| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Over the last few days some have argued that the London attacks would stiffen the British spine; others predicted that the appeasement would accelerate. Now here is the first indication that Britain is choosing the dhimmi path. This is the first step toward the death of what was once a great civilization -- unless the House of Lords can save the day. From the BBC, with thanks to TS:
Government attempts to clamp down on expressions of religious hatred have cleared the Commons, but are set for a rocky ride in the House of Lords.MPs gave the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill a third reading by 301 votes to 229, a majority of 72.
Shadow minister Dominic Grieve said the bill would not improve race relations.
But Minister Paul Goggins said: "I believe we need to take on the hate mongers, whether they are terrorists or whether they are extremists."
'Catastrophically flawed'
The bill would create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred and would apply to comments made in public or in the media, as well as through written material.
The plans, which have failed to make it through Parliament twice before, cover words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up religious hatred. Jews and Sikhs are already covered by race-hate laws.
They will now undergo scrutiny in the House of Lords.
Home Office Minister Mr Goggins described the bill as small, tightly focused with "not much room for manoeuvre", although he accepted it was "not the whole answer".
"But there is a gap and we seek to close that gap through this legislation," he said.
But shadow attorney general Mr Grieve warned that the legislation remained "catastrophically flawed".
Satanists protected?
It would not improve race relations and would prevent the lawful expression of differences of view, he said.
"If the government really wants to tackle this issue, it is going to have to get away from the promises made to various people of some equal playing field, accept that religion and race are different, start to look at the real nature of the problem and try to come up with some constructive solutions."
He also argued that a failure to define religion in the bill meant sects, including Satanists, Scientologists and believers in female genital mutilation would be protected.
He said the measures could struggle to get through the House of Lords....
Liberal Democrat spokesman Alistair Carmichael said he was "embarrassed" that elected representatives were sending a bill to the Lords "that is so bad at this stage" when so much time had been spent on it.
"It is a bill that's ill-conceived in its thinking, it will be dangerous in its execution and I'm confident we have not seen the last of it," he said.
ADDENDUM: When I saw Hugh's comment below I realized I had forgotten an essential part of this story. Some have suggested that the Qur'an itself, with its violent hatred of non-Muslims, would be banned by this new law. However, that is not the case. The Muslim Council of Britain, evidently fearing the same thing, laid aside its Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace dogma long enough to obtain a specific exception for the Qur'an -- a telling indication that they know full well what it really says. From The Muslim Weekly, with thanks to Nicolei:
A delegation of Muslim leaders and senior scholars met Home Office Minister Paul Goggins this week to seek clarification on the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill.The delegation requested the meeting to seek clarification on a number of matters relating to the bill. Recent confusion regarding freedoms to deliver khutbahs and to recite and quote from the Qur'an and ahadith had raised concerns in the community that dawah and propagatory practices may be curtailed under the new legislation.
The Minister assured the Muslim community that there was nothing in the bill that would prevent scholars from delivering their sermons or from reciting from the Qu'ran and ahadith. The Minister reiterated that what the bill would do is criminalise incitement to religious hatred against individuals.
Sir Iqbal Sacranie stated that he was at eased that matters that had caused some obfuscation in the community had been cleared.
'We're happy that the Home Office has agreed to consult the faith communities when preparing the guidelines to the bill. Muslim scholars may proceed uninhibited in the performance of their duties', he said. The delegation made suggestions to the minister to [the effect] that it may be preferable to totally exempt the holy text, which will include the Qur'an and the hadiths from the remit of the Act.
The minister said, it would be difficult to exempt scriptures because there is likelihood that extreme groups like the BNP may use verses of the Qur'an to incite hatred against the Muslim community. Therefore, the very purpose of the Act would be defeated.
Ah. So whether or not the Qur'an incites religious hatred all depends on who is reading it.
Posted by Robert at July 12, 2005 7:17 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
A simple test needs to be performed. Someone should compile relevant passages from Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- the ones that describe non-Muslims being killed (as the Banu Qurayza, or the Jewish tribe in the Khabar oasis), as well as Muhammad's least attractive deeds, such as his evident pleasure when someone assassinated, to curry favor with him, the mocking Asma bint Marwan, or his sexual intercourse with nine-year-old bride Aisha, or quite a few other things that one can find proudly set out in Sira and Hadith, or in the biogarphies, such as that by Sir Wiliam Muir, or Tor Andrae, or Arthur Jeffery, not to mention those by worshipful Muslims.
These passages then should be read aloud in the House of Lords. One should then inquire if the reading aloud, or other distribution of these passages, together with appropriate commentary, such as "This is what Islam teaches" or "Islam commands that Muslims bear implacalbe hatred toward non-Muslims" or some such, and then ask representatives of the British government if these passages would be considered actionable under the proposed new legislation.
Ask if a rabbi, or a minister, or a former Muslim, who simply passed around the passages, without any commentary, would be prosecuted under the new law.
Then ask what would happen if a Muslim, an imam in a khutba, were to recite, or refer to, any of these passages. Would he be prosecuted under the new law?
One wishes to know, in advance, before such a law is passed.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 12, 2005 7:41 PM
If history is prologue -- this law will be an utter disaster...
Posted by: jsla at July 12, 2005 8:00 PM
Does this cover the internet? Will our British friends still be able to post on JW?
I was reading BBC online today, and not one said that Islam was to blame. In fact some-one said that it might be anglo-saxon christians who did the bombing.
I can't believe that all this is happening. If it wasn't for JW, then I might start thinking that I was going mad.
Posted by: Voltaire at July 12, 2005 8:19 PM
The House of Lords isn't a exactly a democratic institution. Ironic then that it may save Britains liberal democracy by protecting free speach.
Britain, your citizens deserve to have the right to say 2 plus 2 equals 4. 2005 is 1984. Big Blair is watching you.
Posted by: obl r us at July 12, 2005 8:38 PM
Voltaire, the next step will surely be to block access to sites like JW. I'm sure those nice people at Cisco will be able to help, as they did with the Chinese.
Posted by: Doctor Phibes at July 12, 2005 8:43 PM
Will other groups, rightly or wrongly get exceptions - say the the Christians and Jews with both the OT and NT passsages on homosexuality? Judging by the Swedish example where a pastor was thrown in jail, I think not.
Yet Islam gets an exception. As Australia's Danny Nahilla (spelt wrong I know) said, we have a choice here between Sharia LAw, or Christian law. What will it be??
By enshrining Islam (as Victoria has done in Australia) has sounded the death knell for the "separation of church and state", in that Islam is now above critique, and hence has special treatment under the law, yet Christianity, Budhist etc does not.
Where are all the bleeding hearts protesting about this "separation of church and state"? Or does that only apply to Christians, as Muslims don't go to church, only Mosque?
Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at July 12, 2005 8:46 PM
George Orwell, please come back from the dead. Britain needs you.
Posted by: obl r us at July 12, 2005 8:51 PM
This will only lead to a new civil war in England.
We are like a bunch of frogs in a pan, with the water being heated up slowly, until it is to late. We will all be either Islamic or dead before we "jump out".
This goes for all Western countries, with the exception of say "red neck" parts of the US (which I have told my wife I am seriously considering moving there if this continues. At least the Yanks can bare arms, which will of vital importance to our defence, as all these big brother laws come in, and our governments sell us out to Islam. Australia with a 4% ownership in firearms is a sitting duck.)
Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at July 12, 2005 8:51 PM
obl r us, can he bring Winston Chruchill to?
Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at July 12, 2005 8:52 PM
"The Minister reiterated that what the bill would do is criminalise incitement to religious hatred against individuals."
--- from the article above
So it would be licit to quote Qur'an 9:29 about "smiting the Unbeliever" as long as no particular individual is meant, and one could tell one's followers that the tree in that Hadith told Muslims to come and kill the Jews hiding behind it, and one could urge Muslims not to take friends "among the Jews and Christians, who are friends only to each other" and in general, to hate the Christians and Jews (but let them live) but kill right off the bat any other group (Hindus and Sikhs).
Just as long as the Muslims do not refer specifically to nice Mr. Rosenbaum the grocer who lives at 88 Laburnum Lane, or those uppity college boys, the twins Vijay and Vikram who are proudly Hindu, or Mrs. Singh whose husband is on the police force and just last week dared to arrest one of the brothers -- just as long as no "individuals" have hate directed at them, and the hate is directed at Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and the like, it's okay. Got that?
But if anyone should quote the same verses by way of suggesting that Islam is a religon of hate, that would be hateful, very hateful. And not to be allowed.
What if instead of the odious Sir Bob Geldof, there were someone cleverly genuine, genuinely clever -- Rowan Atkinson, or Stephen Frear, let's say, who would organize a Free Speech Aid Comedy-In, right in the Albert Hall, or some other welcoming place. And it would have Steve Martin and Billy Crystal and John Stewart and Jay Leno and Goldie Hawn and Lily Tomlin and Jerry Seinfeld, and another few dozen, on stage, making jokes all about Free Speech, and what happens when first this person says something, and then someone else recites the same thing, but in a different tone, with different facial expressons, and then, all over the hall, and easily picked up by the television cameras that will beam this show all over the non-Muslim world, there will be huge blow-ups of Buster Keaton, and Charlie Chaplin, and the Marx Brothers, and Laurel (Stanlio) and Hardy (Olio) and Toto, and Alberto Sordi, and Peter Sellers and the rest of the Goon Show, and ditto with the cast of Alto Gradimento, and Fernandel, and Gracie Allen and George Burns, and Max Linder and Jackie Gleason and Art Carney and -- well, you can each contribute another few names.
And in a parody of the pretentious Live Aid Concerts (where all the billionaire celebritie would have to do is simply shut up, take out their own checkbooks, and write checks amounting to 5% of their total wealth, and they would raise far more than their concerts, and it would be far more fitting for these rich businessmen still parading as rebels and outlaws and wild in the street, when they are the spoiled children of the West, who deserve to have their sums done for them, and some subtracted along the way for the poor they claim so noisily to care about (oh, the same goes for Sir Bob Geldof, who is not in want of much these days), these comedians would make fun of the "Hate Law" legislation, by reading out selected passages from Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and then comparing them with well-known passages in Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh sacred texts -- and the differences would startle. And then they might take terms reciting still more passages, or trying in mock-puzzlement to figure out what a passage like Qur'an 9:28 could possibly mean, about killing the Unbelievers, and what kind of deconstruction would lead us to understand that such a text required the application of post-colonial discourse with just a dash of the male gaze thrown in.
Mock them, mock them again and again. Laugh them out of Parliament, out of court, out of civilized society, these intolerable and sinister primitives with their monstrous beliefs.
at July 12, 2005 9:07 PM
Hugh-
Oh please, Monty Python with John Cleese as Mohammad....my sides hurt just thinking about it!!!!
at July 12, 2005 11:19 PM
Well,
I hate to ask a stupid question, but:
Why is the British citizenry ALLOWING this bill to pass?
What are British citizens doing to STOP its passage?
I haven't seen any of this on television. Is this not now an opportune time to throttle this?
Posted by: PRCS at July 13, 2005 12:22 AM
ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER HERE...
Posted by: jsla at July 13, 2005 12:29 AM
This is an outrage. It opens a whole pandora's box. Take at look at Pakistan where the mere mention of mohammad gets you before the court on a trumped up blasphemy charge. Bloody madness.
Posted by: TooBad at July 13, 2005 12:35 AM
I just cannot believe the UK would do this. I suppose it's due to a naive belief that this will shut down the vile rantings of clerics in their country, but you really have to be quite naive and gullible to believe that.
It will only be used to keep the light away from Islam, to shut down any critical discussion of it. It will be used to ram down everyone's throats the filtered and whitewashed version of Islam. In order to use this against Islam, you'd be putting yourself at great risk. Individuals would never dare to bring a Muslim to court over this. Their life would be in danger, from rabid Muslims eager to do a Theo Van Gogh on them. You'd have to live like Hirsi Ali for the rest of your life.
PS: I'm not sure I understand the exemption bit - did they manage to get the Koran exempted or not?
Posted by: feralee at July 13, 2005 12:59 AM
3rdtimelucky, I live in the "redneck" district of the U.S. and we don't have a muslim problem, at least not yet. We cannot control what the idiots in Washington impose on the entire country, but political correctness and moral relativity have not yet fouled the air or inhibited free expression.
There is a website that shows the number of mosques in the every state and my state has 14, which is more than many others, but most of them here are concentrated in one large metropolitan area. There is one in my city and the muslims around here appear to be itinerants; I'm not sure why but there are several possibilities. I was amazed to learn that every state in America has been invaded by muslims, even Alaska and Hawaii. There are two mosques in Hawaii and one in Alaska. California is crawling with them; there are over 200 mosques in California alone.
The Southern U.S. is home to millions of descendants of the Scotch-Irish settlers who came to America in the early 1700's from Scotland and Northern Ireland. Today's (and yesterday's) "rednecks" are those descendants, who overwhelmed the English and German ethnic groups and defined the mores of the region. These people were the template for what would become prototypical "Americans." This is one of my favorite subjects but I'll try not to ramble on.
The South is also referred to as the "Bible Belt" and this can be attributed to the Scots-Irish culture and Presbyterian influence, as well as rebellious political populism and strict Calvinism. The cultural development of the Scots Irish was strongly influenced by the Protestant Reformation, in which populism and Calvinism merged to create the fundamentals of American-style democracy.
Todays descendants of the intrepid Scots Irish settlers are highly individualistic, patriotic, and serve in disproportionately large numbers in the military, as they have throughout American history. Their ancient Celtic roots inspire a love of battle and contrary to the lamentations of the left-wing media, who insist that "minorities" comprise the majority of today's armed services, the fact is that a high proportion of today's combat troops in the volunteer military are Scots Irish and Irish Catholic.
The term "redneck" originated from the sunburn that is commonly found on men who work outdoors; construction workers, farmers, etc. These men tend to be less educated than white-collar workers but they are not necessarily racists or white supremecists. And contrary to the stereotypical images of southern folk, we are not illiterate, backwards, racist, or religious fanatics. In fact, "rednecks" can be found everywhere in the world although they don't all have red necks.
The "rednecks" like to hunt and do all the macho stuff, but no more than the doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. Everyone owns guns; that's just the way it is and always has been. Nobody thinks much about it. Car accidents kill far more people than bullets. And when the notorious "rednecks" pick up on the jihadist agenda, muslims will want to keep a very low profile.
at July 13, 2005 1:47 AM
It would be nice if Monty Python satirized Islam as trenchantly and incisively as they satirized Christians in Life of Brian. Dream on -- it could not happen: all the members are profoundly saturated and brainwashed by PC Leftism.
Posted by: metaxy at July 13, 2005 2:37 AM
Susanp,
Another reason why to keep the 2nd Amendment strong: One of the official policies that conquering Muslims have historically implemented against the dhimmis after they take over a territory: they forbid all dhimmis from carrying weapons in public and they confiscate all weapons in every dhimmi home. (cf. the Franco-Iraqi historian Hamid al-Shawi).
at July 13, 2005 2:44 AM
She had a heart colder than a bottle of vodka, and her legs went all the way to her hips. The dame was mad. Yeah, her eyes burned like a Koran. She'd come on to me like a Moslem suicide bomber in a crowded cafe, and though I hated to do it, I had to: I told her, "Listen, baby, I gotta shave my butt before I do my ritual prayers so I ain't got time to pollute myself upon you." Oh, she got mad, mean mad. She struck out like a batter in a burqa. She stammered, she spat: "You-- you're a-- you're just a dhimmi!" she yelled.
Ha. When you're as tough as I am you live with this and it doesn't hurt. I tole her: "Yeah, I'll be seein' ya, baby, in paradise. If you're still a virgin by then."
Virgins, I got a million of 'em.
Well, I got a Playboy magazine hidden in the bathroom.
O.K., it belongs to my father and my brothers. My uncle has it today but I get it next week. Insh'allah.
Posted by: sonofwalker at July 13, 2005 3:30 AM
"whether or not the Qur'an incites religious hatred all depends on who is reading it."
King: Exactly - this has been my position all along. Too bad the truth is not good enough...
at July 13, 2005 8:36 AM
As a Brit living in France I have posted on here a number of times saying that France is dealing with Islam better than UK.
I found this:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2764
And this is where I got the link from
http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/
I know that France has the bigger Muslim population and I know that there are large groups of the most unpleasent Islamic teenagers roaming the streets, in fact I have decided not to go into the big city near where I live for the 14th July because I have to rub shoulders with these lowlifes. But I know a number of Secular Arabs, most of who are no longer Muslims (yipee!!)
But I have to say that I feel safer here than in Britain because France is protecting its own culture and taking the steps to put pressure on the Islamic culture, its not perfect, but its there.
Blair and co may be doing the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are really screwing up at home, this law is one, the Quran is full of hate, but because it is a religion they can say what they want, rubbish.
I have a bet on that the people fire-bombing mosques will get longer sentences than suspected Islamic terrorists, watch this space...
Now that Balir and his idiots are allowing public funded Muslim faith schools, where there was 4 home grown terrorists, well there will be 40 in 3 years, 400 in 6 years and 4000 in 10 years, well done Blair, smart move, thanks for the thousands of my people killed and injured, that is your legacy Blair. Now they won't even have to travel to Pakistan for finishing school.
Posted by: Daffersd at July 13, 2005 8:45 AM
The minister said, it would be difficult to exempt scriptures because there is likelihood that extreme groups like the BNP may use verses of the Qur'an to incite hatred against the Muslim community. Therefore, the very purpose of the Act would be defeated.
Ah. So whether or not the Qur'an incites religious hatred all depends on who is reading it.
Posted by Robert at July 12, 2005 07:17 PM
"whether or not the Qur'an incites religious hatred all depends on who is reading it."
King: Exactly - this has been my position all along. Too bad the truth is not good enough...
Posted by: KingTolerance at July 13, 2005 08:36 AM
...and KingT accuses me of not getting the point(s)...
...you whopping big idiot. Robert is implying that the way this law is written, it's illegal for the BNP to expose what's in the Koran in order to hold the broader Muslim community up in an unfavourable light, but it will continue to be just fine for some rabid mullah to exhort his congregation to hate and revile Jews and Christians because of the various accounts in the Koran, etc.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 13, 2005 9:29 AM
King Tolerance:
Just because I can read "Mein Kampf" and not be moved to round up and kill Jews for the Fourth Reich does not mean that "Mein Kampf" is not a pernicious book nor that its followers are not pernicious.
at July 13, 2005 11:37 AM
Metaxy: good one!
Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 13, 2005 4:54 PM
Some have suggested that the Qur'an itself, with its violent hatred of non-Muslims, would be banned by this new law. However, that is not the case. The Muslim Council of Britain, evidently fearing the same thing, laid aside its Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace dogma long enough to obtain a specific exception for the Qur'an -- a telling indication that they know full well what it really says.
Check out the text of the Bill here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/011/06011.i-i.html
I can't see any evidence of this "specific exception for the Qur'an".
Posted by: Viking5 at July 13, 2005 6:40 PM
SusanP - I love my Australia - but hunting and fishing (frowned upon by the dogooders - you should see the hoops I have to jump through just to own a firearm, let alone go hunting - as for fishing, the Greenies are stopping that slowly but surely), being able to defend oneself, freedom of speech, Irish/Scotish decent (which is what I am)??? Patriotism isn't a dirty word!!!!
When can I bring my young, university educated family over there!!!!!!!
Australia loves a good brain drain, and I am taxed to the eyeballs to support all the dole bludgers who couldn't be bothered working (in many cases for decades!!). Both my wife and I are professionals, Christian (and proud of it), and for me at least, I am sick of what I see happening to my freedoms in Australia, the Tax, and the catering to the PC mob.
Can I and my Celtic desendant family come over??!!! I'll be happy to be a redneck/racist (its not like I haven't been called that one before by the lefty's, even though I'm married to an Asian in a true "multi-cultural" family)!!
Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at July 13, 2005 10:28 PM
"The Minister reiterated that what the bill would do is criminalise incitement to religious hatred against individuals."
OK Paul Goggins, I can live with that.
So if I say that Muslims are dirty, bearded, pustulent goatfuckers, that's perfectly alright as long as I don't make any exceptions.
Bit hard on the ones that aren't isn't it?
at July 14, 2005 4:27 AM
"whether or not the Qur'an incites religious hatred all depends on who is reading it."
King: Exactly - this has been my position all along. Too bad the truth is not good enough...
Well I'll believe this the moment I see a fatwah issued against ALL who commit violence against even the infidels in the name of Allah.
at July 14, 2005 3:49 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)