Criminalizing religious hatred incitement

[Martin]

I am not a great watcher of current events and don't know the details about this, of if it has already been discussed here. But maybe it is interesting.

 

Severian called my attention to a Wikipedia article about a proposed law in the UK to make it criminal to INCITE RELIGIOUS HATRED

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_religious_hatred

 

Since I don't know the legal definitions as stated in the proposed law, I have only a superficial reaction. perhaps someone can correct any misapprehensions.

 

This seems like a strange law to me. I do not approve of religious hatred but don't people have a RIGHT to it?

 

 

Like suppose I have this deepseated loathing for Fundies.

[careful. what follows is a for instance]

Suppose I have this belief about apocalyptic pseudochristian know-nothings that support Bush while he bankrupts the US and wrecks social and global institutions----that blindly support a kind of incompetent self-defeating Fascism, along with corruption and a massive free lunch for the rich.

 

Suppose I am usually quiet about my feelings about Fundies but one day I get up on a soapbox and say what i think about Fundies. Do I get arrested? Probably nobody is listening, or the only people listening are already convinced that Pseudochristian fundamentalism is bad news for the world. But a plainclothes policeman records what I say and it sounds like I might have been inciting---saying words that might have convinced someone who didnt already hate Fundies, if they had happened to be listening.

 

It all sounds pretty sordid, but I am worried by this. I am not sure I would want such a law in the US. It is a slippery slope. Who defines hatred? Who defines incitement. Suppose i say something really scornful about Pat Robertson----maybe he deserved it! But somebody accuses me of inciting hatred. Maybe it was really just EFFECTIVE CRITICISM.

 

Slippery slope. I suspect you cant really define "incitement of religious hatred" in a way that will not gradually slide into a suppression of liberty in public speech.

 

If you think you CAN define it in a secure non-slip fashion, tell me about it.

[bascule]

Dawkins spoke about this in his "The Root of All Evil?" series. Being a free speech zealot of a libertarian, my reaction to this was "WHAT?!"

 

Fortunately I don't forsee this kind of thing ever happening in America.

[Martin]

Dawkins spoke about this in his "The Root of All Evil?" series. Being a free speech zealot of a libertarian' date=' my reaction to this was "WHAT?!"

 

Fortunately I don't forsee this kind of thing ever happening in America.[/quote']

 

hi Bascule, good to hear from you.

did you look at the Wikipedia article. I did just briefly. It sounded like the bill got thru the house of commons.

 

Obviously they have a security problem and they need some way to go after firebrand muslim clerics, just as a practical matter.

 

but the way they are doing it is worrisome I think you agree.

I would like to hear someone from the UK talk about this.

Severian brought it up. like to know what he thinks.

[Severian]

Why is it different to laws againsts the incitement of racial hatred? I can hide what I believe more effectively than I can hide my skin colour, but I am as incapable of changing what I believe as I am of changing my skin colour.

 

So by inciting religious hatred you are persecuting a particular subset of our society.

[Martin]

Why is it different to laws againsts the incitement of racial hatred? I can hide what I believe more effectively than I can hide my skin colour' date=' but I am as incapable of changing what I believe as I am of changing my skin colour.

 

So by inciting religious hatred you are persecuting a particular subset of our society.[/quote']

 

let's set race-stuff aside and focus on the single issue of criminalizing the incitement of religious hatred

 

what do you think of that bill, Severian.

 

you live in UK and you brought up the issue of this bill and provided the link. I really want to know your view on it.

 

I think its bad, but my view is necessarily superficial. I am not in your shoes (the UK for all I know may be a powderkeg of religious animosity). I only just heard about this bill.

 

If you think the law is a good one, tell me why. You might convince me.

[aguy2]

Why is it different to laws againsts the incitement of racial hatred? I can hide what I believe more effectively than I can hide my skin colour' date=' but I am as incapable of changing what I believe as I am of changing my skin colour.

 

So by inciting religious hatred you are persecuting a particular subset of our society.[/quote']

 

But if such things as freedom of speech, press, ect. are the only things of real value we can offer in support of a 'culture' war with Islam, and we have to give them up to win the 'war', then we might as well see if we can get good 'terms' because we have lost the war. In my opinion.

 

aguy2

[bascule]

but I am as incapable of changing what I believe as I am of changing my skin colour.

 

Those of us with constantly changing, evolving beliefs see that as a problem. Why should we be banned from expressing it?

 

And, for the record, libertarians support all kinds of free speech. The ACLU, for example, has defended the KKK, not because they agree with their message of racial intolerance and hatred, but because they believe profusely that they should be free to express any ideas, no matter how controversial.

[gcol]

I think that incitement to hatred (whether religious or otherwise) is incitement to violence by proxy. You can stir up hatred in others to an extent where they consider commiting violent acts, without having used the words and phrases yourself which ask for violence. So, trying to be reasonable, this law may be closing a loophole in the previous one.

 

Just for the sake of argument, here is a hypothetical which can incite violence and hatred without, in my understanding, falling foul of either laws:

 

I espouse and preach a religion which by its very nature is repugnant to a large and volatile group. They reject it vehemently, and some are driven to violence. I have neither specifically advocated violence nor hatred, yet the result is the same. Even with this one hypothetical, I contend that both laws are examples of bad lawmaking because they have been made "on the hoof" and with insufficient thought. There have been examples where both laws have been selectively applied, the police having soft-pedalled for fear of provoking more violence. Both laws seem to be applied with a degree of positive discrimination which some view as prejudicial.

[AL]

Suppose i say something really scornful about Pat Robertson----maybe he deserved it! But somebody accuses me of inciting hatred. Maybe it was really just EFFECTIVE CRITICISM.

Regarding the equivocation of hatred/bigotry/intolerance with criticism/disagreement, I will say that hate is necessarily critical, but criticism is not necessarily hate. Hopefully, if such a law is passed, it will delineate a clear distinction between the two so people aren't simply punished for being critical. That said, I strongly believe in free speech and there are few lines I would draw to compromise it, but advocating violence would certainly be one of them. If there is already a law on the books against advocating violence in the UK, then this law against religious hatred would be redundant unless it was designed to extend the reach of censorship, which is probably not a good thing, but I admit I am not familiar with what sorts of speech regulations the UK has and the lawmakers intent for this bill, so I'll suspend judgement on this particular bill for now.

[silkworm]

No I like it. The IDers are now criminals because they're inciting rational people to hate religion. Throw em all in the hole.

[Royston]

This bill to me, seems synonymous to the UK's 'soft touch' approach to other nations and beliefs. This law is merely covering the governments back in a global respect...so the UK can never be accused of being anti-anything. Of course it effects our freedom of speech...and is an attempt to make our government look like saints.

 

This is UK politics in a nutshell, they're so wrapped up in what other countries think of us, that through their cowardice and paranoia, the people that suffer are the actual residents of the UK.

[Severian]

I don't believe in free speech. I think you can do a lot of damage to a person with words, and I don't see how that damage is any better than physical damage. I will be arrested if I punch someone in the face, but a punch in the face can be a lot less harmful than verbally attacking someone. Preventing abusive hateful language is not stiffling self-expression - any point of view can be expressed in a constructive non-damaging manner. If you cannot express yourself in a civilized manner, you shouldn't be opening your mouth.

 

The difficulty (as with all things) is knowing where to draw the line. For this reason alone, I don't like the bill in its current form. It needs to be a lot more explicit about what is and what is not permissible.

[Airmid]

We already have such a law in place; it's a law against discrimination and incitement to hatred.

I like it. First as a sign that in my little country things like that are not tolerated. Secondly it gives us a tool to actually get a grip on extremist movements.

So far, if I remember right, the hatred incitement part of the law has been used to prosecute an antisemitic organization, a neo-nazi group, an extremist right-wing political party, and 2 extremist imams, at least, those were the cases that got publicity.

 

As to loss of free speech: do you really think that people should be allowed to go around shouting that "such-and-so group of people don't deserve to live" or "such-and-so group of people are nothing better than apes" or whatever? That's not free speech, that's crime in my eyes.

 

Airmid.

[Martin]

No I like it. The IDers are now criminals because they're inciting rational people to hate religion. Throw em all in the hole.

 

LOL

 

one of the good things about free speech is you learn by listening to the (sometimes misguided) things others say

[prion]

(the UK for all I know may be a powderkeg of religious animosity).

 

I think the UK is one of the most non-religious countries there is. The problem is that there is an instinctive hostility among most of the UK population to any religious group that takes itself too seriously, and there are growing minority groups of fundamentalists who have an instinctive hostility to pretty much everyone, and can't grasp the fact the religion doesn't play much of a role in the lives of most other Brits.

 

I think this law can be compared to other laws like the fact that if an adult has sex with someone under 16 it is statutory rape in the eyes of the law. But obviously the police don't go after every 17 year old who sleeps with a 15 year old, because the law exists primarily to be able to prosecute paedophiles without having to prove coercion. So although I don't like the law at all, I can see why the government wants the power to curb the most extreme and inflammatory aspects of both sides, without preventing calm and reasoned debate.

 

As an atheist I quite like the fact that the major religions will be effectively unable to read aloud whole tracts of their holy books.

[Edtharan]

I think this law will not be that effective. There are laws now aginst violence but that doen not stop people acting violent. I think the cause and solution to the problem is much deeper. It lies in the cultureal attitdues of people and making laws will not stop it (though it might send it underground and be harder to track). Isn't there laws that make it a criminal offese to "incite violence" already?

 

Also is a group has a belief or behaviour that is offensive against another group, and the second group reacts with hate, who insighted the hate. Was it the group that had those beliefs and behaviours, or was it the group that hated them for those beliefs and behaviours?

 

So this could be turned around so that one could argue that "Your religions insites me to hate you, therefore you are guilty of insiteing religious hatred" (If you get a good lawyer).

[Royston]

There's quite simply no need for this bill (as stated earlier) anti-discrimination already covers beliefs. This is what I was trying to point out with the motives of the bill, it's simply to make our government 'look good.'

 

You can't draw a line on religous hatred...what's offensive to one person, isn't to another, despite how strong their beliefs are. It's very easy to twist an opinion so it's deemed as hatred towards religion, especially when dogma's involved...so how do you gauge such a bill ?

 

As for the right wing extremists - can you really see them getting any momentum in their crusade towards white supremacy...I doubt it, these groups have been around for decades, and have achieved very little. I'm talking post World War 2 before anyone starts.

 

I personally think attack on beliefs is arrogant and pointless, and I in no way agree with it, but to make it illegal is not going to solve the problem IMO, it will make the subject even more of a taboo than it already is at present...I'm not sure many people would feel very comfortable with that at all.

[bascule]

You can't draw a line on religous hatred...what's offensive to one person, isn't to another, despite how strong their beliefs are. It's very easy to twist an opinion so it's deemed as hatred towards religion, especially when dogma's involved...so how do you gauge such a bill ?

 

Bingo! I'm sure many would consider what Dawkins has to say to be "religious hatred".