Don't be alerted. Free speach that excludes hate must be encouraged.
CRITICISING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS COULD BE MADE ILLEGAL
by diamondblue1974 34 Replies latest social current
-
-
Junction-Guy
Yeah but who defines hate? unless this law specifically spells out what you can and cant say, then I can see alot of abuses by prosecutors. What one considers criticism, another see it as hate. I think Jehovah's Witnesses are a dangerous and destructive cult, and say whatever I feel about them, but I might think twice if there was some kind of law like that here. Saying something and doing something are 2 different things.
I dont like this law because it seems to elevate "religion" up to an untouchable status.
People have the right to love religion, but they also have the right to hate it.
To me this is what Babylon the Great represents, any religion that rides the back of the government and asks for special favors and protections.
The Watchtower society is a lying, thieving, racket. Would that put me in violation of that law? I hope not , because that is just exactly how I feel.
Dave
-
diamondblue1974
Junction Guy...completely agree with you there...lucky for you that for now this only applies to the UK...the US (although I cannot be sure) doesnt yet have such a law proposed or have one in existence.
-
AK - Jeff
I am against anything that limits my freedom of expression. I think that hate-mongers will exist under any circumstances, laws will not prevent law-breakers. I do not condone the actions of those type people who would by speech 'stir up religious hatred' - but character is not legislated by government, nor will it ever be.
So the only possible effect will be a diminished right of free-speech. And that is dangerous. IMHO
Jeff
-
diamondblue1974
I have been reading the Lords Hansard for the UK regarding this bill and there is some reassuring news, please see attached.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The legislation will be targeted at conduct which incites hatred of people because of their religion or beliefs. Its purpose will not be to curb utterances merely because some people may regard them as offensive. As the Home Secretary made clear in his speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research on 7 July, we are confident that concerns that legislation might prevent people debating each other's religion, or from proselytising, will prove to be unfounded.
Seems positive news...however we must wait and see....the house of lords have stomped on the bill but apparently the House of Commons is considering invoking the Parliament Act to push through the legislation as it stands, hopefully it will be read with the above view point in mind.
-
Elsewhere
This law would apply if your comments or conduct are "likely to stir up" religious hatred.
It does not say you cannot criticise.
So, all a religion needs to do is go on the rampage every time someone criticizes their religion and they will be justified in having the critic put in jail, while they themselves go home with no charges.
-
frankiespeakin
What if what one says is true in ones critizism and it stirs up hatred against a certain religious belief like say the WT's teachings? Then what? We waste tax payers money in the courts.
I don't think religious belief should be singled out this way for protection and be given special rights. Religion that promotes hate and bigotry, should be denounced and in the denouncing of it causes or stirs hatred, the government should not get involved. The Government is trying to legislate proper behavour much too closely, such attemps fail and waste time needlessly. If someone is stirring up the population to voilence then he should be delt with irreguardless of whether it has to do with religion or not.
But if they did come out with a law about critizing religious beleifs the WT organization would be hurt just as much as helped by it.
-
AlanF
Abaddon said:
: 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.
Maybe, maybe not. JWs and Muslims tend to scream "persecution!" or "religious hatred!" at the slightest hint of criticism.
The main problem with such a vague law is that it doesn't clearly define "likely to stir up". Under some circumstances, any criticism at all might be judged likely to stir up religious hatred. Who is it that would determine the interpretation of such a fuzzy concept? Judges, of course. And judges often make extremely diverse interpretations. Without clearly defined, objective standards of what is "likely to stir up", people would be forced to err on the side of shutting up -- which is an infringement of the right of free expression.
: "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.
In some circles it will also be seen as speech likely to stir up religious hatred. There are many people, especially in American Fundamentalist circles, who view such comments as potentially stirring up hatred against them.
: "Persons of x religion are violent, criminal and evil".
: That is a comment "likely to stir up" religious hatred.
True, but what if it also happens to be a true statement? The law would then make telling a particular truth illegal.
How about if you say, "Jehovah's Witness beliefs can be death dealing." That's perfectly true, as we all know. What if this law is passed, you say that on this board, and the Watchtower Society takes you to court and argues that it's a criticism likely to stir up religious hatred. How would you defend yourself?
: Freedoms are only allowable freedoms if, by their exercise, they do not restrict the freedoms of others.
Precisely. And that's why a law such as this is ridiculous. Criticism, even the harsh kind, hurts no one unless someone else acts on it. And no one is forcing others to act on criticism. Putting ideas in other people's heads is a precious right not to be infringed upon.
: Seems simple and fair to me.
If that law were passed, and you criticized the Christian religion by saying, "Many Christian beliefs are stupid and illogical", and someone got bent out of shape and took you to court, and the judge happened to agree that your comment was hateful, and you were jailed, I think you'd change your tune.
The simple fact is that laws, however well intended, are often used in ways that the lawmakers never intended or envisioned. The American Patriot Act is a good example. It contains provisions that allow law enforcement people to go well beyond the previous norm if they judge that they're investigating "terrorism". But recently, a number of law enforcement agencies have misused these provisions to go after people who have nothing to do with "terrorism". All they've had to do is expand the definition of terrorism a bit beyond what the lawmakers intended.
: 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.
That's where your thinking is off base. My comments to you are not going to make you do anything or not do anything. At most, they might influence you to make your own choice to do something.
: Someone saying something like that infringes the freedom of another, and thus should not have the freedom to publish such 'hate speech'.
It doesn't infringe freedom at all.
If a law could be phrased in such a way that it was extremely narrowly defined, there might be some merit in it. But it should not be open to the sort of interpretations that would allow one judge to make one decision and a different judge to make another one.
:: 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.
I don't know what specific laws there are in this regard, so I was speaking loosely. I've read several stories where some poor bastard defends his family by injuring a criminal and is then treated far worse than the criminal. I've also read that it's now illegal in Britain to defend oneself with a weapon, the "logic" being that government will do whatever defending is needed. So how does that work? A criminal threatens your kids with rape, and you have him hold off while you call the local gendarmerie? And perhaps the officer asks you to put the rapist on the phone so he can try to convince the rapist to go away?
AlanF
-
Abaddon
diamond
"isnt it your organisation that covers up child abuse and creates restritive environments for children"
If this reached court, one could prove these were valid statements. If after these statements you said 'people should attack them', then you wouldn't have protection. If you said 'and I am going to pursue you through every legal avenue available to ensure these violations of human rights do not continue', then you would have protection, as your intent would be clearly NOT one legislated against.
"isnt it your organisation that doesnt believe in saving your childrens lives with a blood transfusion? Doesnt that make you a murderer?"
If a religion advocated barbequing babies, saying they advocated barbequed babies and should go to jail if they did so would be fine under this law. Saying people should therefore attack them would not be.
It is the INTENT of the comments that is important. If I was attacked by a Christian and punched him on the nose, my intent is not to stir up religious hatred. If a religous groups advocate harmful or illegal activity, criticising this is fine if your intent is protecting those at risk from harm or crime.
Elsewhere
So, all a religion needs to do is go on the rampage every time someone criticizes their religion and they will be justified in having the critic put in jail, while they themselves go home with no charges.
No Elsewhere, the law doesn't say that.
AlanF
The main problem with such a vague law is that it doesn't clearly define "likely to stir up".
Well, the courts in most European countries are already experienced with legislation against hate speech, as we already have it in some areas. 'Likely' is more or less the the same as 'beyond reasonable doubt', and is examined in light of the intent.
There are still just as many racists and homphobes, for example, as before such legislation. If they say 'kick Pakis in the head' or 'gays must die', they go to jail.
If they say 'immigrants should be given the opportunity to return to their land of origin and immigration strictly controlled to maintain the Englisgness of England' or 'my beliefs as a Christian are that homosexuality is not approved of by God', then nothing happens.
There are many people, especially in American Fundamentalist circles, who view such comments as potentially stirring up hatred against them.
Fortunately they are not generally judges in the UK, and juries would be unlikely to have such a person on them. Just because someone thinks they have a reason to whine doesn't mean shit under law. Note that action "could be brought only by the Attorney General"; this is not some law every stupid fart can prosecute under.
Precisely. And that's why a law such as this is ridiculous. Criticism, even the harsh kind, hurts no one unless someone else acts on it. And no one is forcing others to act on criticism. Putting ideas in other people's heads is a precious right not to be infringed upon.
I disagree.
What right do people have to put the idea of attacking innocent gay men and beating them into other peoples heads?
None.
What right do people have to put the idea that racial minorities are to be driven out by force and violence?
None.
It's an incitement to crime. There is a difference between criticism and incitement to crime.
Unfortunately American concepts of liberty seem not to protect against the abuse of a liberty (such as freedom of speech) by one party infringing on the liberty (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, or in the case of gay Bears, pursuit of hirsuitness) of a second party.
If that law were passed, and you criticized the Christian religion by saying, "Many Christian beliefs are stupid and illogical", and someone got bent out of shape and took you to court, and the judge happened to agree that your comment was hateful, and you were jailed, I think you'd change your tune.
Hasn't happened with hate laws currently in place, unlikely to happen with new proposed ones.
I think the misgivings Americans have about this law are entirely to do with how the percieve it might play out in their legal system.
That says more about your legal system than about the workability of the proposed legislation under European laws.
The way the law is enforced here mean the only people who really would want to object to it are those who want the freedom to incite the hatered of others.
I don't know what specific laws there are in this regard, so I was speaking loosely. I've read several stories where some poor bastard defends his family by injuring a criminal and is then treated far worse than the criminal. I've also read that it's now illegal in Britain to defend oneself with a weapon, the "logic" being that government will do whatever defending is needed. So how does that work? A criminal threatens your kids with rape, and you have him hold off while you call the local gendarmerie? And perhaps the officer asks you to put the rapist on the phone so he can try to convince the rapist to go away?
In the UK, if someone attacks you with a fist, you can defend yourself with a fist, or with absolutely anything that comes to hand or was avaialble IF you can convince the jury you thought your life was at risk. If they have a knife, you can use a knife, or with absolutely anything that comes to hand or was avaialble IF you can convince the jury you thought your life was at risk. If they have a gun, then you can use thermonuclear weapons on them IF you can convince the jury you thought your life was at risk.
I wouldn't put that much faith in the press AlanF! They look for the 'story', even if they have to distort and hype to make a story.
The chief problem is that if some old retired Army officer (or person of that ilk) hears he is being burgled and opens up with an Elephant gun and kills a burgler who he can see is unarmed and not posing a risk of any harm let alone death, and then says this in court, he will go to jail.
Or rather dozy old farts inisisting they had a right to kill an unarmed person go to jail.
Clever old farts who go on for half-an-hour about how terrified they were of crime, all the news reports of violent burglaries, and then this young man breaking in, the bad light, my old eyes, he had his hand in his pocket, I was petrified, and he turned; must have heard my heartbeating it was hammering so loud, saw his arm move just as he turned, I though, 'this is it old boy, him or me', and fired just the once, now I can't sleep at night, poor misguided lad was unarmed, needed a spot of jail not a .470 in the forehead...
... clever old farts don't go to jail.
This is a bit rough, but at least one cannot kill a family member with impunity and say you thought they were a burgler, as there is no automatic right to the use of lethal force even on your own property. Man would that have made my divorce easier .
Given the lack of gun control in the USA, our system would not work in the USA, as due to the free and easy availability of guns and the greater familiarity people have with them, a house-breaker is quite likely to be armed (as he KNOWS some people will have guns). In the UK a burgler is very seldomly armed as the people he breaks into are very very unlikely to be armed and by carrying a weapon he risks a far greater jail term and gets no real gain from being armed. It's not worth the risk.
We have a broadly equal problem with violent crime against the person, in both cases with big regionalism. It's just in the UK people don't die from violent crime very often.
-
diamondblue1974
It is the INTENT of the comments that is important. If I was attacked by a Christian and punched him on the nose, my intent is not to stir up religious hatred. If a religous groups advocate harmful or illegal activity, criticising this is fine if your intent is protecting those at risk from harm or crime
Whilst intention is often the necessary mental element of any crime, in this case it is not, if you read the bill itself it matters not what you intended only whether your comments, criticisms or otherwise were likely to incite religious hatred. Not only is that my humble view but its the view of a Senior Barrister in the UK.
Its almost a strict liability offence...(i.e not requiring the necessary mental elements such as intent, recklessness or negligence).
DB74