It could happen . . . From the Daily Telegraph (cut down & edited):
Rowan Atkinson defended the right of comedians to poke fun at other people’s religion last night as he joined the campaign against Government plans to create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred. The star of the BBC’s Blackadder television series lined up with leading barristers, writers and politicians to oppose the proposed law. Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which will have its second reading in the Commons today, anyone judged to have stirred up religious hatred through threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, would be liable to a maximum of seven years in prison.
But opponents of the measure say that while it is well intentioned, stopping the right to criticise other religions would end centuries of tolerance and could stoke tensions between religious groups rather than ease them. “The freedom to criticise ideas - any ideas even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. And the law which attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.”
A Home Office spokesman defended the Bill, insisting that it would not interfere with the right to free speech. She said: “There is a clear difference between criticism of a religion and the act of inciting hatred against members of a religious group. The incitement offences have a high criminal threshold and prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney General.”
Mr Atkinson said, “There should be no subject about which you cannot make jokes.”
If there really were a clear difference, or assuming there is, that the government could be trusted not to blur the dividing line when it became convenient for it, there would be about 1000000x less discussion on this topic.
True dat. That said, here’s something interesting from the Telegraph (which opposes the proposal, BTW). There are already laws in the UK essentially protecting Judiasm and Sikhism, because those religions are practiced exclusively or almost exclusively by a single ethnic group and the UK already has ethnic hate laws. And they have a law against Christian blasphemy, though anyone who’s seen a Monty Python skit is aware that they’re not applying it to comedians. So the laws proponents argue that the proposed law is just extending similar protections to non-protected groups – specifically, Muslims and Hindus.
So proponents of other kinds of hate-crime legislation can stick that in their pipes and smoke it.
Also, they’re trying to head off the recent very successful tactic of racist groups of denigrating Islam, when what they are really talking about is ‘all these towelheads living in our country’. And it’s a tactic that is foolish, rash, and typical of Labour’s current policies.
Woops, I’m talking about two different tactics, there :smack: …I hope it still makes sense.
Also…what really scares me about these laws is when you hear politicans defend them against these accusations by saying “Oh, well, of course they could theoretically be misused in that way, but that would never really happen in real life…”. I’d rather have a bit more certainty about our freedoms than that.
Meanwhile in Denmark a group of Muslims has indicted two (state owned) television channels for having aired excerpts of Theo van Gogh’s movie Submission under some antiquated laws which seems very like those proposed in England. Perhaps such a law would quash any future such movie being made or aired in England? You’ll have to excuse me but I want the state to keep its little grubby fingers out of religion – and I don’t trust the state to draw sensible lines between what is acceptable speech and what is not, laws have a tendency to take on a life of their own and cover progressively larger areas. Also I suppose it opens the door for a Scientology like “lawfare” where the purpose of indicting has more to do with exhausting and ruining the opponent financially than to actually win in court. Also many artists would supposedly err on the side of caution to avoid any trouble. I’d imagine especially so where big money is involved, as in movie making. Finally it begs the question, what’s so special about religion that it specifically should be protected while other groups are not?
Definitely. Unfortunately with such laws, the exact definition of what’s offensive and abusive often depends upon who’s in power. Thus, you either have a law that’s unevenly and unfairly enforced or one that largely ignored. This bill is nothing more than “feel good” legislation passed to show how “serious” the
government is about combatting racism.
As an American, I say, “Thank God for the First Amendment.”
There was also the case of the Norwegian stand-up comedian who had the misfortune of nearly having a fatwa cast on her after she had the audacity to lift a mullah in one of her shows. Lift a mullah! The Horror! Gotta ban it.
It is my little pet theory that fanatics & fundamentalists of any kind always fear ridicule, humour and irony more than anything, including outright critique – perhaps because the origin of their fanatics has a lot to do with a minority complexes and a weak ego (deep down they’re just small scared boys, wishing for mommy, terrified of being made the fools). If there was a web-camera in Bin Laden’s little nasty cave I’m sure it’d reveal a man of such incredible boredom he could bore a dead snail to suicide (though not so boring as reality shows, naturally) and with a sense of self-irony on par with a squashed beetle. Hitler, reportedly, was dull as an egg. Stalin slept on a hard couch and seldom indulged in any luxury of any kind. etc. (yeah ok I said it was “pet theory”, didn’t I - which brings me to my second pet theory: never trust a politician who isn’t just a little bit corrupt)
Does this mean UK will create her own jihad against Salmon Rushdie (or at least imprison him for 7 years). After all his books are quite nasty to Muslims (and Christians).
Actually, the aftermath of that incident gave me more hope for a future multicultural, tolerant Norway, not less. Because mullah Krekar didn’t issue a fatwa, despite being furious and strongly offended. Instead, this fundamentalist (that’s how he describes himself) went to the Norwegian courts, and sued her for sexual harrasment - he said she’d touched his ass. (I’m not sure if “sue” is the right word here, he wasn’t after money, and said he’d drop the case if she apoligised in person to him and his wife.)
“Life of Brian” did run into trouble with the Norwegian blasphemy law, btw. (Yes, we still have one. Bloody embarrassing.) It was only allowed to run when the cinemas showed a disclaimer first, claiming that the film was not intended to mock any religion
No. Perhaps I misunderstood what you mean, but the charge definitely has come about as a result of a private initiative, it was filed by a group of twenty (private) Muslims (whom wish for the moment to remain anonymous, but includes several Imams), and is brought to court by a private lawyer (Laue Traberg Smidt). It has been brought to court (not merely a complaint to the television channels). The defendant is the state, as the two television channels are state owned.
From the link:
Personally I hope they (the Muslims) win the case. The law under which they go to court is an old decrepit almost forgotten law which hasn’t been used since 1971 (where some Christians outraged that a singer had made a small song about girls and orgasm had their case thrown out of court). It should be abolished. By all appearances a large majority of Danes think that. And the largest Danish party just gave their “Freedom Price” to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (author of Submission) during their national convention. (Again the Imams thought it an unacceptable provocation) It is almost inconceivable such a law would survive if it outlawed the airing of a movie she wrote the manuscript for so soon after they gave her that price.
At best the Imams are looking at a Pyrrhic Victory.
I agree that sueing is better than shooting someone’s nine times in the leg, slitting his throat and finaly stabbing a letter with text out of the quoran with a knife in his stomach.
Some muslim families hired a lawyer and try to prevent part II of Submission:
Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali is working on a follow-up project to “Submission”, the controversial film made with murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh.
Hirsi Ali said the theme for Submission - Part II will be how the Islamic faith oppresses individuals, with a focus on the position of women. She also said that she wants to abolish or phase out Islamic education, rather than “burn it down” immediately.
The subtitle to the new film will be Shortcut to Enlightenment. Hirsi Ali said she hopes to point out a short cut for Muslims to gain enlightenment, evening newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported Monday.
The first Submission was broadcast in August and
portrayed women in see-through clothing describing physical abuse within the Islamic community. Anti-women texts from the Koran were daubed on the performers’ bodies.
Besides vowing to produce a follow-up to the film, Hirsi Ali also spoke with the NRC about her personal situation, political future and her ideas about the current social climate in the Netherlands. It was her first interview since the 2 November murder of Van Gogh in Amsterdam.
A letter left with Van Gogh’s body warned that Hirsi Ali was next, prompting her to go into hiding. She agreed to the interview with the paper only on condition the whereabouts and time of the interview would be kept secret.
I wish them well.
And we too, have a dusty blasphemy law somewhere. Some MP tried to sharpen the law [two weeks after van Gogh’s murder. Whàt a coïncedence :rolleyes: ] but luckily sense prevailed.
I see absolutely no reason why religious people should have their own law.
If you call me a snot-fucking atheïst, I’ll laugh first and then sue you to hell.
