I’m not talking about Oedipus, for once. Rather, I’m talking about the ability of anti-immigration types [*] to delude themselves into completely ignoring the evidence.
Out of the last four prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred in the UK, two (this one and this one) involve crazy Muslims suggesting that killing the Jews would be a good move. Two (presumably – I haven’t been able to dig up the records) involve more traditional racists.
I’ve therefore offered the assorted people of Samizdata a £50 bet that at least one of the first four people to be convicted under the new ‘incitement to religious hatred’ law, should it pass, is a crazy Muslim who wants to kill (Jews/Hindus/Sikhs/Crusaders/apostates/anyone else of whom they disapprove). This wager, naturally, also applies to anyone reading this at SBBS.
A couple of people immediately took the wager, saying things like "you only have to look at how the existing laws are used in the UK today. They are not used to curb the militant Islamists, who openly preach hate and violence every day", and "I am willing to bet no adherent of [Islam] will be charged". Fair enough; riches for me. I’m just impressed by their willingness to completely ignore facts in the cause of a good rant.
[*] They’re not racists, they just think our society is being undermined by people with strange religious views, disgusting and unusual foodstuffs, and a history of oppressing women.
Ouch. Easy money for you. Llamas and Verity are both ex-pats, so they get their news filtered through the media and the blogosphere, without the on-the-ground experience to cut out the hyperbole.
For llamas to say thousands will be prosecuted is mad. They won’t. Like I said before, and will continue to say, I expect very few, if any, prosecutions. What will happen is that the police will be used to harass people for making comments that others disagree with, without charge, but with plenty of pent-up resentment.
Besides, if the government manage to pass this law, it will be politically expedient to prosecute a few Muslims early under the new regime anyway to ‘prove’ the point that it isn’t being used as a blatant vote-grab before the election… There will always be an Abu Hamza-type ready to take the fall.
Having said all that, it’s still a bad law. It shouldn’t matter how many prosecutions there are, when the principle is bad. Granted, we have bigger fish to fry, like ID cards, but you can’t take your eye off the ball with this sort of legislation.
Verity is an ex-pat?! S/he writes as if s/he has his or her finger on the pulse of Britain, predicting the overthrow of the Blair regime by countryside folk annoyed that they won’t be able to get their jollies ripping an animal to peices. S/he knows exactly what is annoying those Britishers at LGF, pointing out the murder of Kriss Donald, presenting it as representative of Muslims. Imagine discussing a murder of a schoolboy in this way simply because it was committed by a Jew. Yes, there is racism in this country, problem is, Verity’s views are part of this problem.
It’s not that bad a law. They already have it in Northern Ireland, and things aren’t so bad there. Or at least they are, but not in a way that suggests that a shortage of incitement to religious hatred is the root of the problem.
"It’s not that bad a law. They already have it in Northern Ireland, and things aren’t so bad there. Or at least they are, but not in a way that suggests that a shortage of incitement to religious hatred is the root of the problem."
Dan:
What’s the law in Northern Ireland?
All the best,
Tom Doyle
Same as the one proposed for the UK, with the addition of "In Northern Ireland", AFAICT.