Incitement to “identity marker” hatred bill back on table
From the BBC today.
Sher Khan of the Muslim Council of Britain said:
This is not protection of faith, it is a protection of those who are attached to a particular identity marker.
From the BBC today.
Sher Khan of the Muslim Council of Britain said:
This is not protection of faith, it is a protection of those who are attached to a particular identity marker.
MediaWatchWatch was set up in January 2005 in reaction to the religious campaign against the BBC's broadcasting of Jerry Springer: the Opera.
We keep an eye on those groups and individuals who, in order to protect their beliefs from offence, seek to limit freedom of expression. And we make fun of them.
If you have any information, email The Monitor.
Actually, this bill is for the appeasment of religious blackmailers.
When all the pricipal faiths state, all mutually contradicting each other, that ony they can guarantee salvation, and that evryone else will be cast into the outer darkness and eternal hell, it doesn’t look good, does it?
When a particular religion states that other different believers, and/or unbelievers are of lesser status (not quite untermenschen, but you get the idea) and you are NOT allowed to criticise this religion, it’s a pretty poor show, isn’t it?
It is to be seriously hoped that this bill never makes it to become a passed Act.
Exactly! It gives carte blanche to unthinking dogma, even in cases where the application of reason is possible.
The MCB often uses the charge of “Islamphobia” in order to attempt to silence critics of Muslim clerics who say offensive things about other social groups.
An example was when a cleric came to London and openly called for the murder of homosexuals. The MCB labled anyone who criticised his offensive views as “Islamphobic”,
It is doubtless that the MCB will be hoping the relegious hatred bill will silene any critics of their faith.
I hope this bill fails!
Once again, we see how facts are relegated while emotions are made all-important. The issue is not whether the cleric’s words were true or warranted, but simply about the emotion that would have been felt towards his views (hatred). Yet the latter can only stand or fall by the former.
It would (I’m sticking with the subjunctive for now, in the hope that this silly thing won’t make it onto the statute book) be an interesting test case if the various secular/humanist organisations were to organise a whip-round and get something before the court based on the hatred in the Bible and Koran. If it were upheld, then we could all get the bonfires started. If it were thrown out, one would expect then to be able to make comparable statements in print, or otherwise in public, and then, if challenged, point to that decision as case law, saying, ‘Ah, but in Crown v. Bloggs it was ruled OK to say that certain types of people should be killed.’ Just a thought.
Ah – but suppression of historical documents would be a rewriting of history comparable to that undertaken under Communism – a road we donit want to go down.
the bible’s not a historical document, it’s a load of fictional stories all smooshed together