The government has developed something of a knack for giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Not content with the ban on fox hunting, a backhander to backbenchers disenchanted by its courting of those nasty middle classes, nor with the notion of liberalising the drinking laws but imposing spot fines on those who drink too liberally, it is seeking, as tensions have escalated with Muslims over Iraq and the war on terrorism, to administer relief in the form of proposals for the prevention of religious hatred. Using laws to strike bargains is a risky strategy, and Civitas has voiced its opposition to this bill before ; it was dropped in the run up to the general election, but as the BBC reports, it’s back.
Although the anti-terrorism legislation ended up being little more than a rickety compromise, the fact is that Britain’s 1.8 million Muslims feel got at, and slips, such as Hazel Blears’ delightful admission that the ‘reality’ was that ‘our counter-terrorism powers will be disproportionately experienced by the Muslim community’, have hardly helped matters. New Labour has for some time been seeking ways to deal with the problem. In an article last year in Muslim Weekly, senior energy minister Mike O'Brien conceded that many Muslims were ‘understandably... very angry’. In exchange, he listed reasons why the Blair administration had been good for Muslims. These included plans ‘to toughen the laws on incitement to religious hatred’.
In Australia, where a similar law was passed in 2001, two pastors from the not very incendiary Catch the Fire Ministries have successfully been prosecuted for raising human rights concerns about Islam. Notwithstanding the judge’s acceptance that theirs was a fair representation of the teachings of the Qur’an and the Shari’a, it was deemed that truthfulness was no defence if the context could be construed as offensive. There was public outrage. As Amir Butler, executive director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, has said: ‘a few nasty words about Muslims, spoken to a small gathering by a small group, transformed an unknown organisation into martyrs with an international platform.’
Over here, the Home Office denies that the laws would cover beliefs as well as believers, but some people clearly perceive them as a way to put a stop to anything they find distasteful being said about their faith. According to Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, ‘defamation in the character of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH)’, would be ‘a direct insult and abuse on the Muslim community’, and illegal. Likewise, Catholics unhappy with the tradition in Lewes of burning an effigy of the Pope on bonfire night would be able to take their gripes to court. Scientologists, Satanists and Moonies could all jump on the bandwagon.
Unlike skin colour, belief is a choice and should be open to debate. Journalists of the George Orwell mould, who go by the dictum that ‘if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’, are not exactly overjoyed at the prospect. Nor are satirists. What, it is reasonable to ask, would courts make of the Not The Nine O’Clock News sketch in which Muslim worshippers were shown in a Mosque bowing to the ground with the voiceover: ‘And the search goes on for the Ayatollah Khomeini’s contact lens’? A rap on the knuckles for being rude is one thing; seven years in jail quite another.
The real problem is that, like the terrorism law – like so many of the laws that have been rushed through by this government – this is badly drafted legislation. There does not seem to be any precise definition of what might constitute ‘hatred’ or ‘insulting’ behaviour, for instance, nor any obligation for the plaintiff to prove that a statement actually is capable of incitement. Its premises are also sketchy, a fact which Anglican groups, in particular, have highlighted. Since the blasphemy law is nominal and ineffective, they say, what need is there for extra protection for Muslims who are already, as are Jews and Sikhs, covered by race laws (which were sufficient for dealing with members of the BNP who targeted Muslims in 2004).
If the Australian case is anything to go by, the government’s attempt to win over support would not unambiguously favour Muslims. Down under, Christians have been found sitting in Mosques with their notebooks out, and other religious communities have also started monitoring each other in order to bring cases. It has been observed that a law designed to promote tolerance in fact rewards the least tolerant (those most anxious to take offence). Amir Butler is just one of many public figures who initially hoped the law would protect Muslims from victimization but who have since come out strongly against it.
So what Ken MacDonald, Director of Public Prosecutions, has described as the ‘expectation gap’ could leave British Muslims feeling cheated. Along with the supposedly punitive terrorism laws, they might come to the conclusion that the state is taking away with both hands.
Comments (4)
Given that at the last census some 390,000 people (so I read somewhere) described their religion as "Jedi" should not the critics who panned the first 3 Star Wars films be charged under this 'religious' hatred bill. After all there are more self-described Jedis than Jews in the UK.
Posted by Berenger | June 13, 2005 3:26 PM
Posted on June 13, 2005 15:26
Well I am a motorist, and speed cameras are offensive to my religion.
Posted by P Morley | June 11, 2005 12:38 AM
Posted on June 11, 2005 00:38
How long before Communists or Europhiles decide that they constitute a religion?
Posted by EU-Serf | June 10, 2005 2:49 PM
Posted on June 10, 2005 14:49
The Commission For Racial Equality believes in multiculturalism and thinks that Anti-essentialism is indeed racist. I would take the opposite view. We are not necessarily defined by our colour. It is not the most important fact in our lives, it is just one of many competing aspects of identity. We do not live in a society where racism forces us to daily confront our ethnic identity and identify just with people with similar genes. Yet this still seems to be the view of the CRE, alas.
A government is not supposed to react with knee jerk enthusiasm to focus polls. British democracy is not about majoritarianism (or today minoritarianism perhaps), but about the equal application of the law. Rights should apply to all people equally.
Just because you don't like a group it does not mean you can take their rights away. Justice, equality and rights are supposed to prevail. But they don't. Instead the government seems to weigh up who can be excluded to the pleasure of the majority and thus remain popular. This is not democracy.
Murder is murder, assault is assault. What difference does it make if someone is a victim because the offender does not like the way the victim looked at them, or if the victim is gay/ muslim, whatever. The offence is the same.
To say that it is different or worse and give a different sentence is yet another aspect of the creeping inequality before the law. One rule for them and another for us. After 8 years of New Labour equality and justice are lame duck notions. Rules and benefits are not spread evenly.
Is it any surprise over 200,000 Britons pack their bags and head into voluntary exile each year? Very soon it will be possible for Britons to claim refugee status for specific discrimination against them, that is only natural when you give 'extra' rights to some at the exclusion of others. Rights do not come for free.
Posted by Chas | June 9, 2005 5:08 PM
Posted on June 9, 2005 17:08