---

Loven er jo vedtaget ved 3. behandling i Underhuset og er nu i House og
Lords, som jo højst kan forsinke dens endelige vedtagelse.
Mange mener det kan komme til at gøre langt mere skade end gavn.

But this is no Field of Dreams - more a place of nightmares. It's the
quasi-legal gladiator pit for religious extremists that will be created by
the government's Racial & Religious Hatred bill.

This is the bill that is supposed to protect the country's religious
faithful from hateful words. More specifically it's supposed to win back
Muslim votes lost since the Labour government began its war in Iraq, by
granting imans the same medieval defence against blasphemy allowed Christian
bishops.

The government thinks this trade off is a good deal, as it also provides a
legal tool to use against radical Islamists preaching hate from the country's
mosques.

I Indien bruger man mere og mere loven til at slå hinanden i hovedet inde
for religionerne.

Anyway, her er et indlæg, som jeg synes er utrolig veloplagt, af et
underhusmedlem hvis farfar iøvrigt var muslim:

Se fx hans pointe om de to tågede begreber "religion" og "had", og hvordan
det kan blive forbudt at læse fra Koranen eller Bibelen:

Slutningen, for dem der ikke gider læse det hele:



In other words, this bill is either going to encourage censorship and
self-censorship of a kind I find abhorrent.

Or else it is going to raise false hopes, and inflame even further the
resentment of those who feel their religion has been insulted.

It is impossible to make an adequate distinction between the freedom to
satirise, ridicule, lampoon religion, and the freedom to hold it up to
contempt and hatred

People have died for the freedom to say what they want about religion. It
was one of the charges against Socrates. It beggars belief that we should be
trying to inhibit that freedom today.

It is amazing that ministers have persisted with this arrogant, foolish and
counterproductive measure, and I hope the House will come to its senses
today and throw it out."

Hvad de jo så ikke gjorde, den blev vedtaget den 11. juli.



Boris Johnson (Henley): "Mr Speaker I do not want to detain the House long,
since so many of the points have of course been so eloquently made by my Hon
Friends on the front benches.

I simply want to add my voice to the general and growing chorus of those who
believe that this bill is bad, ill-thought out, and likely to do far more
harm than good.

In trying to create a new offence, of incitement to religious hatred, I
believe the government is on the verge of an almost mediaeval repression of
free speech.

I speak as one whose job it is, as a politician and journalist, to say
things that some people may find offensive and even inflammatory...

And I hope it will be some protection today - if I should accidentally say
anything incendiary - that I am the first MP for Henley in history whose
paternal grandfather was born a Muslim

It is hard to know where to begin in my condemnation of the bill, but
perhaps we might start the motives behind it.

We are told by the minister (Mr Goggins) that this is intended to combat the
scourge of "Islamophobia" and religiously inspired attacks on Muslims. These
are said to be on the increase since 9/11, and the problem is taken so
seriously that the EU commissioned a report into the subject.

The EU found that in the four months after 9/11 there were 12 serious
attacks on British Muslims, and of course that is 12 too many. But in the
words of the excellent British Asian journalist Kenan Malik, that does not
speak of a climate of vicious Islamophobia.

As the report's author Chris Allen himself put it, "there were very few
serious attacks, and Islamophobia manifested itself in quite basic and low
level ways."

We have come a long way from 1978, when violence against Asians was so
alarming that 10,000 Bengalis marched from Whitehcapel to Whitehall to
protest against the murder of garment worker Altab Ali near Brick Lane. In
the decade that followed there were at least another 49 such killings

The problem this bill is supposed to be addressing has been greatly
exaggerated, and in so far as there is a problem we already have plenty of
statute to deal with it.

Indeed we already have a law against the offence of "religious aggravation".
The 1986 Public Order act was already amended in 1998 so that a person
commits an offence if he displays any writing, sign, or other visible
representation which is threatening or abusive or insulting, within the
hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused embarrassment, alarm or
distress. The offence may be committed in a public or a private place.

That is pretty draconian stuff.

So why on earth are we producing a new Bill, to outlaw the incitement to
religious hatred.

- by which two notoriously cloudy abstracts - religion and hate - are fused
into an impenetrable fog of muddle and misunderstanding?

It is nothing to do with the needs of criminal justice, and everything to do
with politics.

This bill is part of the price in civil liberties that the country is paying
for the Iraq war.

It is of a piece with control orders, and ID cards, and of course intended
as a sop to those communities that feel especially oppressed by such
measures.

As the former Trade Minister (Mike O'Brien) wrote recently in the Muslim
news, Muslims feel "betrayed" by the Iraq war, and in run-up to the last
election Labour decided that they needed to do something to appease those
feelings.

Here are the words of O'Brien: "Iqbal Sacranie, gen sec of the Muslim
council, asked Tony Blair to declare that the government would introduce a
new law banning religious discrimination. Two weeks later, in his speech to
the Labour party conference, Tony Blair promised that the next Labour
government would ban religious discrimination. It was a major victory for
the Muslim Community in Britain."


It was not a victory for common sense or free speech

It is not good enough to pretend, as the Minister does, that this is somehow
the logical extension of laws against incitement to racial hatred

It ought to be obvious to everyone that your race is a question of nature,
but your religion is a matter of choice and conscience and belief and if a
religion is worth believing in, it ought to be strong enough to withstand
the most scurrilous and monstrous attacks.

If a religion is worth believing in, then those assaults should diminish the
critics, and not the religion itself.

And whether or not a religion is worth believing in, it is the sovereign
right of every human being to say what he or she thinks of it

We have not even begun properly to define a religion.

Members on all sides of the House have made the elementary point, that one
man's religion is another man's cult

10,000 inhabitants of Newcastle are said to be adherents of the Jedi
Knights. Who can say whether or not they are serious and whether their faith
deserves respect?

And if religion is a nebulous idea, then so is hatred

Suppose I say that some interpretations of Islam have a barbaric penal code,
and that the treatment of women in many Moslem states is shameful?

Am I inciting hatred of that religion? Dislike? Extreme dislike? It will
very much depend on the listener.

And this is the key point - in the post MacPherson world, we all know that
in determining whether or not an offence has been committed, the police and
the courts are bound to place ever more weight on the perceptions of those
who take offence.

Let me put this as tactfully as I can.

Despite the best efforts of the ecumenists, we live in a world of mutually
antagonistic creeds.

They do not merely advertise the exclusive benefits of their own paths to
salvation. They also indulge in a good deal of negative campaigning - in the
manner of soap brands, or indeed political parties - against their main
rivals.

Now this Bill explicitly interdicts the incitement of religious hatred,
where that means hatred of a group of persons defined by reference to
religious belief or lack or religious belief.

And since this Bill is intended to offer protection to Muslims, let me now
read certain excerpts from the Koran, and I will invite the minister to
imagine that I am an Imam or mullah and I must apologise to any Muslims who
may be listening or watching, because I hope it will be obvious that what I
am about to say is not intended to be disrespectful to the Koran but to make
a point about the logic - or absence of logic - of this bill

Here is the Koran on those with a lack of correct religious belief

22.9 As for the unbelievers, for them garments of fire shall be cut and
there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in
their bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with
hooked iron rods.

And on Christians

They surely are infidels who say god is the third of three; for there is but
one god; and if they do not refrain from what they say, a severe punishment
shall light on those who are unbelievers.

And on Jews

4.160, 161 Because of the wickedness of certain Jews, and because they turn
many from the way of god we have forbidden them good and wholesome foods
which were formerly allowed them; and because they have taken to usury,
though they were forbidden it; and have cheated others of their possessions,
we have prepared a grievous punishment for the infidels amongst them.

On Jews and Christians

Why don't their rabbis and doctors of law forbid them from uttering sinful
words and eating unlawful food? Evil indeed are their works. The hand of god
is chained up cry the Jews. Their own hands shall be chained up and they
shall be cursed for saying such a thing.


5.51 Believers do not take Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one
another's friends. If anyone of you takes them for his friends then he is
surely one of them. God will not guide evil doers.

Now I don't say that the Koran is unique in its hostility to other creeds,
and there are doubtless plenty of other inflammatory texts associated with
plenty of other religions

But I would like the minister to explain to us all, here and now, why and
how he thinks the repetition of those words, in a public or a private place,
does not amount to an incitement to religious hatred of exactly the kind
that this bill is supposed to ban.

My point is that if this bill makes any sense at all, it must mean banning
the reading - in public or private - of a great many passages of the Koran
itself

Which is absurd and paradoxical, given that the measure is intended to be a
protection against Islamophobia

And if it does not mean banning the repetition of those phrases - and it
would be good to pretend that I have wrenched a few paragraphs out of
context, but the truth is that the holy book is full of such exhortations to
religious hatred - if it does not mean such a ban, then the Bill is nonsense
and should be scrapped.

Let us be clear about the implications here..

If we say that this bill would not have any force against such blatant
incitements and if we say that we will all be able to continue to insult
each other's religions and that the Attorney General would never dream of
actually USING this piece of law - as the minister suggests - then that in
itself will be counter-productive, because its very existence on the statute
book may provoke disorder and unrest from those who believe it should be
properly enforced.

In other words, this bill is either going to encourage censorship and
self-censorship of a kind I find abhorrent.

Or else it is going to raise false hopes, and inflame even further the
resentment of those who feel their religion has been insulted.

It is impossible to make an adequate distinction between the freedom to
satirise, ridicule, lampoon religion, and the freedom to hold it up to
contempt and hatred

People have died for the freedom to say what they want about religion. It
was one of the charges against Socrates. It beggars belief that we should be
trying to inhibit that freedom today.

It is amazing that ministers have persisted with this arrogant, foolish and
counterproductive measure, and I hope the House will come to its senses
today and throw it out."

---

Knud Larsen wrote:
> Slutningen, for dem der ikke gider læse det hele:
>
>
>
> In other words, this bill is either going to encourage censorship and
> self-censorship of a kind I find abhorrent.
>
> Or else it is going to raise false hopes, and inflame even further the
> resentment of those who feel their religion has been insulted.
>
> It is impossible to make an adequate distinction between the freedom
> to satirise, ridicule, lampoon religion, and the freedom to hold it
> up to contempt and hatred
>
> People have died for the freedom to say what they want about
> religion. It was one of the charges against Socrates. It beggars
> belief that we should be trying to inhibit that freedom today.
>
> It is amazing that ministers have persisted with this arrogant,
> foolish and counterproductive measure, and I hope the House will come
> to its senses today and throw it out."
>
> Hvad de jo så ikke gjorde, den blev vedtaget den 11. juli.

Det skal nok gå. I DDR lærte befolkningen også at udtrykke sig
indforstået, når der skulle siges ting, som magthaverne ikke syntes, man
skulle gå og sige - eller mene.

---

"Henrik Svendsen" <HrSvendsen@msn.com> wrote in message
news:42deff05$0$174$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> Knud Larsen wrote:
>> Slutningen, for dem der ikke gider læse det hele:
>>
>>
>>
>> In other words, this bill is either going to encourage censorship and
>> self-censorship of a kind I find abhorrent.
>>
>> Or else it is going to raise false hopes, and inflame even further the
>> resentment of those who feel their religion has been insulted.
>>
>> It is impossible to make an adequate distinction between the freedom
>> to satirise, ridicule, lampoon religion, and the freedom to hold it
>> up to contempt and hatred
>>
>> People have died for the freedom to say what they want about
>> religion. It was one of the charges against Socrates. It beggars
>> belief that we should be trying to inhibit that freedom today.
>>
>> It is amazing that ministers have persisted with this arrogant,
>> foolish and counterproductive measure, and I hope the House will come
>> to its senses today and throw it out."
>>
>> Hvad de jo så ikke gjorde, den blev vedtaget den 11. juli.
>
> Det skal nok gå. I DDR lærte befolkningen også at udtrykke sig
> indforstået, når der skulle siges ting, som magthaverne ikke syntes, man
> skulle gå og sige - eller mene.

Det bliver jo ikke det samme, som når Mr. Bean tager religionerne ved
vingebenet,- og som MP'en siger, så må det være en ret, at kritisere en
hvilken som helst religion så meget man vil.

I DDR var det livsfarligt at komme til at sige noget "indforstået" til den
forkerte.



>

---

Knud Larsen wrote:
> "Henrik Svendsen" <HrSvendsen@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:42deff05$0$174$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...

>> Det skal nok gå. I DDR lærte befolkningen også at udtrykke sig
>> indforstået, når der skulle siges ting, som magthaverne ikke syntes,
>> man skulle gå og sige - eller mene.
>
> Det bliver jo ikke det samme, som når Mr. Bean tager religionerne ved
> vingebenet,- og som MP'en siger, så må det være en ret, at kritisere
> en hvilken som helst religion så meget man vil.
>
> I DDR var det livsfarligt at komme til at sige noget "indforstået"
> til den forkerte.

Det bliver selvfølgelig ikke det samme, som når man kan sige sin mening
uden frygt for repressalier fra politi og retsvæsen. Men det er den vej,
det går. Alt for mange vil have beskåret meningsmodstanderes ret til at
ytre sig. At de dermed også får beskåret deres egen ret, bekymrer dem
ikke så meget. Det er jo kun naboen, som bliver ramt.

---

KL> "Henrik Svendsen" <HrSvendsen@msn.com> wrote in message
KL> news:42deff05$0$174$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...


KL> Det bliver jo ikke det samme, som når Mr. Bean tager religionerne ved
KL> vingebenet,- og som MP'en siger, så må det være en ret, at kritisere en
KL> hvilken som helst religion så meget man vil.

Fra the Telegraph i dag, man skal kunne lave den fedeste gang sjov med Islam
uden at være bange for sit liv:

That is why we need to begin the re-Britannification I mentioned last week;
and part of being British is recognising that this is a free country, in
which people can have frank views about religion. Militant Islam has been
shielded from proper discussion by cowardice, political correctness and a
racist assumption that we should privilege the beliefs of a minority, even
when they appear to be mediaeval. It is time the discussion was opened up
not just to reason, but to reason's greatest ally, humour. Instead of
banning the discussion of the 72 virgins of paradise, the alleged meed of
the suicide bomber, would it not be much more efficient to make fun of this
ludicrous claim?
When is Little Britain going to do a sketch, starring Matt Lucas as one of
the virgins? Islam will only be truly acculturated to our way of life when
you could expect a Bradford audience to roll in the aisles at Monty Python's
Life of Mohammed; and when an unintentionally offensive newspaper article
about Islam is requited not with death threats but with the exasperated but
essentially kindly letters one might expect from Christians.

We have a long way to go, but the first step is to stop treating this
subject as so terrifying that it cannot be satirised. Some things may be
sacred, but they are no less sacred for being made the object of
good-natured humour; and if that is frivolity, it is frivolity with a deeply
serious intent.

---

"Alf Blume" <alfblume(a)hotmaildotcom> wrote in message
news:42df9323$0$178$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>
>
>
> KL> "Henrik Svendsen" <HrSvendsen@msn.com> wrote in message
> KL> news:42deff05$0$174$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
>
> KL> Det bliver jo ikke det samme, som når Mr. Bean tager religionerne ved
> KL> vingebenet,- og som MP'en siger, så må det være en ret, at kritisere
> en
> KL> hvilken som helst religion så meget man vil.
>
> Fra the Telegraph i dag, man skal kunne lave den fedeste gang sjov med
> Islam uden at være bange for sit liv:
>
> That is why we need to begin the re-Britannification I mentioned last
> week; and part of being British is recognising that this is a free
> country, in which people can have frank views about religion. Militant
> Islam has been shielded from proper discussion by cowardice, political
> correctness and a racist assumption that we should privilege the beliefs
> of a minority, even when they appear to be mediaeval. It is time the
> discussion was opened up not just to reason, but to reason's greatest
> ally, humour. Instead of banning the discussion of the 72 virgins of
> paradise, the alleged meed of the suicide bomber, would it not be much
> more efficient to make fun of this ludicrous claim?

Jo, man burde lave sjov med den igen og igen, så måske en dag selv
selvmordsbombere kommer i tvivl. Iøvrigt er det *alle* muslimske mænd, som
får de 72 jomfruer, og iøvrigt 80.000 tjenere, og et telt som rækker som
fra Damaskus til Yemen.
Men det taler man ikke så meget om, måske fordi konerne ville begynde at
spørge hvad de så skal have.



> When is Little Britain going to do a sketch, starring Matt Lucas as one of
> the virgins? Islam will only be truly acculturated to our way of life when
> you could expect a Bradford audience to roll in the aisles at Monty
> Python's Life of Mohammed; and when an unintentionally offensive newspaper
> article about Islam is requited not with death threats but with the
> exasperated but essentially kindly letters one might expect from
> Christians.
>
> We have a long way to go, but the first step is to stop treating this
> subject as so terrifying that it cannot be satirised. Some things may be
> sacred, but they are no less sacred for being made the object of
> good-natured humour; and if that is frivolity, it is frivolity with a
> deeply serious intent.

Det er en af de store fejl ved islam, man finder praktisk taget ingen
selvironi og sjov. Mærkeligt nok er jo jødedommen lige præcis omvendt, man
har tusinder af vittigheder om Gud og rabbinere, liv og død.

Islam tillod på ét bestemt tidspunkt at man lavede sjov med nogle af
tingene, dog aldrig med Profeten, men det varede kun måske et enkelt
århundrede, da man var helt sikker på, at man herskede over hele verden, og
selv dengang røg der en sufi under sværdet med jævne mellemrum.

Rumi fra 1200-tallet:

I am in Love!
I am in Love with him.
All this advise--
what's the use?
I have drunk poison.
All this sugar
what's the use?
You say hurry,
tie up his feet.
But its my heart that's gone crazy,
all this rope
around my feet--
what's the use?

-------

The Lovers
will drink wine night and day.
They will drink until they can
tear away the veils of intellect and
melt away the layers of shame and modesty.
When in Love,
body, mind, heart and soul don't even exist.
Become this,
fall in Love,
and you will not be separated again.

Nå, det var ikke så meget grin med religionen, men det har Rumi vist svjh
også lavet vers om.