Is Osama right?
Now that the government has made it a priority to introduce the law against incitement to religious hatred, the time has come to consider whether Osama Bin Laden is right.
I don’t mean right in a blowback, arab-streety kind of way. I mean specifically and exactly right. I mean that his policies and actions, and those inspired by him, correctly interpret the will of God in every particular and that we should not only change our attitudes to 9/11 but fervently hope for another revelation of a similar kind.
And in the light of the proposed legislation, I believe that we are not only morally bidden to consider whether Osama bin Laden was right, but also legally obliged to do so.
The main plank of the forthcoming law mandates impartial respect for religious faith. This is not just confined to the actual practices of faith, though these too are included. To the extent that killing 3000-odd people on 9/11 or sawing someone’s head off and slapping the video on the internet is motivated by sincere religious beliefs, then we must respect these practices on those grounds. They kill thousands, but their hearts are pure. And, after all, they may be right. To assume that they are wrong is to treat faith with contempt, and a public expression of contempt is evidence that the bearer of it has hatred in his heart.
There is no distinction in the new law between religion and what it is that religion inspires believers to do. Though these things might shock those of us unable to comprehend the will of God, we must acknowledge that they are a genuine attempt to enlighten us and further our understanding of God’s will.
It follows that we’re also legally obliged to acknowledge and respect the basis of religious faith. And all the Abrahamic faiths have in common the notion of Godly omniscience. God cannot be understood in the sense that he can be encompassed and the whole of his design mapped out, or condemned as some bronze age bollocks we should all have outgrown by now. Instead, God sends us messages which enable us to interpret his will. We cannot be absolutely sure that God wants us to punish infidels with death. In fact, it goes against the whole grain of human morality and much of this morality is encoded in religious doctrine. But we also cannot be absolutely sure that he does not want us to kill unbelievers. Historical precedent shows that from time to time, the Lord says we must kill and since we have to accept the notion that God is omniscient we must acknowledge that his will transcends the everyday rules which allow us, in our ignorance, to rub along together.
A counter-argument would be that the new law specifically outlaws hatred against religion, not lesser manifestations of disrespect. But for those of us who disrespect the basis of religious belief, this is a distinction without a difference. In practice it is going to be very hard for a court to determine the difference between contempt, scepticism, derision, exasperation, condemnation, rudeness and hatred. All can be aspects of or flow into one another. The only practical way to prevent hatred is to force respect on unbelievers.
So we must abandon our workaday concepts of right and wrong in the face of revelations we cannot fully understand, but only interpret and obey. We must be especially careful that they do not lead us into the error of condemning something that seems like an outrage to mere human moral sensibilities. We have to acknowledge that this could be the great plan unfolding.
Of course, other dogmas might dispute the truth found in Bin-Ladenism, and we must acknowledge that they, too may be correct. After all, it’s impossible to decide the truth of what is found in any holy book in terms of what is found in another. In religious morality, the dream of post-modernism is finally realised. Conversely, it’s impossible to believe in secular morality without hating some manifestations of sincere religious belief, and as I’ve said, there’s nothing in the new law which draws any distinction between the practice and the foundation of faith. Hatred of what Osama did and what is done in his name therefore amounts to hatred of his faith.
In practice the new law will probably be unworkable, the courts jammed with various dervishes waving holy books and yelling imprecations at each other. It may be a lot of fun. But don’t laugh too openly.
Hmmm… if you condemn Osama’s beliefs, you could be in breach of Labour’s proposed law against religious hatred; and if you praise Osama’s beliefs, you could be in breach of Labour’s proposed law against giving verbal support to terrorism. There’s gotta be space there to make Labour’s illiberal anti free speech legislation look ridiculous.
I’m almost hoping the shits will pass this law, then I can implement Plan Torquemada
Isn’t religion brilliant!!!
Here we go again…
Banning criticism of religion is not what this law is about at all. It is about clearing up loopholes in the law where shits like Nick Griffin, Will Cummins et al. can claim things like “all muslims are terrorists/rapeists, therefore we must do this and that against them” not “I dont like your specific religious interpretation because…”. The former is inciting people to take action/hate someone on the back of a generalising, discriminatory statement. The other is a criticism of religion. Please see The Runnymede’s Trusts concept of closed and open views of Islam to see what I mean.
There is and has been a specific problem where Muslims, under British law, feel disadvantaged as protection is only given to monoethnic religious groups such as the Jewish and Sikh community, afforded them in the Race Relations Act, and not multi-ethnic groups such as Islam. In these days of Islamophobia a law which helps the police stop tossers like the BNP from taking action against groups which they dont like will make this country just the little bit better.
Here we go again…
It doesn’t matter what the intention of the law is. It only matters what it is actually used for. The first set of cases might be against radical Muslim clerics, but pretty soon, Christian Voice and other fundamentalist whackjobs will be hauling people up in front of a judge for looking at them funny. Magistrates may take a dim view of that, but it’s going to really bloody annoying every time a writer gets hauled into the dock to defend his play on the grounds of freedom of speech, isn’t it? It might even (horrors!) disincentivise people from bothering to write controversial works in the first place.
Mr Deans seems to miss the point that anyone who says “all muslims are terrorists/rapeists” is defining himself to be a fool/madman/evil sod. That self-definition is handy for the rest of us: we don’t even have to see whether he wears hoody and baseball cap – we know immediately that we can discount everything else that he says.
From the excellent Future Dictionary of America from the superlative McSweeneys:
“secularity blanket [sek•yoo•layr’•ihtee blan-ket]
n. 1. a small blanket or other soft cloth, often embroidered with the likeness of Noam Chomsky, clutched by an atheist or agnostic person who has failed to register according to the American Religious Resurrection Act of 2012. 2. anything that gives a person a feeling of safety or freedom from fundamentalist or absolutist oppression. â€â€GARY SHTEYNGART”
Forward. Not back.
Don’t be afraid. (kudos)
Andrew: Yeah and all those cases will be thrown out. As I said, banning people from disagreeing with religious doctrine is not what this law is about at all.
dearieme: We may all sit here and think that these guys are mad and “evil sods”, but some people, including many in the community from where i grew up, think that they speak the truth. The popularity of Robert Kilroy-Silk is a case in point. There needs to be legal protection for when such people start popularizing the notion that the Muslim community should be censured for these perceived transgressions.
This law is really important and it needs to get through. People need to get over the idea that it will stop people from impersonating priests or anything as rediculous as that…
Mr Deans: OK, you want a censorship law. What are your general rules on what should be censored and who should decide? Suppose I say (truly) that one of my family gave up church (R.C.) because he was fed up with the collections being made for the IRA. Should I then be a criminal? Should he be? If not, why not?
“Banning criticism of religion is not what this law is about at all. It is about clearing up loopholes in the law where shits like Nick Griffin, Will Cummins et al. can claim things like “all muslims are terrorists/rapeists, therefore we must do this and that against themâ€Â
No it isn’t. That point could be adequately covered by extending the incitement to race hatred law to cover anti-religous language as racism by proxy, as I believe the Lib Dems proposed. This law is a panic measure to limit the damage caused by Muslim votes moving away from Labour over Iraq and it will give every nutter with a hotline to God a license to try and impose their dogma on others. This is what I was trying to point out in the article.
dearime: we already have “censorship” laws. They are called the Race Relations Act & the Public Order Act. And no, you shouldn’t be a criminal. In your actions are you suggesting that Catholics in northern ireland should be kneecapped? I wouldn’t think what you are suggesting would come under the framework.
Blood&Treasure: How could that possibly be different what the government are proposing in this bill? IMO this is a matter of technicality. You also have a problem there of defining what racism is: is it still racism whether a specific “race” is not discriminated against?
The proposed law is also not a panic measure – it is something which has been requested by Muslim organisations for many years, almost since the whole Satanic Versus business in 1991. The Government has been talking about this law change for a couple of years now.
If the law comes out as the Home Office promises it will, then it will have none of the consequences that you suggest it will. It does not legislate for impartial adherence to religious faith. According to the Government, the legislation will not ban “criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers; for example by claiming that they are false or harmful”.
In the case of Osama bin Laden, you will be free to suggest that his interpretation of Islam is wrong and harmful. But it is a significant discursive jump to then claim that (and I’m not trying to say that you are suggesting this), because of Osama bin Laden, all Muslims are guilty of his transgressions and should be punished/isolated as a result. That is what this legislation is trying to deal with.
David: The cases can’t be thrown out without incurring some cost, either directly in financial terms, or actually in terms of dragging innocent people to court to hear the cases get thrown out. That is just annoying, and it will have unintended consequences.
Incitement to violence I can see, but incitement to hatred a crime? It’s that law that needs repealing as well.
You can’t legislate two people to like each other.
Andrew: Those innocent people, if the law system has any sense, will be awarded their legal costs. Just because some idiots will attempt to use a law to their own advantage doesn’t mean that an otherwise good law, in my opinion anyway, should be repealed.
Rob Read: Its not about getting two people to like each other. We’re talking about groups – or perjorative statements made about a group of people with reference to a percieved behaviour that they have, with the intention that that group should be stigamtized/treated badly on that basis. Currently, if someone says that he should hate all black people on the basis on supposed criminal behaviour, then black groups may have reprise in law. If the same thing is said about Muslims, there is no legal route to take. This is what the law is trying to address.
NB private prosecutions won’t be possible under the draft law, so there’s no prospect of Christian Voice dragging anyone in front of a beak.
Just because some idiots will attempt to use a law to their own advantage doesn’t mean that an otherwise good law, in my opinion anyway, should be repealed.
It’s not a good law. And it hasn’t been passed, so no need to repeal it. There is no problem with the status quo that this law will fix, that could not be fixed by minor re-wording of existing legislation.
Those innocent people, if the law system has any sense, will be awarded their legal costs.
Sure, but that doesn’t cover the hassle of being away from real life or the stigma attached to being brought in front of a court. It also doesn’t cover all the things that would otherwise have been said or done if the law were not in place. What price Bezhti? What price Jerry Springer: The Opera?
Andrew: Yes there is a problem with the status quo, and this is the problem that it will fix.
And as I said, the law will not ban stuff like Bezhti or Jerry Springer, it is not a blasphemy law, only idiots who wish to cause civil strife by claiming that so and so groups rape/pillage/murder/sleep with kids and so should be censured…
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this…
No, the law will not ban those things. I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that artists will be more cautious about writing such works in a climate of fear created by excessive censorship. It is a powerful disincentive – this is very simple economics – if you raise the costs of something, you get less of it.
Yes there is a problem with the status quo, and this is the problem that it will fix.
Not a problem so great that it can’t be fixed with a clarification of existing race relations legislation.
But if the aggrevied cant bring a civil charge, then what do artists have to fear?
We are beginning to see the magnitude of stupidity
that adopting hate crime legislation involved.
The overwhelming majority of the public were quite happy,imo, to see miscreants punished for their actions rather than any perceived motivations.
The existing legislation provided for this.
Now we see tailor made legislation which infers that a criminal activity perpetrated against an individual who is not a member of a “special interest group” is less heinous than a similar offence against a “special interest group”
member.
The religous incitement legislation is a further example of, both ,preferential treatment and
labours overt attempts to curry favour with
“special interest groups”.
So to answer the question is OBL right?
The response is no but Labour’s stupidity has made it appear so.
But if the aggrevied cant bring a civil charge, then what do artists have to fear?
Well, trivially – criminal charges. If these ‘offences’ are reported to the police, they have a duty to investigate. That process is intrusive, and in some cases, it will go to court. It only takes one case to promote a media witchhunt.
It is not the law that is the problem. It is the perception of the law. Witness the debate over the amount of violence it is allowable to dole out to someone you catch filching your DVD player.
Just a quick reminder to those who advocate any form of censorship:
Because of such “moral” shit-stirring, James Joyce’s Ulysses – one of the defining cultural artefacts of the 20th century whether you’ve read it or not (and I suggest you do) – was banned in the United States between 1920 and 1933, its publishers convicted of obscenity purely for some brief sexual sequences which by today’s standards are incredibly tame.
Because of such “moral” shit-stirring, Stanley Kubrick voluntarily withdrew A Clockwork Orange – an important if not especially good film – from the UK simply to avoid the hassle of the Mary Whitehouses of this world. It remained unavailable to UK audiences until after his death – while being freely available throughout the rest of the world and not causing any massive disintegration of society as its critics claimed it would.
Any kind of censorship, any kind of restriction to freedom of expression by definition stifles creativity. If you stifle creativity, your culture – such that remains – will begin to stagnate.
Which is hardly a good thing, I think we can all agree.
And – beyond all of that – what the hell right does the government have to tell us what we can and can’t say or think? I despise racism and bigotry – but I will always defend the right of racists and bigots to hold their stupid views. The solution is not censorship – the solution is better education.
The solution is not censorship – the solution is better education.
I’d go further. Some people will hold obnoxious views even after a lengthy period of re-education. The solution then is to allow them to proclaim their views from the rooftops. Ridicule will do the rest.
Yep – that’s pretty much my policy. Hence no real censorship over at my place – even when the BNP descend. The more they spout nonsense, the more the fact that it’s nonsense becomes obvious.
My question wasn’t answered: What are your general rules on what should be censored and who should decide? Let me give more examples. Would it be illegal to say
1) We fought the Kosovo war on behalf of a bunch of moslem terrorists?
2) We fought the Afghan war against a bunch of Islamic terrorists?
3) The 19th and 20th century formalisation of the peasant superstition of Mary-worship into the RC church was foolish, disgraceful and unchristian?
4) Archaeology suggests that much of the Old Testament is unhistorical bilge?
How about “I love Terrorism, Isn’t it great how so many Muslims are so commited to their religion, they’ll kill civilians, like it says in that great book the Koran (the one that doesn’t flush).”?
Inciting people to commit criminal offences against other people is already an offence. That is all the legal protection that any individual requires.
Until this law has been tested in the courts, nobody knows what will and what will not be banned. Given that many Muslims have cited the Satanic Verses as an example of something that would be caught under this legislation, it’s hard to see how it won’t have a chilling effect on free speech.
In Australia, there is a similar law on the statute books. A Pakistani Christian convert from Islam was successfully prosecuted for describing how Pakistani apostates from Islam could be murdered with impunity in that country. Is it your view, David, that saying something like that, which is true, but could arouse hostility to Muslims generally, should be made a criminal offence?
i am bin ladens new hit man and donnot fuck me about muslims aint terrorists or rapists white bastards are don’t you see the news everyday white people are guilty for raping
Andrew, nosemonkey, good points.
If someone like the BNP, HuT spout nonsense, you are going to have to argue against it anyway. Might as well make it legal, so we can hear it and answer it quick, than leave it to fester through rumour in a series of back rooms.