Religious hatred law passes with amendments

The Government's attempts to overturn changes made by the House of Lords to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill have failed. The bill, with the amendments, will now become law.

I am not sure about this bill to be perfectly honest. What interests me more are peoples reactions to the proposed bill. First off, certains claims, and one in particular, by people who claim to value rationality and reason above all else need to be derided. The only fools, dear Polly, are those who believe that the Government of the UK is about to make laws which 'pander' to the demands of a small minority, that itself is divided across linguistic, ethnic, cultural and sectarian lines, that may include people of varying political persuasions, that may include people of varying degrees of faith, that finds itself embattled with a variety of social problems. Overrating Muslim political power in the UK (and across Europe) -- a claim often only made by unthinking morons like Robert Spencer and his sycophants -- apart from being factually incorrect, is actually quite dangerous in the current political climate and reeks of one of those ludicrous conspiracy theories.

As to the bill itself, I think anyone would agree with its intentions. If the law was designed to catch people who attack religious people, who 'sitr up hatred' against them, then yes this bill is right way forward. Jews and Sikhs are explicitly defended under the law, because the law recognises them as 'ethnic' groups. But this hasn't stopped criticism of Sikhism and Judaism. I doubt Polly Tonybee and so on are going to ask for these laws to be withdrawn. Muslims, however, are not such a recognised group, so many racists use an attack on "Islam", because 'Islam is a religion and not a race', as their vehicle for hate (Islamophobia Watch has been documenting the BNP's exploits). It isn't Polly Toynbee or Rowan Atkinson who are spat at or attacked for wearing a headscarf. But that's presumably okay according to Atkinson's vision of the world. If, however, the bill was intended to silence all criticism of religion then the original bill was rightfully not acceptable.

Yusuf asks 'who brought this lot out?' in response to the strange alliance formed in opposition to this bill between some evangelical Christian groups, a staunchly anti-Catholic party from Northern Ireland, and secularists and atheists. The latter are easy to account for -- their opposition is philosophical, political and ideological. I suspect the Christian groups and the DUP parties were concerned that their polemical attacks against 'heathens' and 'popery' would be banned under such legislation. Indeed, this bill might have also affected Muslim polemics against other religions. Personally, I was also worried that this legislation would be used by Muslims on one another in the midst of sectarian polemics and controversies, especially in situations where control of a mosque is under question.

Comments

[eteraz]

be glad for the changes sir, for otherwise you'd have england turn into a private american university and any critique of any one would lead to having to barbecue white people on the hot seat of shame. as good as white people taste when barbecued, the digestive system doesn't deal too well with them.

[thabet]

I've got no problems with critiques of any of my beliefs. We, Muslims, can respond to these critiques in a sober and critical manner. And if we can't or don't feel we're up to it then we should ignore them.

I do have a concern that "Islam" is being used as a vehicle for certain people -- racists -- to continue their activities (ironically, the BNP and secular liberals are one and the same in their belief that Muslims do not deserve protection from the law because 'Islam is not a race'). Apologists for the BNP should ask why jokes about blacks amongst the BNP continue to have to much currency, if the BNP are really only concerned about Islam's 'philosophical' and 'cultural' elements. Note that Jews and Sikhs have explicit defence from the law. I don't see why Muslims can't have the same protection.

Somehow, I doubt those people who attack a woman with a headscarf are too concerned that a Muslim's belief in an omnipotent God flouts Kant's 'religion within the bounds of reason'.