D I S C R I M I N A T I O N    &    N A T I O N A L    S E C U R I T Y    I N I T I A T I V E    --    B L O G
  DNSI Home - http://pluralism.org/affiliates/kaur_sidhu/
  Pluralism Project - http://www.pluralism.org
  Harvard University - http://www.harvard.edu


Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Britain's Proposed Ban on Inciting Religious Hatred

Two Muslim activists are debating the merits of a proposed law in Britain that would penalize the incitement of religious hatred [previous posts here and here]. Relevant excerpts and our analysis are below.

Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim Parliament, writes in opposition to the bill:

"This piece of legislation is driven by political motives to stem the haemorrhaging of Labour support among the Muslim community." In fact, the bill is not a political tool used by the Labour party to attract the support of Muslim voters that was lost after the war in Iraq because the bill was introduced after 9/11 but before the war in Iraq was being seriously considered.

"The home office has already indicated that the burden of proof would be set so high that few prosecutions are expected." Surely a "few" prosecutions would be preferable to none. That is, society would be better off if a few people were punished under this act, rather than citizens being able to incite religious hatred with no consequence.

"The way forward is... to proceed with the... Liberal Democrats’ amendment. This would change the law on incitement to racial hatred to explicitly include reference to religion as a pretext for stirring up racial hatred against a racial group." Wouldn't this amendment also rely on evidence that may implicate the same speech concerns? In other words, in order to obtain evidence that religion was a pretext for religious hatred, wouldn't prosecutors require evidence of the perpetrator's speech during or immediately before the act in question, or other evidence from the person's home, such as his reading material, posts on the Internet, etc.?

Inayat Bunglawala, media secretary for the Muslim Council of Britain, argues in favour of the bill:

"Incitement to hatred of others purely because of their religion should also be regarded as a social evil whatever their religious background." True, the loophole that currently excludes Muslims should be eliminated. However, the question remains whether this particular bill is the most sensible alternative, especially considering the amendment put forth by the Liberal Democrats.

"The attorney-general Lord Goldsmith has clearly said it is “about protecting people from hatred, not faiths from criticism”. Will it not be the case, if the bill passes, that certain minority groups, particularly Muslims, will disproportionately invoke the protections of the bill - not because they are more likely the victims of such hatred, but because they ill be more sensitive to this hatred given that this bill is, in reality, meant for their benefit? In other words, while the bill protects people, perhaps people of certain faiths will unnecessarily invoke its protections, thus leading to the actual scenario that the bill protects certain faiths.

DNSI     direct link     0 comments   Email post: 



0 Comments:
Post a Comment

<< Home



About DNSI

The Discrimination & National Security Initiative (DNSI) is a research entity that examines the mistreatment of minority communities during times of military action or national crisis.

More Info:
DNSI Home Page




The Blog

Why a Blog?
The purpose of this web-log is to offer news and commentary in a fluid, dynamic format while our more substantive reports are forthcoming.

Recent Posts
SCOTUS - Ten Commandments Decisions
"Muslim man sues Department of Homeland Security"
"Report details secret detentions of US-based Musl...
Action Alert from United Sikhs on Right to Turban ...
"Illinois governor signs hate crime bills"
"Burning Of Koran Investigated As Hate Crime"
"Respect Difference"
NAPALC Issues Action Alert on Hate Crimes Legislat...
Million Muslim March?
Comments Enabled

Archives
04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007
07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008
02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008
03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008
05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008
06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008
07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008
09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008
10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008
11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008
12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009
01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009


Etc...

Religious Diversity News-Pluralism Project









Blogroll
Into the Whirlwind
Human Rights in India
IntentBlog
Ethnic Confusion Britain
MrSikhNet
Anil Kalhan
Islamicate
Ultrabrown
Sepia Mutiny

Feeds, etc.











(c) 2005 Discrimination & National Security Initiative 1531 Cambridge Street Cambridge, MA 02138