|
UK Following Canada's Lead to Criminalize the "Bad" Parts of Free Speech
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: |
New religious hate laws unveiled
Inciting religious hatred is to be made a criminal offence under plans unveiled by Home Secretary David Blunkett.
The government failed to get laws introducing the offence passed by Parliament in the wake of the US terror attacks in 2001.
In a speech in London, Mr Blunkett revived the proposals.
He said he was returning to the plans as there was a need to stop people being abused or targeted just because they held a particular religious faith.
Islamophobia fear
"Extending anti-discrimination law is only worthwhile if we actually change the processes on the ground," he said in a keynote speech to left-leaning think tank the Institute of Public Policy Research.
Earlier he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the legislation would not curb people's right to express their view of other people's religions.
"The issue is not whether you have an argument or discussion or whether you are criticising someone's religion. It's whether you incite hatred on the basis of it," he said.
There is already an offence of inciting racial hatred but this does not offer protection if someone is being targeted because of their religion.
The government is worried in particular about discrimination against Muslims.
The home secretary believes the law change would help tackle religious extremists who preach against other religions.
It is not yet clear exactly when the plans will go before Parliament.
It is thought likely the plans will be part of other legislation rather than forming a Bill on their own.
Tackling extremism, political and religious, was the central theme of Mr Blunkett's speech.
He is also expected to praise the enormous contribution made by Britain's ethnic minority communities.
He is keen to stress that the government does not want to create a single common culture but instead values Britain's diversity.
Battle predicted
But Labour peer Lord Desai believes there is no need for the proposed measures.
He told Today: "We will get into a real muddle if we take religion as a ground for prosecution, rather than ethnic stereotyping.
"When people insult Muslims they are not attacking the religion, they are attacking Muslims as a racial group. The protection required is already covered in law."
Lord Desai suggested Mr Blunkett would have a "very tough time" getting the proposed measures through the House of Lords.
Current race hate laws protect religious groups if they can also be identified as a distinct ethnic minority community - such as Jews or Sikhs.
The anti-terror laws introduced in late 2001 after the World Trade Center attacks do include laws which mean courts can take religion, like race, as an aggravating factor when dealing with crimes of violence or intimidation.
But in a last-minute compromise to ensure the main bulk of his anti-terror plans were passed by the House of Lords, Mr Blunkett dropped the proposed incitement to religious hatred offence.
Life of Brian
Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats said at the time they would have backed fresh moves to introduce the law away from the pressures of emergency legislation.
Comedians such as Rowan Atkinson raised fears the law change could have outlawed jokes about religion.
The Blackadder star suggested Monty Python's Life of Brian would not have been made if the law had been in force.
At the time, Mr Blunkett said much of the criticism of the plans had been "nonsense", adding that jokes would not fall foul of the proposed measures.
Last month, the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia think tank warned that persistent and untackled Islamophobia in the UK could lead to "time-bombs" of backlash and bitterness.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3871867.stm
|
Yea I know few people care because on the surface it all looks peachy. What can I say though ... I'm about as hardcore conservative (although liberal is a more appropriate term) when it comes to free speech. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
This law is merely an extension of the current anti-racism laws whereby it is illegal to insite racial hatred.
Do your "hard core conservative" views mean you believe everybody has the right to insite racial hatred too? Do you think hostile foreign preechers have the right to encourage the murder of our citizens? Seems a little odd if you do... |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Do your "hard core conservative" views mean you believe everybody has the right to insite racial hatred too? Do you think hostile foreign preechers have the right to encourage the murder of our citizens? Seems a little odd if you do... |
I do. Although I would rather not have myself labelled as "conservative", as my viewpoint stems from extreme liberalism.
Any one should be allowed to incite others to do whatever he or she wishes. The human species is supposed to consists of responsible and intelligent beings, and by advocating laws against some sorts of verbal incitements you are effectively demonstrating a lack of faith in the individuals ability to make moral choices IMO. |
|
|
| tathi |
| religion? what is the point of freedom of speech without freedom of thought? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
This law is merely an extension of the current anti-racism laws whereby it is illegal to insite racial hatred.
Do your "hard core conservative" views mean you believe everybody has the right to insite racial hatred too? Do you think hostile foreign preechers have the right to encourage the murder of our citizens? Seems a little odd if you do... |
Look, I'm one of the biggest haters of religion. I love discrimination of religion. However, I disagree with anti-racism laws that inhibit free speech. Yes I believe that everybody has the right to incite racial hatred. Yes I believe that foreign preachers have the right to encourage violence. So long as they do not take action to committ a crime I don't care what they say. Sorry if that seems odd ... but it makes perfect sense to me. Well whatever, let's criminalize hate speech. Well what about hate exhibited by the political right against the left and vice-versa? Why can't we restrict that speech??? It incites antagonism and violence!!! Whatever you want to call me, I'm a hardcore liberal/conservative when it comes to the first amendment. |
|
|
| tathi |
| I can see where you are coming from Occ, i find the issue very ambivalent. On one hand you have a government restricting free speech, the first step towards a totalitarian regime and other nasties. The other hand holds the idiot masses who are waiting for a demagogue to manipulate their xenophobic ignorance. :S |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I do. Although I would rather not have myself labelled as "conservative", as my viewpoint stems from extreme liberalism.
Any one should be allowed to incite others to do whatever he or she wishes. The human species is supposed to consists of responsible and intelligent beings, and by advocating laws against some sorts of verbal incitements you are effectively demonstrating a lack of faith in the individuals ability to make moral choices IMO. |
But the human species is not made up of responsible and intelligent beings! Thats why we have laws!
Surely, despite your principles, you dont think that somebody who encourages somebody to kill someone else, who would otherwise not have killed that person, to be protected by the law and your principles? Doesn't have to be murder, can be anything from muggings to beatings...
The law does not make it illegal to criticise another religion by the way, just that if you encourage others to harm somebody due to their religion it is now rightfully a crime, just like it is illegal to encourage somebody to harm another because they have different skin colour...is that such a bad thing?! |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I do. Although I would rather not have myself labelled as "conservative", as my viewpoint stems from extreme liberalism.
Any one should be allowed to incite others to do whatever he or she wishes. The human species is supposed to consists of responsible and intelligent beings, and by advocating laws against some sorts of verbal incitements you are effectively demonstrating a lack of faith in the individuals ability to make moral choices IMO. |
I would largely agree. A person has choices, and if that person makes a bad choice we should not blame them for making it but instead ask that they pay for it whatever the consequence may be. Anti-racial laws are just an example of the thought police. Conversely, I believe it is one of the main philosophies in Western criminal justice that a person pays for his or her actions, not thoughts. Although in American criminal justice the Mens Rea is a critical component of charging someone with a crime.
//end rant. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Incite merely means: "to move to action." So, if I criticize Christianity for being a stupid set of beliefs, and you don't like stupidity, so decide you don't like Christians, I have incited you to "hate" Christiains.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the cure for xenophobia and racism isn't groupthink or thought control, it's individualism. Unfortunately, individualism implies responsibility for one's own actions, not responsibility for actions someone else takes because of something you said.
This law is a dangerous slipperly slope and it will not reduce hatred between different religious groups. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
But the human species is not made up of responsible and intelligent beings! Thats why we have laws!
|
I'm curious as whether to interpret this comment as "most humans are neither responsible nor intelligent" or as "there are some humans which are neither responsible nor intelligent". If you mean the latter, then I would say that I strongly - very strongly - believe that society shouldn't adapt to serve this minority best. Removing freedom for a large chunk of the population to protect a minority against itself is awful IMO.
If you mean the former, then I would like to know how you can consolidate that world view with socialism (which I think that you have advocated previously)? Surely if the human species are no better than animals (being stupid and irresponsible), it should not be expected to be adhering to the principle of equality for any reason?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Surely, despite your principles, you dont think that somebody who encourages somebody to kill someone else, who would otherwise not have killed that person, to be protected by the law and your principles? Doesn't have to be murder, can be anything from muggings to beatings...
|
Actually I do think so. That other kind of reasoning rests on the assumption that a part of the responsibility of a "bad" act can somehow be attributed to the inciting party. The problem with this is where to draw the line? I wrote in another post (actually, several posts) that George Bush is a jerk and a puppet. What if some psycho reads this and deduces that jerks are bad, the world is better off without bad people, and then assasinates the jerk. Would I be responsible? If not, how does that differ from a radical muslim preaching that westerners are the devil, or from a racist advocating that Jews are the major reason for everything that is wrong?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
The law does not make it illegal to criticise another religion by the way, just that if you encourage others to harm somebody due to their religion it is now rightfully a crime, just like it is illegal to encourage somebody to harm another because they have different skin colour...is that such a bad thing?! |
It's not on the top of my list of "things which prevents my world from being a liberal paradise" - that would be stuff like legilization of drugs, less government support for artists, culture and foreign aid, and legilization of euthanasia. But I do think that such a law would be inherently awful.
I live in a country where we have a racism-law, which has sprung from concerns similar to yours. However, it's application has really been for the extreme left to report speakers at right-wing conferences to the police. It's totally ridiculuous as the extreme left in Denmark is far more intolerant than those on the right, and all we gain from these cases are a strain on our justice system. |
|
|
| Matty V |
Seems to me like this law is being introduced to try and calm some of the British public fears.
The British public are not very comfortable with letting muslims into this country with extremist views but as the government still want to let any old foriegner into this country with such ease they are trying to introduce a law which will make the public feel more at ease with letting these people in. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I'm curious as whether to interpret this comment as "most humans are neither responsible nor intelligent" or as "there are some humans which are neither responsible nor intelligent". If you mean the latter, then I would say that I strongly - very strongly - believe that society shouldn't adapt to serve this minority best. Removing freedom for a large chunk of the population to protect a minority against itself is awful IMO.
If you mean the former, then I would like to know how you can consolidate that world view with socialism (which I think that you have advocated previously)? Surely if the human species are no better than animals (being stupid and irresponsible), it should not be expected to be adhering to the principle of equality for any reason? |
I'm not a socialist in the marxist (or anarchist) sense. I believe in social democracy which is a bit to the left of liberal democracy (and thats left economically as it is the same, IMO, politically). But to relate that to extreme socialism or anarchism then no, it doesn't say a lot for those ideologies does it?! Anyway, my belief about humans is that for the most part, we let our emotions dictate our actions. This means that (IMO) humans act irrationally (but always maintain the capability to, and very often do, act rationally) I think it is easier for us to act emotionally, which is why we find it a lot easier to pursue acts of revenge, rather than make peace (big example Israel and Palestine)
| quote: | | Actually I do think so. That other kind of reasoning rests on the assumption that a part of the responsibility of a "bad" act can somehow be attributed to the inciting party. The problem with this is where to draw the line? I wrote in another post (actually, several posts) that George Bush is a jerk and a puppet. What if some psycho reads this and deduces that jerks are bad, the world is better off without bad people, and then assasinates the jerk. Would I be responsible? If not, how does that differ from a radical muslim preaching that westerners are the devil, or from a racist advocating that Jews are the major reason for everything that is wrong? |
For me it is very easy where you draw the line - if you think that jerks shouldbe killed, and express that to suseptible people, knowing they are likely to go an kill some jerks, then yes, you should take responsibility. When Abu Hamza (captain hook) tells his 'followers' that it is OK to kill Jews, and it is obvious he thinks Jews should be killed, then he should not be allowed to get away with it when his actions will lead to harm coming to Jews. If however, he merely said that Jews were evil cos they were not Muslim, than that is his rightful opinion. Even if others took what he said and justified it to do harm towards Jews, Hamza never actually encouraged that so that would be fine (from his perspective). There is a difference and there is, IMO, a clear line that can be drawn...
| quote: | It's not on the top of my list of "things which prevents my world from being a liberal paradise" - that would be stuff like legilization of drugs, less government support for artists, culture and foreign aid, and legilization of euthanasia. But I do think that such a law would be inherently awful.
I live in a country where we have a racism-law, which has sprung from concerns similar to yours. However, it's application has really been for the extreme left to report speakers at right-wing conferences to the police. It's totally ridiculuous as the extreme left in Denmark is far more intolerant than those on the right, and all we gain from these cases are a strain on our justice system. |
Unfortunately, we need these laws. If we did not have anti-racism laws, black people would still be sitting at the back of the bus in America and using separate entrances...there are still people who believe that that was right, and people believe it about other religions (usually linked to their race) and whatever your views are about liberalism, then the unfortunate fact is that we need these laws to offer our minority citizens the same freedoms and oppertunities the majority enjoy...(altho I have to agree that sometimes these laws are very stupid, take the piss, are unneccessary and probly make the situation worse such as affermitive action in the US)
(BTW, liberalism does not mean 'free to do whatever you want' it means 'free to do whatever you want as long as you do not limit the freedom of others'...) |
|
|
|
|
