How can hatred of an idea be made illegal?

It definitely sounds dodgy to me. But I don't really know the details - I've heard that it's still okay to criticise religious beliefs, and mock them, and even be offensive about them. But if that's true, what the hell is the bill supposed to be putting a stop to? What exactly is the nature of this bill? What can and can't I say?

Presumably I can't say, "go out and kill all the buddhists," but I can still say, "the Christian idea of the Trinity seems logically flawed to me." What about everything in between?

In fact, I'll probably oppose this bill no matter what it covers, since I believe in freedom of speech... and that means freedom to say something racist, or somthing that incites religious hatred.

And I thought that the U.S. had the patent on political correctness.

Agree with that agrote

What annoys me more than anything else is the casual way the Govt. is sacrificing a vital principle...free speech, in order to appease a religious group that they themselves have upset by their actions over Iraq.

You can't say anything which could be interpreted as incitement to hatred. I agree with that as far as race is concerned (not quite the libertarian as you on that point) after all racism is directed against the MAN. This legislation is going to "protect" the IDEAS the man holds dear, just in case he's offended and starts rioting.

Like you I have no idea what will be deemed illegal. To take your example of the Trinity I suppose courteous discourse would be acceptable, but you better be careful, you might accidentally cause great offense....and then boy are you introuble.

I think it will be illegal to come to the conclusion that Mohammed was a paedeophile even if the Koran tells of him marrying a 9 year old girl.

And illegal to say that preachers who brand children as infested with evil spirits are themselves evil.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hatespuk.htm

Apparently, even Jews and Christians might get targeted by this law, because there is also religiously intolerant passages in the Bible and Torah.

Hm... this is a tough decision, really.

After all, it isn't rite to incite religious hatred and we should stop religious hate crimes, but this Bill, is it the way to go? Hm...

I understand your position. To be honest, I probably haven't thought about the issue enough to come to a solid conclusion - but I think I believe that free speech should include the freedom to say something racist. Though I'm not sure.

But yes, the idea that we wouldn't be able to express hatred of religion itself (rather than religious people), is worrying.

Pheonix, I understand the right to physically dispose of or destroy any religious text (providing its your own property of course) is guaranteed under the US constitution correct?

Here it would seem if you throw away an unwanted pamphlet from the Jehovah's Witnesses you risk 7 years imprisonment. (Well maybe not for the first offence...)

The clergy have fomented hatred and division for centuries in order to maintain their political power. The time will come when the entire world will perceive religion to be the true barrier to peace. See Revelation 17, 18.

Steve - this new legislation is a natural outgrowth of previous UK legislation protecting specifically Jews and Sikhs. Of course the Moslems now want to be added to "protected classes" - nothing surprising in that! Either all citizens are protected or none are. Naming classes of "designated victims" is pointless at best; claiming the original 2 were "racial", not "religious" categories is laughable, in the case of jews at any rate.

Since you asked about related US legislation: "Terminiello v. City of Chicago" is the most directly relevant Supreme Court decision:
_____________________________________________________________

''A function of free speech under our system of government,'' wrote Justice Douglas for the majority, ''is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.

Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, . . . is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.''


http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/10.html#1
_____________________________________________________________

Thank Heaven, the American Founding Fathers, and the state of NY for the Bill of Rights.

I think this is the worst piece of legislation in many years. No religious sensibilities should stand in the way of truth.

It might be of some interest

a) to read the text of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 9th June 2005;

b) to take notice that the first reading was on June 9, 2005 (HC Bill 11) and the second reading will be on June 21, 2005.

Thanks walter

The Bill makes it very clear that what is being protected is the person, not the belief.

But how do you protect the person? By making it illegal to criticise his beliefs in a way that he finds offensive.

Now I'm not in favour of giving gratuitous offense. But more important is the right to speak out honestly.

And to sacrifice that important principle to win back the favour of a religious minority which the govt. itself has offended by its foreign policy is an absolute disgrace imo.

Well, since we have here in Germany lived for some decades with what is known as "basic right collision", we don't have (many) problems with such.
[Mostly only unprepared students in Constitutional Law exams :wink: ]

Basic Law, Germany

Blah, blah, blah, Walter! Consider anyone choosing to get offended by this good Canadian who writes in the Letters section of The Economist as follows:
_____________________________________________________________

SIR - Justin Hategekimana suggests that Canada's provinces should become new states in the United States (Letters, May 28th). Most of us would be more interested in finding a way of removing the United States from the continent and towing it over to Hawaii than join in some sort of union. Distance might help us to be better friends. At the moment it's like living next door to a biker gang.

George Lerchs
Vancouver, Canada
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4055114

So much for an "ever closer union" of the North American continent, eh?!

With this subject, too, there are welknown difference in our opinion about it, HofT - thanks for reminding me

Walter - I'm GLAD Canadians have freedom of speech; what they say is up to them. Consider that if the legislation mentioned by Steve becomes law in the UK anyone there who comes up with anything similar on, say, Turkey's attempt to join the EU, will be facing up to 7 YEARS IMPRISONMENT.

How you can support such legislation is beyond my understanding - sorry!

i dont think its quite as draconian as that hoft but know what you mean

of course criticising a pastor for telling his congregation that a child is possessed by evil spirits would be an offense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=AMEGACDN4NMN1QFIQMGCM5OAVCBQUJVC?xml=/news/2005/06/17/nsac17.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/17/ixhome.html

Frightening, Steve, what is done through the cozening power of religion. In seriousness, do you believe that these lunatics would get a free ride if the legislation in question were passed?