The always outstanding Melanie Phillips in FrontPage on British government dhimmitude and the religious hatred law:
Tony Blair’s staunch support for President Bush over Iraq has done the Labour Prime Minister great electoral damage in Britain, not least among the country’s 1.8 million Muslims. Despite being traditional Labour voters, many are now threatening at the forthcoming general election to support either the Liberal Democrats, who have taken a strong line against the war, or Respect, an alliance between the far-left MP George Galloway and Islamic fundamentalists.The British government’s reaction has been a panicky attempt to appease the Muslim community. In particular, there have been suspicions that a proposal to outlaw incitement to religious hatred is a crude attempt to buy Muslim votes. This is because British Muslims, who have been complaining about a rise in “Islamophobia” since 9/11, are aggrieved that they are not covered by the existing law against incitement to racial hatred, which applies to Jews and Sikhs whom it designates for these purposes as racial groups.
Of course, real prejudice against Muslims exists and should not be tolerated. But a law against incitement to religious hatred will very likely criminalize legitimate discussion about religion, which almost invariably gives rise to intemperate passions, hatred and the giving and taking of offence.
Fears that such a law may put people in jail merely for telling the truth have been fuelled by the fact that to many Muslims, any criticism of Islam — including any reference to Islamic terrorism — constitutes “Islamophobia.” If such a law had existed when a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie’s life for writing The Satanic Verses, he might have been prosecuted rather than protected by the British state. The idea that such a law should be introduced by the British government at the behest of a minority seeking to suppress any discussion of the role of their faith in global terror is alarming in the extreme.
Yet according to a government minister, this is indeed what has happened. In a grovelling article written in The Muslim Weekly in which he effectively pleaded for votes, Energy Minister Mike O’Brien boasted of the lengths to which the government had gone to accede to British Muslim demands. Two weeks after the Muslim Council of Britain asked for a new law banning religious discrimination, he said, Tony Blair promised he would provide it. “It was,” wrote O’Brien, “a major victory for the Muslim community in Britain.”
So a law that has the power to shut down legitimate comment about Islam; potentially put Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, secularists and others in the dock for speaking the truth; and make the giving of offence a greater offence than intimidating Britons into silence; is being introduced to buy Muslim votes. The price to be paid for invading Iraq, in other words, is to be Britain's freedom of speech.
Read it all. As Hugh says, The civilization you save may be your own.
It all depends on how they enforce this new law. Are they going to arrest every Imam who reads the Qu'ran such as:
“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” [Quran 5:51]
If this law comes into effect, then by rights the police should arrest every person who reads out such verses in the Qu'ran. But hang on a minute, who many arabic speaking police officers are there? Whats that you say? None?! So only if it is uttered in English?
Cowing for the Muslim vote, but do the Muslims really want it? The following is headlined 'Quran to be banned in UK' ?
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=10645&TagID=1
All in all bizarre piece of legislation purely to kiss the back sides of the Muslim vote.
This proposed law along with the recent court decision in the Victoria Province of Australia are dangerous harbingers of what may come. Quelling free speech in the free world eliminates freedom. While the political expediency of winning some votes may be appealing to those who are willing to compromise their principles to keep or get power, the acceptance of such compromise by free peoples will only extend this totalitarianism into other realms. After quoting the Quran is outlawed, what is next? Will we not be able to quote the Bible? Will we not be able to quote Winston Churchill and John Quincy Adams who warned all of us about the insidious nature of the Islamic political philosophy? Will we be sanctioned for typing "www.jihadwatch.com" into the Address line of our webpages? Will those who have already blogged on these pages be brought before tribunals held by totalitarian thought police?
These anti-freedom trends and ideas must be fought against tooth and nail. For those of us who are getting older and don't necessarily foresee loss of freedom in our own lives, we must remember the young.