NationStates Jolt Archive

Today the UK Parliament is debating a bill to outlaw the incitement to religous hatred. link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4665012.stm)

Personally I'm divided on this issue.

Against:
1) It goes against free speech.
2) We already outlaw incitement to violence.
3) Religion is very different to race so the fact that we outlaw 'Incitement to racial hatred' doesn't neccessarily mean we should do the same for religion.
4) The wording of the bill is too loosely worded and it could be used in completely innappropriate ways.
5) It could actually support the rise of Islamophobia and the far-right: "OMG teh 3v1l Muslims are taking away our free speech!!"

For:
A growing level of Islamophobia is encouraging Islamic communities to become more isolated rather than integrate into society as a whole which is exactly what we don't want to happen. If this does happen then it will cause far more problems in the long run.

Thoughts anyone?

Hatred should never be against the law, nor should "inciting" hatred. Hatred is an emotion, and emotions should never be against the law. Laws should only address how we decide to act upon our emotions.

Someone once said that the freedom to hate is the root of all freedoms.

I don't think such a Bill should pass.

Legislating against hatred? Silly...

Legislating against discrimination? Not so silly.

I think they should really be looking at the wording.

I agree with you but as I said if the growing levels of Islamophobia cause the Muslim communities to become more introverted then it will cause a lot of problems both short-term and long-term.

Who gets to decide what "incitement to religious hatred" means? I fear such a law would be used as a muzzle to silence all criticism of religions and their actions. Free speech should be respected and upheld.

I will be very disappointed if it passes.

Who gets to decide what "incitement to religious hatred" means? I fear such a law would be used as a muzzle to silence all criticism of religions and their actions. Free speech should be respected and upheld.

Several comediens are arguing exactly that point, they fear that the bill would silence any kind of religous satire.

I will be very disappointed if it passes.

I'm guessing it'll pass through the commons but it'll get kicked out of the House of Lords (as it has been before). At this point Blair will have to decide if he wants to use the parliament act to push it through.

Several comediens are arguing exactly that point, they fear that the bill would silence any kind of religous satire.
That's why I said the wording needs to be modified.

That's why I said the wording needs to be modified.

Agreed, but I'm unsure as to whether even a modified wording would be acceptable.

Agreed, but I'm unsure as to whether even a modified wording would be acceptable.
Perhaps include the word 'deliberate'...

interesting.

I wonder if they realized what they are doing. after all, Islam isn't the only Religion out there. anything that might be used to silence any type of religion will be against the law... and one wonders how laws meant to seperate church and state would fare against this.

After all, with the right lawyer, Laws can be anti-religion as well.

Perhaps include the word 'deliberate'...
Why should it be against the law to hate religions? Why should it be against the law to hate anything? Why should it be against the law to share your feelings and your opinions with others?

And what about all the over-lap areas? It's not illegal to hate racism, after all, and many people even encourage the hatred of racism. But many religions are racist. So does this mean it will now be against the law to speak out against racism, because doing so incites other people to hate a concept that is integral to many religious beliefs?

I'm guessing it'll pass through the commons but it'll get kicked out of the House of Lords (as it has been before). At this point Blair will have to decide if he wants to use the parliament act to push it through.
Yea I imagine the Lords would block it. They seem to have been pretty good with this sort of Bill lately.

I wonder, if they sed the Parliament Act to pass it, would it come under the usual legal challenge an Act that needs that does? Not that it would matter, the 1949 Act has repeatedly been ruled to be legal. Just interested if anybody would bother.

I'm thinking more of the Human Rights Act (1998) which guarantees the right to "freedom of thought, conscience", as well as the usual freedom of expression protections.

Would that be grounds to appeal to the Law Lords? Would they strike the Act down (as they did with the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001)?

Perhaps include the word 'deliberate'...

Could work, something along the lines of "Acting with intent to incite religous hatred" would exclude comedians and it'd solve the problem of people who just take offence easily. I like it.

Why should it be against the law to hate religions? Why should it be against the law to hate anything? Why should it be against the law to share your feelings and your opinions with others?

And what about all the over-lap areas? It's not illegal to hate racism, after all, and many people even encourage the hatred of racism. But many religions are racist. So does this mean it will now be against the law to speak out against racism, because doing so incites other people to hate a concept that is integral to many religious beliefs?
I have no problem with such freedoms.

But, choosing to deliberately incite hatred against a certain group isn't a good thing, however, expressing views against a group for reasons that your views conflict with theirs and that you don;t agree is different.

My thoughts:

Legal: I read somewhere that Islam is denegrading to women. Is that true? Can you show me how it isn't? (or similar questions in civilised debate)

Illegal: MUSLIMS DIE! FUCK 'EM ALL! KILL THEIR BABIES!!! ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!

*takes a bow*

interesting.

I wonder if they realized what they are doing. after all, Islam isn't the only Religion out there. anything that might be used to silence any type of religion will be against the law... and one wonders how laws meant to seperate church and state would fare against this.

After all, with the right lawyer, Laws can be anti-religion as well.

Islam isn't the only religion out there but the Muslim Council of Britain has been lobbying for it and many other religions (Jews and Sikhs for example) are already protected by the 'Incitement to Racial Hatred' bill.

I'm not sure if we've even got any laws to separate Church and State, our head of State is also Defender of the Faith and the Church of England has several seats in the House of Lords.

I have no problem with such freedoms.

But, choosing to deliberately incite hatred against a certain group isn't a good thing, however, expressing views against a group for reasons that your views conflict with theirs and that you don;t agree is different.hard to differenciate between the two. it can be argued that Pat Robertson as well as Phelp's rants are their opinions and their views against homosexuals or whatever group they're after.

the cartoon can also be the cartoonist's opinion on the Islamic faith. then again, it could be a deliberate attack. hard to tell.

My thoughts:

Legal: I read somewhere that Islam is denegrading to women. Is that true? Can you show me how it isn't? (or similar questions in civilised debate)

Illegal: MUSLIMS DIE! FUCK 'EM ALL! KILL THEIR BABIES!!! ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!

*takes a bow*
Nah, that would be incitement to violence against a religion, or something like that.

Hatred =/= violence.

Hatred is a feeling, violence is an act. The moment they legislate on people's feelings they've gone too far.

My thoughts:

Legal: I read somewhere that Islam is denegrading to women. Is that true? Can you show me how it isn't? (or similar questions in civilised debate)

Illegal: MUSLIMS DIE! FUCK 'EM ALL! KILL THEIR BABIES!!! ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!

*takes a bow*

*applauds*

but:

Borderline: I solemnly declare that I believe Islam makes a mockery of my eating habits. I cannot live with this shame! I call upon all rightthinking ( fill in what you wish ) to wage total war upon the filthy practises of Islam.

Borderline: An agreement with ( fill in as you wish ) constitutes an agreement with death and a covenant with hell! ( William Lloyd Garrison).

Nah, that would be incitement to violence against a religion, or something like that.

Hatred =/= violence.

Hatred is a feeling, violence is an act. The moment they legislate on people's feelings they've gone too far.

Ok ... then addendum.

Illegal: Islam is denegrating to women. Period.

Oh wait ... slander is already illegal (civil). Never mind. Carry on.

Yea I imagine the Lords would block it. They seem to have been pretty good with this sort of Bill lately.

I wonder, if they sed the Parliament Act to pass it, would it come under the usual legal challenge an Act that needs that does? Not that it would matter, the 1949 Act has repeatedly been ruled to be legal. Just interested if anybody would bother.

I'm thinking more of the Human Rights Act (1998) which guarantees the right to "freedom of thought, conscience", as well as the usual freedom of expression protections.

Would that be grounds to appeal to the Law Lords? Would they strike the Act down (as they did with the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001)?

My faith in the Lords has been restored somewhat in the last few years.

I imagine that Parliament will find some way to bypass the human rights act if they want to.

Ok ... then addendum.

Illegal: Islam is denegrating to women. Period.

Oh wait ... slander is already illegal (civil). Never mind. Carry on.

As far as I know, you can't slander a religion. A person or an organisation, maybe, but not a religion.

*applauds*

but:

Borderline: I solemnly declare that I believe Islam makes a mockery of my eating habits. I cannot live with this shame! I call upon all rightthinking ( fill in what you wish ) to wage total war upon the filthy practises of Islam.

Borderline: An agreement with ( fill in as you wish ) constitutes an agreement with death and a covenant with hell! ( William Lloyd Garrison).

Yeah ... bit borderline on both counts.

Personally I think intent should be looked at. For example, the recent "cartoons". The intent there was clearly to insult Muslims. There was no other intention and could have been no other intention.

Shouldn't be illegal, no, but one also must be prepared for the consequences of such actions.

I am often told that if I don't condemn terrorism, then I must condone it. I can now reverse that by saying if you don't openly condemn the deliberate debasement and insulting of an entire people based on ignorance, then you must condone it.

Not so pleasant sounding .... is it?

As far as I know, you can't slander a religion. A person or an organisation, maybe, but not a religion.
That sounds like a dare to me...;)

As far as I know, you can't slander a religion. A person or an organisation, maybe, but not a religion.

I don't think anyone's thought to do it yet. Maybe I should be the first.

When you slander my brother, you slander me. When you slander Islam, you slander me.

I wonder how much publicity a lawsuit against a certain newspaper would get me. :D Wouldn't work, but it would be a hoot to try it.

Several comediens are arguing exactly that point, they fear that the bill would silence any kind of religous satire.
Or Political Satire

Politics is my Religion. You are making me hate you - so stop making fun of my idiocy! ;)

I don't think anyone's thought to do it yet. Maybe I should be the first.

When you slander my brother, you slander me. When you slander Islam, you slander me.

I wonder how much publicity a lawsuit against a certain newspaper would get me. :D Wouldn't work, but it would be a hoot to try it.
It would be interesting to see you establishing, unequivocally, that Islam is not debasing to women. I mean, there are a great many Muslim leaders who clearly insist that their religion does debase women, so how are you going to prove who is right and who is wrong?

I think the statement "Islam is debasing to women" could never qualify as slander, just like the statement, "American culture is debasing to women" could never qualify as slander. Much of American culture is not debasing to women, just like much of Islam is not debasing to women, but in both cases there are parts of the culture that are profoundly debasing to women.

In other words, to insist that no "real" Muslim holds mysoginist views is to fall prey to the "no true Scotsman" falacy.

Yeah ... bit borderline on both counts.

1. Personally I think intent should be looked at. For example, the recent "cartoons". The intent there was clearly to insult Muslims. There was no other intention and could have been no other intention.

2. Shouldn't be illegal, no, but one also must be prepared for the consequences of such actions.

3. I am often told that if I don't condemn terrorism, then I must condone it. I can now reverse that by saying if you don't openly condemn the deliberate debasement and insulting of an entire people based on ignorance, then you must condone it.

4. Not so pleasant sounding .... is it?

4. Yah. I know exactly what you mean. We don't have control over the circumstances of our lifetimes - we just make-do with them. And we usually don't have the third ways we would like as an available option.

3. Pick and choose your nightmare side. And hope for the best.
Sidenote: what makes you think that ignorance is the only cause for hate?
I might learn about a thing, and the more I learn, the more I hate it.

2. I'd like to say that there are legal means to respond... things we don't like. Muslims would be utterly free to make a cartoon to insult danish cartoonists.

1. Intent is awfully hard to measure - if it can be done at all. I disagree with your read.

That sounds like a dare to me...;)
Well, if it was possible to slander a religion then I imagine Ian Paisley would owe the Catholic church millions :p

Well, if it was possible to slander a religion then I imagine Ian Paisley would owe the Catholic church millions :p

Did you ever read his article claiming that the EU parliament had a seat reserved for the antichrist? Now that was funny.:)

Did you ever read his article claiming that the EU parliament had a seat reserved for the antichrist? Now that was funny.:)
I haven't, but then I avoid most of what he says :)

It would be interesting to see you establishing, unequivocally, that Islam is not debasing to women. I mean, there are a great many Muslim leaders who clearly insist that their religion does debase women, so how are you going to prove who is right and who is wrong?

Meh ... it's not a difficult thing to do. The trick is to remind people that just because a Muslim does something doesn't mean Islam condones the action. It would be like saying Christianity condones suicide because the Rev. Jim Jones convinced 400+ people to drink the kool-aid in Guyana in the name of Jesus.

Or if you saw me drink a beer, you can't then say "Islam promotes alcohol!"

If you look at the actions of the vast majority, you will find a greater truth. Unfortunately, people only pay attention to the tiny minority for their truth.

Meh ... it's not a difficult thing to do. The trick is to remind people that just because a Muslim does something doesn't mean Islam condones the action. It would be like saying Christianity condones suicide because the Rev. Jim Jones convinced 400+ people to drink the kool-aid in Guyana in the name of Jesus.

Or if you saw me drink a beer, you can't then say "Islam promotes alcohol!"

If you look at the actions of the vast majority, you will find a greater truth. Unfortunately, people only pay attention to the tiny minority for their truth.

The whole thing is that we have reason to think of it as a trick.

After watching political events is the last dozen years, elections in Algeria, Egypt, fatah-territory and Iraq, we do arrive at the conclusion that the rabid cases, at least in the Middle East, outnumber the moderates.

I then conclude that, despite the fact that you are not rabid, the odds are that the next middle eastern muslim I meet is a rabid case.

Meh ... it's not a difficult thing to do. The trick is to remind people that just because a Muslim does something doesn't mean Islam condones the action. It would be like saying Christianity condones suicide because the Rev. Jim Jones convinced 400+ people to drink the kool-aid in Guyana in the name of Jesus.

Or if you saw me drink a beer, you can't then say "Islam promotes alcohol!"

If you look at the actions of the vast majority, you will find a greater truth. Unfortunately, people only pay attention to the tiny minority for their truth.
Well, the thing is, some people say Islam DOES condone those actions, just like some people say Christianity DOES condone actions like those of Rev. Jones. Since we are talking about personal beliefs, I think it is impossible to use the "majority rules" system to make your case.

We're also dealing with a fuzzy area of what is considered "debasing" to women. What you feel is debasing may not be what I feel is debasing. Since you are attempting to prove that your faith has been slandered, you have to establish that the things said were untrue, and it would be very difficult to PROVE something as hazy as this.

Put it another way: I don't think you would be able to get past reasonable doubt on the subject.

we do arrive at the conclusion that the rabid cases, at least in the Middle East, outnumber the moderates.

I then conclude that, despite the fact that you are not rabid, the odds are that the next middle eastern muslim I meet is a rabid case.

I'd say it's more that the rabid cases have the voice and power in the Middle East and that the average Muslim is afraid to speak out. If I went and sat down with, say, Zarqawi and pointed out the error of his ways, he'd have my arms torn out same as he would you.

I imagine the good Muslims outweigh the bad ones in the Middle East, but the good ones are afraid to speak up.

If you look at the actions of the vast majority, you will find a greater truth. Unfortunately, people only pay attention to the tiny minority for their truth.
Like the tiny minority that just voted Hamas into power?

Death to Israel! Pay no attention to Us! Death to Israel! :rolleyes:

I'd say it's more that the rabid cases have the voice and power in the Middle East and that the average Muslim is afraid to speak out. If I went and sat down with, say, Zarqawi and pointed out the error of his ways, he'd have my arms torn out same as he would you.
And when confronted by hundereds or tens of hundereds or, as you imply, thousands of people whose arms he would have to tear out?

What's that in your sig?

Oh yeah: "If you're not ready to die for it, put the word 'freedom' out of your vocabulary." -- Malcolm X

Apparantly there's not much love of Freedom there.

I'd say it's more that the rabid cases have the voice and power in the Middle East and that the average Muslim is afraid to speak out. If I went and sat down with, say, Zarqawi and pointed out the error of his ways, he'd have my arms torn out same as he would you.

I imagine the good Muslims outweigh the bad ones in the Middle East, but the good ones are afraid to speak up.

Agree on the last part ( and the middle ), disagree on the first.

Hamas, Brotherhood, FIS... the rabid cases ( I tend to avoid the term bad since I consider good and bad to be too culture-dependent to have much objective meaning ) always win a failry free poll.

Like the tiny minority that just voted Hamas into power?

Death to Israel! Pay no attention to Us! Death to Israel! :rolleyes:

That was as much down to the ineffective Fatah party as it was to Hamas, Hamas have a much better record of providing education and food to those Palestinians who need it. The 'Death to Israel' bit may help but the issue is far deeper than that.

Like the tiny minority that just voted Hamas into power?

Shrug ... Democracy in action. Can't have your cake and eat it, too. What's the population there, anyway?

Death to Israel! Pay no attention to Us! Death to Israel! :rolleyes:

Is there no room for change in your experience? Look at the IRA. Once terrorists, not anymore. Hell, look at Unions in the US! The Teamsters, for example, used to be quite the gangster types. Not so much anymore.

Is it because Hamas is made up of Muslims that you believe them incapable of change?

Hamas has become more pragmatic and for example offered a long term truce and did not rule out negotiations (something that goes against their old Charter).

Read some of the campaigning done by Hamas candidates. Not one of them screamed "Death to Israel!" but, rather, spoke of peace and diplomacy with Israel.

Oh yeah: "If you're not ready to die for it, put the word 'freedom' out of your vocabulary." -- Malcolm X

Apparantly there's not much love of Freedom there.

I have freedom. If someone tries to take mine away, I would gladly die for it. Nobody is trying to take mine away.

.
Is it because Hamas is made up of Muslims that you believe them incapable of change?


No. It is because of its political positioning. If Hamas moved to moderantism, it would get torn to shreds by Fatah again.

The problem I have with legislation like this is that if I were to start up my own religion which taught that, I don't know, that followers of the religion were superior to everyone else, that we were all born from a great egg in the sky or some crap, my beliefs should not then be immune from ridicule or insult. People should be able to say, "that's rubbish, people who believe that are stupid" or even worse without fear of prosecution. It isn't like race, you can choose what you believe in and if what you believe is stupid then it deserves to be mocked.

I have freedom. If someone tries to take mine away, I would gladly die for it. Nobody is trying to take mine away.
But we weren't talking about you, were we? We were talking about those thousands of peaceful Muslims who won't stand up to the "tiny minority" of violent Jihaddis who "aren't true Muslims", that are defaming "true Islam", killing innocents and trying to curtail Freedom.

Either the majority is more afraid of dying than fighting for the "right" vision of Allah, or they are complicit in the "wrong" vision if Islam.

So which is it?

Is there no room for change in your experience? Look at the IRA. Once terrorists, not anymore. Hell, look at Unions in the US! The Teamsters, for example, used to be quite the gangster types. Not so much anymore.

You're joking? Right? The unions are STILL mobbed up, especially the Teamsters, they're just a little more subtle and a little more legitimate. The people are still there, the attitudes are still there, and intimidation/beatings in local union elections unlikely to garner national press are not uncommon. Thats before you even look at connections between the mob and politicians in places like Chicago.

The problem with groups like the IRA, or Hamas (or even the Teamsters) is that their attitudes don;t ever really change. The actions might change, bombings might stop, people might stop disappearing, but at the end of the day the Provos still hate the protesants and the English, the Palestinians still hate Israel, money in unions still goes missing. The deeper problems still exist and all it takes is a breakdown of talks or a less agressive government for everything to go back to the way it was.

But we weren't talking about you, were we?

You quoted my sig. The quote is something I believe, but doesn't necessarily reflect the views of all Muslims. I don't speak for anyone but myself.

However, to use a quote in my sig to try to show that a Muslim who won't stand up to a man with an army doesn't love freedom is immature thinking at best.

Fear is difficult to overcome. We, in our air conditioned homes protected by the might of the United States military, can afford the luxury of dissent. We have no room to talk.

Put yourself in their place. Compassion. Empathy. Learn it.

Incitement to hatred should not be a crime.

Incitement to commit violence should be a crime (as in "incitement to riot", "fighting words", etc).

We don't let people shout, "FIRE!!" falsely in a crowded theater.

Hate all you like - but if you actually act on it and hurt or kill someone, or destroy property, then I believe the solution is jail time.

Put yourself in their place. Compassion. Empathy. Learn it.
Not when it comes to people who will targets innocents for death to prove a point.

Not when (supposedly) Death fighiting against those who would blaspheme is preferable to living under them.

Or maybe they aren't blaspheming?

Fear is difficult to overcome. We, in our air conditioned homes protected by the might of the United States military, can afford the luxury of dissent. We have no room to talk.

Put yourself in their place. Compassion. Empathy. Learn it.

No, it isn't difficult to overcome. Jesus didn't live in an air conditioned home, and didn't have the luxury of dissent.

I have NO compassion or empathy for anyone who shoots at me, or places bombs by the sides of roads to kill the next hapless passersby, or who cuts people's throats on television.

Nope. Not a bit. When that first bullet zipped past my head, all of my compassion flew right back to the States.

I think inciting violence due to incitment of hatred should be out lawed.
Like KKK conventions are likely to incite a riot. Either the actual conventioners or protesters. I feel bad but if you're a hate group that always causes a riot then you shouldn't expect to be protected by the law.
They should be protected, legally. I really dislike that hate groups are protected but they should be. :(

We don't let people shout, "FIRE!!" falsely in a crowded theater.

That, my friend, is a very bad argument. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes first used that little phrase in 1919 while writing a unanimous for the case of Schenck v. United States. Holmes used the phrase to articulate his belief that speech which constituted a "clear and present danger" should not be protected. Schenck didn't have anything to do with fires or crowded theater, though. See, during WWI Charles Schenck was charged under the espionage act for distributing flyers to recently drafted men which outlined his belief that the draft was unconstitutional under the 13th amendment. The pamphlet then asked the men to engage in an act of civil disobediance and refuse to go to war.

The doctrine of "clear and present danger" stems from an overt act of political censorship, from a desire of the government to control speech which questions it's unabridged authority. The concept of "shouiting fire in a crowded theater" is the definition of a straw man, in none of the cases when that image is invoked does anyone want to say something untrue out of some malicious desire to create chaos. That Holmes quote is most often used as a justification for the government to abridge freedom in the name of "the common good," in the name of order. It is a distraction, a fear tactic.

That, my friend, is a very bad argument. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes first used that little phrase in 1919 while writing a unanimous for the case of Schenck v. United States. Holmes used the phrase to articulate his belief that speech which constituted a "clear and present danger" should not be protected. Schenck didn't have anything to do with fires or crowded theater, though. See, during WWI Charles Schenck was charged under the espionage act for distributing flyers to recently drafted men which outlined his belief that the draft was unconstitutional under the 13th amendment. The pamphlet then asked the men to engage in an act of civil disobediance and refuse to go to war.

The doctrine of "clear and present danger" stems from an overt act of political censorship, from a desire of the government to control speech which questions it's unabridged authority. The concept of "shouiting fire in a crowded theater" is the definition of a straw man, in none of the cases when that image is invoked does anyone want to say something untrue out of some malicious desire to create chaos. That Holmes quote is most often used as a justification for the government to abridge freedom in the name of "the common good," in the name of order. It is a distraction, a fear tactic.
Nice. I like the way you write.

Nice. I like the way you write.
Sure, and you can still be prosecuted, convicted, and go to prison for "incitement to riot".

I'm talking about incitement to violence, not incitement to hate.

No, it isn't difficult to overcome. Jesus didn't live in an air conditioned home, and didn't have the luxury of dissent.

Jesus is a bad example. Couple of billion people on the planet think Jesus is God or, at least, damn near so. So, yeah ... he had the luxury of dissent. It was his entire reason for being born, remember?

I point out that Canada already has laws in place against hate speech, and normal freedom of speech, including sarcastic comedians, political satire, holocaust denial, and bitter disgust continues to take place.

However, the law gives Canada a tool that we can wield against individuals who are truly inciting acts of violence against a specific group of people. Whether the law applies to any given phrase very much depends upon whether the words were spoken/displayed publicly or privately and the context and intent in which the words were spoken/displayed.

For example, not that long ago David Ahenakew, a former leader of the Assembly of First Nations, made quite a gaffe. In an interview with a Saskatchewan journalist after a public speech before a provincial native group, Mr. Ahenakew was quoted as saying that the genocide Hitler ordered against Jews and other ethnic groups was an attempt to 'clean up the world.' 'That's how Hitler came in,' he told the Saskatoon Star Phoenix. 'He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany and Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries' ... Asked by a reporter to clarify his statement, he said he agreed with the Germans, and in reference to the Holocaust, responded, 'How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?'

Although Mr Ahenakew's comments were published in the press, Ahenakew was not charged until the Canadian Jewish Congress called for Mr. Ahenakew's prosecution. In July of 2005 he was tried and convicted and stripped of his Order of Canada.

On the other hand, Canadian comedians take to the stage and make fun of any religion you can name quite indiscriminately without repercussion, and Bishop Henry regularly lambasts gays and SSM supporters from the pulpit and his regular newspaper column. Note, however, Bishop Henry does not advocate the eradication of homosexuals, nor claim they are a disease (although he may feel they have a disease). He does seem to feel that they have some kind of agenda though.

Nice. I like the way you write.

Thanks. That phrase is a special sore spot for me. I'd trade order and security for freedom and chaos any day.

I point out that Canada already has laws in place against hate speech, and normal freedom of speech, including sarcastic comedians, political satire, holocaust denial, and bitter disgust continues to take place.

However, the law gives Canada a tool that we can wield against individuals who are truly inciting acts of violence against a specific group of people. Whether the law applies to any given phrase very much depends upon whether the words were spoken/displayed publicly or privately and the context and intent in which the words were spoken/displayed.

For example, not that long ago David Ahenakew, a former leader of the Assembly of First Nations, made quite a gaffe. In an interview with a Saskatchewan journalist after a public speech before a provincial native group, Mr. Ahenakew was quoted as saying that the genocide Hitler ordered against Jews and other ethnic groups was an attempt to 'clean up the world.' 'That's how Hitler came in,' he told the Saskatoon Star Phoenix. 'He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany and Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries' ... Asked by a reporter to clarify his statement, he said he agreed with the Germans, and in reference to the Holocaust, responded, 'How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?'

Although Mr Ahenakew's comments were published in the press, Ahenakew was not charged until the Canadian Jewish Congress called for Mr. Ahenakew's prosecution. In July of 2005 he was tried and convicted and stripped of his Order of Canada.

On the other hand, Canadian comedians take to the stage and make fun of any religion you can name quite indiscriminately without repercussion, and Bishop Henry regularly lambasts gays and SSM supporters from the pulpit and his regular newspaper column. Note, however, Bishop Henry does not advocate the eradication of homosexuals, nor claim they are a disease (although he may feel they have a disease). He does seem to feel that they have some kind of agenda though.


Your example doesn't exactly comfort me. Basically, your argument is that you're ok with legislation that restricts the freedom of speech because you trust your government to only use it in egregious cases. As soon as you finish touting that painfully naive argument, you cite a case where a man was convicted of a criminal offense (and, one would assume, stripped of his freedom in one way or another) for saying something you find repugnant. No violance came of his speech, no crimes were incited, nothing but taste and decency were harmed. You are talking about criminalizing speech. It is a dangerous precedent.

I might find what your Mr. Ahenakew said to be ignorant, I might find it to be offense, disgusting, or morally outrageous. At the same time, however, I am objective enough to understand that diminishing the liberty of another diminishes my own liberty. Today the social norms have decided that his speech is out of bounds, and today I agree with those social norms, but tomarrow I might find myself a dissenter on the bad side of society. There is no guarantee that good people will always lead and putting the power of censorship and criminal prosecution of speech in the hands of the government is opening the door to tyranny.

Beyond issues of freedom, there is another important factor that I think most people who support these kinds of laws miss. Nothing is more damaging to ignorance than the light of day. Allowing people to say offensive things strengthens society. It opens up a dialogue. Racism and hatred simply cannot survive the scrutiny that an open, rational, confrontational diagogue provides. Prohibition, on the other hand, only increases interest. Those things which you are not allowed to know will always be the most fascinating, and in a society in which those things are kept hidden, the racists are the only ones who are engaged in the discussion. There are no counter-argument, no public exchange of ideas, there is only a lecture.

Your example doesn't exactly comfort me. Basically, your argument is that you're ok with legislation that restricts the freedom of speech because you trust your government to only use it in egregious cases. As soon as you finish touting that painfully naive argument, you cite a case where a man was convicted of a criminal offense (and, one would assume, stripped of his freedom in one way or another) for saying something you find repugnant. No violance came of his speech, no crimes were incited, nothing but taste and decency were harmed. You are talking about criminalizing speech. It is a dangerous precedent.

I might find what your Mr. Ahenakew said to be ignorant, I might find it to be offense, disgusting, or morally outrageous. At the same time, however, I am objective enough to understand that diminishing the liberty of another diminishes my own liberty. Today the social norms have decided that his speech is out of bounds, and today I agree with those social norms, but tomarrow I might find myself a dissenter on the bad side of society. There is no guarantee that good people will always lead and putting the power of censorship and criminal prosecution of speech in the hands of the government is opening the door to tyranny.

Beyond issues of freedom, there is another important factor that I think most people who support these kinds of laws miss. Nothing is more damaging to ignorance than the light of day. Allowing people to say offensive things strengthens society. It opens up a dialogue. Racism and hatred simply cannot survive the scrutiny that an open, rational, confrontational diagogue provides. Prohibition, on the other hand, only increases interest. Those things which you are not allowed to know will always be the most fascinating, and in a society in which those things are kept hidden, the racists are the only ones who are engaged in the discussion. There are no counter-argument, no public exchange of ideas, there is only a lecture.
True, true.

And just to underscore one of your points, I think many people who favor prohibition of things like offensive speech, political groups, etc., dismiss the argument that prohibition increases interest. They think that if you starve the monster it will die quietly, of neglect. But in fact, most extremists push the idea that they are oppressed, that the man wants to keep them down, that the public isn't allowed to hear what they have to say and that's not fair. By silencing them, you make them right about that and you give credibility to their other claims. Others who also feel downtrodden or left out of society will be more likely to look to them as a group to belong to. Taking the wrong kind of action against your enemy is the best way to strengthen him.

Bah, nonsense. Governments shouldn't even recognize the existence of religion, never mind run around wasting money nannying them.

Anyway, if your faith is shaken because someone says" x - a religious group - are all filthy assweasels that deserve wretched deaths" then it can't be that strong anyway.

I am fairly convinced at this point ,however , that anyone who lives in the west and gets offended at this kind of thing, probably isn't 'religious' because they really believe in god anyway. It's more just a way to piss of others who don't. So it's neither here nor there.

I also really don't like the way that cock-knockers like Iqbal Sacranie think this type of restriction of a basic freedom - expression - is great: unless of course it's him wanting to spout his homophobia or support of babykillers.

Surprised nobody has said it yet, but the Bill was defeated by the Commons last night.

The Bill was defeated by 1 vote....and Blair didn't vote.

Surprised nobody has said it yet, but the Bill was defeated by the Commons last night.

The Bill was defeated by 1 vote....and Blair didn't vote.

Yep.. just read it in the papers.

Common Sense prevails sometimes.

We can't have freedom if we're not free to hate freely as well.

We can't have freedom if we're not free to hate freely as well.

Amen. Well said.

Amen. Well said.

Yep.

The principals of democracy, free expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience are strengths not weaknesses.

I love to direct people to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

As I said, we should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree

Hatred should never be against the law, nor should "inciting" hatred. Hatred is an emotion, and emotions should never be against the law. Laws should only address how we decide to act upon our emotions.
I agree with Bottle :eek:

I think everyone should be free to feel or say whatever they want to. I am more worried about how they act on those feelings or thoughts, than I am that they have them.

For example, it's fine for someone to hate children, but it's not fine for them to go on a killing spree. Since murder is already illegal then, I don't see the point for this law, other than to take away someone's freedom to be who they are.

Yep.

The principals of democracy, free expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience are strengths not weaknesses.

I love to direct people to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

As I said, we should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree


It shocks me that Holmes could have written that in Abrams and what he wrote in Schenck the same year.

It shocks me that Holmes could have written that in Abrams and what he wrote in Schenck the same year.

I think the outcome is shocking. The logic isn't that inconsistent. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

I think the outcome is shocking. The logic isn't that inconsistent. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

A question for you Cat (and others).

1. I am standing next to a friend, and I see someone I hate crossing the street. As usual, I and my friend are carrying concealed weapons legally. I tell my friend, "shoot that guy crossing the street!". He does so, and the person dies right there in the street. Doesn't sound like free speech to me - sounds like conspiracy to commit murder.

2. I am standing in front of a crowd of angry rednecks who are protesting outside of a mosque. I give a fiery, if inaccurate, speech about the evils of Islam, and I end my speech with the words, "and we should burn this place down!". The crowd riots and burns the mosque down, and assaults several innocent Muslims who happen to run out of the building. Doesn't sound like free speech to me - sounds like inciting to riot, etc.

3. I am standing in a private room with several friends, and I am telling them that they should hate people from Fiji because they have too many tattoos and live an indolent lifestyle. My friends somehow believe this, and leave the room believing that it's a good thing to hate people from Fiji. No one acts on it, and I haven't told them to hurt, harm, or otherwise act on the hate. Just hate. Sounds like free speech to me.

A question for you Cat (and others).

1. I am standing next to a friend, and I see someone I hate crossing the street. As usual, I and my friend are carrying concealed weapons legally. I tell my friend, "shoot that guy crossing the street!". He does so, and the person dies right there in the street. Doesn't sound like free speech to me - sounds like conspiracy to commit murder.

2. I am standing in front of a crowd of angry rednecks who are protesting outside of a mosque. I give a fiery, if inaccurate, speech about the evils of Islam, and I end my speech with the words, "and we should burn this place down!". The crowd riots and burns the mosque down, and assaults several innocent Muslims who happen to run out of the building. Doesn't sound like free speech to me - sounds like inciting to riot, etc.

3. I am standing in a private room with several friends, and I am telling them that they should hate people from Fiji because they have too many tattoos and live an indolent lifestyle. My friends somehow believe this, and leave the room believing that it's a good thing to hate people from Fiji. No one acts on it, and I haven't told them to hurt, harm, or otherwise act on the hate. Just hate. Sounds like free speech to me.

I believe I agree with you on all three.

I think the outcome is shocking. The logic isn't that inconsistent. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."


I suppose. I guess it is just that I tend towards an absolutist reading of the constitution. I've always found the whole "clear and present danger" thing suspect. I mean, I know, who am I to question a mind like Holmes, but there just seems to be an instinctual inconsistancy between saying that congress has a right to make laws abriding freedom of speech and saying that it does not, especially when I don't really see the "substantive evil" in Schenck. He was advocating civil disobediance in the face of a war he found to be unjust, if that is illegal than surely the actions of those who protested in favor of civil rights and against the war in Vietnam (or Iraq) were also illegal. The idea of dissent being criminal seems unamerican.

A question for you Cat (and others).

1. I am standing next to a friend, and I see someone I hate crossing the street. As usual, I and my friend are carrying concealed weapons legally. I tell my friend, "shoot that guy crossing the street!". He does so, and the person dies right there in the street. Doesn't sound like free speech to me - sounds like conspiracy to commit murder.

2. I am standing in front of a crowd of angry rednecks who are protesting outside of a mosque. I give a fiery, if inaccurate, speech about the evils of Islam, and I end my speech with the words, "and we should burn this place down!". The crowd riots and burns the mosque down, and assaults several innocent Muslims who happen to run out of the building. Doesn't sound like free speech to me - sounds like inciting to riot, etc.

3. I am standing in a private room with several friends, and I am telling them that they should hate people from Fiji because they have too many tattoos and live an indolent lifestyle. My friends somehow believe this, and leave the room believing that it's a good thing to hate people from Fiji. No one acts on it, and I haven't told them to hurt, harm, or otherwise act on the hate. Just hate. Sounds like free speech to me.


Small quibble with your first two examples. In both cases it is not the speech which is the problem, but rather the expectation of harm and the intent of your actions. If you have a hundred skinheads outside of a mosque and you've just finished a firey speech, the reasonable outcome of saying "we should burn this place down" is that someone is going to burn it down. There is an element of intent.

I think that that element of intent is important. We already have laws which prosecute on the basis of that element of intent (conspiracy laws). Making special laws which criminalize speech endangers all speech. The issue is actions, not speech.

Your example doesn't exactly comfort me. Basically, your argument is that you're ok with legislation that restricts the freedom of speech because you trust your government to only use it in egregious cases. As soon as you finish touting that painfully naive argument, you cite a case where a man was convicted of a criminal offense (and, one would assume, stripped of his freedom in one way or another) for saying something you find repugnant. No violance came of his speech, no crimes were incited, nothing but taste and decency were harmed. You are talking about criminalizing speech. It is a dangerous precedent.

I might find what your Mr. Ahenakew said to be ignorant, I might find it to be offense, disgusting, or morally outrageous. At the same time, however, I am objective enough to understand that diminishing the liberty of another diminishes my own liberty. Today the social norms have decided that his speech is out of bounds, and today I agree with those social norms, but tomarrow I might find myself a dissenter on the bad side of society. There is no guarantee that good people will always lead and putting the power of censorship and criminal prosecution of speech in the hands of the government is opening the door to tyranny.

Beyond issues of freedom, there is another important factor that I think most people who support these kinds of laws miss. Nothing is more damaging to ignorance than the light of day. Allowing people to say offensive things strengthens society. It opens up a dialogue. Racism and hatred simply cannot survive the scrutiny that an open, rational, confrontational diagogue provides. Prohibition, on the other hand, only increases interest. Those things which you are not allowed to know will always be the most fascinating, and in a society in which those things are kept hidden, the racists are the only ones who are engaged in the discussion. There are no counter-argument, no public exchange of ideas, there is only a lecture.
Actually, it's not my argument. I am personally of mixed mind about this particular law. I presented the law and its intent as best I could, and provided an example of how it has been used. For the record, Mr. Ahenakew did not have his liberty restricted, despite his conviction. He spent no time in jail nor on probation.

I was also trying to do was allay some of fears being brought up in this thread. Many who have posted here felt that religious or satiric freedom or private conversations would be infringed upon. In Canada's experience, they are not, but yes, you do need to believe that your courts are fair to trust this law. Countries that have laws against hate speech include Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, and Sweden.

Anyway, more about the hate speech law in Canada:Who can be convicted under Section 319?

Section 318 deals with genocide. Section 319 deals with hate speech:

1. If it can be shown that the speech was so abusive that it was likely to incite listeners or readers into violent action against an identifiable group, and if the the speech was made in a public place, then a person could be convicted.

2. If the speech promoted hatred against an identifiable group, but was not likely to incite a listener to violence, then a person could still be convicted. However there are many safeguards that could give that person immunity. A person could not be convicted if:
* The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.

* If the person can establish that the statements made are true.

* If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.

* If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.

* If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.

*If the provincial Attorney General refused to give permission. The Attorney General's consent is required before charges can be laid..

In this section of the Code, the term "statements" includes spoken words, written words, published text, gestures, signs and other visible representations.

The Code permits up to two years in prison for anyone convicted of a hate crime. It permits the government to confiscate any literature that was used in conjunction with the hate speech.

Actually, it's not my argument. I am personally of mixed mind about this particular law. I presented the law and its intent as best I could, and provided an example of how it has been used. For the record, Mr. Ahenakew did not have his liberty restricted, despite his conviction. He spent no time in jail nor on probation.

I was also trying to do was allay some of fears being brought up in this thread. Many who have posted here felt that religious or satiric freedom or private conversations would be infringed upon. In Canada's experience, they are not, but yes, you do need to believe that your courts are fair to trust this law. Countries that have laws against hate speech include Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, and Sweden.

Anyway, more about the hate speech law in Canada:

Well, I appologize for jumping on you, then, but I still stand by the points I made. Most importantly, I still have an issue with the idea of "trusting" your government not to abuse it's power. I'm sorry, I know that the good guys are not always going to be in power and the law needs to be more concerned with minimizing the damage that can be done than maximizing the good. I would rather my government be impotent (I can always fall back on a quick mind and a 12 guage) than be one bad leader away from tyranny.

Also, just because Ahenakew was not imprisioned does not mean his liberty was not restricted. A criminal conviction has consequences that go beyond jail time. I do not know if it is the same in Canada, but a felony conviction in the United States makes you inelligable for a number of government jobs, makes it legal for employers in many states to refuse you employment, can result in the loss of voting rights in some jurisdicitions, and can even remove some of your constitutional rights by forbidding you to associate with other convicts.


Who can be convicted under Section 319?

Section 318 deals with genocide. Section 319 deals with hate speech:

1. If it can be shown that the speech was so abusive that it was likely to incite listeners or readers into violent action against an identifiable group, and if the the speech was made in a public place, then a person could be convicted.

2. If the speech promoted hatred against an identifiable group, but was not likely to incite a listener to violence, then a person could still be convicted. However there are many safeguards that could give that person immunity. A person could not be convicted if:
* The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.

* If the person can establish that the statements made are true.

* If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.

* If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.

* If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.

*If the provincial Attorney General refused to give permission. The Attorney General's consent is required before charges can be laid..

In this section of the Code, the term "statements" includes spoken words, written words, published text, gestures, signs and other visible representations.

The Code permits up to two years in prison for anyone convicted of a hate crime. It permits the government to confiscate any literature that was used in conjunction with the hate speech.
__________________


I notice that the ONLY protection for satirical or literary speech is the consent of a beaureaucrat. Part one of the law you have cited seems unecessary, there are already laws against conspiracy and incitement of riot. Part 2 criminalizes speech based purely on viewpoint (which alone is enough to make me uncomfortable) and relies on the subjective assessment of government officials for it's application. It is vague to the point of being useless and it is a law that is just waiting to be abused. Beyond that, if you read carefully, even extremely ambiguous forms of expression can be prosecuted under this law, such as "gestures" and "other visable representations."

Beyond that, two years in prison for an offense that caused no real harm is harsh. That extremely long penalty, coupled with the right to confiscate literature used (not just literature that is itself hateful but "any literature that was used in conjunction with the hate speech") is uncomfortably tyrannical to my mind.

Should religious Hatred be outlawed... (looks at new generation) errr 90% of the people of tommorow go "AHHAHAHAHAHAHAH ur stupid"
the other ten percent hold knives and go "...come here."
Either they Dont Care
Or HATE HATE HATE religion.
SOooo if it was outlawed it'd probobly make more people hate it to be Non-Conformist :)
So outlaw it then ;p

It should absolutely not be outlawed, simply because we can't really define what constitutes "religious hatred". I mean, given the behavior of Islamic fundamentalists in other European countries whenever someone dares to publish something even remotely offensive to their beliefs, it seems like this might silence legitimate religious criticism and would prove detrimental to freedom of speech.

We have to allow as open discourse as possible on religion, or else we're taking a huge risk of terrorists and extremists from any religion abusing these laws to shut down their critics.