There is an interesting "sketch" piece on the BBC's website about this afternoon's rally outside Parliament against the proposed "religious hatred" law. (To be honest, I was considering going as I finished work around 2:30pm, but for various reasons I decided against it, and sort of wish I had gone now.) The article is called Singing from the same hymn sheet, and gives a strange image of those involved: a mixture of evangelical Christians and atheists who are worried about their criticisms of Islam (in particular) laying them open to prosecution. (More: Osama Saeed.)
Another picture on the same page shows rather more of the protestors, who are not as predominantly black as is suggested by the picture above. They were joined by two politicians of the Democratic Unionist Party - AKA the Ian Paisley Party - from Northern Ireland, one of whom is pictured "leading a rendition of Amazing Grace". The evangelical contingent comes out with some rather strange slogans for a demonstration against the outlawing of what some people have taken to calling incitement to religious hatred:
Indeed, the beltway opposite Parliament seemed to have transformed into a gospel choir stall in the shadow of Westminster Abbey.
"Stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the cross; Lift high His royal banner, it must not suffer loss," they sang.
And with it, a sea of banners from about 400 protesters were lifted high, bearing such slogans as: "the blood of Jesus Christ", "the holy spirit and fire" and "woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees".
And this is what the DUP contingent had to contribute:
Democratic Unionist MP Sammy Wilson proclaimed to cheers and hallelujahs how Christianity had spanned 2,000 years and did not need protection from Tony Blair or his new legislation.
"People are queuing up to use this legislation to stop people preaching what they want," he said.
His DUP colleague Willie McCrea declared: "I do not care what man says, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ."
The article doesn't explain from what religious organisation the black evangelicals came from. I say this because areas of south London with a high African presence have a large number of fringe churches with names which would sound very strange to anyone from a traditionally Christian background. Many of them are "charismatic", meaning heavily focussed around a preacher, and some have outlandish beliefs, such as obsessions with demons or witchcraft. Of course, this type of religion is sometimes known to attract whites as well, but it is particularly prevalent among people from sub-Saharan Africa. Given the hostility which exists between Christians and Muslims in some parts of Africa, I suspect that protection for Christian preaching is not the motive for their participation, or at least, its organisation.
By the way, you can read the bill for yourself at the Parliament website. "Religious hatred" is the term: its definition, which is the important bit, is "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief". So you can't read anything you like into "religious hatred" itself, such as hatred founded on religion, because religious hatred is specifically defined as something else. In addition, the Commons narrowly approved amendments passed by the House of Lords restricting the criminalised speech to the threatening, rather than merely abusive or insulting, something I consider welcome; it must, however, be noted that insults to people's religions are commonly used as means of stirring up hostility to said people - witness the continual attacks on the marriages of the Prophet, sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam. I fail to see why people are so opposed to the extending of racial hatred to cover hostility based on religion; the alliance of traditionally anti-religious secularists, African evangelicals and notoriously reactionary Northern Irish Protestants suggests that it's not just about free speech.
The bill, as amended by the House of Lords covers "threatening" words rather than "insulting". This is clearly better as it is more objective. The recent "cartoon-rage" shows that adherents of some religions are rather more sensitive to insult than others. But "threats" should not be tolerated against anyone, including those who "insult" a religion.
Victory for free speech.
Interesting view from your side, as you have said, there were various people out to protect their 'religion', but I think the most important thing is that people should have the freedom to say what they believe is true be it a view against Islam, Christianity, Witchcraft or what ever.
We are in a free society afterall.
What should not be tolorated is those who think that their way is the only true way and would adopt any method to enforce that.
Shola Ogunlokun
Hi Shola Ogunlokun,
As per your comment:
"...people should have the freedom to say what they believe is true be it a view against Islam, Christianity, Witchcraft or what ever."
Just a few rambly remarks I would like to make.
You would agree that "speaking" is a human action? Like any other human action, speaking does have effect in the society, good or bad. Consider "stealing" for a moment, another type of human action, when someone steals, this causes obvious problems in a civil human setting. For this reason, there are rules and regulations in societies as to what kind of actions are acceptable and what kind are unacceptable. So, they say stealing is not acceptable, charity is acceptable, the consumption of narcotics is not acceptable, healthy eating is desirable, and so on.
Coming back to the issue at hand, similarly with human speech, there are those things that one can say that would cause problems in the society, and there are those things that you can say that would bring about goodness - regardless of whether you believe those things to be true or false.
For example, if you go around saying that dark skinned people are inferior to white skinned people (and this is your personal belief to which you are entitled), this can however create problems in the society. First it creates problem in the heart of peoples (which is not the area I am trying to address here), and then it goes on to create problems in the way human beings interact with each other in that society, and so on.
You could argue that people don't have to believe you, and that you are only espousing views that you believe to be true without any intent to incite people to bad behaviour or to threaten dark skinned people. But that will be too foolish, because one could say the same for all human actions. I could steal money from the bank without any intent to threaten the bankers, it is just my true belief that I should get that money to survive. Or I could call my neighbour a "whore" as a joke or even if I believe it - and spread the news in the neighbourhood. In this case, if I do believe it, then common sense requires that I bring some evidence for what I am saying. And this can be so serious in Islam - such that if you have no evidence for what you are saying especially about other people, you could be in trouble.
Before I get side-tracked. The point here is that there are social implications to human speech, and as such human speech cannot be let loose Even when you are joking, you may not lie.
In the case of a so called secular democratic society as ours (with no reference to religious guidance or ideal principles) we need to evaluate "free" speech on the basis of social and indeed economic benefits lol - economic implications is our bottom line at the end of the day!
As you can now beginning to see that this so called free speech is another of the many fallacies the modern world have set up for us.
What is does to you at the personal level is that it corrupts your soul. Human expression can be divided into 3 parts (if we could talk of parts). Actions, Beliefs, and States. Actions are the things you do, such as speaking, eating, etc. Beliefs are the ideas you hold in your mind, such as political ideology, religious doctrines, etc. And States are general condition of your pysche - if you like, such as being optimistic, fatalistic, nervous, reliance on God, hope in God, anxiety, etc.
All of these expressions provide nourishment for something called "The Soul" - that part of you (if we could talk of parts) that will continue to exist after you die. If you nourish it with good Actions, good Beliefs, and good States, then "you" will find that "part of you" blissful when you die. If however, you have only supplied it with foul actions, such a cursing other people, mocking the Prophets of other people's religion and undertaking all the other stupid actions that you are afforded by the secular "principle" of free speech, free action, free everything, free sex. Then, know that you don't even need to die before you find yourself in hell. We are already in hell and just waiting to move to HELL, unless we change our freedom for self-restraint and civility.
Shola, this is not an attack on you. Rather, I am making the points here so that others like Old pickler may read it.
If you leave me your email, I can write you there to discuss some other points relating to your comments above.
Apologies for the long post!
Anonymous,
Thanks for the long post, my main concern is that people should be able to have a conversation/debate without fearing retribution for expressing one's belief.
A line has to be drawn somewhere, but it is easy to see when you are trying to incite others to commit acts that are un-lawful or detrimental to others.
Whatever we do in life, there will always be someone who will be offended, even by a joke where no lies are told.
The good thing is that at least we are given the chance to lobby our MPs so they know how we feel about a proposed change in law.
You're mistaken in welcoming the Lords amendment that restricts the offence of inciting religious hatred to words or actions that are "threatening", Yusuf. The criminalisation of incitement to hatred by means of "threatening, insulting or abusive" words or actions has been on the statute book since the 1965 Race Relations Act.
The reason for this is that very little of the racist hate-propaganda produced by the likes of the BNP contains explicit threats. As you yourself point out, they incite hatred primarily by means of language that comes under the heading of "abusive and insulting".
The Lords amendment also requires proof of intent. The 1965 Act did so too. As a result, it was very difficult to mount a successful prosecution for incitement to racial hatred under that Act. This was why the 1976 Race Relations Act introduced the test of objective effect – criminalising words or actions "likely" to incite hatred and requiring the accused to demonstrate absence of intent.
The Commons vote to accept the Lords amendment means that there will now be a law against incitement to religious hatred, but it will be almost impossible to convict anyone of an offence under it. This was, indeed, the whole purpose of the amendment.
Along with the acquittal of Nick Griffin and his sidekick at Leeds Crown Court, the Commons vote in favour of the Lords amendment has guaranteed that the fascists will be able to continue inciting hatred against Muslims unhindered.