Black Adder jailed for poking fun at religion?

[jjimm]

@gobear

There’s a P. J. O’Rourke which I can’t find to quote exactly, but goes something like, “Healthy freedom of speech is a safety valve for our society. Healthy freedom of speech gives us David Duke, but no freedom of speech gives us Hitler, and there’s a huge difference between the two.”

Mild nitpick: surely it was a democratic process (albeit flawed and hijacked) that led to Hitler’s power - he arose in a fairly tolerant atmosphere, not a repressive one.

[Eve]

Bishop of Bath and Wells: “Never have I encountered such foul, mindless perversity. Have you considered a career in the church?”

Lady Whiteadder: “Cold is God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics.”

Lord Flasheart: “Ok chums, let’s doooooo it. As the bishop said to the choirboys.”

[Jojo]

This page from the Home Office answers some of the points raised in this thread.

The problem with this stupid proposed law is that it is all a matter of taste as to where the line should be drawn.

Although, under the new law, prosecutions could only be brought by the Attorney General not by private individuals. Similar to the incitement to racial hatred law and there have only been four prosecutions brought under that law in the last three years, of which only two resulted in convictions.

Not just in what counts as “threatening, abusive or insulting”

It would have to be “threatening, abusive or insulting” with a view to inciting hatred. The term “hatred” would have a very high threshold and would need to go beyond “ridicule, prejudice, dislike, contempt, anger or offence” (according to the Home Office website).

If the person did not know that their actions would incite hatred then they would not be caught by the offence. Also they would need to incite hatred against particular members of a religious group not the ideology in general.

but also in what counts as a religion. Are all christians at risk for having a go at the satanists? Does atheist and agnostics get the same protection?

The website says:

In keeping with similar legislation, the proposals do not define the meaning of religion. “Religious hatred” is defined as “hatred against a group of people defined by their religious beliefs or lack of religious belief”. Explanatory notes have been published which provide a non-exhaustive list of widely practised religions and clearly explain that the protection also covers people identified with a particular branch of a religion. They also stress that the protection of the offence covers Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics. When the circumstances are unclear, the courts will decide whether a particular group of people is protected, in the wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered. If the courts ruled that a new religious movement qualified as a religion for the purposes of the new offence, that would not prevent criticism of the practices of that movement.

If someone says all non-believers are going to hell, that sounds pretty much like a threat to me.

I think the threats would have to relate to this life rather than the afterlife.
The examples the Home Office gives are:

• In response to an extreme racist organisation widely distributing material setting out a range of insulting and highly inflammatory reasons for hating Islam. Such reasons have included suggesting that Muslims are a threat to British people and liable to molest women and that they should be urgently driven out of Britain.

and

• In response to extremists within a faith community making repeated threatening statements stirring up followers to look for ways to make trouble for unbelievers saying that God would never ever allow unbelievers to be pleased with them and created them to be enemies.

Personally I think the whole thing is liable to be a minefield. Anyone prosecuted under this law will become a cause celebre and anyone not prosecuted will become a cause celebre. Both the examples they give above are flawed.

With the first one, there is nothing wrong with having a view that islam (or some other religion) is a threat to British people. Whether this view is correct or not is irrelevant - one is perfectly free to hold such a position if one wishes.

With the second example, both christianity and islam take the view that God will be displeased with the unbelievers.

I think they would be better leaving the law as it is - religiously aggravated crimes are already punished under current legislation (passed in 2001). If I punch someone then that is assault and I will go to prison, if I punch someone because they are a muslim (or a christian or a jew) then it’s still assault but I might get a bit longer in prison because of the aggravating religious factor.

Having said that, I doubt the law will get used much so it’s probably no big deal. And, in any case, the Lords will kick it out.

[CarnalK]

jjimm:
surely it was a democratic process (albeit flawed and hijacked) that led to Hitler’s power - he arose in a fairly tolerant atmosphere, not a repressive one.

Isn’t that a kinda of rosy picture of depression era Germany and Hitler’s rise. Democracy had been around less than two decades, private thug armies ran the streets and when Hitler was eventually made a coalition Chancellor he had all moderate allies murdered. If the various political parties are running goon/assassination squads I find it hard to call it even a “flawed” democratic process.