Liberal Conspiracy pointed me towards a recent speech by Rowan Williams, which has convinced me there's nothing very wrong with the law against incitement to religious hatred.
You might recall that the idea of extending some of the laws against racial hatred to religious hatred was very controversial a few years ago. Since the law has not yet been put into practice, it may yet prove controversial. However, I don't think it will be, or should be.
Rowan Williams is quite perceptive when he says that liberals today still talk about 'religion vs free speech' as if we were struggling against an 18th-century theocracy. This kind of false debate doesn't exactly help when every religion is a minority - and some religious groups are very precarious minorities. Of course, things are complicated when, as with The Satanic Verses, a genuine 18th-century-style theocracy in the form of an Iranian Ayatollah gets involved.
However, set all this aside and think about the case on its own merits. I'm an atheist, but clearly religious belief is one of the most important things in many peoples' lives. The liberty to choose and exercise your religious faith means - amongst other things - being able to do so personally without being insulted, bullied or vilified. That can coexist with freedom of thought, expression and satire. It's the difference between the right to read The Satanic Verses, and the right to read The Satanic Verses through a megaphone outside a mosque on a Friday afternoon.
Monday, 4 February 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
No its an attack on free speech.
We already have religious hatred laws (which is wrong in my view).
What Williams was calling for is a ban on offensive or insensitive speech, that's different from hate speech. Its basically the blasphemy laws in an even broader sense.
This move towards banning 'offensiveness' is terrifying for liberals. It represents a full on attack on free speech and free expression.
I don't see how being insulted prevents you from choosing your religious belief.
I mean, I'm sure people won't like it, but I simply cannot see how it actually violates an individuals liberty. They can choose whatever religion they want, being insulted doesn't stop them.
Anything in terms of bullying that goes beyond insulting is likely to be covered by exisiting laws.
Really, people find a lot of things important. This doesn't provide a justification for making it illegal to comment on it, even in a hostile fashion. Why does religion deserve special pleading?
That isn't the issue at all. The issue is about whether there's a difference between reading the Satanic Verses through a megaphone outside a mosque and chanting fur is murder outside a fashion show or preaching creationism outside a public science fair (are there such things?).
Proponents of religious hatred legislation wish to point at religion and say 'oh no, religion is a special social phenomenon; it isn't like a normal kind of affiliative grouping, it's more like race. And it deserves special protection.'
I am not protected from being offended (or the victim of 'hate speech') in other areas of my life or from people venting spleen at me for other decisions I have made which they think are wrong. I'm afraid you're falling into the New Labour trap of 'I don't like it so it should be banned' without considering that in a state of laws legislation should be governed by principle and either principle behind religious hatred legislation; (1) offense can be protected against, (2) religious affiliation is special in some relevant sense or other - ought to be reviled by anyone calling themselves a liberal.
The Religious Hatred laws are unlikely to prove controversial per se because they were neutered by the Lords. That, of course, is welcome. But it does effectively mean that the existing laws are merely totemic (as indeed Section 28 turned out to be).
Totemic law is problematic not because it leads to unjust convictions but because it encourages people to be risk averse and self-censor. It is a tool for fringe groups to use to make vexatious demands, leading to needless legal fees.
It would be much better if we simply did not have it.
@Anonymous: I don't see why you have a problem with the idea of religion being a special social phenomenon. I'd say that was an obvious fact. You might not like it but you can't pretend it isn't there.
Religion differs from other 'affiliative groupings' (as you put it) in that people with religious faith find their religion has moral force.
Can offence be protected against? Yes, some forms of offensive behaviour can be protected against.
I find my liberalism has a moral force. I could say the same about my support for Georgism, secularism, anti-racism, feminism, internationalism, rationalism and the open source movement. Should all of these be given special protection under UK law?
Regarding the former - it would be great! I could get Tim Leunig locked up! :)
Bah, James got there first! I really, really like Tim Burton films, should we have "Tim Burton hatred laws" to protect my fragile sensibilities?
Or how about all of those people that came out after Heath Ledgers death (mainly from the extreme religious right) to say that it was punishment for his role in Brokeback mountain, shouldn't the family be protected as well from insensitivity?
Of course the big one which is surely going to be up for some kind of incitement of hatred bill has to be Marmite, I mean rumour has it that's how the Israel/Lebanon conflict started ;)
James, Lee: You don't worship Georgism or Tim Burton's films.
It's very easy for an atheist to say that because they have no religion, religion must be no different to a political idea or to which films one likes.
Most Lib Dems seem willing to accept that sexuality, if it is a choice, is a markedly different one to what kind of shoes you wear.
What's so difficult about the idea that religion is in a category of its own as well?
Whoa there Chris - moving the goalposts a little, aren't we? This morning you were defining a religion as something which its adherents feel has "moral force" - you didn't say anything about worship.
I agree that probably doesn't stretch to Heath Ledger, but I cited you a series of examples of beliefs of mine which have moral force - why are you saying they shouldn't have the same protection?
I could include Marxism. Or Scientology. I don't see much "worship" happening in Buddhism (and for that matter, I might point out that Christians worship Christianity about as much as Georgists worship Georgism), so presumably you don't count it as a religion? Confucianism? Yet all these beliefs compel people to act in a moral way.
Where do you draw the line between a "belief" and a "religion"? Where do you draw the line? In my experience, pat definitions tend to either include recognised ideologies or exclude recognised religions. The idea they are sui generis is, well, like believing that a big man with a white beard made the world.
Chris, serious threatening language is already a crime, and anyone therefore inciting hatred through such language is committing a crime as it stands.
What else exactly is it you want to ban? People being able to question religion? People being able to criticise the choices of others as long as it's just about religious choice?
I completely fail to see what makes religion so special as to be in a seperate category from any other personal likes and choices. You can say that "belief" and now "worship" are deeper things than loving a particular genre of music or a particular actor...but look at what some people are like out there, borderline stalkers because of their adoration of another and giving their life to devotion.
If we're going to start making laws to protect people from honest criticism and nasty words then you really need to start just sewing peoples mouths shut. What is it they say about the strength of a religion if it needs the state to protect it?
@James: I'm a blogger, not a professor of philosophy. However, expect another post on this point soon.
Post a Comment