From Seattle writer and consultant Matt Rosenberg...

« Iguana Farming, Global Branding Trump Iguana Tax for Boca Grande | Main | Rosenblog Opinion Review, Vol. 14 »

Is England's "Hate Speech" Bill Censorship?

January 30, 2006

Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, writers, actors and Christians are uniting against a Labour Party-backed bill up for debate and a likely vote in the British parliament tomorrow, which would clamp down on speech critical of religions. The Guardian reports:

....the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill...goes before the Commons on Tuesday, (and opponents say a proposed amendment) would stifle freedom of speech....The Lords voted by a majority of 149 to narrow the government's proposed new offence of inciting religious hatred to that involving the use of threatening words or behaviour. But Labour now plans to make it an offence to incite religious hatred through the use of insulting or abusive words.

God only knows what would be deemed insulting or abusive, and how such critical language would be demonstrated to have incited religious hatred. People laughing, maybe? Comedian Rowan Atkinson has been leading the crusade to preserve the right to criticize absurdities and extremism put forth under cover of religion.

The comedian Rowan Atkinson today urged the government to compromise on its controversial religious hatred bill and to accept changes made by peers that strengthen the rights of performers to criticise religion. The comedian, famous for his roles as Mr. Bean and Blackadder, expressed his frustration at the government for refusing to so far back down on what he called a "chilling" threat to free speech.

At a cross-party meeting urging MPs to support the lords' amendments, Mr Atkinson called on ministers to cut themselves free from their "Thunderbirds puppet strings," being pulled, he said, by factions within the Muslim community.

The full text of his speech to lawmakers today is here. Atkinson observed:

All religions deserve equal freedom of worship and practice but none deserve the right to freedom from criticism. It is absolutely right and reasonable that religions should be protected from threatening language, behaviour and written material but I support the amendment to retain the right to abuse and insult, because of the essentially irrational nature of religious beliefs. That is not to dismiss them: indeed, I'm a great believer that the most important and most sustaining things in life are essentially irrational. Love, beauty, art, friendship, music, spirituality of whatever form, these things make no rational sense yet they are more important than any qualities that are rationally measurable.

Those who think that, as they lie on their deathbed, they will be able to judge the success of their lives by how big a BMW they could afford at the end of it, are in for a big surprise. However, it's their irrational nature that leaves religious beliefs wide open to interpretation, allowing occasionally practices to be established that are wholly contrary to the mores of a civilised, liberal society.

Truly. Responsible, pluralistic, tolerant Muslims should worry less about policing speech, and more about policing the apocalyptic rogues trying to hijack their religion in a bid to destroy Western civilization.

TECHNORATI TAGS:

Comments:
Post a comment









Remember personal info?