Religious hatred, it's everywhere
N.B - This post is about freedom of expression, not a hatred of Islam (which I don't possess). The reason Islam features so prominently is entirely due to the nature of recent news stories I discuss (and the fault that Islam features so prominently in those is not of mine).
By now most people must be aware of the massive outrage caused in the Muslim world by the publication in a Danish newspaper of 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a variety of poses. Of the 12 cartoons, one was offensive (Muhammad with a bomb for a hat), one was hilarious (Muhammad greeting smoking suicide bombers at the gates of heaven with the phrase "sorry, we've run out of virgins"), and the rest were bland, inoffensive, and pointless. But as usual, out come the gangs of angry young men burning flags in the street, bomb scares cause the evacuation of the publishers, and death threats against completely unconnected Danish citizens across the world.
At first the Western response was typical: "Oh, we're sorry, we didn't mean any offense". Repeatedly and humbly begging for the forgiveness of gangs of thugs who use threats of violence to get what they want (i.e. criminals). But now something interesting has happened: a number of European newspapers have issued a big 'fuck you' to those in the Arab world who rant and rave and threaten by reprinting the cartoons under headlines such as "Yes, we have the right to caricature God".
This for me is one of the most important news stories of recent months. Offending Muslims and bringing out the flag-burners is a daily occurrence (don't these guys have jobs? What, they're unemployed? Then don't you think protesting that the government of their country isn't creating work would be more pressing? Just a thought); but not bowing before the death threats! This is a new and extremely positive move.
Correct me if I'm wrong but freedom of expression is what defines our society, and has done for many-a-decade. The lack of it is what defines the Arab world. Before you complain about this assertion, think if you can name an Arabic nation where speaking out in public against the government or Islam doesn't attract death threats (Fatwas: They even have a fucking word for it!!!) or (more likely) disappearance in the middle of the night never to be seen again. But now we've finally taken the first step in not giving in whenever a gang of lunatics with tea-towels round their faces threatens to kill us because they don't like what we say. I would rather see (and fight in) WWIII between the West and the Arab world over this than lose this freedom to these maniacs. Fuckin' A!! Today is a great day!
And it's a great day for another (closely related) reason. Last night Blair and Charles Clarke failed in their attempts to get the use of "abusive and insulting" language towards a religion made illegal. Incidentally, the original wording was for "abusive and insulting" language, not just "threatening" language or incitement to hatred; as such the repeated government assertions that this was not the case were lies. Me saying "XXXXXism is a stupid religion" would therefore have been illegal. That strikes me as a more than slightly dangerous piece of legislation.
The new law now bans the direct incitement to hatred; this is well-meaning but misguided as it makes the publication of most religious texts (that have a habit of calling for the death of unbelievers) illegal. For example:
Islam: "Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." Surah 4:89
Christianity: Read any of the new testament and you'll find passage after passage for hatred of Jews.
Anyway, I have the right to say what I want about any religion I choose. If they get upset that's tough. Should I want to say "What do you call 10 Muslims standing in a line? A fuse.", I can. It may not be true or funny, but I have the right to say it. If I want to hate a religious group (e.g. Jehovahs witnesses) I can; we do not have thoughtcrime in our society. I can tell other people to hate them if I want, they don't have to listen. I can't tell other people to attack or murder them (not that I want to in most cases), that's incitement and is already illegal.
Attempting to illegalise hatred will make it fester, not make it lessen. This law, even in its watered down form is a dangerous affront to free speech and will be counter-productive to what it aspires to achieve. I for one would like to see it squashed by someone taking a Bible/Koran publisher to court for incitement to religious hatred against Jews/everyone (respectively).
By now most people must be aware of the massive outrage caused in the Muslim world by the publication in a Danish newspaper of 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a variety of poses. Of the 12 cartoons, one was offensive (Muhammad with a bomb for a hat), one was hilarious (Muhammad greeting smoking suicide bombers at the gates of heaven with the phrase "sorry, we've run out of virgins"), and the rest were bland, inoffensive, and pointless. But as usual, out come the gangs of angry young men burning flags in the street, bomb scares cause the evacuation of the publishers, and death threats against completely unconnected Danish citizens across the world.
At first the Western response was typical: "Oh, we're sorry, we didn't mean any offense". Repeatedly and humbly begging for the forgiveness of gangs of thugs who use threats of violence to get what they want (i.e. criminals). But now something interesting has happened: a number of European newspapers have issued a big 'fuck you' to those in the Arab world who rant and rave and threaten by reprinting the cartoons under headlines such as "Yes, we have the right to caricature God".
This for me is one of the most important news stories of recent months. Offending Muslims and bringing out the flag-burners is a daily occurrence (don't these guys have jobs? What, they're unemployed? Then don't you think protesting that the government of their country isn't creating work would be more pressing? Just a thought); but not bowing before the death threats! This is a new and extremely positive move.
Correct me if I'm wrong but freedom of expression is what defines our society, and has done for many-a-decade. The lack of it is what defines the Arab world. Before you complain about this assertion, think if you can name an Arabic nation where speaking out in public against the government or Islam doesn't attract death threats (Fatwas: They even have a fucking word for it!!!) or (more likely) disappearance in the middle of the night never to be seen again. But now we've finally taken the first step in not giving in whenever a gang of lunatics with tea-towels round their faces threatens to kill us because they don't like what we say. I would rather see (and fight in) WWIII between the West and the Arab world over this than lose this freedom to these maniacs. Fuckin' A!! Today is a great day!
And it's a great day for another (closely related) reason. Last night Blair and Charles Clarke failed in their attempts to get the use of "abusive and insulting" language towards a religion made illegal. Incidentally, the original wording was for "abusive and insulting" language, not just "threatening" language or incitement to hatred; as such the repeated government assertions that this was not the case were lies. Me saying "XXXXXism is a stupid religion" would therefore have been illegal. That strikes me as a more than slightly dangerous piece of legislation.
The new law now bans the direct incitement to hatred; this is well-meaning but misguided as it makes the publication of most religious texts (that have a habit of calling for the death of unbelievers) illegal. For example:
Islam: "Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." Surah 4:89
Christianity: Read any of the new testament and you'll find passage after passage for hatred of Jews.
Anyway, I have the right to say what I want about any religion I choose. If they get upset that's tough. Should I want to say "What do you call 10 Muslims standing in a line? A fuse.", I can. It may not be true or funny, but I have the right to say it. If I want to hate a religious group (e.g. Jehovahs witnesses) I can; we do not have thoughtcrime in our society. I can tell other people to hate them if I want, they don't have to listen. I can't tell other people to attack or murder them (not that I want to in most cases), that's incitement and is already illegal.
Attempting to illegalise hatred will make it fester, not make it lessen. This law, even in its watered down form is a dangerous affront to free speech and will be counter-productive to what it aspires to achieve. I for one would like to see it squashed by someone taking a Bible/Koran publisher to court for incitement to religious hatred against Jews/everyone (respectively).
posted by Dave's annoyed | 9:25 AM
3 Comments:
Some additions:
1) Tea-towel wearing maniacs was a reference to terrorists, not Arabs as a whole; apologies for any misunderstanding.
2) Palestinian gunmen have threatened to attack EU offices in Gaza if no apology is made. This is the typical Arab world's response to such events, and is the reason we should completely ignore their opinions. You do not reason with toddlers, why reason with those who behave like them?
3) The editor of the Frenhc newspaper that prnited the cartoons has been sacked. Perhaps my comments about a great day for free speech were overly premature.
I have thoughts on this issue. If you put in writing some slanderous ountrue shit about a person or a company, then it can go to civil court. So, if mohammed was alive or regilion was a company - then it would be illigal, as things are its not.
If i set up a cult in the form of a company. Then no one could write slanderous shit about it, can you do that? I think company objectives need to be within the law - thats all. hmmm interesting.
It's a fine line here.
Mr Dan Mahoney
"Because I'm worth it" - The L'Oreal Group, copyright 2002.
i thought the communists were reponsible. Our government, by which i mean me, are not fond evidence outside the dave circle, as we now call it. Pot pot needs to find new home, as his dog was run over last week. If my insider hunch is correct then the dave blog might help. I'll mention all of the above to my superiors, and it might go to the european courts if the lords reject the case. any thoughts on this issue dave?
Mr Mneumonic, A
"Always Coca Cola" - Coca Cola Inc. USA copyright 1987.
Post a Comment
<< Home