More race/religion confusion. If Islam is a "barmy doctrine," does it become less "barmy" if non-white people hold to it? Isn't the question of whether or not it is "barmy" quite separate from the race or races of its adherents? From The Guardian, with thanks to all who sent this in:
A gay magazine which described immigrants as "criminals of the worst kind" and Islam as a "barmy doctrine" has been condemned as racist by other gay rights groups. According to the magazine of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (Galha), Islam is growing "like a canker" in the UK through "unrestrained and irresponsible breeding".The magazine also published an article endorsing the rightwing populist Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, and described immigrants as "ill educated and culturally estranged Third Worlders".
Peter Herbert, chairman of the London-wide Race Hate Crime Forum, said he would be writing to the Crown Prosecution Service about the remarks and would "vigorously pursue" a prosecution of the editor or writers who had made the "racist and degrading" comments.
A number of Galha's honorary vice-presidents, who include the Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, the musician George Melly, the writer Claire Rayner, and Michael Cashman, the former EastEnders actor turned MEP, are understood to have expressed concern about the comments.
Galha's executive committee said the magazine's editor and deputy editor had been forced to resign over the comments, published in the autumn issue, and the magazine had been relaunched under a new editorial team. "We've done everything we can to rectify the situation," said the secretary of Galha, George Broadhead.
The group has renounced the comments about immigrants and immigration, which Mr Broadhead admitted could be "regarded as potentially racist". However, he said he stood by the remarks about Muslims and Islam.
Mr Broadhead wrote in the magazine: "What is wrong with being fearful of Islam? (There is a lot to fear) ... What does a moderate Muslim do, other than excuse the real nutters by adhering to this barmy doctrine?"
He described his article as "slightly over the top in wording maybe but basically we're saying Islam is homophobic".
Good. It is important to distinguish between religion/ideology, which is freely chosen in the West, and race, which is not. The one is fair game for any kind of criticism and ridicule. The other is not. Direct incitement to violence is wrong in both cases, of course.
Evan Harris is an outspoken supporter of the hijab ban in French schools. He was slated by Islamophile Labour MP Mike O'Brien, who was courting the Muslim vote at the time. Harris happens to be Jewish, but I'm sure that was just coincidence. George Melly is a larger-than-life bisexual jazz musician with big hats, hand-made florid zoot suits and a lived-in face. Claire Rayner is quite simply the most irritating woman in Britain.
What on earth is "the gay community"? What does Matthew Parris have in common with Elton John? Nothing.
The gay communities in the large European cities are getting nervous. Young gay men and women see their traditional sanctuaries turning Muslim majority within their own lifetime. They are not reassured by the rapidly increasing number of burkas wafting around the city centres. Political mercenaries like Ken Livingstone don’t restore confidence either.
Of course the LGBT elite are as removed from the changes on the ground as the “anti-racist” political elite. Elton John will still be entertaining his New Labour pals in his Windsor mansion when gay bars are closed in Soho.
By tolerating the most intolerant - only Muslims - we will achieve a global utopia where stonings and beheadings are a small price to pay for diversity.
Query for the British JW/DWers:
As an American who believes deeply in our First Amendment, I'm curious about how the British legal authorities interpret the criminality of speech. Are there clear standards of what comments are and are not allowed, or is it more of an ad hoc process in which someone decides he or she is a victim and then pursues a prosecution? In constitutional law classes here in the U.S., we frequently talk about the "slippery slope" of censorship, in that speech restrictions that are intended to be targeted and limited quickly expand to encompass what should be legitimate discourse. Of all the dhimmi laws that Europe has imposed, these speech restrictions strike me as the most draconian. I tried to do an internet search on this subject, but I didn't get back any useful information.
So now Islam is a race and not a religion? How quickly the snake sheds its old skin for a different one as the need arises.
Are there clear standards of what comments are and are not allowed, or is it more of an ad hoc process in which someone decides he or she is a victim and then pursues a prosecution?
That's a very big subject. There are libel laws, of course. Libel cases generally receive a great deal of publicity in proportion to their numbers. Probably what you have in mind, though, is the law against incitement to racial hatred and the proposed amendment that would extend this to cover religious hatred.
The bar is set very high on incitement to racial hatred. It could not, for example, be used to prevent the comedian Bernard Manning from making very tasteless (and in fact unfunny) jokes about blacks, Jews, and so on. Very few prosecutions have been brought, and it's fair to say that the law has worked well because it has not been used for frivolous cases. "Racial hatred" covers Jews and Sikhs, who are defined as a race, but not Muslims (or Hindus or Christians), because these are not races.
Muslims have been agitating for years for this law to be extended to include religion. What they want is a blasphemy law covering Islam. Even in its original form, the proposed religious hatred legislation was not a blasphemy law. The proposed legislation has had a severe mauling in the House of Lords, and it is now very unlikely that someone could be successfully prosecuted - if the law passes - for criticising Islam.
Nevertheless, many prosecutions could be brought. Muslims are hypersensitive to criticism and will push and push to stifle free speech. The main danger is that of self-censorship. A climate of fear will be created such that, even though a prosecution would be unlikely to succeed, writers, comedians and politicians will be reluctant to take risks. Self-censorship is one of the worst forms of censorship.
Interested,
Many thanks for your explanation. I will be interested (no pun intended, I just can't think of a better word) to see how this issue evolves. I think this is a dangerous precedent. Whatever the intent of the racial incitement law, I'm afraid it will eventually be interpreted to criminalize any criticism of Islam. I hope I'm wrong.
Thanks again.
Whatever the intent of the racial incitement law, I'm afraid it will eventually be interpreted to criminalize any criticism of Islam. I hope I'm wrong.
I think you mean 'religious' not 'racial'. We already have racial hatred legislation, and it has not been so interpreted.
One major weakness of the proposed law is that the decision as to whether or not a prosecution should be brought rests with the Attorney General. This is a political appointee, and as such, subject to political pressures, including, if demographics take their course, the Muslim lobby.
I still maintain that it would be difficult, if not impossible for someone to be prosecuted successfully just for criticising Islam. Incitement to hatred means something much more specific. However, if many prosecutions are brought, that barely matters. People will stop criticising Islam anyway.
Interested,
I assume you missed my last posting in a previous discourse we had. I'll try to be brief here, don't want to needlessly bother you.
You wrote that the religious vilification law now being considered in England was at least partially an outgrowth of the anomaly where Jews and Sikhs were protected from racial incitement because of their status as "races" and yet Muslims, Bhuddists and others were not.
For the record, I find racism of any kind repugnant, but I'm also attenuated to the dangers of criminalizing the expression of opinion. In my mind, their is a natural link between the legislation you oppose (religious vilification) and the legislation you support (incitement to racial hatred).
INTERESTED: "It is important to distinguish between religion/ideology, which is freely chosen in the West, and race, which is not."
But is religion indeed freely chosen in the West? Are Muslim immigrants and their children actually free to discard the religion of their birth? Might not they face from their own community the prospects of coercion, threat, physical violence or even death if they make such a choice?
By your own logic, shouldn't Muslims in the West be protected against incitement since in point of fact their religion is NOT freely chosen and they can leave it only at great personal peril?
The criminalizing of free expression is a very slippery slope and we're seeing the fruits of it in Scandanavia and other parts of continental Europe. I urge you to rethink this one my friend.
Incitement to violence should be illegal. Expression of opinion, however repugnant, is another matter entirely.
By your own logic, shouldn't Muslims in the West be protected against incitement since in point of fact their religion is NOT freely chosen and they can leave it only at great personal peril?
That wasn't my "logic" at all. Religion is freely chosen in the UK, in that religious freedom is protected by law. Yes, there are pressures, particularly under Islam to retain the religion of one's parents, but, since these pressures are not enforceable by law, they should not be pandered to by law. If we factor fear of extra-legal Sharia-style justice into our law making, we are pandering to Islam. We may as well allow polygamy and all the other evils of Islam because some Muslims have extra 'wives' whom they 'marry' at the mosque.
Since religion is a matter of free choice, it is completely different from race.
The reason I support racial hatred legislation is because race is not a choice. Furthermore, and this is not unimportant, this legislation has worked well for more than twenty years. English law has a great history of pragmatism.
If the proposed legislation goes through it will not, directly, criminalise opinion. However, it may stifle it by creating a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Background to and criticism of the proposed legislation from the Barnabas Fund for persecuted Christians. http://www.barnabasfund.org/ITRHC/
INTERESTED: "Yes, there are pressures, particularly under Islam to retain the religion of one's parents, but, since these pressures are not enforceable by law, they should not be pandered to by law."
But the pressures exist and in many respects are more coercive than the law.
Meanwhile, your 'incitement to racial hatred' laws are already criminalizing opinion.
Thanks - Granny W - that link covers all the facts and arguments on this matter that you need to know.
It is worth making the point that the racial hatred legislation protecting Jews and Sikhs does not protect Judaism or Sikhism as belief systems. Protecting belief systems from criticism and attack is, of course, wrong. Once you protect a religion, then why not a political ideology? Islam is, of course, a political ideology more than it is a religion.
I cannot make the point strongly enough that we should not acknowledge Islam's apostasy laws by taking account of them in our law making. It would be quite wrong to accept that Islam is like skin colour and cannot be changed (pace Michael Jackson). Should Muslims take the law into their own hands by attacking apostates there are existing laws under which they can be punished.
Meanwhile, your 'incitement to racial hatred' laws are already criminalizing opinion.
In what sense? Skin colour is not a matter of opinion. (Again, pace, Michael Jackson.)
But the pressures exist and in many respects are more coercive than the law.
Please read carefully my inceasingly repetitive posts above, explaining why this argument falls down. We should not take account of Islamic law in making English law. Our laws aready protect against vigilante, sharia-style "justice", and, of course, should be vigorously enforced.
Howard,
Britain has never had a constitution. Until recently if something was the law, it was the law, and that was final. That was why one of the important differences between the UK and the USA was that in England the legislature was more powerful than the judiciary, and in America it was vice versa. However, now it seems that with the EU and agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights, we are drifting into a situation whereby more and more power will be in the hands of judges deciding whether or not certain actions are 'constitutional'.
Britain has got a constitution. It just is not written down in one specific place. It includes legislation, case law, custom and precedent. Because it is not written down in one place it cannot be repealed or revoked wholesale.
Americans seem to be really bothered this. My boss was trapped in a lift a few months ago with a party of visiting US students. She tried to reassure them with some typical UK black humour, they reacted with serious questions about "how insecure do we feel without a proper written constitution?" I offered them nice cups of hot sweet tea once they got out of the lift but they seemed reluctant to partake.
INTERESTED: "In what sense? Skin colour is not a matter of opinion."
But interpretations of race and racial characteristics are. Someone could express an unflattering opinion of a given race and be prosecuted for 'incitement to racial hatred.'
This is the criminalizing of opinion. It is a slippery slope.
Was the religious vilification law an attempt to rectify the anomaly that Jews and Sikhs were protected from vilification but Muslims and others weren't?
If so, the correlation between the two laws is clear...and the criminalization of one set of expressed opinions is broadened to include another set.
I'm sorry you can't see it.
It is preposterous and chilling to criminalize "incitement to racial hatred". A citizen should be free to hate whatever, and whomever, he or she wants; and the minute he or she shows signs that his/her hatred is going to be acted out in damaging property or violence against people, then you criminalize -- not before.
Someone could express an unflattering opinion of a given race and be prosecuted for 'incitement to racial hatred.'
No they couldn't. Incitement to racial hatred is very specific. It does not include expressions of opinion on racial characteristics. As I've said, only a handful of prosecutions have been successful.
Rather than introducing religious hatred legislation, I'd be reasonably happy with repealing the racial hatred legislation, simply on the grounds that it has not been used and is not needed. However, as things are not broke, don't fix them. No need to change anything.
Was the religious vilification law an attempt to rectify the anomaly that Jews and Sikhs were protected from vilification but Muslims and others weren't?
That was the argument put forward. However, I have argued repeatedly, and I think cogently, that this anomaly does not exist and that religion, being a choice, is different from race, which is not a choice.
If so, the correlation between the two laws is clear...and the criminalization of one set of expressed opinions is broadened to include another set.
That only follows if you accept the correlation in the first place. I don't.
I offered them nice cups of hot sweet tea once they got out of the lift but they seemed reluctant to partake.
Do Americans drink nice cups of hot sweet tea?
Do Americans drink nice cups of hot sweet tea?
On this occasion, no.
INTERESTED: "Rather than introducing religious hatred legislation, I'd be reasonably happy with repealing the racial hatred legislation..."
In my humble opinion, this is the most enlightened statement you've made on the entire thread.
Granny,
We're largely a coffee-drinking nation. I myself gravitate to fruit juice when I'm dry...and beer when I'm not.
Cornelius, I think you agree with me partly because you misunderstand what I was saying. Rather than introduce religious hatred, I'd scrap racial hatred - if those are the alternatives. But they are not. Racial hatred legislation is just, but perhaps not needed, as can be seen from the low level of prosecutions. Legislation against biting people's ears off is justified but not specifically needed because covered in existing legisislation (the Biting Bits off People Act of 1666).
Religious hatred legislation is not needed and it is also unjust.
This is where multiculterism falls apart
and lands on its Rear End...
You cant have a society built upon rules when
A. Those very rules are called rascist..
B. Those rules are called discrimitory.
Then when people who come into your country dont hold the same values (which you yourselves) have rejected how can you accommodate them????
Answer: you cant...
So its a pickle for the multiculturists...
1. You tell muslims we will bend over backwards for you...
2. When the mulsims then plot to BLOW up gay bars , strip clubs, gay newspapers...
The gays run straight to the police who arrest them instead accusing the gays of Hate crimes..
This is Rich and poetic justice....
You thought by bending over for the muslims (sorry for the pun)...
That they would like you...
Not realizing the SHEER hatred muslims have for ALL NON muslims, gays, lesbians, jews, christians etc etc.
Now they are comming after you....
And when you publish your thoughts under your first ammendment rights... suddendly...
You end up in jail...
Its your mess Sleep in it..
Amusing legal discussion.
I always thought special laws for cop killers
and drive by shooting were wrong, since killing
people is covered by murder (or manslaughter)
and shooting a bunch of people (not in self
defense) isn't any worse if you do it from a moving vehicle.
In the case of hatred, it is not the hatred
itself that is illegal (thought crime?) but the
acting on it, in this case, the speech.
Race hatred laws strike me as wrong. If I
notice that, as a race, Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, NOT Pakis) commit less crime,
and outperform others academically, and I'm a
public speaker, I imagine someone would accuse
me of fomenting race hatred. Yes, yes, I know
you'll claim the laws don't do that, but I don't
believe you. They will be used for that purpose.
On the original topic, I always wonder why many
gays pander to the mohammadan menace. Too bad
about Pim Fortuyn, as he was a great advocate
for the West, man I would have voted for if were
a Nederlander.
Yes, yes, I know you'll claim the laws don't do that, but I don't believe you. They will be used for that purpose.
Well, they haven't been for more than twenty years, as I have said (repeatedly - yawn). There is nothing in what you just said that would give rise to prosecution under the existing legislation on incitement to racial hatred. We're talking about stuff like "Niggers go home", or "Stab a Sikh".
When this legislation was first brought in, the climate was very different from today. There was genuine racism. Now, arguably, the need for such laws is less than it was.
What is at stake here is again Freedom of the Press as in Denmark as in Netherlands with the movie Submission as inetc etc.WE as non-Muslims must not be allowed to have freedom. Totalitarianism wants to tell us how to do so.
What is at stake here is again Freedom of the Press as in Denmark as in Netherlands with the movie Submission as in etc etc.WE as non-Muslims must not be allowed to have freedom. Totalitarianism wants to control us.
For those of us who don't speak "English English," I went ahead and did some research:
barmy: Adj. Mad, crazy, insane. Cf. 'balmy'. [1600s]
From: http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/
One could just say "crazy," but I agree that "barmy" is far more satisfying!
Shinolite - I thought you might be a fellow limey because you like toilet humour. That's a good site. I never knew that a lot of those words were English English, I thought they were just normal, but then perhaps I'm a potty mouthed barmcake.
Barmy is a fantastic word. Somewhere between batty and totally hatstand.
Nope-- born and raised in Ohio, and currently attending grad school in Texas.
But I'll take that as a compliment-- I'm a lifelong fan of British humor!
Humour. If it's British, it has to have a "u".
Oops! Mea culpa. Yeah, some vowels fell overboard when we were crossing the Atlantic. I think Canada rescued them. :)
I'm a gay American. I am also a fiscal conservative, and a relatively liberal person on social issues. I must saw at the outset that the US has not always been the most tolerant country both for issues of race and sexuality. Certainly my country, as well as former colonial powers must remember those things. In the case of Germany, it can never have the luxury of forgetting what happened. Nonetheless, while others may scoff, I believe that my country (and the west in general) deserves a lot of credit and is a fairly safe place for racial minorities and gays. Considering how much gays are hated worldwide, the relative tolerance here is something that I want to thank the west for. It is something that I can appreciate as I have traveled widely. I believe this tolerance is an amazing achievement for all of mankind, and it was not easy to get to. A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members. —Mohandas K. Gandhi
It was the genius of the reformation and enlightment, and later the French revolution that led to western liberalism. While it is without question that the western world has previously done unspeakable things to gays and other minorities, such cannot be said today. The western world is now fairly enlightened. Islam seeks to destroy this enlightenment. For these things, gays owe their allegiance as being part of the society in which they live. Please do not think we are all the same. Many gays are good tax paying decent men and women who are simply attracted to the same sex. We are also patriotic and citizens of the countries in which we live.
It is for that reason that I am astounded at the extreme gay liberals (and their liberal allies). They seem oblivious to the happenings in Egypt, Iran and SA (to name just a few). Gays/'adulterers' (and others) are treated like criminals because of the Muslim obsession with all things sexual as is written in Kuran. Do they not see the barbarity in those countries? Are gays to be consumed with the preoccupation for gay marriage and see leaders like Bush as mortal enemies? Bush and his like do not always please me, and his policies are not always what I would like (Iraq, Supreme Count nominees ect), but he is my president. Bush (and a handful of others) also clearly understands the war we are in. It is for these reasons that I support my president in spite of his mistakes. After all, he IS fighting terrorists.
I cannot do much to stop the jihad, but I can fight in the battle for the hearts and minds of my friends and acquaintances. However, if I had to, I would take up arms to defend my country. But since that scenario is unlikely, I go on about life, paying taxes and living my life. But this war is ALSO being battled in the media and on the Internet. The media is not telling people the truth, and some of them are exploring the truth on the Internet. That's why I try so hard to convince my friends about the war-like nature of Islam. I frequently lecture my friends about it as I have become fairly knowledgeable about the religion/cult/way-of-life. I tell them about this site and others. I implore them to investigate the true facts; Islam is nothing like tolerant Christianity.
However, I am always confronted with the same problem when I try to convince my liberal friends about Islam. They mention Christianity’s sometimes turbulent and brutal past. It is true that Christianity has been used to oppress many, but today it largely recognizes its past as having been wrong. At the very least, the Christian countries have acted to correct the abuses of the church.
To Quantum:
One way to force people to see the ridiculous nature of Islam is the notion that one knows where the sun sets; it was a location that had been visited. I cannot remember the verse; perhaps someone can locate it for me.
Interested,
Let me just say first off that I think you're one of our most intelligent and entertaining contributors. I've never read an argument from you that wasn't rational and measured...ot a comment that wasn't amusing in some way.
Now that said, I don't want to try your patience or beat a dead horse, but I honestly think you're missing something here and I figured I'd give it one more try.
I asked: "Was the religious vilification law an attempt to rectify the anomaly that Jews and Sikhs were protected from vilification but Muslims and others weren't?"
You responded: "That was the argument put forward. However, I have argued repeatedly, and I think cogently, that this anomaly does not exist and that religion, being a choice, is different from race, which is not a choice."
What you must understand is that YOU have made your OWN distinction between the two sets of legislation, based on your own values and wisdom, which is why you are against the proposed law. But those who INITIATED the new legislation were doing so - as you readily admit ("that was the argument put foward") - in order to close a loophole in the original anti-racism legislation that protected Jews and Sikhs but exempted RELIGIOUS minorities from protection.
In short, there IS a correlation between the old law and the proposed one, at least as it concerns the political strata seeking its passage.
The criminalizing of opinion is insidious and takes on a momentum and dynamic of its own. I know you're a good guy, I realize you've expressed flexibility on the issue and I appreciate your open-mindedness, but I just don't think you've examined the broader implications. Sweden is the established paradigm today...and it is on the cusp of an absolutely totalitarian political-correctness.
What you must understand is that YOU have made your OWN distinction between the two sets of legislation, based on your own values and wisdom, which is why you are against the proposed law. But those who INITIATED the new legislation were doing so - as you readily admit ("that was the argument put foward") - in order to close a loophole in the original anti-racism legislation that protected Jews and Sikhs but exempted RELIGIOUS minorities from protection.
Indeed. However, the House of Lords appear to have followed my approach rather than that of those who made the original proposal:
It was in the context of our legislature as a whole that I made my comments, rather than just that of those who put forward this bill, still not yet law. That, I think was clear from my repeated use of the words "proposed legislation".
Thank you for the compliments, by the way. I thought that they would be followed by a "but...". But thanks anyway.
some vowels fell overboard ...
Well, Shinolite, unexpected vowel movements can happen aboard ship, as well as in the Middle East.
Kafir - your comment is much appreciated as being relevant to the topic, from which I've been, as Jane Austen might say, excessively diverted. The acceptance of homophobic attitudes on the part of the Left, simply because they are voiced by Musims, is quite nauseating.
Muslims appear completely free to advocate the killing of homosexuals according to Sharia, but gays cannnot even utter the word 'barmy' without the threat of prosecution under 'hate speech' laws.
So, gays can be gagged while their would-be assassins are allowed guns. Isn't that the jist of it?
I remember some interesting analysis regarding the lack of criticism in the MSM of the O.J. verdict. The conclusion was that in post-modern victimhood centered politics, race trumps feminism.
I suppose this story indicates that Islam trumps Homosexuality.
Well my friend, thank God the House of Lords had the good sense to gut the legislation. Too bad they just didn't toss it out.
March: I suppose this story indicates that Islam trumps Homosexuality.
Islam trumps EVERYTHING in modern Britain, even race. The black residents of Lozells, Birmingham found that out this year.
The absurdity carries on
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-5520215,00.html
Note at the end of the story the comment by peter tachell
"Gay rights group OutRage! condemned the comments. Founder Peter Tatchell said: "It is tragic for one minority to attack another minority. Both the Muslim and gay communities suffer prejudice and discrimination. We should stand together to fight Islamophobia and homophobia."
Queers and the koran they just don't mix