spiked-liberties

Following my experience of seeing the outline of what some religious groups in Britain would like to do with laws attempting to oulaw religious hatred (ie use them as ways to stifle criticism and debate they don't like), I was interested to see this article by an Ozzie muslim who has chaged his mind in the light of experience of such laws, about the advisability of having them. "when religious communities sue their critics, preferring the force of the law over the force of argument, it bolsters the view that the criticisms were valid. The only way to deal with extremism is to confront and expose the ideas that underpin it. This can only be achieved if those ideas can be expressed, and then exposed, in the public domain."
It is pretty much articulating my fear about the way that the British equivalent being debated might work in practice. As Mr Butler says in his article;
"Two years later, it's a strange kind of tolerance when Muslims are suing Christians, witches are suing the Salvation Army, acolytes of Aleister Crowley are suing child psychologists, and faith communities are playing an obscene game of 'gotcha'."
And he notes, "While the UK considers the passage of such laws, Australian states cannot drop the issue fast enough." And quotes favourably an Ozzie politician's comment, "[These] laws can undermine the very freedom they seek to protect - freedom of thought, conscience and belief.".
And I think that there is enough truth in the following statement to caule serious concern since the UK proposed legislation actually includes philosophies of life as protected alongside more conventional religions.
"it is not inconceivable that, with a few constitutional adjustments, even the British National Party in the UK might morph into a 'religion' of sorts, thereby entitled to protection under the religious hatred law."
spiked-liberties | Article |: