Firstly, thanks for all the positive feedback (well save one) with perhaps those who disagree with the column but thought it a good read being the most heartening. Also I’m doing a different column from the one teased last week as well I couldn’t get Fox News versus BBC News to work for me. Oh and sorry this is late, my bad. On with the show.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
“The acid test of belief in individual liberty is our willingness to allow people to do things we consider harmful, unpleasant or uselessâ€
Matthew Parris
Last week’s visit to London of controversial Qatar based Muslim cleric Al-Qaradawi who is either a moderate force against Islamism (Muslim Council and London Mayor Ken Livingstone) or a bigot who supports wife beating and attacks on gays and Jews (er nearly everyone else). To further stoke the flames of controversy our Home Secretary David Blunkett took it upon himself to announce that he would be reintroducing the law to ban Incitement to Religious Hatred that he had tried to rush through in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. The rationale for such a law is three fold; firstly it’s a fundamental human right as enshrined in the 1999 Human Rights Act to be able to freely express your religious beliefs so anything that makes it difficult for you to so should be made illegal. Secondly, is the (correct in my opinion) belief that for far-right groups such as white supremacist British National Party “Muslim†has become a legal substitute for racial slurs, a look at BNP party literature or their recent election broadcasts would confirm should a belief. Thirdly, there’s the fear that elements in society such as fundamentalist Muslim clerics are using religious hatred to aid terrorism.
Even without challenging this rationale there are practical problems with a law of Incitement to Religious Hatred. Firstly and most fundamental, what is a religion? The common sense definition would probably go on the lines “of set of beliefs centred on the role of a God or set of Gods†yet such a definition would exclude Buddhism. In Britain it’s done on the census with a religion having to get so many people to state it as their religion for it to be officially recognised. Yet the nearness of “Jedi†(as the one from Star Wars) to being recognised as a religion through this means show the dangers of such a system. Then there’s the implications for New Religious Movements such as Moonies and Al Qaeda who could now have legal protection from those who wish to expose them as sinister and brainwashing. What if President Bush repeats his visit to Britain and made comments attacking Islamists such as Bin Laden and promising their destruction would that be classed as “incitement to religious hatredâ€. And then you have the extreme functionalist view of religion that places shopping and football as a religion, if football’s really a religion then is the Man United fan enjoying his comrades in the stands to chant abuse at the opposing team guilty of “incitement to religious hatred?†You to give an example less easily dismissed what about the Glasgow Football Derby between Rangers (Protestant) and Celtic (Catholic), would the various chants being obvious examples of religious hatred be made illegal?
Then you have the problem of what is hatred and what statements would someone have to make to be guilty. For starters if someone expressed hatred of the actions of the custodians of a religion i.e. the Catholic establishment for their handling of various sex scandals involving Priests would that be classed as religious hatred? What if say a gay man expressed feelings of hatred towards Islam and Catholicism due to their belief that he’s going to hell would that be religious hatred? How about the common belief amongst fundamentalists of all faiths and even mainstream Catholics that if don’t follow that particular religion that your going to go to hell and the obvious belief that follows on that all other religions are evil. Would attempts by secularists to limit the role of religion is society by attacking Faith Schools and other civic activities be classed as religious hatred. That may sound stupid but how many times have the likes of Bill O’Reilly or Peter Hitchens (rightly in my opinion) criticised such moves as being motivated by a hatred of Christianity?
You can see by simply taking two words from the phrase “Incitement to Religious Hatred†opens up a whole can of worms about what is Religious and what is Hatred. What’s scary is that you could probably do the same thing with Incitement, but we won’t because the point’s been made. The trouble with defining what the law means is not point scoring but a serious problem with the application of any such law; if there’s confusion over what the law covers then it will open up avenues for unintended prosecutions. Then there’s the problem of the room for successful defences that such a confusion of meaning opens up. The fact that the similar Incitement to Religious Hatred law has only resulted in some 100 convictions in its 18-year history shows how difficult it would be to prove such cases “beyond all reasonable doubtâ€. However, if the case of the Islamic Council of Victoria versus the fundamentalist Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries in Australia is anything to go by then religion is even more problematic. Here what started as a simple case of libel when a CFM member accused Muslims of being “Rapists†as grown into far more complicated and now centres in part on interpretations of religious texts. The poor sod judging the case has even gone as far as to plead with the two parties to settle out of court albeit to no avail.
Then there are those who like myself fail to see why religion merits special protection anyway. Whilst no should be stopped from peacefully practicing their religion, there’s a world of difference between such tolerance (which contrary to the misuse of the word carries no judgement as to an activity’s worth) and protection from criticism and verbal “bigotryâ€. Religion is not like your gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation a pre-determined aspect of your character, people can choose to be religious or not and so should be willing to justify their decision to those that disagree with them. What’s more if you see religion through an atheist’s like myself then the idea that religion should be protected is even more bizarre, as far as I can see most religions are simply ideologies with many using their religiosity to mask political theories i.e. The Church of England with its allegiance to the British Monarch. To protect someone from hatred due to their religion is as nonsensical as protecting someone from hatred due to their political belief; both whilst they may be to some extent inherited are freely entered into and both may be seen by inspire hatred due to being seen as oppressive and extreme.
However, the idea of banning Incitement to Racial Hatred opens another debate and that’s of the validity of Hate Crimes in general, which seek to elevate crimes committed against minorities and women motivated by prejudice above “ordinary†crimes. In Britain we have laws against Incitement to Racial Hatred and Racially Aggravated Assault whilst police have been instructed to prioritise investigations of crimes that are racist, sexist or homophobic. Now there’s much to be said for such an approach as it afford special protection to some of the most vulnerable and historically oppressed groups in society. What’s more emphasising efforts against these crimes is a great trust-building exercise with groups that feel good reason to be hesitant around agencies such as the police. Finally such laws are a great way to boldly state that such beliefs have no place in modern society.
However there are three major objections to such an approach. Firstly, how do you define whether a crime is a “Hate Crimeâ€? The Macpherson Report 1997, which did much to legitimised the previously alien to Britain concept of a “Hate Crime†defined a racist incident as “any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person†a statement based on the belief that “colour-blind policing must be outlawed†and that “the provision of policing services to a diverse public must be appropriate and professional in every caseâ€. What this in effect states that a crime should be judged in relation to its victim, if the victim is say gay then there’s a good chance that the crime is homophobic even if the victim doesn’t see it that way. There’s a problem with this, which I’ll show by citing three different examples of assault.
I’m walking down a street in a city from my favourite gay bar when a group of straight men attack me whilst verbally abusing me with a variety of homophobic insults i.e. fag, queer, etc.
I’m walking down a street in a city from my favourite gay bar when a group of straight men attack me and steal my wallet and mobile phone.
I’m walking down a street in a city from my favourite gay bar when a group of straight men attack me and steal my wallet and mobile phone whilst verbally abusing me with a variety of homophobic insults i.e. fag, queer, etc.
All three attacks could in theory be seen as homophobic attacks, even the second where no homophobia is openly shown as my location would alert my attackers to my sexuality, etc. Yet only the first example could you argue beyond all doubt that homophobia was the primary let alone sole motivation for the attack. The motivation for the attack is even more blurred with example 3 where whilst the use of derogatory language may prove that I was assaulted by homophobes it doesn’t prove that their homophobia was what instigated the attack. It would be extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that attacks two or three were “Hate Crimes†for the primary reason that the deal-clinching evidence is safely locked away in the perpetrator’s head.
These examples also lead onto a second objection to the idea of “Hate Crime†and that’s this; of the three examples the first is the least serious as although I’m beaten up I still have my property yet under anti-Hate Crime procedures and laws it would be the first that would be prioritised and the perpetrators receive the harshest sentence. This is a real and fair objection to “Hate Crimesâ€, why should attacking a minority or a previous oppressed group like women due to prejudice today be treated as a worse crime than attacking someone for their money, etc. As far as I’m concerned all crime is motivated by the same contempt for society and the perpetrator’s fellow citizens. Whether that hatred is motivated by bigotry of someone’s gender, race or sexual orientation or envy at their wealth should be immaterial to the treatment of the perpetrator. What’s more ethnic minorities and LGB people are by their very nature a small section of society, affording crimes against them a higher level of punishment and investigation may lead to resentment amongst mainstream society over “special treatment†so hurting these groups in the long run.
The final and most serious objection is that the concept of “Hate Crimes†opens the door to what are in effect “Thought Crimesâ€. You see if you charge someone on their motivation for committing a crimes then you have outlawed the thoughts that caused someone to commit said crime. So take racially motivated assault, by saying that this assault is even more serious than ordinary assault because it was in essence racist you’ve de facto criminalized racism. You may understandably respond “goodâ€, yet whilst racism is undoubtedly a vile thing to outlaw it is wrong. Racism is a thought process; to ban it is to be guilty of creating a “Thought Crimeâ€, a crime that may have an unintended long reach. As Peter Hitchens in his vital book A Brief History Of Crime such labels as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia can and have been widened to included opponents of progressive attitudes to the issues of the three interested groups. Is it racist to be against mass immigration and multiculturalism? Is it sexist to believe that women should focus on their role as mothers ahead of an individual career? Is it homophobic to say that Gays and Lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to marry? I don’t know the answers to these questions but I know that such views are not extreme or repellent enough (indeed I share the first batch) to be made illegal.
Its been used so many times that the saying (paraphrasing here) “I disagree with what you say but I’ll die for your right to say it†has become a cliché but at its heart it sums up the attitude that any liberal, free society must have to views it considers extreme and vile. Whilst no one should be exposed to intimidation or verbally abuse nor should anyone be allowed to incite others to commit crimes there are existing, non-motive valuing laws that offer such protection. Hatred may be pointless and distorting but that’s no good reason to ban it, to do so would to strike at the heart of our freedom. It would establish the precedent that if the state dislikes a thought process it can make it illegal, something that is a milestone to totalitarianism. Finally such laws are in a way counter-productive, if you look at organisations like the BNP or British Islamist figures they are extremely careful with their language so as not to be in breach of the law. Due to this, whilst still holding the beliefs whose expression is now illegal (doesn’t that sentence just make you shudder?) they sound more moderate and become more appealing to more people so actually increasing the popularity of bigots. The result of forcing hatred underground is to force the haters aboveground.
All Feedback Appreciated.
