Comments on: Incitement to “identity marker” hatred bill back on table

By: tom p

tom p — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:27:26 +0000

the bible’s not a historical document, it’s a load of fictional stories all smooshed together

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:16:41 +0000

Ah – but suppression of historical documents would be a rewriting of history comparable to that undertaken under Communism – a road we donit want to go down.

By: Andy A

Andy A — Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:28:52 +0000

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.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 17:05:20 +0000

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.

By: Dan Factor

Dan Factor — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:19:58 +0000

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!

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:04:09 +0000

Exactly! It gives carte blanche to unthinking dogma, even in cases where the application of reason is possible.

By: G. Tingey

G. Tingey — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:23:10 +0000

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.