‘What’s at stake is the right to insult and cause offence’

Polly ToynbeeSo Polly Toynbee claims in a Guardian article attacking the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. In fact, what’s actually at stake is the right to incite hatred.

Toynbee criticises the “free speech” clauses in the government’s amendment (which as we have already pointed out make dangerous concessions to the opposition). She asserts that these legal guarantees “would not protect Rowan Atkinson’s sketch showing men bowed down praying in a mosque with the voiceover intoning: ‘And the search goes on for the Ayatollah Khomeini’s contact lens.’ Many were insulted. It would not protect Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, let alone Christ in nappies on the cross in Jerry Springer – the Opera. Nor would it stop Behzti being closed down by angry Sikh mobs.”

There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent Rowan Atkinson from taking the piss out of the Ayatollah Khomeini, or Salman Rushdie from publishing The Satanic Verses or any theatre from staging Jerry Springer – the Opera. What the proposed legislation criminalises is not ridicule or insult but incitement to hatred. As for Bezhti, Sikhs are defined as a mono-ethnic faith group and are therefore already covered by the law against racial hatred. The new legislation won’t make the slightest difference to the legal position in relation to the incitement of hatred against Sikhs.

Continue reading

Religious hate bill changes urged

A coalition of politicians, writers and artists is trying to persuade ministers to accept changes made by peers to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. The bill will return to the Commons on Tuesday after being substantially amended in the House of Lords.

BBC News, 30 January 2006

See also “Atkinson in last-gasp bid to bury religious hate bill”, Observer, 29 January 2006

Needless to say, these democrats are not worried about the clause in the government’s amendment that recognises the right to incite hatred against religion, which could strengthen the hand of the BNP. Rather, they support the Lords amendment that would restrict the offence of inciting religious hatred to “threatening” words and behaviour and would moreover require the prosecution to prove intent – which would, of course, destroy the possibility of ever securing a conviction.

How to become a ‘national treasure’

OutrageA Guardian piece on Peter Tatchell quotes right-wing columnist Peter Hitchens paying tribute to him as “a man of great physical and moral courage, honesty and personal rectitude, superior in every way to the run of politicians”. It continues:

“Such praise must make a welcome change from what Tatchell endured in the past. First, there was the name-calling – ‘pervert’, ‘loony’ and ‘homosexual terrorist’. Then the death threats – he still sleeps with a fire extinguisher next to him in case of arson. And finally, the wholesale condemnation, in 1994, of Outrage!’s threat to out the Bishop of London. Tatchell then was ‘pernicious’ and ‘vile’, a ‘hysterical self-publicist’ and ‘hypocrite’, guilty of organising a ‘witch-hunt’. Rehabilitation began when Tatchell attempted a citizen’s arrest on Robert Mugabe. Suddenly, he was lauded as ‘a man of principle’ (the Daily Telegraph), who ‘may call himself a queer, but he’s got a real man’s courage’ (the Mail).”

And Tatchell appears to have drawn the obvious conclusions. If you’re a gay rights activist campaigning against the Anglican Church and other establishment targets, favourable coverage will be restricted to the liberal media. However, if you concentrate on attacking black Africans, Palestinian Arabs and, in particular, Muslims – the Tory press, who welcome such contributions to their own racist agenda, will treat you like a hero.

New religious hate plans unveiled

bnp-islam-posterCompromise plans to create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred while protecting free speech have been unveiled by ministers.

The government’s original plans for the new offence were heavily defeated in the House of Lords last year. Critics said the proposed legislation was drawn too widely and could outlaw criticisms of beliefs.

Ministers have now published their revised plans, which have been welcomed by some opposition peers.

They have bowed to the critics’ demand that incitement to religious hatred be covered by separate legislation rather than be joined to race hate laws.

Somebody could only be convicted of the new offence if they intended or were reckless about inciting hatred. And there is a new clause in the legislation declaring that a person is not guilty of an offence if they debate issues, insult or ridicule a religion – unless they intend to stir up religious hatred.

The Home Office says the original plans would not have stopped comedians telling religious jokes but the new plans give an “absolute guarantee”.

Home Office Minister Paul Goggins said the amendments would mean it would be an offence to incite hatred against Muslims, Hindus and Christians. It is already an offence to stir up hatred against Sikhs and Jews through race hate laws.

Lib Dem peer Lord Lester, a leading critic of the original plans, said the new amendments had sprung from talks with the government. “They are a great step forward for free speech,” he said.

BBC News, 26 January 2006


The deal the government has done with the opposition is mainly unobjectionable. They have conceded Lord Lester’s demand that a separate Part 3A should be added to the Public Order Act which will deal exclusively with religious hatred, but that’s not a problem in itself. Where Lord Lester’s amendment, adopted by the Lords last October, restricted the offence of inciting religious hatred to words and actions that were “threatening”, the compromise deal changes this back to “threatening, abusive or insulting”. And where the Lester amendment required proof of intent, the new version criminalises the incitement of hatred by means of “reckless” behaviour.

So far, not so bad. But here’s the spoonful of tar. The new version includes a passage which states that “a person is not guilty of an offence … of intending to stir up religious hatred if he intends to stir up hatred against a religion, religious belief or religious practice but does not also intend to stir up hatred against a group of persons”. This looks to me like a major loophole in the legislation which will work to the advantage of the far Right.

The BNP’s anti-Muslim hate propaganda is always carefully crafted so it is formally directed against Islam as a religion rather than against Muslims as people. The defence that BNP führer Nick Griffin used at Leeds Crown Court this week was that, while he stood by the speech in which he denounced Islam as a “vicious, wicked faith”, he denied that his views were an attack on the adherents of that faith. “There’s a huge difference”, he stated piously, “between criticising a religion and saying this is an attack on the people who follow it. When I criticise Islam, I criticise that religion and the culture it sets up, certainly not Muslims as a group and most definitely not Asians.” (Guardian, 26 January 2006.)

The argument that you can incite hatred against a particular faith without also inciting hatred against the people who practise it is of course entirely bogus (see for example Osama Saeed’s comments), but the government is proposing to insert a clause into the Bill that gives credibility to Griffin’s position. Someone needs to get onto this quick. The Commons debate is scheduled for next Tuesday.

White supremacists arrested with petrol bombs

CronullaFive white supremacists have been arrested carrying material to build petrol bombs, enabling police to claim they were vindicated after locking down more than 200km of beaches to prevent a repeat of Sydney’s ugly race riots.

The men, dressed in camouflage gear, were caught yesterday in the southern suburb of Brighton-le-Sands carrying equipment to make Molotov cocktails including 25l jerry cans filled with petrol, as well as commando-style utility belts and Kevlar helmets.

The lockdown occurred on a perfect summer weekend when many Sydneysiders were winding down ahead of Christmas and forced Premier Morris Iemma to deny the gangs had won the battle. Police officers also found car stickers promoting the white supremacist movement in the men’s car.

The Australian, 19 December 2005


Meanwhile, in today’s Observer, Australian novelist Gabrielle Carey explains: “The war is essentially between one group of macho men and another. The hatred and bigotry shown by the blond Cronulla boys is equalled by that demonstrated by their enemies, ‘the Lebs’.”

Mockbul Ali exposé – a damp squib

Martin Bright (1)Rumours have circulated for some time that journalist Martin Bright was researching an exposé of Mockbul Ali, the foreign office’s adviser on Muslim Affairs. Ali’s sin was to have prepared an accurate briefing on Yusuf al-Qaradawi, which underlined the latter’s role as a force of moderation in the Muslim world – see (pdf) here. Clearly, from Bright’s perspective – he was the author of the Observer article boosting Panorama’s witch-hunt of the MCB – Ali was someone who needed to be discredited.

This week’s New Statesman (5 December 2005) contains the results of Bright’s labours – and a pretty damp squib it turns out to be. Ali’s unit at the foreign office apparently co-authored a PowerPoint presentation in which the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami were described (entirely accurately) as “reformist” organisations. We are also informed that “Louise Ellman, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, has told the NS she intends to investigate Ali’s role in drawing up government policy towards British Muslims”.

Yes, well you can see why Ellman might not be too happy about Ali’s role. It was she who headed the witch-hunt of Dr al-Qaradawi during his visit to London in July 2004 and called on the home secretary to ban him. In 2003 she took advantage of parliamentary privilege (see here) to attack MAB:

“It is time that the spotlight fell on the Muslim Association of Britain, particularly the key figures, such as Azzam Tamimi, Kamal el Helbawy, Anas Al-Tikriti and Mohammed Sawalha. All of them are connected to the terrorist organisation Hamas. The Muslim Association of Britain itself is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – an extremist fundamentalist organisation founded in Egypt in 1928, and the spiritual ideologue of all Islamic terror organisations. It is militantly anti-Semitic and always has been.”

Yup, that’s the same Anas Altikriti who’s currently in Iraq on behalf of MAB fighting for the release of hostages held by terrorists.

For Yusuf Smith’s comments on the NS piece, see Indigo Jo Blogs, 5 December 2005

For Osama Saeed’s comments, see Rolled Up Trousers, 6 December 2005

Ayaan Hirsi Ali gets a boost from the Guardian

“Ayaan Hirsi Ali is much more than just a voice for the voiceless oppressed. In person, she is a thoughtful, calm, clear, almost pedantic spokeswoman for the fundamental liberal values of the Enlightenment: individual rights, free speech, equality before the law.”

Timothy Garton Ash boosts the right-wing Dutch MP, friend of the late racist film-maker Theo van Gogh, a woman who is on record as saying that “immigrants from rural areas, most of them, are at a certain phase of civilization that is far behind that of the host countries, like the Netherlands”.

Guardian, 1 December 2005

Garton Ash may regard this as defending Enlightenment values. Others would see it as playing into the hands of the far Right.

An article in the Nation last June featured some harsh words about Ayaan Hirsi Ali from actual representatives of the oppressed.


From The Nation, 27 June 2005:

Hirsi Ali’s many critics contend that far from being a revolutionary, she brings a message that the West is all too willing to hear. They say that in calling for European governments to protect Muslim women from Muslim men, she and her admirers recycle the same Orientalist tropes that the West has used since colonial times as an excuse to control and subjugate Muslims. “White men saving black women from black men – it’s a very old fantasy that is always popular,” Annelies Moors, a University of Amsterdam anthropologist who writes about Islamic gender relations, said dryly. “But I don’t think male violence against women, a phenomenon known to every society in history, can be explained by a few Koranic verses.”…

Karima Belhaj is the director of the largest women’s shelter in Amsterdam. She’s also one of the organizers of the “Stop the Witchhunt!” campaign against what she sees as anti-Muslim hysteria. On the day we talked, she was despondent. Arsonists had set fire for the second time to an Islamic school in the town of Uden. A few days later a regional police unit warned that the rise of right-wing Dutch youth gangs potentially presents a more dangerous threat to the country than Islamist terrorism. “The rise of Islamism is not the problem,” Belhaj said. “The problem is that hatred against Arabs and Muslims is shown in this country without any shame.” With her message that Muslim women must give up their faith and their families if they want to be liberated, Hirsi Ali is actually driving women into the arms of the fundamentalists, said Belhaj: “She attacks their values, so they are wearing more and more veils. It frightens me. I’m losing my country. I’m losing my people.”

If Belhaj was sad, another “Stop the Witchhunt!” organizer was angry. Like Belhaj, Miriyam Aouragh is a second-generation immigrant of Moroccan background. A self-described peace and women’s activist, Aouragh was the first in her family to attend university. She’s now studying for a PhD in anthropology. She scoffs at the idea that Hirsi Ali is a champion of oppressed Muslim women. “She’s nothing but an Uncle Tom,” Aouragh said. “She has never fought for the oppressed. In fact, she’s done the opposite. She uses these problems as a cover to attack Islam. She insults me and she makes my life as a feminist ten times harder because she forces me to be associated with anti-Muslim attacks.”

Aouragh accuses Hirsi Ali and her political allies of deliberately fostering the hostility that has led to the attacks on Islamic institutions and to police brutality against young Muslim men. “I’m surprised the Arab-Muslim community isn’t more angry with her,” Aouragh said. “When she talks about Muslims as violent people, and Muslim men as rapists, this is very insulting. She calls the Prophet a pedophile. Theo van Gogh called the Prophet a pimp, a goat-fucker. Well, no, we don’t accept that.”

Although the press has focused on the threats against critics of Islam like Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders, Aouragh says that there have been many more attacks on Dutch Muslims than on non-Muslims. She suspects that what the Dutch really fear is not Islamic fundamentalism but the prospect of having to deal with a new generation of highly educated young Muslims who demand a fair hearing for their values. “We are telling them, ‘We have rights, too. You have to change your idea about freedom or face the consequences.'”

Ian Paisley ‘meek and mild’ – shock revelation

We shouldn’t rewrite the classics to appease religious belief but changing texts is not always wrong.” Stephanie Merritt on the (apparently false) story that the Bristol Old Vic production of Marlowe’s “Tamburlaine the Great” changed the text in order to avoid offending Muslims.

While the article is quite balanced in its treatment of that particular issue, you can’t but be struck by the casually bigoted attitude towards the religious beliefs of minority communities. Thus we are told, yet again, that the extension of the racial hatred laws to cover incitement to religious hatred should be opposed because “belief is a choice, ethnicity is not”. Yeah sure – Muslims don’t need protection against the hate-propaganda of the BNP because they can avoid it by the simple expedient of changing their religion or embracing atheism.

And then we are warned that “an increasing number of religious groups – even meek and mild Christians – now include rogue elements who feel their freely chosen beliefs are not robust enough to withstand criticism or mockery and must be defended by threatening or violent means”.

So, unlike the aggressive religions of minority communities, Christianity is the province of the “meek and mild”. This would be the faith that features George W. Bush and Ian Paisley among its adherents, would it?

Observer, 27 November 2005

Why are people so obsessed with women in veils?

“The Observer had a story on the front page of its review section last Sunday on niqab, the face veil worn by some Muslim women. ‘The Big Cover-Up’ fails to ask the obvious question of why people can’t mind their own business – after all, given what some women (and some men) don’t wear, one might ask why it matters why some women choose to cover their faces as well. The thing nobody seems to mention is that of all the problems some Muslims cause, none of them seem to come from women, and none of them are the result of women covering their heads or faces, so why is anyone bothered? … Why are people so obsessed with women in veils?”

A succinct reply to Andrew Anthony from Yusuf Smith.

Indigo Jo Blogs, 23 November 2005