Category Archives: Religious hatred law

Atheists should welcome a law against religious hatred

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Dobbo“Do you believe that anyone should be allowed to incite hatred against other people on the grounds of their religious belief? I don’t, even though I have no religious belief myself. That’s because I believe that nobody should suffer assaults, or live in fear, because of their religious beliefs. But they do. Today. In our country.

“Mothers collecting children from school have been abused and assaulted. So have men attending their places of worship. Homes have been stoned and fire-bombed. Recently it has been Muslim mothers, Muslim men, Muslim homes. Yet at present our laws offer no special protection to Muslims against incitement to these acts, even though it provides such protection to Jews and Sikhs and some Christians.”

Frank Dobson MP in the Guardian, 18 June 2005

Sweet old lady cruelly treated by Muslims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

sweet_old_lady“Oriana Fallaci is 75 years old. The renowned Italian journalist lives in hiding because of death threats she received after the publication in 2001 of her book The Rage and the Pride. She is dying of cancer. And now she is going to go on trial for ‘defaming Islam’.”

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch joins Nick Cohen in rallying to the defence of an Italian racist who wrote (in that very same book) that Muslim immigrants had “multiplied like rats“. How could anyone consider taking legal action against such a sweet old lady?

Front Page Magazine, 14 June 2005

Predictably, Melanie Phillips lines up with Robert Spencer in condemning such attempts to “silence necessary criticism of Islam”. By allowing similar legal action under the proposed new anti-incitement law, the British state will “become the tool of clerical fascism”.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 14 June 2005

During an earlier attempt to bring a race hatred case against Fallaci in France, one of her supporters opined that “it should be the rats suing Fallaci for comparing them to Muslims” (see here).

Mad Mel defends right to religious hatred

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“So why is the government going to these extraordinary lengths? The answer is that it is trying to appease the Muslim community which has been pressing for such a law for years. Ministers are desperate to win back votes by Britain’s 1.8 million Muslims which were lost over the Iraq war, and also because they think that if they give the most extremist Muslims whatever they want this will quell Islamist rage against Britain and the west.

“That is why, in a grovelling article in Muslim News before the last election, the then energy minister Mike O’Brien boasted of all the measures the government had introduced at Muslim request, including the religious hatred law. That is why, in a pre-election letter to all mosques Home Secretary Charles Clarke apologised for the failure to get this law through Parliament and blamed it on the opposition parties. If it is now passed, it will shut down legitimate and vital debate about Islam.”

Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, 13 June 2005

You can just imagine Phillips’ response if someone published an article which accused the government of “appeasing the Jewish community”, or of giving a “grovelling” interview to the Jewish Chronicle, or of giving “the most extremist Jews whatever they want” by taking a stand against anti-semitism, and which argued for the right of racists to promote anti-Jewish propaganda on the grounds that it was necessary to encourage “legitimate and vital debate about Judaism”.

Inayat Bunglawala defends religious hatred law

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“One day in November 2001 a large group of protesters from the British National Party dressed as Crusaders and paraded outside the Houses of Parliament with placards reading ‘Get Islam Out Of Britain’. Had they been overtly targeting a racial group, they would have been breaking the law – incitement to racial hatred has been a crime since 1986. To get round the law, groups on the far Right have been cunningly reformulating their noxious rants. Instead of targeting racial groups, they target unprotected religious groups.”

Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB defends the proposed law against inciting religious hatred.

Times, 13 June 2005

NAAR replies to Toynbee

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Everyone has the right to live free from harassment and hatred. The bill to ban incitement to religious hatred should be supported.

Polly Toynbee confuses the rights to freedom of speech and artistic expression – which will remain – with a right to whip up hatred against people because of their religion, which will be made unlawful. Currently, only some religious groups, such as Jews and Sikhs, are legally protected from incitement to hatred, while Muslims are not. It is this inconsistency that the extreme right exploits.

The bill is proposing legislation similar to that which criminalised incitement to racial hatred in 1986, which has not curtailed any of the freedoms to tackle controversial issues Ms Toynbee implies. Islamophobia is not a nonsense. Recent Crown Prosecution Service figures show 50% of religiously aggravated offences were directed against Muslims. This hatred needs to be combated by the law.

Milena Buyum
National Assembly Against Racism

Guardian, 13 June 2005

MCB on Religious Hatred Bill

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“The MCB welcomes the move by Government to present the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill to Parliament. Courts have already extended such protection to Sikh and Jewish people, and it was an anomaly that other faiths too did not enjoy the same protection under the law. Rightwing groups have taken advantage of this to harass Muslims. The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has issued a news release (9th June) welcoming the Bill outlawing incitement to religious hatred and noting that this proposal is massively supported by Londoners: ‘Our polls show that 72 per cent of Londoners support new laws to outlaw incitement of hatred against people on grounds of their religion. Just 15 per cent oppose such laws’.”

Muslim Council of Britain statement, 13 June 2005

Fascist demonstrates need for new law

Posted on by Bob Pitt

In a racist diatribe based on a News of the World report of the conviction of one Dulu Miah on a manslaughter charge in Ipswich, Nick Griffin of the BNP underlines the need for a new anti-incitement law:

“Miah appears to be in the usual mould for such racist killers. Let’s say it before the new ‘law’ gags us on this as well: He’s an Asian. But he’s not a Hindu, and Hindus hardly ever attack their non-Hindu neighbours. He’s not a Sikh, and we wouldn’t expect him to be, because Sikhs hardly ever attack their non-Sikh neighbours (in fact, when it comes to violent crime, both groups seem to have a lower offending rate than the national average). No, he’s a Muslim. And why should anyone expect anything else, because the vast majority of the killers of the white victims of racist attacks in Britain are Muslims. ‘Fight those of the Unbelievers who live near to you, and show them how harsh you can be.’ (The Koran. Surah 8.123)”

BNP news article, 12 June 2005

Over 70% of Londoners back law against religious hatred

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Nearly three-quarters of the people of London support the British government’s proposals to introduce a new law to outlaw the incitement to religious incitement, according to a new poll.

The poll, carried out on behalf of the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, found that 72 per cent of Londoners support new bill, introduced for the third time by the British government on Thursday.

Only 15 per cent said that they opposed making a new law, which is aimed to protect Muslims from the abuse they have suffered since the so-called war on terrorism by extending the existing incitement to racial hatred against people to grounds of their religion.

Speaking at his weekly press conference on Thursday, Livingstone welcomed the findings, insisting that “people of all faiths are entitled to equal protection.

“Some religious groups, such as Jews and Sikhs are already protected from incitement to hatred under race relations laws, but members of other religions, such as Muslims and Christians, are not. This makes no sense at all,” he said.

“The new law will provide important protection and reassurance for Muslim and other communities that have experienced growing abuse and targeting by extremists,” said the mayor of the most diverse capital in the world.

He rejected the massive campaign being whipped up by both right wing politicians and libertarians in opposition to the proposal, insisted that the bill, “will not restrict the right of people to criticise religions in literature, art or other fields.”

The mayor said it was just the same as the outlawing of incitement to racial hatred in 1986, which “did nothing to restrict artistic freedom.”

Muslim News, 10 June 2005

A difficult question

Posted on by Bob Pitt

toynbee“Race and religion are different – which is why Islamophobia is a nonsense and religious hatred must not be outlawed.” Thus the standfirst to an article in today’s Guardian.

Now, who do you think wrote this article? Was it:

a) a Muslim of South Asian/Middle Eastern/African origin with direct experience of the association between racial and religious hatred, manifested in Islamophobia; or
b) a white secularist who has suffered none of this sort of hatred and never will?

Difficult, I know, so we have provided a picture clue.