficult to legislate, isn’t it? ‘on the basis of membership of a group’ might be tricky per se – what group? Are you inciting hatred against these poor people on the grounds that they belong to the group of convicted child rapists (or whatever)?
Again, I’d stress that this legislation is being considered because the specific issue of religious hatred is becoming a problem *in a way* it has not hitherto been. Assuming it gets passed unaltered, the law itself will still get tested in the courts…
Incidentally, I note that Nick Griffin’s just been nicked on race hate charges for a speech which also included the decription of Islam as a “vicious, wicked faith”. I wonder whether this would have been adequate to get him in trouble over the religious hatred thing… On the one hand, that would seem to be )ostensibly) an attack on the faith and not the faithful; on the other, as dsquared has pointed out, such legislation may well be consciously used (as the race law is in this case) to target specific ‘dangerous’ groups. With all that might imply…
Final point: somebody please teach coppers hopw to speak English: “He is believed to have been arrested on suspicion of incitement to commit racial hatred.”
nuff said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,11981,1373467,00.html
Wish there was an ‘edit message’ option here – I’ve just realized that last was a quote from a BNP member, from whom we can expect little more. Leaves me looking like a dope… ach jo.