| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| We must be allowed to criticise Islam |
| 2004-07-11 |
| In the time of Marcus Aurelius, Christianity was a growing force within the Roman Empire. His ministers asked him if the state should join the non-Christian majority in attacking the new religion, or seek to protect it. The Emperor's reply is found in his Meditations. The state's response to Christianity, he said, or to anything else, should be determined by one simple question: "What is the thing in itself? What does it do?" Today, the Government faces a similar dilemma regarding Islam. In response, the Home Secretary announced plans last week to make vilification of Islam a crime. He insisted that his law to "ban incitement to religious hatred" was meant to defend every faith. However, only Muslims have asked for immunity. The legislation would "close a loophole", David Blunkett observed, because inciting hatred of people on racial grounds is illegal in the UK, but inciting hatred of them on the grounds of belief is not. The problem is that a virulent hatred of Muslims can no more be racism than a virulent hatred of Marxists or Tories. Nobody is a member of a race by choice. Such groups are protected from attack because it is unfair to malign human beings for something they cannot help. However, nobody is a member of a community of belief except by choice, which is why those who have decided to enter or remain within one are never protected. Were such choices not open to the severest censure, we could no longer call our country a democracy. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #5 If there is one single religion in desperate need of criticism, it is Islam. That its proponents seek to make it beyond reproach would be laughable if they weren't actually serious. The fact that they are serious shows how they are fanatics and therefore not to be trusted. Britain is faced with committing slow suicide over this sort of legalistic drivel. I fear to say that Britain will need a 9-11 or two of their own before they wake up (if it isn't too late by then). |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-07-12 12:01:17 AM |
| #4 I suppose that comment goes for the nutso animal cruelty laws in another article today. Only that law's got time on its side ('suffering' has yet to be proven scientifically for lower creatures, so prosecutions for stamping on slugs are some way off - though the immediate effect on blood sports is likely to be highly controversial). |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-11 2:53:14 PM |
| #3 The proposed law's an ass, indeed. I'm pretty confident this will be one of this government's knee-jerk proto-laws that is stifled by common sense before it even gets debated in Parliament. Even if anything so stupid were to be made law, it would be unworkable. What would happen when the first hate-speech 'martyrs' go on trial after complaints from touchy Muslims? There'd be uproar, that's what. The law would be revoked pdq. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-11 2:36:34 PM |
| #2 The crux of the matter to me. "Abu?" "Yes Lucky, you look wonderful today". "Thanks Abu, but are you still beating your wife"? "Oh no, no more, my good friend, she is dead by my own hands, my sweet, but I can assure you she died an honorable death." "But thats barbarism Abu." "Quiet Lucky, be carful what you say, be very careful, my pet, oh and what a nice tie, you are close to insulting me and all islam. That would be bad and there would be revenge. Vengenge is mine sayeth Abu. Would you like some tea and sweets?" "Yes, yes I would, thank you, may I have another." |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-07-11 1:54:17 PM |
| #1 This is damned terrifying. We're going to win abroad and come home to the same thing if we allow this to go on. |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-07-11 12:43:24 PM |