News1 min ago
Russian Parliament Passes New Blasphemy Law
84 Answers
http://
Why? This can only be a retrograde step, surely?
Why? This can only be a retrograde step, surely?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Khandro different how? Do you have no intent behind what you write?
Would this law mean that, say, the danish cartoonist were he russian, would face a jail sentence? After all, he intent was to shock and amuse.
Would this law mean that, say, Salman Rushdie would face imprisonment, were he a russian citizen, for writing "The Satanic Verses"? Clearly yes, since he wrote with intent - to shock and criticize.
Would this law criminalise political and religious protest, so that a band like Pussy Riot would face jail time under this statute rather than "hooliganism"?
Clearly, yes.
Such laws stifle and chill free speech and free expression, and protect legitimate and vocal criticism of religion and religious practice. Only apologists for religion can find that idea even remotely comforting.
Would this law mean that, say, the danish cartoonist were he russian, would face a jail sentence? After all, he intent was to shock and amuse.
Would this law mean that, say, Salman Rushdie would face imprisonment, were he a russian citizen, for writing "The Satanic Verses"? Clearly yes, since he wrote with intent - to shock and criticize.
Would this law criminalise political and religious protest, so that a band like Pussy Riot would face jail time under this statute rather than "hooliganism"?
Clearly, yes.
Such laws stifle and chill free speech and free expression, and protect legitimate and vocal criticism of religion and religious practice. Only apologists for religion can find that idea even remotely comforting.
We really do need an edit facility, Ed :)
This sentence wot I wrote
"and protect legitimate and vocal criticism of religion and religious practice. Only apologists for religion can find that idea even remotely comforting"
Should have read
"and protect religion and religious practice from legitimate,vocal or provocative criticism. Only apologists for religion can find hat idea even remotely comforting."
Sorry for the typo and inadvertent change in meaning..
This sentence wot I wrote
"and protect legitimate and vocal criticism of religion and religious practice. Only apologists for religion can find that idea even remotely comforting"
Should have read
"and protect religion and religious practice from legitimate,vocal or provocative criticism. Only apologists for religion can find hat idea even remotely comforting."
Sorry for the typo and inadvertent change in meaning..
@bert "Whatever is the problem with that? Even here in Britain, it is against the law to be deliberately offensive about someone else's sexual orientation. Would that it were equally illegal to be deliberately offensive about their religious orientation, but somehow that counts as 'free speech'."
Special pleading. Religion is an idea, and ideology, and, ultimately, a choice. Sexual Orientation, like Race, is not a choice.
And anyway I am not sure you are entirely right.There are laws in place to protect gays and ethnic minorities from behaviours or materials that might incite hatred toward that particular group, but that is not the same thing as being intentionally offensive.
Special pleading. Religion is an idea, and ideology, and, ultimately, a choice. Sexual Orientation, like Race, is not a choice.
And anyway I am not sure you are entirely right.There are laws in place to protect gays and ethnic minorities from behaviours or materials that might incite hatred toward that particular group, but that is not the same thing as being intentionally offensive.
////Well I can't agree with that. A society that encourages all beliefs and non beliefs to coexist without fear and reprisal from either side is the preference surely?////
I believe that is exactly they are doing. As your personal life whatever it is as long as it is private, it is your own business. And I personally have no problem with that either.
I believe that is exactly they are doing. As your personal life whatever it is as long as it is private, it is your own business. And I personally have no problem with that either.
Clearly the spokeswoman; Mikhail Markelov, was speaking clearer, measured English than do some of the muddled thinkers on this thread when she said "We are not talking about the subjective term 'religious offense', which is admittedly difficult to qualify. The law only punishes public acts that obviously go out of their way to insult a religion."
The difference between causing offence, and 'intentionally' causing offence should be plain for anyone to see.
The difference between causing offence, and 'intentionally' causing offence should be plain for anyone to see.
Three questions for Khandro (who's not on my Christmas card list any more):
Q1: Was the Life of Brian a deliberate attempt to insult Christianity?
Q2: Would the Life of Mo be a deliberate attempt to insult Islam?
Q3: Do you agree with my contention that much of the Bible and most of the Koran are morally repugnant and ought to be insulted?
Q1: Was the Life of Brian a deliberate attempt to insult Christianity?
Q2: Would the Life of Mo be a deliberate attempt to insult Islam?
Q3: Do you agree with my contention that much of the Bible and most of the Koran are morally repugnant and ought to be insulted?
@Octavius. I would not have locked them up under an especially drafted blasphemy law for carrying placards carrying the inflammatory incitement to behead those insult Islam, but I would have no problem using the existing Laws to prosecute them for a hate crime or incitement to murder. Thats the point.
@ Khandro - What is the intent and purpose of bringing in the law? They were already able to prosecute Pussy Riot under their hooliganism provisos.
My point is that religion as a belief should not require, nor should its followers demand special protection under the law against offence to their religion, public or private, written, filmed, or live protest.
If the work itself incites people to murder or riot or attack people of faith then lock them up under incitement to hatred and public order offence laws.
If the protest itself causes criminal damage, charge them for that.
This new law blurs the distinction between religion and state and offers special protection for religion. It represents a useful tool for suppression and repression.
@ Khandro - What is the intent and purpose of bringing in the law? They were already able to prosecute Pussy Riot under their hooliganism provisos.
My point is that religion as a belief should not require, nor should its followers demand special protection under the law against offence to their religion, public or private, written, filmed, or live protest.
If the work itself incites people to murder or riot or attack people of faith then lock them up under incitement to hatred and public order offence laws.
If the protest itself causes criminal damage, charge them for that.
This new law blurs the distinction between religion and state and offers special protection for religion. It represents a useful tool for suppression and repression.
The fact that believers try to stifle criticism is an argument not for the strength of their case, but its weakness (C. Hitchens - RIP).
And a total lack of the imagination and the moral quality necessary to understand what a free society is. No wonder the theocrats and the Russian oligarchy find common cause. I pour foul scorn on all of them.
And a total lack of the imagination and the moral quality necessary to understand what a free society is. No wonder the theocrats and the Russian oligarchy find common cause. I pour foul scorn on all of them.
@LazyGun says that my post is special pleading, because //Religion is ... a choice. Sexual Orientation is not a choice//. He seems to think that legitimises being offensive about the one and not the other.
@naomi24 seems to be saying that offensiveness about sexuality is illegal because it's personal, and offensiveness about religion is okay because it's ideological.
I think both of you are guilty of pre-Enlightenment thinking. You've formed your conclusions, and you're twisting your arguments to justify them. We're disagreeing about the only thing people ever disagree about: whether two things are similar enough to justify the same treatment, or different enough to merit different treatment. The differences that you're both conjuring up between offensiveness about sexuality, and offensiveness about religion, to justify treating them differently are so threadbare that they expose your preconceptions about both matters. But I'm never going to change your minds, nor you mine.
@naomi24 seems to be saying that offensiveness about sexuality is illegal because it's personal, and offensiveness about religion is okay because it's ideological.
I think both of you are guilty of pre-Enlightenment thinking. You've formed your conclusions, and you're twisting your arguments to justify them. We're disagreeing about the only thing people ever disagree about: whether two things are similar enough to justify the same treatment, or different enough to merit different treatment. The differences that you're both conjuring up between offensiveness about sexuality, and offensiveness about religion, to justify treating them differently are so threadbare that they expose your preconceptions about both matters. But I'm never going to change your minds, nor you mine.
@bert You misunderstand, again..
"@LazyGun says that my post is special pleading, because //Religion is ... a choice. Sexual Orientation is not a choice//. He seems to think that legitimises being offensive about the one and not the other."
No ,you should be allowed to be as offensive as you like to either, is what i am saying. Where offence and criticism crosses the line is when it descends into hate crime, with calls for an incitement to riot, to murder or to attack or harass/menace/intimidate an individual or a group be it through sexual orientation, race or religious identity.
What you appear to be happy with is the concept of a blasphemy law, which this russian proposal is, where religion or religious practice can claim protection from criticism,exemption from insult, however robust, simply because it offends the sensibilities of some of the religious.
"@LazyGun says that my post is special pleading, because //Religion is ... a choice. Sexual Orientation is not a choice//. He seems to think that legitimises being offensive about the one and not the other."
No ,you should be allowed to be as offensive as you like to either, is what i am saying. Where offence and criticism crosses the line is when it descends into hate crime, with calls for an incitement to riot, to murder or to attack or harass/menace/intimidate an individual or a group be it through sexual orientation, race or religious identity.
What you appear to be happy with is the concept of a blasphemy law, which this russian proposal is, where religion or religious practice can claim protection from criticism,exemption from insult, however robust, simply because it offends the sensibilities of some of the religious.
