Excellent article, I thought, and relevant to various of our other ongoing/past discussions. I remember being q. unsure how I felt about this particular issue a few months ago when the law was first proposed, but I'm well convinced now.
Great name too, the QC.
--------------------------
Being offensive about religion 'should not be an offence'
Joshua Rozenberg
Telegraph
19/05/2005
Criticising religious beliefs is no basis for imposing criminal convictions, the barrister David Pannick, QC, will argue tonight.
...
[The Government's proposals] ... would bring incitement to religious hatred in line with the existing offence of incitement to racial hatred. That law protects Jews and Sikhs - who are regarded as belonging to distinct racial groups - and the Government wants to extend this protection to multi-racial faiths, such as Islam. ... Mr Pannick will argue that race and religion should not be treated in the same way. To make hostile comments about a person's race is to criticise the individual's innate characteristics - something that people cannot change and which says nothing about how they act. Because such comments insult a person's common humanity, he says, it is right that they should be restricted by law.
But to comment on an individual's religion is to criticise the conduct of an organisation to which that person chooses to belong, he points out. Unlike racial groups, religions usually make claims about how society should be run. Religious beliefs have a significant impact on the way adherents treat each other and strongly influence how society is organised. Critical comments on religious beliefs may serve a valuable function in identifying and remedying abuse of power.
6 comments:
Absolutely. (And re: our own off-blog discussion of some 'offensive' material just recently I think it's important to stress the solution was to argue over it - not to censor it.)
Here's something from the Indy on the same topic: http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/theatre/news/story.jsp?story=639797
However, I have a question. If I understand correctly it is legal to say 'I hate Judaism' but not to say 'I hate Jews'. Given that Muslims are not a race, how do crate the same situation - ie. legal to say 'I hate Islam', but illegal to say I hate Muslims? Or should we even have that degree of protection. Would it be better to allow 'hate speech' and only tyake legal action if there's an incitement to violence. (You remember the slight absurdity of Anne Robinson being investigated under Racial hatred laws for saying she hated the Welsh? I'm not condoning it - as JP well knows I get very wound up whjen people say they hate 'The French' - but I wouldn't suggest throwing anyone in prison for it.)
So in writing this I realise that I'm probably in favour of laws that cover incitement to violence and discrimination, but even that is problemmatic: for example - shouldn't social services have the right not to employ deeply religious people if they geel it might interfere with their job . e.g. Most of the major religions aren't particularly down with homosexuality but a social worker will needto be non-judegemental. Can you legitimately discriminate against someone because of their beliefs? Sorry for the rambling - interested in your (collective) thoughts on thsi one.
Rather good article from Polly Toynbee:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1503329,00.html
She's against the new law, but this last paragraph almost makes me want to see it passed:
"The irony is that those spending most time in the courts will be the religious themselves. A similar law in Australia brought a burst of litigation and demands for arrests from one bunch of fundamentalists against another. Hate-filled evangelicals were creeping into mosques to take notes on imams' hate sermons. So extreme Jews, Muslims, Hindus, papists and Paisleyites will all challenge each other's fiery thought crimes while the Bible and the Qur'an incite enough religious hatred to be banned outright."
Found this interesting movie advertising on Johann Hari's site:
check out a teaser & symopsis here:
http://www.beholder.com/index_fl.htm
Great Toynbee article. I am now thoroughly depressed.
here's waht happened with such a law in Italy:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/06/20/an_ill_omen.php
Worth reading the links within the main story too.
Great discussion at that Harry's Place link. Included a very appropriate Auden poem:
Though mild clear weather
Smile again on the shire of your esteem
And its colors come back, the storm has changed you:
You will not forget, ever,
The darkness blotting out hope, the gale
Prophesying your downfall.
You must live with your knowledge.
Way back, beyond, outside of you are others,
In moonless absences you never heard of,
Who have certainly heard of you,
Beings of unknown number and gender:
And they do not like you.
What have you done to them?
Nothing? Nothing is not an answer;
You will come to believe — how can you help it? —
That you did, you did do something;
You will find yourself wishing you could make them laugh,
You will long for their friendship.
There will be no peace.
Fight back, then, with such courage as you have
And every unchivalrous dodge you know of,
Clear in your conscience on this:
Their cause, if they had one, is nothing to them now;
They hate for hate’s sake.
Post a Comment