Once again the religious hatred bill has reared its ugly head. Should it become law this bill will make it an offence to use words or behaviour that are likely to stir up religious hatred. While on the face of its this sounds perfectly reasonable, it is a catastrophic assault on free-speech. It is already an offence under the relevant race relations legislation to ridicule people on the basis of their ethnic origins. This is quite right and proper. However when we start to legislate against the criticism of belief systems then we move into an altogether different arena.
While ministers are saying that it will not ban people from offending, criticising or ridiculing faiths it is worth while looking to see what Melanie Philips has to say earlier this year when she attended a meeting called by organisations supporting the proposed new law. It became immediately apparent to her that this law would be interpreted in such a way that reasonable criticism would be stifled.
“For example, Robert Beckley, the ACPO faith officer, related how he had once wanted to launch a prosecution against people who had argued that Hindus and Muslims in Britain would enact a re-run of the violent Ayodhya dispute in northern India, but had been told he could not do so because the issue was religious rather than race hatred (which is covered by the present law). So now we know what kind of remark the police think they will now be able to prosecute on the grounds that it incites religious hatred.”
And…
“Then I asked Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the MCB,whether he thought that any public statements about Islamic terrorism, or any speculation about the number of Muslims in Britain who might support Islamic terrorism, would constitute incitement to religious hatred. He said: ‘There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered by this provision’.
So now we know what the MCB wants to prosecute under this proposed new law. “
If this doesn’t send a chill down your spine, then it should.
Rather than strengthen the existing blasphemy laws, which protect only Christians, we should be repealing them completely. They are an anachronism. I believe passionately that people should be allowed to practise whatever faith they wish, believe in whatever entity takes their fancy and indulge in whatever superstitious rituals these faiths involve. That is their right. I would be ready to defend that right. It is my right as a nonbeliever to criticise and ridicule those beliefs should I see fit. Beliefs and people’s feelings are not sacrosanct. Treating somebody less favourably because of their race is not the same as criticising their religious beliefs.
Indeed I am inclined towards Didier’s comment” that man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Under the new legislation I would probably be prosecuted for saying that. Indeed, under the new legislation I would probably be prosecuted for writing this post.
Now there is thought. I guess I will make my opinions known while it is still legal for me to do so.
On dodgy ITV news which I don’t trust, they were saying that comedians, for example, will still be able to criticise, ridicule, and even be offensive about religious beliefs. Is this true?
Or is it really true that you wouldn’t be able to say, “man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest”? If you really wouldn’t be able to make a comment like that, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I don’t think they’ve really made it clear where they’ve drawn the line between incitement to religious hatred and constructive/humerous/harmless religious criticism.
”'{Longrider replies} Therein lies the problem; the vagueness of where the line is drawn, which is why Melanie Phillips’ examples were so pertinent. It is entirely possible that someone could interpret my comments as incitement to religious hatred (I believe that would be stretching it) while that lack of clarity exists. I understand that comedians would be exempt – this would be a change from the previous bill as I understand it.”’