Posted on 01/14/2005 2:02:00 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
This afternoon, I attended a meeting called by organisations supporting the government's proposed new law against incitement to religious hatred, which I believe threatens to suppress legitimate debate and criminalise people for simply telling the truth. Lined up in support of this bill were the Commission for Racial Equality, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), Justice, the British Humanist Association and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Interestingly, they were very much on the defensive, as they felt that the attack on the bill, mounted by the comedian Rowan Atkinson and many others on the grounds that it would criminalise legitimate speech, had already done serious damage to the government's case.
Their arguments ranged from the confused to the disingenuous to the alarming. Confused, because even they couldn't agree with each other about what the bill meant or how it would work. Disingenuous, because they argued that the only reason people feared that the bill would criminalise insult and the giving of offence was because the blasphemy law -- which only protects Christians -- was still on the statute book.
Not only was this a non sequitur,but it ignored the real reasons why people have this anxiety -- some of which were promptly illustrated by some alarming comments that were made. 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.
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.
There was much emphasis that the aim was not to bring prosecutions. The aim was to change the climate and prevent such sentiments from being uttered in the first place. The result will undoubtedly be intimidation, self-censorship and grossly curtailed public debate. If this bill's supporters think they have allayed anxiety about this measure, they must be living on a different planet.
If that doesn't incite hatred against Martians.
Posted by melanie at January 13, 2005 11:26 PM
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'.
Yeah, all those 9-11 hijackers were Presbyterians.
It's a strange world we live in when you are a racist or a criminal for a simple statement of fact. It would be one thing if you said all Muslims were terrorists. But if you say that specific individual Muslims are terrorists, that is factual. And, apparently to this nimrod, a lie that must be prosecuted.
Sorry for the mis-quote in my headline. The sense (or, I should say, nonsense) is the same.
The desire to suppress expressions of obvious truths is a central feature of oppressive regimes, theocratic and otherwise. If the Brits succumb to this desire at the urging of some of its most backward citizens, woe be unto them.
He said: 'There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist.
"Yeah, all those 9-11 hijackers were Presbyterians."
Now, now. Perhaps he merely takes issue with the redundancy of the expression. I myself get annoyed when people say tall giant or chaste virgin.
The National Socialist, Democratic, Liberal party, which has just chnaged it's name to the Progressive Party, has been laying the ground work for the Transmission of Meaning of the First Amendment to the US Constitution to the Meaning of Freedom of speech of the European Constitution.
The US Constitution says that our unalienable rights come from God, The European Constitution states that the Freedom of speech comes from the "Government" . They are changing our US laws and US Constitutional Gurantees through amending the Laws without changing the Constitution itself, which they would lose.
The activist judges are interpreting the US Laws using the European legal guidelines, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL according to the US Constitution, but no one is bringing this out!! We are slowly moving toward Socialism wether we want it or not!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318061/posts?page=6#6
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318038/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318034/posts
Sounds like a prescription for a Britain under Sharia.
It does, indeed.
Yer, its a bitch. I watched Monty Pythons 'The Meaning of Life' the other day. And the 'Life of Brian'. Both would presumably come under the terms of this new ill thought out law and be banned. This in a week were Sikhs stopped a play beind shown in Birmingham, and thousands of nutters protested at the BBC showing 'Jerry Springer: The Opera' as blasphomy. This from the country that only a decade or so ago proudly published the Salman Rushdie's satanic versus and told the Ayotollah to go stick it where the sun don't shine. Can't help but think we are going down hill. Any religion with any credibilty should be strong enough to bounce of satire or mockery.
"He said: 'There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist."
Sure. From his perspective strapping on a bomb and killing 'infidels' are perfectly normal and admirable activities for a Muslim.
"woe be unto them"
If I recall correctly, free speech is not a "right" in the UK like it is in the US. They are trying to control what people think, dumb or otherwise, by parsing what they can say. It's an Orwellian kind of thing that should serve as a HUGH warning to us in the states.
Technically, you are correct. We do not have a written consitution which binds the powers of parliament so in theory have no control over the extent that parliament can legislate (other than the vote of course).
The closest we have to fundamental rights now come from us accepting the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law.
Not having a written consitution has pros and cons. This is deffo on the negative side!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.