Religion
Related: About this forumACT to outlaw religious vilification
Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:57 PM - Edit history (1)
By Kathleen Dyett
Posted 1 hour 9 minutes ago
The ACT Government will move to broaden the Discrimination Act to cover persecution based on religion.
It will introduce a bill next week that would make it illegal to incite hatred, ridicule or contempt for anyone based on their religion.
There are similar laws in Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland.
Attorney-General Simon Corbell says it is partly in response to recently distributed flyers about a proposed mosque in Gungahlin.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-14/act-to-outlaw-religious-vilification/4196804?section=act
ACT is the Australian Capital Territory, analagous to the District of Columbia.
Here is the current Discrimination Act:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/da1991164/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sounds like they are trying to legislate respect for religion
rug
(82,333 posts)
edhopper
(33,482 posts)ridicule and contempt amount to hate crimes?
So in this country if show contempt and ridicule creationist, I should be charged with a hate crime?
Good to know where you stand.
Where to begin.
1) It's Australia.
2) A hate crime requires an act to go along with the bigoted motive.
3) In this country, or Australia, you're free to be a bigot, just don't act on your bigotry.
4) You haven't a clue where I stand.
5) It's "think" not "thing".
Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)
got me on a typo. Wow what a retort.
All i know that you seem to agree that contempt and ridicule of a religion should be a crime.
If not you could simply say you don't agree with that. Instead you choose to obfuscate.
I am not surprised.
rug
(82,333 posts)What weasel words.
edhopper
(33,482 posts)could resolve this. instead you choose to go all Strunk and White on me.
Though i guess you don't understand the use of the understatement for emphasis.
Reading Watson and Crick's conclusion to their DNA paper is a good illustration.
liberallibral
(272 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)edhopper
(33,482 posts)nothing substantive to say at all?
struggle4progress
(118,233 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)have complained about women wearing burkas, and are distributing pamphlets which specifically incite hate against Muslims.
Jews and Sikhs are already covered because of race vilification provisions which cover ethnic groups but not religious groups.
Do you seriously think that this kind of bigoted behavior towards Muslims just because they are Muslim is ok and does not need legal protection?
Skittles
(153,113 posts)and you know it
Do you think religion is not a category that should be included in hate crimes?
You know better.
edhopper
(33,482 posts)hate crimes? I do not, where do you stand?
rug
(82,333 posts)See how easy it is to answer a direct question.
I don't know why you find it so difficult?
rug
(82,333 posts)That's what the article is about.
edhopper
(33,482 posts)about your opinion on whether ridicule and contempt ALONE and not connected to a criminal act should be illegal.
I don't think so, what do you think?
At least have the cojones to say you refuse to answer.
rug
(82,333 posts)They may be stupid and juvenile but they're not crimes.
But that was never the topic of this thread.
talk about pulling teeth for a simple answer.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Leontius
(2,270 posts)about Julius Streicher.
edhopper
(33,482 posts)the whole history of the case as I should be, but my first thought is prosecution yes, execution, no.
*done*
you should not start what you don't want to finish.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)This is about acts that are not associated with other crimes. The relevant part of the existing Discrimination Act is:
(a) race;
(b) sexuality;
(c) gender identity;
(d) HIV/AIDS status.
(2) This section does not make unlawful—
(a) a fair report of an act mentioned in subsection (1); or
(b) a communication or the distribution or dissemination of any matter consisting of a publication that is subject to a defence of absolute privilege in a proceeding for defamation; or
(c) a public act, done reasonably and honestly, for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and presentations of any matter.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/da1991164/s66.html
(assuming your link was to the most recent version)
A hate crime is a crime that is motivated by hatred, and may be subject to a higher penalty as a result. This is about:
1): Inciting hatred. This is something that many jurisdictions outlaw. Americans usually find it unconstitutional, because of freedom of speech; neo-nazis are allowed in the USA to tell people they should hate non-whites, non-Christians, gays and lesbians, etc. I think such a law is less justifiable when the hatred is because of a person's views (eg their religion), rather than the existing categories in the Discrimination Act, which are not something they have chosen, or can change. If a religion tells its followers to hate gays and lesbians, for instance, I'd say people are allowed to tell everyone to hate the followers of the religion (that may not be the best way of solving the problem, but I think people should have the right to hate, and tell others to hate, in that case).
2): Inciting serious contempt. This is even more of a problem when the target is a viewpoint, such as a religion. Serious contempt for a misogynist religion is perfectly justified, for instance. I think every DUer holds the Westboro Baptist Church in serious contempt. Again, there's a big difference between an aspect of a person they can't change, and those they can.
3): Inciting severe ridicule. The biggest problem of all. Nearly everyone here ridicules something that calls itself a religion - such as Scientology. Again, we have to remember that this about beliefs that people have freely adopted.
The escape clause is "a public act, done reasonably and honestly, for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and presentations of any matter". This is an invitation to endless legal argument. When I take the piss out of Scientology for being made up by a sci-fi writer as a bet, and telling people that they flew to Earth on interstellar DC-8s, I think I'm acting in 'for other purposes in the public interest' - I think the world would be better off if everyone turned away from Scientology and its cons, and it disappeared. I also think I'm acting in the public interest by taking the piss out of the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, because I think people shouldn't believe in magic acts to shore up their moral system, and should develop better analytical and critical thinking skills. But I'd worry that calling it a magic act would get some Catholic lawyer saying I was 'inciting severe ridicule', but that it wasn't "in the public interest".
This sounds like a crappy idea for a law. It certainly needs a lot of change from what the article describes.
rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)But the statute as written does not include religion as a protected class. Do you think it should be added?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)This is not about hate crimes, which are acts that are already criminal, but are targeted at specific groups and motivated by a hatred of that group.
Inciting hatred of, for instance, neo-nazis, would not be a crime. But, if the article is accurate, the proposal is not just to make inciting hatred of a religious group a crime, but also serious contempt, and severe ridicule. What about groups like Westboro Baptist Church that claim their bigotry is religiously based? And the ACT (and the states that already have similar laws, if that's correct) will have genuine problems with what people can say about Scientology (who are known to use lawyers to silence critics whenever they can).
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that Muslims deserve the same protections?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)Jews and Sikhs are ethnic groups, and so come under the general "what they are, not what they think" category (ethnic Jews in particular still get targeted for hate even when they are non-religious).
I think a law against incited hatred of groups might be OK, if it was carefully worded, but it shouldn't just be an extension of laws about race, ethnicity, sexuality and so on. It should probably be OK, in the end, to say "I hate Illinois Nazis", or to say to people "you should hate Illinois Nazis too" - and to substitute 'Westboro Baptist Church' for 'Nazis'. It's when the hatred seems likely to cause someone to commit a criminal act because of its strength that there may be a need for a law, but it would need a lot of debate on how to draft it. Contempt and ridicule are, I think, a freedom we need to be able to express.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)This is about incitement to hatred, not incitement to illegal acts.
rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)(1) If a person urges the commission of an offence (the offence incited),
the person commits the offence of incitement.
Maximum penalty:
(a) if the offence incited is punishable by life imprisonment—
imprisonment for 10 years, 1 000 penalty units or both; or
...
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2002-51/current/pdf/2002-51.pdf