The Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill - did ANYBODY think this was a good idea?

[redsquirrel]

I wasn't talking about creating a new law. We've already got a law of protection. I suggest extending it's scope, rather than creating a new law. I don't see why you can't make some suggestions for additional religions to include, as that list was by no means complete. Add Ba'hai, for example.

But you're still arguing that the law should cover Monotheistic religons to a greater extent than non-monotheistic religons. Which seems utterly bizarre to me.

 

[tangentlama]

But you're still arguing that the law should cover Monotheistic religons to a greater extent than non-monotheistic religons. Which seems utterly bizarre to me.

the law already exists. it already covers two monotheistic religions.

by suggesting this, i'm not 'arguing' that other polytheistic/animistic/satanist/pagan/etc religions are to be excluded.

a poll was made, i gave an opinion, and i'm suggesting an amendment, which would have a) been cheaper and b) been harder to argue down c) extended existing priveleges to include other organised monotheistic religious groups

 

[redsquirrel]

The bill was a matter of fact and socialists were required to take a side.

What utter shite reasoning. There's no requirement to take a side at all.

 

[JoePolitix]

What utter shite reasoning. There's no requirement to take a side at all.

i.e to not have an opinion??

 

[redsquirrel]

i.e to not have an opinion??

Right so if I don't support either USSR or capitalism I don't have an opinion.

 

[JoePolitix]

Right so if I don't support either USSR or capitalism I don't have an opinion.

Either the bill was passed or it wasn't ergo you either support it being passed or you oppose it, if you don't take a position then obviously you have no opinion on whther the law would be positive or negative.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, the LP do seem to be enamoured of 'shelf legislation', so it does remain to be seen how many of the powers that were granted will ever have their day in court.

 

[In Bloom]

I’m sure no-one condones the murder of Theo Van Gogh but as you say he was a filthy racist. He described Muslim migrants in Holland as “a Fifth Column of goatfuckers in this country, who despise and spit at its native people” adding “they hate our freedom…..Soon, the Fifth Column of goatfuckers will hurl poison gas, diseases and atomic bombs at your children and my children."

Surely this goes beyond the boundaries of acceptable speech and legitimate criticism and enters the realms of hate mongering?

And it should surprise no-one that Ayaan Hirshi Ali has colluded with Van Gogh in his exploits given that she is a member of the rightwing anti-immigrant WD party.

If you look at my post, I never said I particularly cared that he was dead, it was merely the suggestion that anybody deserves to die for "coming out with a harsh criticism of Islam" that pissed me off.

 

[Nigel]

Hail Satan

As a practicing Satanist, am I protected under this Act.
The was some case about a Sailor who felt he was victimised for reading the Satanic Bible by his fellow shipmates, under The Human Rights Act.
All Judeo-Xian cults spend passages laying into The Prince Of Rebels.
You could take action against all of them

 

[detective-boy]

With JoePolitix on this one.

The "accidental" effect of the race legislation, whereby a few religions (e.g. Sikh and Jew) are caught (by reason of being held to be so closely associated with a particular racial group as to effectively be the same) whereas all others are not, needs to be addressed. There is no justification for some religions to be protected more than others. There is also a growing exploitation of the loophole by the BNP (and the mass media) who use "Muslim" as a way of giving voice to their poison without falling foul of the law.

I felt the original version achieved this equalling out.

Sadly the misconceptions argued by Mr Bean and others (there was NEVER any way that simple criticism or humour would have been caught) killed the Bill, in part, and it still leaves inequality.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

So definately an ISGer then.

Geoff Brown's artice was at least based on actual knowledge of the bill and the issues that surrounded it which is more than can be said for Thornett and co.

The question of "since when did socialists rely on the legal force of the state to defend oppressed people?" is just plain silly. The bill was a matter of fact and socialists were required to take a side.

I doubt many socialists beleive that New Labour will champion the rights of the working class and yet this would not necessarily translate into opposing say the Employment Relations Act 1999 which made limited consessions to worker's rights and trade union recogntion.

More to the point are you suggesting that socialists should campiagn for the repeal of the existing race hate legislation? The fact is that this was consolidated by the Thatcher government shortly after bashing up the miners in the 1980's. And yet the only political party I am aware that stands for such a thing is the BNP.

You are failing to distinguish between a Bill and an Act. A socialist government would have introduced far more supportive legislation for workers rights than Labour's Employment Relations Act, which still leaves most of the reactionary trade union laws passed by the Tories. Even the TUC agrees:
http://www.tuc.org.uk/congress/tuc-10515-f3.cfm#tuc-10515-3 (see C1).

To compare opposion to a bill in parliament with calling for the repeal of existing legislation is just stupid.

I'm in favour of a woman's right to choose on abortion, for example, but that doesn't mean I call for the repeal of existing legislation because it doesn't grant that. If however there were a bill in parliament that improved the situation I would support it; if it worsened it I would oppose it - it's a concrete issue in each case.

 

[JoePolitix]

If however there were a bill in parliament that improved the situation I would support it; if it worsened it I would oppose it - it's a concrete issue in each case.

This is *exactly* the point I was making but it does rather cut the rug from under your previous rhetorical question of "since when did socialists rely on the legal force of the state to defend oppressed people?"

The debate really boils down to whether the current situation would have been improved by the bill or not. The same question would have been applied to the Abortion Act or the Employment Relations Act. In both cases uncritical endorsement was not required.

This is a valid debate but please lets not indulge in disingenuous radical-sounding rhetoric about opposition to the state.

Of course the debate is largely academic now given an amended version of the bill is waiting enactment. I’m just a little shocked and dismayed at the fact that so many people with normally progressive politics really seemed to loose the plot on this issue.