Leetistan
27-06-2005, 20:06
It seems like the UK is moving to allow itself to ban any religious text.
The controversial bill to outlaw religious hatred has been further exposed this week for its false intentions. This bill has been ‘sold’ to the public as a measure that is necessary to protect Muslims from religious hatred incited by far right organisations. Many Muslims have been given the misleading impression that this bill will prevent the onslaught of insults against Islamic that we have seen in the media [and indeed from politicians] over the past few years – a kind of ‘pseudo’ blasphemy law. None of these are the true intentions, and recent statements in Parliament reinforce sinister suspicions about the bill.
The bill was introduced to ‘bribe’ the Muslim community before the last election to tempt them to vote for the labour government that had lost face in their murderous war on Iraq. In reality the bill will not protect against insults against Islam – government ministers have repeatedly made it clear to advocates of free speech that they will remain free to insult, ridicule and criticise religion - an essential quality of a democracy we are told. Furthermore, there are laws that protect against religious discrimination in the workplace, and that protect against incitement to hatred generally – but none of these has been given much attention by the law enforcement agencies. A suggested alternative – making a small amendment to existing laws to strengthen them – something simpler to achieve the protection of Muslims, and yet altogether less controversial has hitherto been ignored by the government.
All of this makes the sinister motives seem more suspicious. When the bill was first introduced the then Home Secretary David Blunkett said that the bill would be used against extremist Muslims, as if this were the biggest problem necessary to be solved by this law. Similarly this week MP Boris Johnson pointed out that verses from the Quran and Bible could incite religious hatred. This has been the case in Australia where a similar bill introduced some years ago has resulted, instead of the protection of Muslims, the persecution of Muslims by hostile factions who attend gatherings and speeches to monitor what is being said. They have attempted to use their bill against Muslims, intimidating Imams and speakers to refrain from addressing sensitive issues. Blunkett’ statement, Boris Johnson’s observation, and the case of Australia reinforce this suspicion.
So who will decide how this bill will be used? Against far right extremists, against comedians and commentators, or against Muslims. The decision, we are told, will be taken by the Attorney General, the politically appointed lawyer, Lord Goldsmith, who has been heavily criticised over his role in the Iraq war. It is widely suggested that was ‘leant on’ to change his mind over this and it is he who will decide how this bill can be used.
This bill could ban quoting from Quran, or could cause a de facto ban by allowing Muslims to be intimidated like in Australia. This is no different to how the western back governments in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have banned the use of certain ayat of Quran at the behest of the US government in a bid to reform Islam. All of this should be seen in the context of the war on terror and should be resisted.
Brothers and Sisters - We must maintain the recitation, teaching and implementation of Islam in our lives as a trust to us. A test may now fall upon all of us, and we should fear Allah, be resolute and not succumb to any intimidation that faces us. To hide any of the Quran, or avoid teaching aspects of Islam because of this bill, would be a great crime and an injustice to others who need to hear the whole message of Islam, and not a government censored version.
…Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.[TMQ: Al Baqarah 2:85]
The controversial bill to outlaw religious hatred has been further exposed this week for its false intentions. This bill has been ‘sold’ to the public as a measure that is necessary to protect Muslims from religious hatred incited by far right organisations. Many Muslims have been given the misleading impression that this bill will prevent the onslaught of insults against Islamic that we have seen in the media [and indeed from politicians] over the past few years – a kind of ‘pseudo’ blasphemy law. None of these are the true intentions, and recent statements in Parliament reinforce sinister suspicions about the bill.
The bill was introduced to ‘bribe’ the Muslim community before the last election to tempt them to vote for the labour government that had lost face in their murderous war on Iraq. In reality the bill will not protect against insults against Islam – government ministers have repeatedly made it clear to advocates of free speech that they will remain free to insult, ridicule and criticise religion - an essential quality of a democracy we are told. Furthermore, there are laws that protect against religious discrimination in the workplace, and that protect against incitement to hatred generally – but none of these has been given much attention by the law enforcement agencies. A suggested alternative – making a small amendment to existing laws to strengthen them – something simpler to achieve the protection of Muslims, and yet altogether less controversial has hitherto been ignored by the government.
All of this makes the sinister motives seem more suspicious. When the bill was first introduced the then Home Secretary David Blunkett said that the bill would be used against extremist Muslims, as if this were the biggest problem necessary to be solved by this law. Similarly this week MP Boris Johnson pointed out that verses from the Quran and Bible could incite religious hatred. This has been the case in Australia where a similar bill introduced some years ago has resulted, instead of the protection of Muslims, the persecution of Muslims by hostile factions who attend gatherings and speeches to monitor what is being said. They have attempted to use their bill against Muslims, intimidating Imams and speakers to refrain from addressing sensitive issues. Blunkett’ statement, Boris Johnson’s observation, and the case of Australia reinforce this suspicion.
So who will decide how this bill will be used? Against far right extremists, against comedians and commentators, or against Muslims. The decision, we are told, will be taken by the Attorney General, the politically appointed lawyer, Lord Goldsmith, who has been heavily criticised over his role in the Iraq war. It is widely suggested that was ‘leant on’ to change his mind over this and it is he who will decide how this bill can be used.
This bill could ban quoting from Quran, or could cause a de facto ban by allowing Muslims to be intimidated like in Australia. This is no different to how the western back governments in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have banned the use of certain ayat of Quran at the behest of the US government in a bid to reform Islam. All of this should be seen in the context of the war on terror and should be resisted.
Brothers and Sisters - We must maintain the recitation, teaching and implementation of Islam in our lives as a trust to us. A test may now fall upon all of us, and we should fear Allah, be resolute and not succumb to any intimidation that faces us. To hide any of the Quran, or avoid teaching aspects of Islam because of this bill, would be a great crime and an injustice to others who need to hear the whole message of Islam, and not a government censored version.
…Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.[TMQ: Al Baqarah 2:85]