CRITICISING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS COULD BE MADE ILLEGAL

by diamondblue1974 34 Replies latest social current

• 

  diamondblue1974

  Copyright 2005 Telegraph Group Limited
  THE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON)
  
  May 19, 2005, Thursday
  
  SECTION: News; Chess Pg. 021
  
  LENGTH: 541 words
  
  HEADLINE: Being offensive about religion 'should not be an offence'
  
  BYLINE: By Joshua Rozenberg
  
  BODY:
  CRITICISING religious beliefs is no basis for imposing criminal convictions, the barrister David Pannick, QC, will argue tonight.
  
  Delivering the Margaret Howard Memorial Lecture in Oxford, Mr Pannick will launch a powerful attack on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill announced in the Queen's Speech this week.
  
  Under the Government's proposals, it would become a criminal offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour if you "intend to stir up religious hatred" or if your conduct is "likely to stir up" religious hatred. Prosecutions could be brought only by the Attorney General and a convicted person would face up to seven years in prison.
  
  This 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.
  
  But in a witty and irreverent lecture, 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.
  
  Mr Pannick believes that if the Government's proposal were to become law, novelists, playwrights, and comedians would need legal advice before strongly criticising members of the Catholic Church for failing to take adequate steps against paedophile priests. The same would apply if they criticised Jews for Judaism's treatment of women whose husbands refuse to give them a religious divorce; or Muslims for Islam's intolerance of "infidels" and any apparent discrimination against women and homosexuals.
  In Mr Pannick's opinion, irreverently critical comment on religious topics, particularly by a comedian or a novelist, might well be regarded as "abusive or insulting". Even if the author's intention were to provoke debate on an issue of public importance, prosecutors might be able to establish that hatred was likely to be "stirred up".
  
  Having good reason for making insulting comments that provoke hatred of a particular religious doctrine would be no defence. Nor would it be a defence that the defendant did not intend to stir up hatred. Because of the uncertainty inherent in so vague a criminal law, Mr Pannick concludes, it would inevitably have a chilling effect on freedom of expression about religious beliefs and practices.
  
  The Margaret Howard Memorial Lecture will be delivered at 5.45pm in the St Cross Building, Oxford. All are welcome.

  The world has gone mad...cant believe I missed the announcement of the Religious Hatred Bill until now...sorry I wouldve reported on it sooner had I known...heads been stuck in other legal stuff at the moment.

  DB74
• 

  Nosferatu

  That's good news for us, we can throw all the JWs in jail! Tell ME I'm part of Satan's wicked system of things, will ya? I'll throw you in Jail!
• 

  diamondblue1974

  That's good news for us, we can throw all the JWs in jail! Tell ME I'm part of Satan's wicked system of things, will ya? I'll throw you in Jail!

  I was just thinking of that particular twist on it myself...we could set a religion called JWDism and if we get bashed we could prosecute in the UK....woooohoooo

  Far fetched but why not? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!

  DB74
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  wow. that's ridiculous. no world-view, religious or otherwise, should be beyond criticism.
• 

  AlanF

  This insane proposed law is on a par with the equally insane British law that people shouldn't defend themselves against criminals.

  AlanF
• 

  sf

  Critical comments on religious beliefs may serve a valuable function in identifying and remedying abuse of power.

  Especially since abuse of power (deadly interpretations of biblical scripture decreeded as truth) is exactly what inevitably occurs 99 percent of the time.

  Example: "I read the scripture as saying it's okay if I kill my child with 200 stabs to her heart due to her demonic behavior as is pointed out in another scripture...and it's my religious right!"

  So Be It.

  This obvious insanity, proposed to be law, will allow just that. No one then can speak against it or they risk incitement, thus jail.

  sKally
• 

  Gill

  AlanF - don't get me going on the 'not defending yourself' crap!

  At least there'll be no more Watchtowers and Awakes with collapsing churches, and demonising the clergy! Hypocrites above all hypocrites, the WTBTS. Everything they accuse other religions of, they can be found guilty of themselves and even worse.
• 

  Abaddon

  This law would apply if your comments or conduct are "likely to stir up" religious hatred.

  It does not say you cannot criticise.

  There's a big difference.

  "Believing in god is silly. People are free to do it, obviously, provided they don't break the law because of their beliefs, but I can't for the life of me see any logic in it".

  This is criticism.

  "Persons of x religion are violent, criminal and evil".

  That is a comment "likely to stir up" religious hatred.

  Freedoms are only allowable freedoms if, by their exercise, they do not restrict the freedoms of others.

  Seems simple and fair to me.

  People have a right to live life without fear the comments of others might make them become victims of crime when they have committed none themselves. Someone saying something like that infringes the freedom of another, and thus should not have the freedom to publish such 'hate speech'.

  on a par with the equally insane British law that people shouldn't defend themselves against criminals

  Well, the law doesn't say what people think it says, and there isn't a British law that says people shouldn't defend themselves against criminals.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  I hope you all fight that law tooth and nail, as I can see many abuses coming from that.

  Dave
• 

  diamondblue1974

  Abbadon...what do you make of the hypothetical comments made to a group of JWs?
  

  "isnt it your organisation that covers up child abuse and creates restritive environments for children"

  "isnt it your organisation that doesnt believe in saving your childrens lives with a blood transfusion? Doesnt that make you a murderer?"

  Both of those comments are criticising the religious beliefs of JW's and is likely to cause religious hatred especially is non JW's were to overhear such criticisms; to highlight, on another forum Bill Bowen posted a thread about Silent Lambs and one of the JWs that responded all but accused him of being a child abuser or being abused and actually liking it...yes an overreaction but isnt most hatred and violence?

  If it can spark up a reaction like that with JWs it is obviously likely to spark up similar responses in non JW's therefore likely to cause religious hatred.

  Respectfully the law says exactly what it says and is likely to be read by any member of the judiciary in a literal sense, obviously the act would need to be read in such a way as to incorporate the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1972 but still in a literal sense.

  We are lucky this has to be passed through parliament and the house of lords before this is actually passed...lets hope the amendments made at these stages create some sense supporting our freedom of thought, conscience and expression etc.

  Whilst I agree in part with your view that the law doesnt prevent us from defending ourselves against criminals generally, the UK laws regarding provocation and self defence are far from fair in my view and that is what is seen by lay people as a failure on the laws part to allow us to protect ourselves...