The Religious Hatred Bill

[LeMarchand]

I'm confused.

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick, but it seems to me that this bill was supposed to be aimed at stopping people stirring up hatred against those with different religious views to themselves. Its defeat is being hailed as a victory for free speech by many.

Could someone explain why it is bad to discriminate against people of different races, levels of (dis)ability, sex, sexual preference etc etc, but it is OK to hate someone of a different religion?

What strikes me as particularly strange is that many of those "free speech" folk would be the first to complain if someone started saying that (say) women were incapable of driving a car safely or that homosexuals were all deviants. (PS - just to make it clear, I support neither of those views!)

[Ward-Minter]

Quite simple. Races are people. Full stop. And some religions are just pure wickedness. I have been called racist numerous times on here and I can honestly say on my childrens lives that i would never pre-judge somebody on their race and/or colour.

[edited by AB]

[noxlumos]

We are talking about the fact that what was being propsed would severly curtail our rights to free speech.

I do not personally judge anyone by their race, gender, religion or social status. I do not share the same views as Ward-Minter above for example, but I would die for his right to express them.

The UK is renowned all over the world as a place of equality and free speech and this bill sought to destroy that by making it illegal to make religiously biased statments which might invoke hatred. You may not like what some people say or what their opinions are, but it's a part of being a responsible individual to sift through information you hear and decide what is and is not right. It's not right for a Nanny state to decree what I may or may not hear or say.That is why it's demise is being championed.

[LeMarchand]

So it is OK for me to (say) decry all homosexuals as evil, or all Japanese as slant-eyed, sneaky and out to take over the world by stealth? (Again, not my views!) If we have free speech, then people should be free to say whatever they want - be it offensive to others or not. However, certain sections of the population are protected by various pieces of legislation. Why should making hate speeches on the grounds of religious differences be considered different to making hate speeches based on race?

I'm all for free speech, but it seems that some speech is more free than others...

[Lonnie]

I may not like what you say, but i'll defend to the death your right to say it.

This virtually used to be one of the cornerstones of our society, but no more.

Whats happened to our society, and more important, where's it going.

[undercovers]

You shouldn't really compare physical characteristics with religious beliefs - beliefs are just thoughts after all and it is everyone�s right in this country to question (or even ridicule) another�s thoughts. However it is not acceptable to ridicule or judge someone based on physical traits... a clear difference and should be expressed in any legislation deemed necessary i believe - though please feel free you question my thoughts on the matter!!

[stevie_c2it]

To put forward one example, every single comedian, or comedic programme derives humour from the juxtaposition of differing ideas, people or cultures, often highlighting the oddities between the different reactions, behaviours and attitudes in society.

This Bill, if passed unamended, would have made it a criminal act to express much of these observations.

Virtually overnight, the majority of 'classical' comedy programmes broadcast in this country would have been criminalised: i.e. 'Only fools and horses', 'Porridge', 'The vicar of Dibley', 'Little Britain', and so on. Pick any one of your choosing and you'll see what I mean.

It's simply an example of political correctness taken to the extreme. Telling people that they are forbidden to say (or even think) a certain way, is guaranteed to cause resentment, and lead to the very thing the Government is trying to eradicate, i.e. more religious and racial intolerance.

Illogical and unworkable.

[bernardo]

They haven't defeated the whole bill - they have just changed two bits of it.

1. It will be illegal to promote hatred against a religion; it will not also be illegal to ridicule or make fun of it.

2. If a person stirs up hatred of a religion, he will only be convicted if he intended to do so. Without the amendment, the criminality of a statement would have depended on how it was interpreted by a listener rather than what was meant by the speaker.

[sp1814]

Another important difference between racism/sexism/homophobia is that people don't actually choose their race/sex/sexual orientation, whereas religious beliefs are chosen.

If you have chosen to subscribe to a belief system, you should be able to open debate it, even mock it.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I'm in favour of the amendments, though I would debate the extent to which many 'choose' their religion. Religion is undoubtedly actively chosen by some, but for most it is simply a part of their cultural identity.

The difference, I would say, is that religion is philosophical in nature, (or, if you prefer, metaphysical), whereas race, gender and sexuality are not (though I suppose I'd better acknowlege a few people persist in the belief that people 'choose' to be gay). RG & S are immutable and not open to change through force of argument. Religion is.

Incidentally, may I ask WM what his preferred term for his particular brand of bigotry is? Clearly he's offended by the semantics regarding his stated views that Islam is wicked and should be eradicated by force. Would 'Ethnic Cleanser' be more accurate?

[LeMarchand]

Thanks for the clarification, bernardo. So there was a load of stuff originally in there that wasn't actually to do with hatred that has now been removed (quite rightly) and the bill is currently still going through with amendments but now seems to be focussed on those who are inciting hatred as would seem to be the objective of its title? In that case, I don't understand why the human rights peeps are crowing so much.

Waldo, I tend to agree - whilst many of us have had the luxury of choosing our religion (or lack of) a great many people are thoroughly indoctrinated from birth, so there seems little choice for them.

[El D]

Actually you are free to hate whatever you want. There is not law against hating something. There should not be a law against saying it either. What does that tell us - we have an opinion but not the right to express it? All speech should be free. We do not have to listen to or act on what people say, that choice is up to us, the banning of whether or not we should hear it is laughable. Perhaps those childlike people who cannot decide for themselves what they want, or are scared by a bunch of air vibrations will welcome the regulation of speech - I don't.

[searchme]

Lemarchhare-I find it very strange that you example the japanese as 'slant-eyed ,sneaky and out to take over the world by stealth'.

I note that you do not subscribe to this view,but you may have hit on something.Do you that these people are trained from the cradle to be death-dealing ninjas?

..also that these and other orientals are feared for their fiendish cunning?

Thank you for warning us ,we haven't forgotten Dr.Fumanchu

[Ward-Minter]

Waldo. Ethnic Cleanser?? I think that's a little harsh for my particular brand of bigotry. Personally I call it liberalism.

During the troubles in NI would you call catholics or Protestants racist? I think not.

Was Oliver Cromwell a racist? I think not.

Was Saddam Hussein a racist. I think not.

Is Ward-Minter a racist. I think not. Just a liberal minded individual who respects women, children, camels and freedom of speech.