UK Religious hate law would protect witches and cults

[T_i_B]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=645619

Satanists, witches and cult members will be protected by controversial new laws banning incitement to religious hatred.

The legislation, which has twice been abandoned in the face of resistance from opposition parties, writers and comedians who argue it threatens free speech, is designed to protect Muslims from extreme prejudice.

But as it launched a fresh attempt to drive the law on to the statute book, the Government said the law would carry a wide-ranging definition of religion. Officials confirmed it could include satanists, pagans and religious sects. The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill will also cover people defined by their lack of faith, such as atheists and humanists.

The proposed measure covers comments made in speeches and other public appearances, media interviews and articles. It puts Muslims on the same footing as Jews and Sikhs, who are covered by race-hate legislation.

[acmavm]

1. Geez, here we want to burn everyone at the stake who doesn't follow

the irreligious fundie crapola.

Why can't we pass some laws that protect the rights of people instead of the crap these bastards in Washington D.C. are inflicting on us?

Oh I remember. Because the current administration is all about power, greed, and lies. Not freedom, honesty, and concern for the average (or even not so average) American citizen.

Silly me.

[Massacure]

2. Banning religious discrimination is a good thing.

It's not like they are legalizing burning people at the stake.

[mrfrapp]

3. Already Banned

Religious discrimination is already banned. This is about criminalising behaviour (including speech) that incites religious hatred in others. Granted, the incitement has to be deliberate but how is one to judge what another's intentions were. No, this law will be used to lock up people the Government finds irritating.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. And this is a problem because...?

:shrug:

Sounds like demogoguery, implying "The Satanists are coming for your children!"

[PsychoDad]

5. Good

everyone deserves respect for their beliefs, or decision to have no belief.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Hmm.

There are a great many beliefs which don't deserve respect.

I think it's generally a good thing to respect other people, but that's not the same thing as respecting their beliefs, or respecting them *for their beliefs*.

I live in the UK, and I am extremely worried about this legislation.

The freedom to say "religion X is bad for these reasons" is a vital (one of the most vital, I'd say) parts of freedom of speech, and this law is a massive infringement of that.

Freedom not to be offended is something I strongly oppose. There should not be a legal right not to be insulted.

We already have laws banning religious discrimination, and incitement to violence. We should not have laws forbidding the expression of opposition to a religion, however.

My neighbours should be allowed to call me whatever names they like, provided they don't go further than that or encourage others to.

[Maat]

7. I agree. I'm here in California.

There's a great case in my Constitutional law book about the need to permit even Klansmen to hold a parade or rally, as long as they weren't imminently inciting violence, and the violence was not likely to happen.

As abhorrent their beliefs are, I will do anything to preserve freedom of speech.

Regulating behaviors is one thing.

There was a pastor in Canada who, it is my understanding, was criminally sanctioned for stating that homosexuality was wrong.

While he disgusts me, and his words disgust me, I don't want some hate speech law throwing ME in jail for stating that I have no respect for the beliefs of Conservative Christians.

There has to be a way to enact laws that will reduce hate CRIMES, but preserve freedom of speech.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Yes, I agree

It's sometimes hard to draw the line - clearly saying

"I belief people with red hair are evil"

should be legal and

"I think you should go out and murder everyone with red hair"

shouldn't, but

"While of course I completely condemn violence, what you have to understand is that there is only so much ordinary decent blondes and brunettes can take before, regretably, they take the law into their own hands, and I can certainly understand where these people who have been using redheads for target practice are coming from, nudge nudge, wink wink"

Is slightly more difficult.

Two obvious standards to set are "Could you reasonably have forseen that what you said would have led to violence" and "Was what you said specifically intended to cause violence" - I'm inclined to think that the latter of these is the better, although it's harder to prove.

[Maat]

9. You got it.

And, right now in the USA, the latter is the standard.

The person must be intentionally inciting violence, and that violence must be LIKELY to happen in the immediate future.

[davidinalameda]

10. there's a difference

saying you don't respect fundie Christians is much different than saying that Jews use the blood of Christian babies for their temple services

or that Wiccans are Satan worshippers

both statements are blatently incorrect and are meant to cause hatred for those groups

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. I don't agree.

I don't think there's any difference between insulting fundamentalist Christians and insulting Jews or Pagans. The Blood Libel is a slightly special case, because it's often been used to stir up pogroms, but unless there was evidence that it was being used for that purpose nowadays it should still be legal.

Saying a specific Jew uses the blood of Christian babies of sacrifices is libellous, of course.

And I don't think "both statements are blatantly incorrect" has any bearing on whether or not they should be legal. Freedom of speech has to include the freedom to be wrong to mean anything.

And "it's meant to cause hatred" is a charge that could just as well be levelled agains most attacks on fundamentalist Christians, and is again no reason to make something illegal.

[PsychoDad]

11. Agreed.

I should have said, Everyone's right to choose their religion or lack thereof should be respected.

And I also think that the right of one to disagree, and to state so is just as important.

But just as one has no right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, one should not have the right to do or incite violence against a person for their race or creed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Yes, that makes sense

I think the line in the sand is roughly when you go from saying "Group X are evil" to "We should go and beat up group X", although obviously there's a grey area in between.

Inciting hatred should not in itself be illegal, but inciting violence certainly should be (and is, in the UK).

[T_i_B]

12. Atheists should welcome a law against religious hatred

Great article about this from former UK Health secretary Frank Dobson.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1509183,00.html

Do you believe that anyone should be allowed to incite hatred against other people on the grounds of their religious belief? I don't, even though I have no religious belief myself. That's because I believe that nobody should suffer assaults, or live in fear, because of their religious beliefs. But they do. Today. In our country. Mothers collecting children from school have been abused and assaulted. So have men attending their places of worship. Homes have been stoned and fire-bombed. Recently it has been Muslim mothers, Muslim men, Muslim homes. Yet at present our laws offer no special protection to Muslims against incitement to these acts, even though it provides such protection to Jews and Sikhs and some Christians.

Let us look at some of the objections put forward by the bill's opponents. They say it extends the blasphemy law. It doesn't. If it did, I wouldn't dream of supporting it because I have been campaigning for years to abolish the blasphemy law. As long ago as 1949, Lord Denning described it as a "dead letter", and in 1967 parliament repealed the Blasphemy Act of 1697. That left the common law offence which, on the strength of a judgment at York summer assizes in 1838, protects only the Church of England; and the law commission recommended 20 years ago that the common law offence should be abolished. And so it should.

Another claim by opponents of the bill is that the government is only doing this to try to regain Muslim support lost as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. That can't be true because this change in the law was first proposed by the government in November 2001 following the increase in attacks on Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11. It was a prompt, proper and proportionate response to the needs of a suffering minority: just what should happen in a democracy. All the more pity that it was voted down by the House of Lords.

Another objection is that the bill would give special privileges to religious groups at the expense of everyone else. It won't, because it also outlaws incitement to hatred of people because they don't have any religious beliefs. Some lawyers have questioned how the courts will manage to interpret incitement, or define a religious group. The selfsame fears were voiced against the law against racial hatred, but they proved unfounded.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Religious belief should have the same protection as political belief

because, despite what Dobson says, religious beliefs are a choice (in fact, I think many religious people would say that faith is meaningless unless you have chosen to have it). And the problem is that certain people may choose religious beliefs that are genuinely hateful - many would consider the Taliban's attitude to women, and non-Muslims, were worthy of hate, and anyone who condoned those beliefs should be hated too.

Incitement to violence is obviously wrong. Incitement to racial hatred is wrong in a different way - 'race' is something that a person can't change, and doesn't have a bearing on what they do (you may be able to make generalisations from someone's genetic makeup, but they don't tell you anything about the behaviour or an individual), and so using it as a base for your feelings to them is incorrect. But to hate someone based on their behaviour is different - and to say where a line is crossed, in inciting others to hate, is very difficult. I'm not happy that this simplistic act gives any guidance for what is intended. It will be up to the prosecutors and jury to decide how they feel like defining unacceptable hatred, at the time. They may have to define how tolerable intolerance is. A philosophical question like that doesn't belong in criminal law.

[beam me up scottie]

16. As an atheist, I despise any infringement on free speech.

I would question the motive of any atheist who agreed to it.

Criticizing religion is not inciting hatred and it is NOT responsible for violence against muslims or any other religious group.

Why would anyone think that atheists would welcome this?

We have been the target of hate speech and criticism since religion was invented, we never wanted to shut up those who condemn us, we simply want the right to criticize them in return.

And as far as I know, violence against atheists or anyone else is already illegal.

Gads, even on this board anyone who criticizes the pope or any other religious leader or particular religion is labeled a basher or hater.

Is the hysteria of those who scream persecution whenever they feel they are being unfairly maligned really a good basis for legislation?

[T_i_B]

17. "Why would anyone think that atheists would welcome this?"

Because the law would also outlaw incitement to hatred against atheists. Simple as that really.

That said, the secular left is joining with the likes of the BNP and Veritas in opposing this legislation. This old article has more on the subject.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1374670,00.html

But for showing solidarity and working with Muslim organisations - whether in the anti-war movement or in campaigns against Islamophobia - leftwing groups and politicians such as the London mayor, Ken Livingstone, are now routinely damned by liberal secularists (many of whom have been keen supporters of the war in Iraq) for "betraying the enlightenment" and making common cause with "Islamofascists", homophobes and misogynists. The pitch of these denunciations has been heightened further by the government's plan to introduce a new criminal offence of incitement to religious hatred. This measure would extend to the most vulnerable community in the country the very modest protection already offered by race hate legislation to black people, Jews, Sikhs and all religious communities in Northern Ireland. It is not a new blasphemy law; it would not lead to a ban on Monty Python's Life of Brian film; or rule out jokes about Ayatollah Khomeini's contact lenses; or cover ridicule or attacks on any religion (unlike the broader Australian legislation) - but would only outlaw incitement of hatred against people because of their faith.

Many arguments now deployed against this proposal by an unholy alliance of evangelical Christians, xenophobes, the British National Party, secular literalists and libertarians were also used against anti-racist legislation in the 60s and 70s. And none of the public opposition seems to have included the consequent logical demand that protection for Jews, Sikhs and religious people in Northern Ireland be repealed, which only underlines the noxious nature of debate about Islam in Britain.

[beam me up scottie]

18. This is a slippery slope.

Isn't discrimination already illegal ?

Incitement to hatred should not be.

If it was, the pope and many other religious leaders would be behind bars.

You should be allowed to tell people to hate atheists.

You should not be allowed to tell people to kill us and I don't believe that is permissible under current legislation.

[DBL]

19. im an athiest

and i wouldnt like the pope to tell people to hate me.

This law doesnt stop free speech, it stops you from inciting hatred, we already have a law like this for race (which protects Jews aswell. Why oppose it?

Also this law modernises the ridiculous blasphemy law that only protects christianity. This law reflects the mix of religions we have now in the UK.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Do posters on DU incite hatred against Republicans?

and would you support a law against that? If someone finds the attitude of a religion towards women intolerable, why shouldn't they hate it - and encourage others to hate it too? That's why you should oppose this law.

This law won't touch the blasphemy law - they even said on the TV news tonight that "that's a matter for another time".

[beam me up scottie]

21. uh, where have you been?

The pope's been inciting hatred against us for as long as there have been popes. he does it to homosexuals too.
You want to pass a law because you don't LIKE it?
Explain.