It appears we are entering days when Western Christians, like their brothers and sisters in the non-West, will increasingly find their education and employment options greatly limited purely on account of their faith. Only faith that conforms to prescribed government standards will be considered legitimate.
CASE I
On 9 July, the University of Illinois sacked Professor Kenneth Howell -- a respected teacher and Christian who holds 2 masters degrees and 2 Ph.D.s -- after he was accused of "hate speech". Professor Howell, who had been teaching at the University for nine years, offended a student from his class, "Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought".
In an e-mail to students during the spring semester, Professor Howell explained that according to Catholic doctrine, "A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong."
A student complained and the professor was sacked.
See:
Ill. prof. fired for teaching about Catholic beliefs in class on Catholicism
ADF urges restoration of Kenneth Howell’s First Amendment rights, teaching position
Alliance Defence Fund, Monday 12 July 2010
Kenneth Howell Firing Reviewed By Univerity of Illinois Faculty: Lecturer Fired for Saying Homosexual Acts are 'Morally Wrong'.
Huffington Post 15 July 2010
ADF issues deadline to reinstate Dr. Kenneth Howell
Examiner, 21 July 2010
US University bars prof for teaching RC beliefs
Christian Institute, 22 July 2010
CASE II
Meanwhile, Jennifer Keeton (24), a graduate student pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University, was being officially warned that she will be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct".
Miss Keeton, a Christian, has been ordered into a "remediation" program. She must undergo "diversity training" and "sensitization". Part of what is required of her is that she attends a Gay Pride parade and write a report on it (presumably it has to be a favourable report).
See:
Augusta State Univ. to counseling student: change your beliefs or get out
ADF attorneys file suit after university officials require counseling student to abandon her beliefs to get a degree
Alliance Defence League, 22 July 2010
Jennifer Keeton in her own words. 22 July 2010
Can a Christian Who Believes Homosexuality Is Wrong Become a Qualified Counselor?
Queerty, 24 July 2010
ASU student says gays have 'identity confusion'
By Stephanie Toone, Staff Writer Augusta Chronicle, 24 Aug 2010
Lawsuit Claims College Ordered Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed
By Joshua Rhett Miller, FoxNews, 27 July 2010
Keeton is not the first Christian student to be threatened with expulsion purely on the basis of her religious beliefs concerning homosexuality.
UPDATE:
Jennifer Keeton, Anti-Gay Counseling Student Who Refused Remedial Training, Lawsuit Dismissed
Huffington Post: Gay Voices, 27 June 2012
CASE III
On Monday 26 July 2010, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division upheld the expulsion of Christian student Julea Ward, who had been expelled from Eastern Michigan University's counselling program in March 2009 after she respectfully denied instruction to counsel a homosexual man on his homosexual relationship because she could not affirm his homosexual activity.
See:
Court Upholds Expulsion of Counseling Student Who Opposes Homosexuality
By Todd Starnes, FoxNews, 28 July 2010
EMU officials: Change your beliefs or leave the Counseling Program
YouTube interview 3 Aug 2009
EMU sued for booting student over views on gays
By Justin Miller, the Michigan Messenger, 7 April 2009
ADF to appeal ruling that allows Eastern Michigan U. to expel Christian students for holding to beliefs
University banished graduate counseling student for not affirming homosexual behavior
27 July 2010 (article contains a link to the court's decision.)
The court ruled against the plaintiff (Ward) on the grounds that the Amercian Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics requires counselors respect diversity and refrain from discrimination. Referrals cannot be made on the basis of a counsellor's values, although there is an exemption for counsellors not wishing to assist clients seeking euthanasia.
According to the ruling, the "plaintiff had violated the ACA Code of Ethics by imposing her own values on a client, which is 'inconsistent with the counseling goal of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation'." Therefore: "Dismissal from a training program is appropriate 'when those supervisees are unable to provide competent professional services'." (pages 6-8 of court decision)
The Alliance Defence Fund is appealing the ruling.
Showing posts with label hate speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hate speech. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
KENYA's churches oppose draft Constitution over concerns about abortion, 'Balkanisation' and Kadhi (Islamic) courts.
updated 1 July 2010
Constitutional Referendum
On 4 August 2010, Kenyans will vote in a referendum to accept or reject a new constitution.
After rejecting all of the 160 changes proposed by legislators, Kenya's parliament adopted the draft constitution on 1 April 2010.
On 6 May 2010, Kenya's Attorney General published the proposed draft constitution.
While no one doubts that Kenya is in need of constitutional reform, the proposed new constitution contains several highly contentious elements:
1) Abortion. The new constitution softens, and makes more ambiguous, the language on abortion such that church leaders fear it might open the door for easier abortions.
2) Majimbo (a Swahili word meaning "administrative units"). Under the new constitution there will be a devolution of power, from the centre to 47 self-governed ETHNIC counties, a process that opponents regard as nothing short of 'Balkanisation' which will lead to renewed ethnic conflict.
3) Kadhi (Islamic) Courts. The new constitution entrenches Kadhi (Islamic) courts in the constitution, giving them national jurisdiction and authority equal to the state's secular courts. Opponents fear this could lead to Kenya's secularism, and religious liberty being diminished.
Religions no longer treated equally?
Kenya's constitution used to have a clause that stated, "All religions will be treated equally". However, as noted by the East Africa Center for Law and Justice, the new harmonised draft constitution has dropped the statement. "The draft only states that 'There will be no state religion'." Furthermore, through the entrenchment of Kadhi courts, Islam is the only religion recognised in the draft constitution.
Kenyan Muslims (8 percent) have long pushed to have Kadhi courts fully entrenched in the Constitution with national rather than just local jurisdiction.
On 24 May, a three-judge bench declared the inclusion of Kadhi courts in current Constitution illegal and discriminatory. The judges, sitting as a constitutional court, said the decision to include the Kadhi courts in the country's ultimate law favoured one religion over others.
See also: Kenya's draft constitution under fire for Islamic courts
By Mike Pflanz, Christian Science Monitor, May 28, 2010
The ruling prompted church leaders to petition for a recall of parliament so Kadhi courts could be declared unconstitutional and relevant amendments could be made to the draft constitution. However, former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) chairman Ahmednassir Abdullahi charged that the court had acted outside its jurisdiction, a claim supported by Kenya's Attorney General Amos Wako. AG Wako has launched an appeal which he wants heard before the 4 August referendum. Tensions are escalating.
Grenade attack on Christian rally
On Sunday 13 June 2010, six people were killed and some 104 wounded when grenades were thrown into a massive Christian rally/crusade in Nairobi's Uhuru Park. The rally, organised by religious leaders advocating a 'NO' vote in the 4 August referendum, included evangelism, prayer for the sick, and addresses from several parliamentarians from the 'NO' camp. While the rally officially concluded at 6 pm, many believers lingered, continuing in worship and prayer.
At around 6.45pm an explosion went off at the left rear of the gathering. Assuming it was something harmless, Pastor James Ng'ang'a, who was leading prayers at the time, called on those present to gather closer to the platform. However, after bloodied victims were brought to the front for prayer, Pastor Ng'ang'a, seeing the blood and the extent of their injuries, realised that the situation was serious and instructed that the wounded be taken straight to hospital. At that moment another grenade was thrown in from the right, exploding close to the main dais, killing some, wounding many and causing a stampede that resulted in many more injuries.
No security had been provided for the event, despite the fact that church leaders had requested it. While the nearest police station was only 2 km away, the police did not arrive until Bishop Margaret Wanjiru, after waiting an hour, drove to the station and personally requested police assistance.
See: Victims Recount Moments Before Blasts Went Off
John Ngirachu, Daily Nation, 14 June 2010
Military Joins Hunt for Nairobi Park Bombers
Daily Nation, 14 June 2010
In highly provocative statements, both Professor Peter Anyang Nyong'o, the Co-convener of the YES campaign Secretariat, and Hussein Khalid, the head of Muslims For Human Rights, insinuated that elements within the NO campaign might have orchestrated the bombing in order to gain sympathy for their cause.
"Hate speech"
The YES campaign has taken to wielding "hate speech" laws against those who dare speak out against what they believe are the dangers posed by the draft constitution. This of course is one of the great problems with "hate speech" laws -- they silence criticism, thus the more objectionable something is (i.e. the more there is to criticise), the more protection it is afforded.
The National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) is investigating complaints made against the Higher Education minister William Ruto, who is spearheading the NO campaign, and five other Members of Parliament.
Mr Ruto has accused the YES team of using the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) to intimidate critics of the proposed constitution.
The NCIC wants the politicians prosecuted for "hate speech" on the grounds that they have resorted to "scaremongering" and opined that elements of the draft constitution could trigger bloodshed and evictions (on account of Balkanisation) and "religious warfare" (on account of division over kadhi courts).
The Nairobi Star reports: "Muslim leaders headed by the chairman of the Islamic Development Group Khalid Njiraini and the referendum coordinator in Lamu, Hassan Albeity, accused Ruto of creating tension and religious conflict.
"Ruto reportedly told the Kwale rally that 'to avoid serious conflict between you (Muslims) and the Christians, we must reject the proposed constitution'."
Ruto has denied that he was inciting religious groups and is refusing to apologise, saying he had merely pointed out that the division between the Muslims and Christians was unhealthy. He merely maintains that if Kadhi courts are entrenched and promoted, then divisions and tensions will inevitably escalate. For this, he is being accused of "hate speech".
See: Kenyan MPs on the spot over hate speech
By Sarah Wambui and Laban Wanambisi, 14 June 2010
Commission to probe 'No' proponents over incitement
By Beauttah Omanga, The Standard, 13 June 2010
The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (NCHR) has welcomed the arrest of three Parliamentarians accused of "hate speech" saying such action will deter incitement to violence.
On Tuesday 15 June, NCHR Chairperson Florence Jaoko commended the government for their action, saying the government should reign on hate speech to ensure sobriety and tolerance during the ongoing campaigns on the Proposed Constitution.
"Whether it is church leaders or politicians being intolerant the law must take its course."
Criticism, however, is not incitement to violence despite the fact that the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is busy working to have the United Nations recognise it as such.
See: The OIC & the UN: recasting 'defamation' of religions as incitement
WEA RLC News & Analysis, by Elizabeth Kendal, 24 Nov 2008
The fact that "NO" advocates were arrested for "hate speech" immediately after a "NO" rally was bombed, seems to suggest the government is very keen to blame the victim. This is how the OIC's anti-defamation measures work too. For the OIC the logic goes: "defamation"/criticism of Islam must be banned in order to prevent Islamic violence against Islam's critics. Similarly, Kenyan authorities are repressing criticism of the constitution supposedly in order to prevent political violence. But this is totally backward, upside down thinking, and a repressive misuse use of the law. It is undemocratic and a violation of free speech. Criticism is not incitement.
U.S. support
The YES campaign was greatly bolstered last week by the visit of US Vice President Joe Biden who publically supported the YES campaign, urging Kenyans to resist those who would use "fear" as a "tool" to perpetuate division.
He also promised Kenyans and the Kenyan government more American and foreign investment if the constitution is passed.
No wonder the government is hungry for a quick, loud, untroubled "YES".
Church rises with unpopular message
In the midst of this, the church has risen as a prophetic voice of opposition.
While the percentage of Kenyan's intending to vote YES has dropped from 64 percent to 57 percent in the past two months, only 20 percent say they will definitely vote NO, while around 19 percent are undecided.
The poll carried out between May 22 and 28 showed the NO supporters citing issues of abortion (55percent), kadhi courts (37 percent) and land (32percent) as the reasons for their stand.
The powerful, elite-driven, Muslim-backed YES camp will be furious if the constitution fails. Surveys report that many Kenyans believe that constitution must be passed if violence is to be avoided. This is a no-win situation for the Church.
The church's advocacy is taking it into the very dangerous realm of political opposition in a land with a history of political violence.
Henry Njagi, spokesman for the National Council of Churches of Kenya in Nairobi told Christian Science Monitor (CSM): "The Constitution is an important document for Kenya, but there is no reason why Kenyans should adopt a bad constitution. For Christians don't see why they should be asked to endure a constitution that is so directly against Christianity."
Mwalimu Mati, director of the Mars Group Kenya, an anticorruption watchdog that has pushed for the new constitution, is anxious. "These people are playing with fire. . . We Kenyans have short memories, we don't remember that people were killed because of the terrible effects of the stalemate of the last election, and if there is another stalemate in a future election under this current Constitution, there will be bloodshed again."
UPDATE:
Daily nation reports: On Sunday 27 June Prime Minister Raila Odinga and his wife Ida addressed the congregation at All Saints Cathedral, telling them they should vote 'Yes' for the constitution because the Bible tells them to. To this end PM Odinga quoted 2 Corinthians 1:18-20: 'But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not "Yes" and "No" . . . but in him it has always been "Yes" . . .'
When Odinga took his seat the courageous Anglican Archbishop Eliud Wabukala accused him of quoting the verse out of context. After correcting the PM's misinterpretation, the Archbishop urged the church to stay united. Kenya's Anglicans have committed themselves to pray daily concerning the constitution in the lead up to the 4 August constitutional referendum.
Constitutional Referendum
On 4 August 2010, Kenyans will vote in a referendum to accept or reject a new constitution.
After rejecting all of the 160 changes proposed by legislators, Kenya's parliament adopted the draft constitution on 1 April 2010.
On 6 May 2010, Kenya's Attorney General published the proposed draft constitution.
While no one doubts that Kenya is in need of constitutional reform, the proposed new constitution contains several highly contentious elements:
1) Abortion. The new constitution softens, and makes more ambiguous, the language on abortion such that church leaders fear it might open the door for easier abortions.
2) Majimbo (a Swahili word meaning "administrative units"). Under the new constitution there will be a devolution of power, from the centre to 47 self-governed ETHNIC counties, a process that opponents regard as nothing short of 'Balkanisation' which will lead to renewed ethnic conflict.
3) Kadhi (Islamic) Courts. The new constitution entrenches Kadhi (Islamic) courts in the constitution, giving them national jurisdiction and authority equal to the state's secular courts. Opponents fear this could lead to Kenya's secularism, and religious liberty being diminished.
Religions no longer treated equally?
Kenya's constitution used to have a clause that stated, "All religions will be treated equally". However, as noted by the East Africa Center for Law and Justice, the new harmonised draft constitution has dropped the statement. "The draft only states that 'There will be no state religion'." Furthermore, through the entrenchment of Kadhi courts, Islam is the only religion recognised in the draft constitution.
Kenyan Muslims (8 percent) have long pushed to have Kadhi courts fully entrenched in the Constitution with national rather than just local jurisdiction.
On 24 May, a three-judge bench declared the inclusion of Kadhi courts in current Constitution illegal and discriminatory. The judges, sitting as a constitutional court, said the decision to include the Kadhi courts in the country's ultimate law favoured one religion over others.
See also: Kenya's draft constitution under fire for Islamic courts
By Mike Pflanz, Christian Science Monitor, May 28, 2010
The ruling prompted church leaders to petition for a recall of parliament so Kadhi courts could be declared unconstitutional and relevant amendments could be made to the draft constitution. However, former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) chairman Ahmednassir Abdullahi charged that the court had acted outside its jurisdiction, a claim supported by Kenya's Attorney General Amos Wako. AG Wako has launched an appeal which he wants heard before the 4 August referendum. Tensions are escalating.
Grenade attack on Christian rally
On Sunday 13 June 2010, six people were killed and some 104 wounded when grenades were thrown into a massive Christian rally/crusade in Nairobi's Uhuru Park. The rally, organised by religious leaders advocating a 'NO' vote in the 4 August referendum, included evangelism, prayer for the sick, and addresses from several parliamentarians from the 'NO' camp. While the rally officially concluded at 6 pm, many believers lingered, continuing in worship and prayer.
At around 6.45pm an explosion went off at the left rear of the gathering. Assuming it was something harmless, Pastor James Ng'ang'a, who was leading prayers at the time, called on those present to gather closer to the platform. However, after bloodied victims were brought to the front for prayer, Pastor Ng'ang'a, seeing the blood and the extent of their injuries, realised that the situation was serious and instructed that the wounded be taken straight to hospital. At that moment another grenade was thrown in from the right, exploding close to the main dais, killing some, wounding many and causing a stampede that resulted in many more injuries.
No security had been provided for the event, despite the fact that church leaders had requested it. While the nearest police station was only 2 km away, the police did not arrive until Bishop Margaret Wanjiru, after waiting an hour, drove to the station and personally requested police assistance.
See: Victims Recount Moments Before Blasts Went Off
John Ngirachu, Daily Nation, 14 June 2010
Military Joins Hunt for Nairobi Park Bombers
Daily Nation, 14 June 2010
In highly provocative statements, both Professor Peter Anyang Nyong'o, the Co-convener of the YES campaign Secretariat, and Hussein Khalid, the head of Muslims For Human Rights, insinuated that elements within the NO campaign might have orchestrated the bombing in order to gain sympathy for their cause.
"Hate speech"
The YES campaign has taken to wielding "hate speech" laws against those who dare speak out against what they believe are the dangers posed by the draft constitution. This of course is one of the great problems with "hate speech" laws -- they silence criticism, thus the more objectionable something is (i.e. the more there is to criticise), the more protection it is afforded.
The National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) is investigating complaints made against the Higher Education minister William Ruto, who is spearheading the NO campaign, and five other Members of Parliament.
Mr Ruto has accused the YES team of using the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) to intimidate critics of the proposed constitution.
The NCIC wants the politicians prosecuted for "hate speech" on the grounds that they have resorted to "scaremongering" and opined that elements of the draft constitution could trigger bloodshed and evictions (on account of Balkanisation) and "religious warfare" (on account of division over kadhi courts).
The Nairobi Star reports: "Muslim leaders headed by the chairman of the Islamic Development Group Khalid Njiraini and the referendum coordinator in Lamu, Hassan Albeity, accused Ruto of creating tension and religious conflict.
"Ruto reportedly told the Kwale rally that 'to avoid serious conflict between you (Muslims) and the Christians, we must reject the proposed constitution'."
Ruto has denied that he was inciting religious groups and is refusing to apologise, saying he had merely pointed out that the division between the Muslims and Christians was unhealthy. He merely maintains that if Kadhi courts are entrenched and promoted, then divisions and tensions will inevitably escalate. For this, he is being accused of "hate speech".
See: Kenyan MPs on the spot over hate speech
By Sarah Wambui and Laban Wanambisi, 14 June 2010
Commission to probe 'No' proponents over incitement
By Beauttah Omanga, The Standard, 13 June 2010
The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (NCHR) has welcomed the arrest of three Parliamentarians accused of "hate speech" saying such action will deter incitement to violence.
On Tuesday 15 June, NCHR Chairperson Florence Jaoko commended the government for their action, saying the government should reign on hate speech to ensure sobriety and tolerance during the ongoing campaigns on the Proposed Constitution.
"Whether it is church leaders or politicians being intolerant the law must take its course."
Criticism, however, is not incitement to violence despite the fact that the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is busy working to have the United Nations recognise it as such.
See: The OIC & the UN: recasting 'defamation' of religions as incitement
WEA RLC News & Analysis, by Elizabeth Kendal, 24 Nov 2008
The fact that "NO" advocates were arrested for "hate speech" immediately after a "NO" rally was bombed, seems to suggest the government is very keen to blame the victim. This is how the OIC's anti-defamation measures work too. For the OIC the logic goes: "defamation"/criticism of Islam must be banned in order to prevent Islamic violence against Islam's critics. Similarly, Kenyan authorities are repressing criticism of the constitution supposedly in order to prevent political violence. But this is totally backward, upside down thinking, and a repressive misuse use of the law. It is undemocratic and a violation of free speech. Criticism is not incitement.
U.S. support
The YES campaign was greatly bolstered last week by the visit of US Vice President Joe Biden who publically supported the YES campaign, urging Kenyans to resist those who would use "fear" as a "tool" to perpetuate division.
He also promised Kenyans and the Kenyan government more American and foreign investment if the constitution is passed.
No wonder the government is hungry for a quick, loud, untroubled "YES".
Church rises with unpopular message
In the midst of this, the church has risen as a prophetic voice of opposition.
While the percentage of Kenyan's intending to vote YES has dropped from 64 percent to 57 percent in the past two months, only 20 percent say they will definitely vote NO, while around 19 percent are undecided.
The poll carried out between May 22 and 28 showed the NO supporters citing issues of abortion (55percent), kadhi courts (37 percent) and land (32percent) as the reasons for their stand.
The powerful, elite-driven, Muslim-backed YES camp will be furious if the constitution fails. Surveys report that many Kenyans believe that constitution must be passed if violence is to be avoided. This is a no-win situation for the Church.
The church's advocacy is taking it into the very dangerous realm of political opposition in a land with a history of political violence.
Henry Njagi, spokesman for the National Council of Churches of Kenya in Nairobi told Christian Science Monitor (CSM): "The Constitution is an important document for Kenya, but there is no reason why Kenyans should adopt a bad constitution. For Christians don't see why they should be asked to endure a constitution that is so directly against Christianity."
Mwalimu Mati, director of the Mars Group Kenya, an anticorruption watchdog that has pushed for the new constitution, is anxious. "These people are playing with fire. . . We Kenyans have short memories, we don't remember that people were killed because of the terrible effects of the stalemate of the last election, and if there is another stalemate in a future election under this current Constitution, there will be bloodshed again."
UPDATE:
Daily nation reports: On Sunday 27 June Prime Minister Raila Odinga and his wife Ida addressed the congregation at All Saints Cathedral, telling them they should vote 'Yes' for the constitution because the Bible tells them to. To this end PM Odinga quoted 2 Corinthians 1:18-20: 'But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not "Yes" and "No" . . . but in him it has always been "Yes" . . .'
When Odinga took his seat the courageous Anglican Archbishop Eliud Wabukala accused him of quoting the verse out of context. After correcting the PM's misinterpretation, the Archbishop urged the church to stay united. Kenya's Anglicans have committed themselves to pray daily concerning the constitution in the lead up to the 4 August constitutional referendum.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
UK: Religious tolerance laws will stir strife.
Date: Tuesday 15 February 2005
Subj: UK: Religious tolerance laws will stir strife.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
The British government is presently seeking to extend the existing offence of "incitement to racial hatred" to cover also "religious hatred". Having passed through the House of Commons the proposed religious hate law now proceeds to the House of Lords. A Barnabas Fund press release of 8 February calls on "the House of Lords to be firm in the face of government pressure and reject laws banning incitement to religious hatred which pose a serious danger to free speech." (Link 1)
If the House of Lords passes this religious hate law, then Britain can expect to experience the same troubles, tensions and divisions – not just between faiths but within them – that are now being experienced in Victoria, Australia, since the introduction of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. (Link 2)
----------------------------------------------
The proposed British legislation, which forms Schedule 10 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, was passed by the House of Commons on Monday 7 February by 291 votes to 191.
The government rejected calls to amend the proposed law by tightening up definitions. The only concession from the government was to change the proposed offence of causing "racial or religious hatred" to "hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds". Home Office Minister Hazel Blears said the change would help clarify the situation. She assured MPs, "This is about protecting people, not about the ability to criticise, ridicule, lampoon and have fundamental disagreements about beliefs." (Link 3)
Like the proposed British law, Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (R&RT Act) also aims to protect persons (not ideologies) and safeguard free speech. However, as the case of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) vs Daniel Scot and Catch the Fire Ministries (CTF) proved, an attack upon the the integrity and teachings of the Qur'an, or upon Islam (as a faith or as a social-political-legal system), may be deemed to be an attack upon all Muslims. And this, despite persistent calls to love Muslims, and the acknowledgment that most Muslims don't even know (let alone follow) many of the teachings of the Qur'an. What's more, defamation is not the issue here, so truth is not a defence. The only issue is whether the judge believes anyone could be incited to hate members of any racial or religious group on the basis of what you said! This is why on 17 December 2004, after two years of court procedures in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, pastors Scot and Nalliah (CTF) were convicted of religious vilification. The penalty hearing will be held on 2 May 2005. There will probably be an appeal.
The judge's decision in the Victorian case demonstrates that a judge may fail to differentiate between words, texts or behaviours that are anti-Islam or anti-Qur'an (against an ideology/religion) and those that are anti-Muslim (against the person). Or the judge may simply regard vilification of Islam AS vilification of Muslims, having no understanding of the uniquely Christian world view that demands that even if the ideology is 'hated', the adherent is to be loved .
Under the proposed British law, a person "who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusing or insulting..." whether they intend to stir up religious hatred or simply permit the "words, behaviour or material to be heard or seen by any person in whom they are likely to stir up racial or religious hatred", can be found guilty of the offence of inciting religious hatred.
Like the Victorian state government, the British government insists that free speech will be protected. However, protection cannot be guaranteed. In Victoria, the exemption that was supposed to protect the two Christian pastors – the exemption for debate held reasonably and in good faith for genuine religious purposes or in the public interest – did not protect them. The judge simply determined that the pastors had not acted reasonably or in good faith for a legitimate religious purpose or in the public interest, and were therefore not protected by Act.
The British comedian Rowan Atkinson is a vocal opponent of the proposed religious hate law. In explaining why he supported the Liberal Democrats and Labour dissidents in their objection to the law (a link to the objection can be found at Link 2), he acknowledged, "I understand what the intentions of the government are here. I know that they do not intend to militate against people like me or [author] Salman Rushdie or playwrights.
"But the only safety valve that they have put in the legislation is the fact that the attorney general will have the final say. A safety valve operated by a politician subject to the political agendas of the day is not to me a good enough safety valve," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday [7 Feb].
Mr Atkinson told the BBC that the legislation is problematic because it is "all-encompassing". "The incitement of religious hatred doesn't even have to be intended, it is just if it offends any person. It couldn't be more broad." (Link 3)
-----------------------------------------
COMMENT BY REV. DR MARK DURIE (Australia)
The Reverend Dr Mark Durie provides an analysis of the assumptions behind such vilification and religious hate laws. While this is written specifically with regard to the Victorian R&RT Act, what he says can equally be applied to the British situation.
Dr Durie writes: "The Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act reflects a world view according to which religion is an expression of cultural diversity: it is seen as an attribute of personal identity, like culture, language or social customs.
"This is an inadequate assumption for regulating religion. Different religions will and do seek radically different values, and can produce quite different kinds of societies. Such differences extend to different understandings of slavery, caste, marriage (e.g. monogamy, divorce, polygamy), the death penalty, euthanasia, the distribution of wealth, sexual politics, abortion, attitudes to truth, the nature of political representation, the whole legal system, and warfare. Treating religious beliefs as merely a matter of identity is a recipe for confusion.
"The case demonstrates that apologetic religious activity which challenges a religious belief system could be found illegal to the extent that it is judged to marginalize and diminish the dignity of those who hold such beliefs. This could be done, for example, by saying that a particular belief system is flawed and inferior to other belief systems. By means of this law, the state could end up protecting — and thus promoting — particular religious beliefs. Similar protection does not exist for most other kinds of beliefs. For example if you state that the virgin birth is ridiculous, you could be breaking the law, but if you said that the flat earth theory is laughable, you would be safe as long as no Australian religious group holds this view.
"It is a fact that the Qur'an and Hadiths contain numerous examples of shocking material, including incitements to hatred and killing. Few would dispute that this material, taken in isolation, has the potential to offend. There is no doubt that this material, because of its place within the canon of Islam, and its embedding within the exegetical and legal traditions of the shari'a, forms part of the 'attributes' of Muslim beliefs – whether or not individual Muslims are familiar with it – and thus it gains a measure of protection under the Act.
"For this reason the Act's presupposition (paragraph 4(1)a) that ignorance is the cause of religious tensions is naive. It is the knowledge, not ignorance of some religious teachings, that is more likely to create religious tension.
"The problem of an offensive canon is not unique to Islam, but it is particularly acute for Muslims: there is nothing so offensive in the life of Jesus or Buddha: a frank critique of the life of Muhammad risks illegality to a degree that a critique of the life of Jesus does not. The very nature of such material makes robust religious debate difficult in a way the Act does not anticipate. Because religions differ in the degree to which their canon contains such material, the Act causes a kind of religious discrimination."
---------------------------------------
BRITISH MUSLIMS DIVIDED
Most Muslims support the proposed religious hate law and have lobbied aggressively for it (see Barnabas Fund 8 Feb press release at Link 1). They see it primarily as a tool they can use to silence public criticism of their religion, and thus protect Islam, leaving Muslims free to propagate a more peaceful apologetic in line with their own beliefs or interests. This however, is not acceptable. Muslims must confront the problems in their Qur'an, sharia law and history.
There are other Muslims however, who are not so sure the religious hate law is a good thing. An article on the fundamentalist Khilafah.com expresses the concern, "The adoption of an 'incitement to religious hatred' law will be an attempt to muzzle Muslims from quoting the Quran, and the other sacred texts of Islam. There is no shortage of verses in the Qur'an to excite the interest of the British judiciary. The dozens of verses exhorting Jihad for starters, or perhaps the verses warning of the plans of the Jews or Christians, or which castigate the unjust!" (Link 4)
These laws do not inhibit confrontation between people. They create that! But they do inhibit confrontation with troublesome and offensive ideologies, texts and histories. The more offensive the material, the more probable it is that its exposure will be deemed vilification or incitement to hatred.
These laws open a religious and legal Pandora's Box. Is this really what the British want?
- Elizabeth Kendal
rl-research@crossnet.org.au
Links
1) BARNABAS FUND
Religious Hate Law: A threat to free speech?
http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/itrhc/about_itrhc.htm
This site contains everything you would ever need for studying or monitoring the UK's proposed religious hate law. The site contains Barnabas Fund press releases on the progress of the law, the text of the proposed religious hate law, and numerous media articles and political statements.
2) RELIGION LAW
http://www.religionlaw.co.uk
This site contains a link to the text of the UK's proposed incitement to religious hatred law, and gives some history behind the present law proposal.
This site also contains links for everything to do with the Victorian situation (click on "Australia")including links to the transcript of Daniel Scot's Seminar on the Qur'an (run by Catch the Fire Ministries in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2002); as well as the Islamic Council of Victoria's initial complaint, Catch the Fire Ministries' formal defense, the judge's decision, and various other submissions and documents.
3) Religious hatred law gets backing. BBC 7 Feb 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4242397.stm
ALSO http://www.christiantoday.com/news/soc/186.htm
4)The Qur'an to be banned in UK?
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=10645&TagID=1
Subj: UK: Religious tolerance laws will stir strife.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
The British government is presently seeking to extend the existing offence of "incitement to racial hatred" to cover also "religious hatred". Having passed through the House of Commons the proposed religious hate law now proceeds to the House of Lords. A Barnabas Fund press release of 8 February calls on "the House of Lords to be firm in the face of government pressure and reject laws banning incitement to religious hatred which pose a serious danger to free speech." (Link 1)
If the House of Lords passes this religious hate law, then Britain can expect to experience the same troubles, tensions and divisions – not just between faiths but within them – that are now being experienced in Victoria, Australia, since the introduction of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. (Link 2)
----------------------------------------------
The proposed British legislation, which forms Schedule 10 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, was passed by the House of Commons on Monday 7 February by 291 votes to 191.
The government rejected calls to amend the proposed law by tightening up definitions. The only concession from the government was to change the proposed offence of causing "racial or religious hatred" to "hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds". Home Office Minister Hazel Blears said the change would help clarify the situation. She assured MPs, "This is about protecting people, not about the ability to criticise, ridicule, lampoon and have fundamental disagreements about beliefs." (Link 3)
Like the proposed British law, Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (R&RT Act) also aims to protect persons (not ideologies) and safeguard free speech. However, as the case of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) vs Daniel Scot and Catch the Fire Ministries (CTF) proved, an attack upon the the integrity and teachings of the Qur'an, or upon Islam (as a faith or as a social-political-legal system), may be deemed to be an attack upon all Muslims. And this, despite persistent calls to love Muslims, and the acknowledgment that most Muslims don't even know (let alone follow) many of the teachings of the Qur'an. What's more, defamation is not the issue here, so truth is not a defence. The only issue is whether the judge believes anyone could be incited to hate members of any racial or religious group on the basis of what you said! This is why on 17 December 2004, after two years of court procedures in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, pastors Scot and Nalliah (CTF) were convicted of religious vilification. The penalty hearing will be held on 2 May 2005. There will probably be an appeal.
The judge's decision in the Victorian case demonstrates that a judge may fail to differentiate between words, texts or behaviours that are anti-Islam or anti-Qur'an (against an ideology/religion) and those that are anti-Muslim (against the person). Or the judge may simply regard vilification of Islam AS vilification of Muslims, having no understanding of the uniquely Christian world view that demands that even if the ideology is 'hated', the adherent is to be loved .
Under the proposed British law, a person "who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusing or insulting..." whether they intend to stir up religious hatred or simply permit the "words, behaviour or material to be heard or seen by any person in whom they are likely to stir up racial or religious hatred", can be found guilty of the offence of inciting religious hatred.
Like the Victorian state government, the British government insists that free speech will be protected. However, protection cannot be guaranteed. In Victoria, the exemption that was supposed to protect the two Christian pastors – the exemption for debate held reasonably and in good faith for genuine religious purposes or in the public interest – did not protect them. The judge simply determined that the pastors had not acted reasonably or in good faith for a legitimate religious purpose or in the public interest, and were therefore not protected by Act.
The British comedian Rowan Atkinson is a vocal opponent of the proposed religious hate law. In explaining why he supported the Liberal Democrats and Labour dissidents in their objection to the law (a link to the objection can be found at Link 2), he acknowledged, "I understand what the intentions of the government are here. I know that they do not intend to militate against people like me or [author] Salman Rushdie or playwrights.
"But the only safety valve that they have put in the legislation is the fact that the attorney general will have the final say. A safety valve operated by a politician subject to the political agendas of the day is not to me a good enough safety valve," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday [7 Feb].
Mr Atkinson told the BBC that the legislation is problematic because it is "all-encompassing". "The incitement of religious hatred doesn't even have to be intended, it is just if it offends any person. It couldn't be more broad." (Link 3)
-----------------------------------------
COMMENT BY REV. DR MARK DURIE (Australia)
The Reverend Dr Mark Durie provides an analysis of the assumptions behind such vilification and religious hate laws. While this is written specifically with regard to the Victorian R&RT Act, what he says can equally be applied to the British situation.
Dr Durie writes: "The Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act reflects a world view according to which religion is an expression of cultural diversity: it is seen as an attribute of personal identity, like culture, language or social customs.
"This is an inadequate assumption for regulating religion. Different religions will and do seek radically different values, and can produce quite different kinds of societies. Such differences extend to different understandings of slavery, caste, marriage (e.g. monogamy, divorce, polygamy), the death penalty, euthanasia, the distribution of wealth, sexual politics, abortion, attitudes to truth, the nature of political representation, the whole legal system, and warfare. Treating religious beliefs as merely a matter of identity is a recipe for confusion.
"The case demonstrates that apologetic religious activity which challenges a religious belief system could be found illegal to the extent that it is judged to marginalize and diminish the dignity of those who hold such beliefs. This could be done, for example, by saying that a particular belief system is flawed and inferior to other belief systems. By means of this law, the state could end up protecting — and thus promoting — particular religious beliefs. Similar protection does not exist for most other kinds of beliefs. For example if you state that the virgin birth is ridiculous, you could be breaking the law, but if you said that the flat earth theory is laughable, you would be safe as long as no Australian religious group holds this view.
"It is a fact that the Qur'an and Hadiths contain numerous examples of shocking material, including incitements to hatred and killing. Few would dispute that this material, taken in isolation, has the potential to offend. There is no doubt that this material, because of its place within the canon of Islam, and its embedding within the exegetical and legal traditions of the shari'a, forms part of the 'attributes' of Muslim beliefs – whether or not individual Muslims are familiar with it – and thus it gains a measure of protection under the Act.
"For this reason the Act's presupposition (paragraph 4(1)a) that ignorance is the cause of religious tensions is naive. It is the knowledge, not ignorance of some religious teachings, that is more likely to create religious tension.
"The problem of an offensive canon is not unique to Islam, but it is particularly acute for Muslims: there is nothing so offensive in the life of Jesus or Buddha: a frank critique of the life of Muhammad risks illegality to a degree that a critique of the life of Jesus does not. The very nature of such material makes robust religious debate difficult in a way the Act does not anticipate. Because religions differ in the degree to which their canon contains such material, the Act causes a kind of religious discrimination."
---------------------------------------
BRITISH MUSLIMS DIVIDED
Most Muslims support the proposed religious hate law and have lobbied aggressively for it (see Barnabas Fund 8 Feb press release at Link 1). They see it primarily as a tool they can use to silence public criticism of their religion, and thus protect Islam, leaving Muslims free to propagate a more peaceful apologetic in line with their own beliefs or interests. This however, is not acceptable. Muslims must confront the problems in their Qur'an, sharia law and history.
There are other Muslims however, who are not so sure the religious hate law is a good thing. An article on the fundamentalist Khilafah.com expresses the concern, "The adoption of an 'incitement to religious hatred' law will be an attempt to muzzle Muslims from quoting the Quran, and the other sacred texts of Islam. There is no shortage of verses in the Qur'an to excite the interest of the British judiciary. The dozens of verses exhorting Jihad for starters, or perhaps the verses warning of the plans of the Jews or Christians, or which castigate the unjust!" (Link 4)
These laws do not inhibit confrontation between people. They create that! But they do inhibit confrontation with troublesome and offensive ideologies, texts and histories. The more offensive the material, the more probable it is that its exposure will be deemed vilification or incitement to hatred.
These laws open a religious and legal Pandora's Box. Is this really what the British want?
- Elizabeth Kendal
rl-research@crossnet.org.au
Links
1) BARNABAS FUND
Religious Hate Law: A threat to free speech?
http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/itrhc/about_itrhc.htm
This site contains everything you would ever need for studying or monitoring the UK's proposed religious hate law. The site contains Barnabas Fund press releases on the progress of the law, the text of the proposed religious hate law, and numerous media articles and political statements.
2) RELIGION LAW
http://www.religionlaw.co.uk
This site contains a link to the text of the UK's proposed incitement to religious hatred law, and gives some history behind the present law proposal.
This site also contains links for everything to do with the Victorian situation (click on "Australia")including links to the transcript of Daniel Scot's Seminar on the Qur'an (run by Catch the Fire Ministries in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2002); as well as the Islamic Council of Victoria's initial complaint, Catch the Fire Ministries' formal defense, the judge's decision, and various other submissions and documents.
3) Religious hatred law gets backing. BBC 7 Feb 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4242397.stm
ALSO http://www.christiantoday.com/news/soc/186.htm
4)The Qur'an to be banned in UK?
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=10645&TagID=1