Religous Hate Laws
// July 18th, 2005 // Uncategorized
There are plans underway to create laws banning incitement to religious hatred
– the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. Which sounds all well and dandy…
However this bill infringes on free speech. I don’t feel any need to say hatrous words about any religous groups (and indeed, some of my friends are religious) but I should have the right to say it. Saying things and doing them are two different things anyway…
One flaw with the bill is that it explicitly allows reading from religious texts, which in some cases are some of the most violent, hate-mongering texts anyway..
kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the little girls among the women, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
It claims to protect the free speech of comedians, what would it say about Bill Hicks saying “I’m going capture gideons for a hobby”? Where is the line drawn? Who decides what is comedy?
If religous idealogies are to gain protection what about political beliefs? What about classes? Which way round you like your egg?
10 Responses to “Religous Hate Laws”
Leave a Reply
- Jono Bacon said: Thanks for all of your contributions, Dean, and al...
- Damian said: Same here. Either putting file in local- nor in a...
- Dean said: The gwibber theming format changed I think. I've b...
- Igor Santos said: Im having the same problem as Jon said. What is t...
- Dean said: Education is still subsidised by the government an...
- Driving said: The Goverment just think that they gonna make mone...
Not quite so easy here, I think, Dean. (Also, today’s uproar at the thought of *British* troops [part of the world's innate goodness and all that] being charged under the ICC Act (199?)).
I know where you’re coming from – we’ve blogged on the ID stuff – but remember all the treaty stuff on rights I was talking about ?
The UDHR (1948) “The Model” gave rise to two *legal* covenants basically split between political and social rights. The development is more advanced on the political covenant (Jean Kirkpatrick, ex-US ambassador to the UN called the social covenant a “letter to Santa Claus” but it covers things like JSA – you know, you’re out of work: well it delivers *you* a justiciable *right* to money if you’re in difficulties) because it doesn’t really cost money up front. The right to free speech is part of the political covenant.
Bbbuuuttt, based on the experiences coming out of WWII, the covenant tempers the freedoms in three*specific* areas: the incitement to hatred on the basis of: 1) national 2) racial and *3)* religious differences enacted BY NATIONAL LAW for all those that sign the covenants. The UK signed in ’66 but, more importantly, rationalised in ’76. That is a second generation had a chance to say no to the work of a previous generation.(Rather like a “cooling down period” if you sign to buy and then you want out.)
Nnnooowww, from what I see on the Statute Books we did the first two obligations leaving the incitement to religious hatred as a (black)*hole* – which is of course where this legislation has suddenly emerged from.
So *this* temperance on free speech has *not* suddenly emerged as yet another restriction – as the ever blustering Anne (I’m going to Rome) Widdecombe bustled in Parliament – but has been sitting there as an unfulfilled committment on the basis of the constructs of those who were coming out of WWII saying, “Listen, do this and stop a lot of problems later.”
So, it means, I guess “caveat emptor.” Which of course is why the United States has refused the jurisdiction of the ICC. But of course, when Cooke signed – because of our innate goodness – he never contemplated that British troops would fit the bill: it was reserved for the likes of Pinochet, Milosovic etc. etc. Well, hhheeelllooo …
I didn’t know that – I presume you’re referring to Article 20 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
However just because the law has been left sitting for ages, doesn’t mean that the intended law is correct… As far as I’m aware there’s not been any issue with us not complying before, so I don’t see why it’s suddenly needed now…
It’s hardly as if compliance could actually be stated as the reason for passing the bill anyway. We don’t comply with some other articles of the ICCPR because of recent legislation brought in, for example control orders.
That said I do recognise the value of the UDHR, and in a choice between scrapping it or complying fully, I would choose compliance,
I don’t agree with hatred of pretty much any kind, I just don’t think we should legislate against hatred of thoughts, particularly with something as hard to define as religion.
The ICC I feel is a good idea, and if British troops break the rules, then they deserve to be brought to a fair trial. We should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
Yes, it’s all challenging thinking.
But watch what’s happening Dean. The threat of WAR CRIMES being prosecuted? It happens to *others* – the Nazis, the Japanese Empire, Milosovic, Saddam. *NOT* Britains or Americans as the USA. This is the meaning of Exceptionalism and it’s why we’re in so much trouble (and we are in *deep* trouble, mark my words). We have this idea that we can do no wrong.
See Blair’s idea of his morality that sets the world to rights. It’s f*c**ng laughable. J*s*s he said the other day, confronted by this increasingly untenable line over no connection between London and Iraq, he looked brazenly in the cameras and said words to the effect that, “Incitement to violence is wrong.” Now let me think back about how many times this country was given the words WMD. The lie on siezure of the oil fields.
And that’s why the rest of the world (out of the Western creation of “Economic Man”) – the “clash of civilizations” – is pissed.
They’ve tried to emasculate (suprise, suprise) the whole business – even Robinson QC (he has a book on criminal international law out) – was blustering away on R4 Today (I’ve read his book, got some great insights .) and I thought, first, windbag, and second sellout.
I’ve never heard the likes of somebody wimping out as this man was. His words were, “*small* war crimes. Nothing to be afraid of. Excuse ME. What the f**k was all the work of UDHR about ? It’s EQUAL ATROCATIES, stupid. A kid who dies in Iraq has equal value to a kid that dies here. They’re *not* (as a very ex- US girfriend said to me years ago) “towel heads*.”
This is our problem in the West.
It’s more like Bushes idea of morality, he took the impressionable young Blair to his own country – and indoctrinated him, Blair came back from Pak the U.S.A changed man a [Quit it -ed]
Yeah, this is something I’ve discussed a lot, the idea of a “universal set of morals” and the right of the west to impose their ideals on everyone else. It generates a lot of ill will everywhere, which is now beginning to bite us back.
It basically all dates back to colonialism, when we owned everywhere else and told them what to do, and goes on to the cold war, where we told everyone ‘do what we say or the nasty commies will get you’, right on till today when we’re still throwing our weight around. All the time dictating to African governments (half the time, dictators theirselves), about what their economic and social policies will be via the World Bank etc. If eye-raq hadn’t been such a sticky point (in manpower terms), I dread to see where else we would’ve conquered.
I sometimes wonder how Blair has been allowed to carry on especially with respect to Iraq, his lies over numerous subjects, his economic policies (PFI)….then I look at the “opposition”.
And now the first “intelligence led” (Ian Blair) public execution of an innocent man …
Let me understand this …
The “intelligence” on WMD is wrong +
The attacks on 7 July came “out of the blue,” code: “intelligence” had no idea +
The attempts on 21 July came “out of the blue,” code: “intelligence” (again) had no idea +
The plainclothes cops shoot, at point blank range, an innocent man to death on 22 July, led by “intelligence.” +
We’ve arrested three people but they’re *not* the bombers from the 21st.
= the finest intelligence/police service in all the world (Blair, Straw, Clarke and all the rest of the “usual suspects.”)
And (Ian Blair, Clarke) its likely that some more innocent folk are gonna get blown away in the fine work of all these “intelligence led” operations.
Yes, it’s a mmmuuuccchhh safer world now.
(BTW I wonder what a “non-intelligence led” operation is ? Ideas ?)
haha, a good point nicely put.
It’s disconcerting to me that the police let the guy get as far as the tube station. Especially with hearing (read on various internet places, nothing authoritive), that he boarded a bus first.
I’d like to think that if a potential bomb suspect was travelling anywhere near the public that the police would be right on top of him asking questions…
The best I have of it is that he lived at flat 17 (source friend/cousin) of the building under surveillance.
The “intelligence” was supposed to be interested in the occupant of flat 21.
There is only one main exit to the whole building.
This poor guy emerges, wearing a puffa jacket because coming from Sao Paulo he still feels the cold in this country, even in summer.
He’s going off to do an electrical job in Kilburn(?) so it’s possible he’ll have some electrical looking stuff in his pockets.
He has olive skin/looks foreign.
(All that means, unknown to him, he’s now in deep trouble.)
The surveillance team, for as yet to be turned up reasons by the IPCC, *did* allow him to get on the bus and, armed, followed him …
We know the rest.
I’ve read a story in t’Grauniad this am, where a Met insider says when the final truth emerges, it’s going to be terrible. Whatever that means.
Connected with our “rights” thread, this set of events bear an awful parallel to the “execution” of three actual IRA activists on Gibraltar a few years back.
That case finally went to the ECHR(Court) and the UK was found in breach of Article 2 of the ECHR(Convention): right to life.
Now they already *know* this guy was not in anyway shape or form a terrorist, so by case law they’ve already lost if this went anywhere near getting to the ECHR(Court) – of course it shouldn’t have to because Labour ’97 “brought the rights home” with the Human Rights Act 1998. Perhaps that’s why they’ve *already* offered to pay compensation – as if that does his family any good – even before the IPCC gets to real work.
Meanwhile the trigger men have been taken off gun toting duties (thank Chr*st for small mercies) and given administrative jobs. No suspensions (yet).
Meanwhile Bliar was weaselling with words again yesterday over “causation” and “justification.” Did you watch him virtually have a fit of apoplexy?
When asked about the possible *causal* link between the bombs and Iraq – a perfectly reasonable objective detachment – he went into rant mode over Iraq not being a *justification* – casting aspertions on the *questioner’s* moral stance.
It’s like saying that a question about the causal factors involved in, say, a chemical reaction, is equivalent to asking whether the resulting product of the reaction has some moral content (justified). The only moral aspect about the whole business is the *reason* for combining the chemicals in the first place.
But of course Bliar can see the trap being readied to be sprung (or the cell doors clanging shut at the Hague in his case) since it is he, with Bush, who has been playing with the chemistry set. And it’s gone bang.
Engel wise BTW you might be interested in looking at Making it up again. They too are trying to figure out what’s going off. I’ve commented and refd. back to our blog on ID cards here too.
Excuse my ignorance, but Making it up again?
Hmmm… see what you mean. I think the URL is liveothwerwise.co.uk/makingitup and when the page comes up it’s titled, “Making it up” and I was suggesting looking at it “again”
. It was one of those sites that had some early comments about Natascha Engel, during the election period.
Anyway I have more.
Got a hard copy detailed reply to my seven questions this past Saturday. The questions ranged from vote reform through Iraq/Iran, civil liberties and rights/ID cards (as you know) to climate change.
I’ll be editing questions and answers to a file suitable to email and I’ll be happy to send you a copy if you want.