Should religious texts be exempted from hate crime speech?

oceanclub

Case in the UK based on recent legislation ("Equality Act 2010", “incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/death-penalty-for-gays--five-accused-over-leaflet-campaign-6287781.html

The jury was yesterday warned not to treat the case as one of the right to religious freedom of expression but as a deliberate attempt to incite hostility.

Prosecutor Bobbie Cheema exhibited three leaflets some containing excerpts from the Koran, which she said were "threatening, offensive, frightening and nasty". The first, "The Death Penalty?", suggested three ways to murder homosexuals. It was handed out in July last year around the Jamia Mosque in Derby in the run up to a Gay Pride march.

A second, "Turn or Burn", which had earlier been put through neighbourhood letterboxes, depicted images of a burning lake of fire and an image of Hell. A third, also delivered to homes, used the word "GAY" – used as an acronym for God Abhors You.

In evidence one man who received the "Turn or Burn" leaflet said it made him feel as if he might be attacked in his own home because he was gay. Another said he feared his house would be firebombed.

The relevant legislation here:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/23/law-against-homophobic-hatred-comes-into-effect/

A new law criminalising stirring up homophobic hatred comes into effect today.

The law, which covers England and Wales, will punish offenders with up to seven years in jail or a fine. It brings protections for gay people in line with laws against racial and religious hatred.

If someone simply posted a relevant extract from the Quran or hadith thru the letterbox of a gay person, it seems to be this would be sufficient to convict under a incitement to violence/threat.

P.

vader65

I think it should depend on the context in which it is used, whilst the piece of text itself may be hate filled and inflammatory it should depend on whether it was being used in this way or whether it was being used (somehow) to prove a different point and not to incite hate or violence.

oceanclub

vader65 wrote: »

I think it should depend on the context in which it is used, whilst the piece of text itself may be hate filled and inflammatory it should depend on whether it was being used in this way or whether it was being used (somehow) to prove a different point and not to incite hate or violence.

But what if the piece is innately hate-filled, as is presumably the case with a piece which specifically orders gays to be put to death (not merely saying that, say, homosexuality is a sin or a disorder, but specifically inciting violence).

P.

vader65

Good point, if you do treat it as hate speech though how to do prosecute it without opening up a vat of worms and hear cries of religious persecution etc.

Dont get me wrong im an atheist and would prefer if non of these archaic texts existed to cause such difficulty in the world, but they do they have to be accommodated or goverend in such a way as to not allow them to dictate policy but at the same time not be seen to be discriminating against said texts.

Thankfully, that isn't my job

Hobbes

oceanclub wrote: »

If someone simply posted a relevant extract from the Quran or hadith thru the letterbox of a gay person, it seems to be this would be sufficient to convict under a incitement to violence/threat.

The leaflets posted were hardly tame.

I can easily name a handful of religions where I am going to hell in. But it doesn't bother me. Now if I got the sort of leaflets these 5 guys were posting I would certainly show it to the police.

Jaafa

It's sad to see this. Men who think themselves worthy enough to judge others and even condemn them to death. Who do you they think they are? If they were real Muslims they'd leave the judging to Allah on Judgement day, instead of spread hate and tarnishing Islam with their misconceptions.

Killer Pigeon

Personally, I think that freedom of speech should be total and absolute. Nobody should be denied the right to free speech, even if why they preach is abhorrent or advocates the breaching of human rights.

Why? Well it's simple really. Ideas must be put into the public domain where they will be debated and scrutinized. Here, reason and logic will prevail against that which is illogical and unreasonable. People will have a greater freedom to learn for themselves why certain ideas are bad and certain are good.

If certain ideas are subjugated and censored by the state, these ideas will still flourish in the underground. There will be an air of novelty and taboo associated with them; more times than not, these sort of things attracted a more impressionable and naive audience. People will still subscribe to these ideas, with or without censorship.

We see this with neo-Nazism. Their ideas are censored in many states, yet they still develop a sizable following. Their followers go out and beat/kill foreigners/non-whites and gay people. People shouldn't be afraid to stand up and fight their ideas in public, they shouldn't have to rely on the state to censor them.

I say all of this and I'm gay and an atheist myself.

dahamsta

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Personally, I think that freedom of speech should be total and absolute.

You won't have any objection to people posting your name, address, telephone number and other personal details then?

Absolute is absolute, there's no going back.

Killer Pigeon

dahamsta wrote: »

You won't have any objection to people posting your name, address, telephone number and other personal details then?

Absolute is absolute, there's no going back.

Well no, maybe not that far. The right to freedom of speech is limited to the right to privacy.

MrPudding

oceanclub wrote: »

If someone simply posted a relevant extract from the Quran or hadith thru the letterbox of a gay person, it seems to be this would be sufficient to convict under a incitement to violence/threat.

P.

I hate to be pedantic but, it seems that this is enough to charge and prosecute. It remains to be seen whether or not it is enough to convict.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Well no, maybe not that far. The right to freedom of speech is limited to the right to privacy.

Ok. How about shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre?

MrP

oceanclub

Just to add they have been found guilty:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16153305

Ihjaz Ali, Kabir Ahmed and Razwan Javed handed out the pamphlet, called The Death Penalty?, which showed an image of a mannequin hanging from a noose and quoted Islamic texts that said capital punishment was the only way to rid society of homosexuality.

P.

fedor.2.

oceanclub wrote: »

Just to add they have been found guilty:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16153305



P.

Excellent