Blasphemy in the UK
Thursday January 31, 2008
The Archbishop of Canterbury is proposing new laws to forbid, get this, "thoughtless and ... cruel styles of speaking and acting." From an account of Dr. Rowan Williams' address: Challenging the liberal argument that free speech must always prevail, Williams...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
"Who gets to decide when a critic of this or that religion or religious person has been "thoughtlessly cruel"?
Why, the blog owner does, of course. We see it all the time.
Of course. This is my blog. I'm not proposing that my standards for tasteful and acceptable speech be imposed on the entire nation.
I'm with Rod on this one... this is his space that we happen to be invited to. I recently had to invoke "This is MY blog!" (apologies to Eddie Murphy) for the first time the other day on my own (http://executivepagan.wordpress.com)... and while I wasn't happy about it, I stand by it.
The Archbishop really ought to have the mental clarity to understand that Islam is just as much a political doctrine as a personal religion. It has very specific tenets mandating the physical acquisition of land the and imposition of its laws. These laws are not of a personal, spiritual nature. They are administered by governments and courts and police across the planet, and almost without exception, they are brutal, mysogynistic and stupid. They forbid true freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. They impose gender aparteid and they visiously restrict the dress and freedom of movement of half their populations. Among all froms of free expression, 'political speech' and 'political criticism' is SUPPOSED to be the most sacrosanct. That a religion like Islam, which forms the basis of the government and adminsters the laws, either fully or in part, in 57 countries, should have resort to religious blasphemy laws to silence its critics is absolutely obscene.
If the Archbishop were in the US he would be fleeing a lynch mob by now.
One would think you'd support this, Rod.
If this was the law of the land in America, Hollywood would be out of business ;-P
The Archbishop needs someone to suggest he look at what the Human Rights Commissions in Canada are doing, and then decide whether this is a good idea.
Christians are often the worst Muslim-appeasers.
"I'm not proposing that my standards for tasteful and acceptable speech be imposed on the entire nation."
Sometimes it does come across that way, Rod. But heck, you don't "impose" civility standards for tasteful and acceptable speech on (certain of) your comboxers (even tho you 'call' for them).
As Larry Parker points out, "One would think you'd support this, Rod."
As for Bill Clendineng's contention, "The Archbishop needs someone to suggest he look at what the Human Rights Commissions in Canada are doing", the Canadian HRCs aren't doing anything that isn't in Beliefnet's own Rules of Conduct, of which I will never tire of reminding people.
Rod's post shows good judgment and sound thinking. Basically you shouldn't create political or legal weapons you wouldn't want your opponents to use against you.
Imagine if the Senate used the nuclear option during the confirmation of judges and marginalized the Democrats. The Republicans would have handed the Democrats the weapon to marginalize them when the Senate changed hands just a year later. Many of the moderate Senators we scorned at the time, but they displayed good judgment which the Archbishop lacks.
In a way this post is related to the other corporate greed entry. Going after short term advantage at the expense of the long term always comes back to bite you.
Were all the brave and freedom loving Europeans killed off in World War II? Leaving behind the weak-willed, spineless, and cowardly to reproduce and pass on their values? It's the only explanation I can come up with for the culture that created Charles Martel, El Cid and Winston Churchill, allowing itself to be led by the likes of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
As for Bill Clendineng's contention, "The Archbishop needs someone to suggest he look at what the Human Rights Commissions in Canada are doing", the Canadian HRCs aren't doing anything that isn't in Beliefnet's own Rules of Conduct, of which I will never tire of reminding people.
Beliefnet's Rules of Conduct are fine for Beliefnet, but they should not be written into law. Sorry, dear, but the First Amendment won't let you do that. God bless the First Amendment.
At worst, violating the B-net RoC will get you permanently banned from the site. The repercussions facing those brought before these Human Rights Commissions are significantly steeper.
The Archbishop's suggestions are disturbing to me, and while I believe I understand his reasoning, I'm forced to agree with Rod on the reasons why its a very bad idea. Thankfully, the Abp. has no authority to introduce laws to Parliament. He's certainly free to pontificate (no pun intended) on legal matters, but that's about it. Religion cannot, must not, be exempt from critical or even hostile speech in a free society. Whether its Islam, Christianity, or Pastafarianism, people have to be free to speak as supportively or critically as they wish. Libel, slander, threats, incitement to violence, these things are already illegal (and presumably are also illegal in the UK). Hurting people's feelings with opinions isn't and shouldn't ever be a criminal act.
Bleh! I posted something but it's held up in the moderation queue because of a link.
There is a new law - best explained by a quote from the press release:
Incitement to religious hatred will today become a criminal offence in England and Wales with the commencement of the Racial and Religious Hatred 2006 Act.
The Act creates a new offence of intentionally stirring up religious hatred against people on religious grounds, closing a gap in the current legislation.
Existing offences in the Public Order 1986 Act legislate against inciting racial hatred. Jews and Sikhs have been deemed by the courts to be racial groups and are protected under this legislation, but other groups such as Muslims and Christians are considered to be religious rather than racial groups and have therefore not previously received any protection under the law.
The new Act will give protection to these groups by outlawing the use of threatening words or behaviour intended to incite hatred against groups of people defined by their religious beliefs or lack of belief.
Interestingly it protects atheists as well as 'believers'.
It doesn't stop criticism of religion or blasphemy but you cannot incite hatred or use threatening words or behaviour.
And one of the first prosecutions under it were 4 muslims who were protesting the Danish Mohammed cartoons.
Tastelessness should never be a criminal act. The response is to educate people so they recognize bad taste when they see it, even if they can't necessarily define it.
It is ironic to me that the UK, where in the interests of "free speech" they have tolerated mosques and imams that were directly advocating, and indeed sponsoring, violent jihad and terrorist acts, some are now considering going to the opposite extreme by passing laws against "hate speech."
It seems to me that only speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the nation, or violence against particular groups or individuals, or removing the civil liberties of particular groups or individuals, ought to be criminalized. So, saying that Christianity, Judaism, or Islam are silly religions should be perfectly within bounds, while saying that Christians, Jews, or Muslims should be sent to re-education camps should not be.
Actually only those who want to be led by the Archbishop of Canterbury (or any religious leader in the UK) are led by him. The rest of the population (and that's the majority) regard these kind of pronouncements as irrelevant. Pop Idol has more of an impact than any pontification by any archbish, cardinal or guru.
"The Archbishop needs someone to suggest he look at what the Human Rights Commissions in Canada are doing, and then decide whether this is a good idea." Bill Clendineng
Bill, the Archbishop is aware of what the CHRC is doing, and I believe that he wants the same thing in the UK; indeed, the entire world. The Number One problem for his religious community is the very loud and public war between those who favor homosexual clergy and SSM, and those who don't. He would love to have a Canadian-type ban on such "hate speech."
The latest target of the CHRC is the popular Catholic magazine in Canada, "Catholic Insight." The allegation is that it promotes "extreme hatred and contempt" against homosexuals in articles going back 16 years. What is being attacked are articles reprinting "Vatican statements, political statements, medical studies, and other studies" concerning homosexuality.
The magazine, in a January 24 article for a U.S. Catholic newspaper, "The Wanderer", pointed out that homosexual activists in Canada, using violent language, often target Christians, not the other way around. But, Bill, do you think the homosexuals get silenced for hate speech? Over the dead body of recovering ex-Pentecostal!
According to the Wanderer article, ever since Canada adopted SSM, the CHRC has been busy; the complaint against the Catholic magazine being just one of several entertained against Christians. Complaints have been brought against the webmaster of ConcernedChristians.ca, and the head of the CHP--a Canadian political party advocating Christian values (the bastards!). The complaint against the CHP's leader was based on speech originally published in a U.S. web site, WorldNetDaily, which reviewed legal essays by the Virginia-based Regent University Law Review.
Thus, homosexual activists in Canada believe Canadian law is on their side and no one is allowed to speak against them; that the Christian position is now discriminatory and hateful. A Canadian Bishop, who has been a target of the enlightened CHRC, pointed out that in its proceedings, the onus of proof is reversed--the accused must prove his innocence, not vice versa as in civilized societies. Moreover, the accused pays his legal costs while Canada provides a lawyer to the accuser, at taxpayers' expense, of course.
There is more, Bill, but I get sick thinking about what could happen in our country if people like the good Archbishop, and some on this board, get their way here, too. This blog would not exist, but homosocialists in our Congress, Universities and of course the ACLU would be pleased.
This is the problem with such laws: they deny citizens the right to use a whole array of legitimate literary genres including ridicule, invective, sarcasm, and parody. Was, for example, Saturday Night Live's "Church Lady" hateful? I suppose somebody thought it was.
Why should it not be permissible to ridicule certain religious figures and beliefs if one believes that they are absurd? South Park's "documentary" on Mormonism I'm sure offended many Mormons. But it was funny. And I'm sure if I were a Mormon I would not find it funny. But hey, that's the price of a free society, one that should not emulate the draconian policies of authoritarian regimes such as those found in Syria and Saudi Arabia.
I try to be fair-minded, generous, and gracious to people outside of my religious tradition and hope others follow suit. But I don't want the state to dictate that.
Sorry, the 5:44 PM comment is mine.
Cushy: "Actually only those who want to be led by the Archbishop of Canterbury (or any religious leader in the UK) are led by him. The rest of the population (and that's the majority) regard these kind of pronouncements as irrelevant."
That's not strictly true. Although only a few percent of the population attend Anglican services regularly, in England (though not Scotland, Wales or NI), Anglicanism is the established religion. Bishops have seats in the House of Lords, which has a delaying function on legislation. Vicars are automatically given respected positions in civil functions, etc. Some governmental positiosn are only open to Anglicans. The heir to the throne has to be Anglican and can only marry an Anglican or other Protestant. What the UK needs is not Canadian-type anti-"hate" legislation, but US-type separation of church and state and vigorous defence of free speech.
Alicia: "So, saying that Christianity, Judaism, or Islam are silly religions should be perfectly within bounds, while saying that Christians, Jews, or Muslims should be sent to re-education camps should not be."
No. Saying that individuals should go out and murder Christians should be illegal, but saying that Christianity should be made a capital offence should be legal. It should be illegal to advocate queer-bashing, but legal to advocate the reintroduction of 1940s-type anti-homosexuality laws.
Anyway, as I've said before, Muslims do not need to be sent to reeducation camps solely for being Muslim. All that is needed is for existing common law to be rigorously enforced - Muslims cannot live in a country where rape, paedophilia, forced marriage, murder, and incitement to any of these is rigorously prohibited and punished. The whole idea of the law-abiding Muslim is an oxymoron.
Saying that any particular group ought to be targeted for violence or for having it's civil liberties (not entitlements) taken away ought to be looked at very carefully, rombald. It's one thing to say, "Religious people (or secularists, or gays, or what-have-you) are all crazy, and ought to be rounded up and sent to re-education camps."
That probably ought to be protected speech, even though it is appalling. But when someone starts organizing other people on the basis of those statements then it ceases to be mere speech and might become, I believe, a form of criminal conspiracy to deprive others of their civil liberties.
On further reflection, I think I am wrong in what I said above. In order to protect free speech, which is also a civil liberty, I believe we need to only target speech that advocates violence or other illegal activities against particular individuals or groups, including threats, vigilantism, etc. Otherwise we would have to lock lots of politicians and political organizations up for some of the things they advocate.
"Tastelessness should never be a criminal act."
Agreed, Alicia. And bearing false witness, and comparing loving, committed, adult, human relationships to "marrying a plant" (etc.) should never be considered a "Christian" act either.
Cleveland,
"Bill, do you think the homosexuals get silenced for hate speech? Over the dead body of recovering ex-Pentecostal!"
I have never known any homosexual who has called for hate-mongers to "surely be put to death" - a direct quote from you-can-guess-where.
"Complaints have been brought against the webmaster of ConcernedChristians"
Is that anything like, um, "Concerned Women"??? If so, I'd give it about the same mount of credence - which is nil to less-than-nil.
"Thus, homosexual activists in Canada believe Canadian law is on their side and no one is allowed to speak against them"
Well, the Canadian Charter of Rights and FREEDOMS definitely IS on the side of justice and equality. But you are most mistaken when you suggest that "no one is allowed to speak against" gay citizens. They just can't actively call for our deaths or for people to harm us. And the 'right' just can't stand that limitation. Too bad, how sad. Alicia gets it right when she posts: "I believe we need to only target speech that advocates violence or other illegal activities against particular individuals or groups, including threats, vigilantism, etc." And Rombald also gets it right when he types: "It should be illegal to advocate queer-bashing".
"that the Christian position is now discriminatory and hateful."
"[B]NOW[/B]"???
"I get sick thinking about what could happen in our country if people like the good Archbishop, and some on this board, get their way here"
Hmmm, equality and justice mke you "sick"? Strange indeed.
Here's a suggestion: treat us equally and the "issue" will go away.
Thanks, recovering ex-Pentecostal. This free speech issue is just so complicated. For instance, I am appalled that a candidate such as Mike Huckabee, who has compared homosexuality with bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia (presumably because all are "perversions" in his opinion) should be taken seriously as a mainstream Republican candidate.
Generally, I am in favor of allowing speech, even when I am appalled by its content. But, what happens, hypothetically, if a truly facist political party were to come to power, legally? How would we as "moderates" or "conservatives" or "liberals" deal with such an eventuality?
I have a counter-example: the movie Bonnie and Clyde, directed by Arthur Penn and starring Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty.
In it, murder and mayhem are lauded, criminals cheered as they outwit law enforcement, and their violent end portrayed as tragic.
Granted, the entire PC/hate-speech debate didn't exist in 1967. However, consider this art imitates life imitates art bit:
During one of the bank robberies, Buck Barrow (Gene Hackman) does a leap over the tellers' cage. This was a stunt routinely pulled by John Dillinger, who in turn learned it from watching Douglas Fairbanks in the “Zorro” movies.
The way I see it, we've gotten worse at dealing with reality, not better, and a prime cause of that is political correctness and hate speech legislation.
Oh, by the way: my description of the movie is subjective, albeit one shared by many, that bringing me to my point: so is PC and hate speech legislation.
Well... labeling PC and HSL "causes" is perhaps out of line. But they certainly qualify as symptoms. Sorry.
Franklin said:
"The way I see it, we've gotten worse at dealing with reality, not better, and a prime cause of that is political correctness and hate speech legislation."
I couldn't agree more, Franklin. Political correctness as a form of social control just creates resentment. Shaking our finger at someone who is engaged in "hate speech" doesn't do the trick, either. Perhaps forthright opposition would do better, as in the classic, "I hate what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
"Those who experience the world differently" are, once again, warning their critics that their sensibilities are not to be trifled with, this time by threatening the life of the Bishop of Rochester adn his family:
“ . . . The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, is under police protection after he and his family received death threats over his claim that parts of Britain had become “no-go areas” for non-Muslims. . . . Dr Nazir-Ali was in India when staff at his home in Rochester took a number of phone calls threatening his family and warning him that he would not “live long” if he continued to criticise Islam. He has been given an emergency number at Kent Police, along with other undisclosed protection measures, and said that the threats were being taken “seriously”. . . .
"Speaking to The Times, Dr Nazir-Ali, who is on the conservative evangelical wingf the Church and is Britain’s only Asian bishop, said: “The irony is that I had similar threats when I was a bishop in Pakistan, but I never thought I would have them here. . . .
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3292032.ece
Boy, I sure hope that the Archibishop manages to get his Shariah compliant legislation soon, or someone with "injured sensibilities" might be forced to commit murder (just to stop the pain).
Ps: One of my comments from yesterday on this thread is apparently lodged in Bnet purgatory. At this point, it may be unrecoverable.
"But you are most mistaken when you suggest that 'no one is allowed to speak against' gay citizens. They just can't actively call for our deaths or for people to harm us." recovering ex-Pentecostal
It is extremely dishonest of you to attempt to cover up the Socialist/ homosexual gulag of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (see my January 31, 5:44 PM comment) by labeling Catholic teaching and scripture as actively calling for your deaths or for people to harm you." Shame on you. You can't get away with that slander unchallenged in this country.
Father Al de Valk, editor of "Catholic Insight" magazine, and target of the CHRC for promoting "extreme hatred and contempt" by publishing Catholic teaching (www.catholicinsight.com) stated that Canadian homosexuals are the one's using violent language, not the Catholics. I believe him, not you.
Bishop Fred Henry of the Diocese of Calgary also is a target of the CHRC for including, in a list of sexual sins, homosexual acts. It's none of your damn business, much less the business of the CHRC, what the bishop teaches his flock about sexual sins--he didn't call for any harm or death to come to you.
The gulag-like absurdity prevailing in your country is that traditional Christianity is now "discriminatory and hateful", yet you have the gall to say: "treat us equally and the 'issue' will go away.
Equally!? You mean establish a CATHOLIC Human Rights Commission to find your lifestyle illegal, an abomination against humanity, and likely to cause us harm and death?
The bishop's proposal reminds me of all those deodorant ads that always made me wonder if it really was possible to go 24 hours without offending anyone.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.