15 thoughts on “Perspective”

1. There is certainly an aspect of this which is just a sop to the more vocal Muslims out there. Unfortunately, as I said on my own blog, the problem here isn’t prosecutions under this law, but police investigations after complaints, which they are going to have to take very seriously because of the political sensitivity of the issue. The kneejerk reaction of the MCB and the MAB will no longer be to phone up their mates at the Beeb and have a whinge live on BBC News 24 – it will be to call the filth and start a witch-hunt.

   There is no racial analog to this, purely for the reasons you state above – race is not a choice, religion is. It is legitimate to criticise the less pleasant aspects of Islam, but there is no comparative for criticising ‘black culture’, for example, as this kind of culture isn’t really mono-racial. Criticising, e.g., rappers for causing gun crime, crosses racial boundaries because the largest audience for rap music is middle class white teenagers.

2. While ‘black culture’ isn’t really mono-racial, neither is Islam monolithic. I think that we’ve also got to be careful, as we only need to take a scan round the web to find people who use the defence of ‘criticising Islam’ to air racist comments, and incite racist action. Muslim is being used as an synonym for Arab in some places, particularly anti-Palestinian sites, where, given the originally secular/multi-faith nature of the PLO, they should know better.

   John, you have read bigel’s comments over at LGF, haven’t you? They’re generally along the lines of ‘nuke ’em all’.

3. But that kind of racism can be prosecuted under existing legislation.

4. Sorry, this is going to be a long one because it’s a topic dear to my heart.

   The two most important questions to ask when drafting a new law are: 1) is this law necessary and 2) will it do more good than harm? On the latter count, it is impossible to predict the future but it is possible to envisage possible scenarios and consequences of a new law. You have described some of the problems that could arise from the introduction of ID cards, JohnB, and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be necessary here to warn of the dangers of a law against ‘incitement to racial hatred’. You can’t just assume that "only people who make blood-curdling threats of death to people of different faiths will face legal action." We have to look at the worst-case scenario too, and that includes the possibility of constant frivolous use of the law to silence the critics of religion, whichever one it might be. I don’t want to focus only on Islam here: while Muslims have recently brought a number of high-profile cases to court in other countries, any person who feels their religion was attacked will be able to argue that hatred was incited against them if this law is passed. Why? Because religious people rarely make a distinction between their person and their religion. Insult the prophet, insult every Muslim. Write the Satanic verses and you deserve the wrath of Allah and all his followers. Christians and Hindus will be able to argue, similarly, that they have been made objects of hatred if their religious icons or rituals are mocked, even if it is clearly for comedy value or on the basis of sound political differences. Religion has no sense of humour, because religion is by definition always right.

   On the first question (whether the law is necessary), I think the answer is equally clear: No. You say that under the new law saying "kill all Muslims" will be illegal. It is already illegal. If a BNPidiot stands on Brick Lane tomorrow shouting "Kill all Muslims" he will get arrested, and the fact that his incitement to violence was targeted at a religious group already qualifies him for a higher sentence than if he’d shouted "Kill all BMW drivers". Jack Straw introduced the concept of ‘racially and religiously motivated attacks’ as an aggravating circumstance a while ago and the CPS is keen to show its teeth on this matter. While I don’t agree with that principle either, I can see the necessity of applying it in certain circumstances, such as when minorities face constant and severe persecution. But that should suffice: We don’t need another law to duplicate and go beyond what already exists.

   Further, assuming the bill is passed then even if complaints don’t lead to prosecution we are potentially burdening the police and the CPS with a gigantic load*, simply because we want to be seen to be tightening every single loophole through which racists might sneak. At the moment I don’t see many such racist about, denouncing ‘Muslims’ when they really mean ‘Pakis’ (or whatever). Add to this the amount of parliamentary time and the number of column inches wasted, and the whole proposal appears more and more a bad joke than a well-meant initiative.

   Why am I so passionate about this issue. Because it affects me personally. I do not look forward to the chilling effect that such a law would have on my freedom of expression, which is already curtailed by the redundant British blasphemy laws, libel law, equal opps and the totally unnecessary privilege of religious sentiment over secular.

   F

   *Having seen first-hand recently just how incompetent and overworked the police and CPS can be, I would caution against anything that gives them more work than they already have. A simple clerical error led to a case involving real (not verbal) violence against me being throw out of court. Where are our priorities, I’d like to know. Shutting people up or stopping actual harm?

5. Ooops. Excuse the unclosed tag. Damn, why isn’t there a preview function ??!

6. Frank – I agree this is a stupid law with the potential to be misused; I just felt that the commentary against this has been a little overblown (BTW, private prosecutions will not be allowed under this law, so loons like MCB and MAB won’t have a say in who gets taken to court – other than by moaning lots, which they already do). That isn’t to say it’s a good idea; but it’s much less stupid, moneywasting and people-harming than ID cards.

   I am genuinely confused by the way you characterise the law. As far as I understand, it’s not illegal to say "Kill all BMW drivers", but it is illegal either to attempt to do so, or to say "Kill David Smith of 124 Acacia Avenue". The ‘racially and religiously motivated attacks’ rule ensures longer jail time for Paki-bashers, but doesn’t affect people who say "Kill all Pakis" – they can only be prosecuted under racial hatred legislation.

   I might well be wrong, in which case I’d appreciate a correction (which I’ll also make in the main post).

7. Re unclosed tag: a) no worries, and b) because I haven’t written one. Will do at some point, probably between December 18-Jan 4 when I’m not supposed to be working.

8. "private prosecutions will not be allowed under this law, so loons like MCB and MAB won’t have a say in who gets taken to court – other than by moaning lots, which they already do)"

   There is the potential there for the system to appear racist/religionist. Example: Only one out of every 1,000 Muslim complaints leads to a court case but 1 out of every 10 Buddhist complaints leads to prosecution…

   "I am genuinely confused by the way you characterise the law. As far as I understand, it’s not illegal to say "Kill all BMW drivers", but it is illegal either to attempt to do so, or to say "Kill David Smith of 124 Acacia Avenue""

   As far as I understand you face charges of varying severity depending on what you do and in what context. Standing in a comedy club saying ‘kill all BMW drivers’ is unlikely to get you prosecuted. Standing on Brick Lane and saying ‘kill all BMW drivers’ will probably get you carted off for obstructing traffic, but could conceivably be regarded as a more serious public order offence: after all, there are a lot of BMWs on Brick Lane, and actively calling for their owner’s murder could be regarded as a serious threat (see animal rights activists threatening scientists). As I said, this always depends on the situation. But so far nobody has been able to give me a convincing scenario in which the ‘incitement to religious hatred law’ would really be necessary in order to avert a serious crime.

   The funny thing is, the first time I heard about this law I thought: Great! So they are going to start prosecuting all those people who call for the murder/persecution/discrimination of unbelievers/sinners/infidels in the name of God/Allah/Satan. Trust New Labour to come up with a law that actually protects religious extremists from criticism.

9. But so far nobody has been able to give me a convincing scenario in which the ‘incitement to religious hatred law’ would really be necessary in order to avert a serious crime

   As I understand it from casually following the drafting of the bill, the main touchstone used by the drafting lawyers was that they wanted to prevent the distribution of blood libels, which are not currently intrinsically illegal in the UK.

10. Dsquared: has the distribution of blood libel been a major issue over here lately? I don’t think so. And in any case, wouldn’t the issue of blood libel be more a case of incitement to racial hatred?

11. And in any case, wouldn’t the issue of blood libel be more a case of incitement to racial hatred?

    I get the impression that that’s how British courts view it (the prosecution and conviction of the late and unlamented Dowager Lady Birdwood being a case in point). Surely the essential ingredients of "blood libel" are comfortably covered by the Race Relations Act?

12. Coming back to the issue of what you can or cannot say:

    "I am genuinely confused by the way you characterise the law. As far as I understand, it’s not illegal to say "Kill all BMW drivers", but it is illegal either to attempt to do so, or to say "Kill David Smith of 124 Acacia Avenue"."

    It seems the Home Secretary is equally confused about this issue. Listen to minutes 9-12 of Today in Parliament (up until next Tuesday). If you don’t have RealPlayer, here is the relevant passage from Hansard:

    ——–
    Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): I am still perplexed because there is no definition of religion. On the 2001 census form, 5,015 people in Sheffield gave Jedi knight as their religion. I hate "Star Wars", so should I be worried?

    Mr. Blunkett: If someone incited people because of their love of "Star Wars", or against people with a love of "Star Wars", they would be caught under existing law, but not in terms of religion. That is the whole point—

    Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): That is the point!

    Mr. Blunkett: No, that is the point of having to bring in the new measure to provide equity of treatment in relation to faith.
    ———

    WHAT is Blunkett saying here? That while you would currently be prosecuted for inciting hatred against Jedis (who according to Blunkett’s ad hoc definition aren’t a religion) you wouldn’t be prosecuted for inciting hatred against a religious community, and therefore we need a new law? This just doesn’t add up.

13. I get the impression that that’s how British courts view it (the prosecution and conviction of the late and unlamented Dowager Lady Birdwood being a case in point). Surely the essential ingredients of "blood libel" are comfortably covered by the Race Relations Act?

    Yes, but the race relations act has (IIRC) a single test of "intended to incite" whereas the new bill has a double test of "intended or likely to incite", plus "abusive, insulting or threatening". The inclusion of "likely to" was meant to deprive fascists of the "honest guv, I never intended that" defence, which meant that the second part of the test was needed to make the law (at least broadly, kinda-sorta) consistent with the Convention on Human Rights’ free speech provisions. Lady Birdwood was only copped under the RRA after repeated warnings because of the difficulty of proving intent.

    I’m not inclined to defend this bill as a piece of legislation, no more than John is. But the drafting is actually pretty tight, and the language that’s in this particular clause is there for a reason.

    I’ve no real knowledge of how common the distribution of blood libels is in the UK. But from general historical knowledge, I am aware that they tend to be distributed as fads; quite rare but extraordinarily virulent when they catch on. So it’s not an obviously loony thing to do to have a law on the books just in case, if you’ve decided that’s the sort of thing you want to do.

14. "So it’s not an obviously loony thing to do to have a law on the books just in case, if you’ve decided that’s the sort of thing you want to do."

    I can’t say I think that’s a sensible way to draft laws: what if someone decides to start waging holy war against ice cream vendors? Where is the law to protect them?

    No, blood libel is not an issue here. I can only think of three reasons why Blunkett came up with this nonsensical bill:

    a) He’s using it as a means of diverting from other pieces of legislation that, while not as sexy to the media, are actually far more important to him (conspiracy theory)

    b) He wants to ‘do something for Muslims’ in the run up to the general election, and thinks that this will cancel out any ill-feeling built up over the past few years (election theory)

    c) He genuinely believes that this law is necessary because there are constant attempts by extremists to incite religious hatred against minorities and the police are currently powerless to intervene because the law doesn’t address this sort of scenario (gullible theory)

    If (c) is to stand up, then we need solid evidence that there is a real and present problem that needs to be dealt with through legislative means. Otherwise this bill should be consigned to the wastepaper bin. So far Blunkett has provided no evidence.

15. How one MP views the ‘incitement to religious hatred law’: Incitement law could have stopped Rushdie hurting Muslims

Comments are closed.