Hate speech

[Altfish]

Latest post of the previous page:

As I understand it he was NOT inciting others. As you say though, if he was it is a different matter and I suspect the £250 fine would have been larger.

I think the only thing we know for sure is that he quoted Leviticus 20:13, which does advocate killing gays.

Let's turn it around. Suppose you lived in Egypt, and heard a preacher there quoting the Quran, saying "kill the unbelievers [i.e., secular humanists] wherever you find them." Would you feel threatened by that? Is it fair comment, or incitement to violence? Depends on what else he says, right? But as Dave B put it below, it's certainly "dodgy".

As I understand it, he was NOT inciting others to kill gays. He was quoting scriptures, in his mind to justify his views and bigotry. Are you saying that the Bible should be banned?
I believe we are on a very slippery slope if this sort of preaching leads to a court case and a fine. People should be able to express their views openly, then we know who they are and we can keep an eye on them, we can argue with them and hopefully expose their bigotry. If we have these sort of prosecutions, these people go underground and become more sinister and dangerous.

[Ron Webb]

As I understand it, he was NOT inciting others to kill gays. He was quoting scriptures, in his mind to justify his views and bigotry.

The scripture he quoted is an incitement (a command from God, no less) to kill gays.

Are you saying that the Bible should be banned?

As I explained earlier, if the Bible were a new book IMHO it should be banned; but it's not, and we can't rewrite history. Nonetheless, anyone quoting from the Bible needs to take responsibility for the words he quotes. You can't hide behind the fact that it's scripture.

I believe we are on a very slippery slope if this sort of preaching leads to a court case and a fine. People should be able to express their views openly, then we know who they are and we can keep an eye on them, we can argue with them and hopefully expose their bigotry. If we have these sort of prosecutions, these people go underground and become more sinister and dangerous.

I agree that it's a slippery slope, but that only means we should exercise caution. It doesn't mean we can't take a few steps at the top of the hill, so to speak. Just make sure we are wearing cleats.

A person actively recruiting and organizing a gang of homophobes to hunt and kill gays may be doing nothing more than speaking. IMHO it is perfectly consistent with the goals of a free and democratic society not to allow such speech.

[Altfish]

I think we must agree to disagree. I just think the bar is too low when a preacher is reading from his own (perfectly legal) scripture

[animist]

we are kind of oscillating between two different things: hate speech and whether particular opinions constitute some incitement to violence. I think Abrahamic religion devotees inevitably make hate speech, but that does emphatically does not mean that they incite anyone to violence (which they sensibly leave to the God in which they believe). On this forum we dislike religions as impartially as we can, but this impartiality should not blind us to the fact that in much of the modern world it is usually Muslims who incite listeners to violence; though I think there may well be exceptions in some Xian parts of Africa like Uganda - and let's not forget the Hindu fundies (the true Islamophobes) and the Burmese Buddhists who persecute local Muslims

[Ron Webb]

we are kind of oscillating between two different things: hate speech and whether particular opinions constitute some incitement to violence. I think Abrahamic religion devotees inevitably make hate speech, but that does emphatically does not mean that they incite anyone to violence (which they sensibly leave to the God in which they believe).

British law may be different, which may account for our different points of view; but in Canada, incitement to violence is a form of hate speech. There are actually two categories of hate speech, both found in Section 319 of our Criminal Code:

319(1): Public incitement of hatred: "Every one who ... incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace..." (italics added)

319(2): Wilful promotion of hatred: "Every one who ... wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group...". It is essentially the same definition as above without the italicized phrase; but the second definition goes on to list a number of defenses, including "(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text."

So in Canada, you can say hateful things and avoid prosecution under 319(2) as long as your argument is based on religion; and presumably you can quote any Bible verse you want to make your point. (Why religion gets this special exemption is beyond my understanding, but that's another matter.)

However, if what you say is likely to incite criminal violence, then 319(1) applies, without exception. The law offers none of the recourses available to mere promotion of hatred, not even religious dogma or scripture.

IMHO merely quoting Leviticus 20:13 is likely to incite violence in certain unstable individuals, but I expect that a judge, especially a Christian one, might not see it that way.

[Altfish]

I may be jumping to conclusions but Judge Shamim Qureshi doesn't sound like he will be christian

[Dave B]

I may be jumping to conclusions but Judge Shamim Qureshi doesn't sound like he will be christian

But if he is a devout Muslim, say, he may respect passages from the xtian bible and expect xtians to do the same.

[Alan H]

I may be jumping to conclusions but Judge Shamim Qureshi doesn't sound like he will be christian

But if he is a devout Muslim, say, he may respect passages from the xtian bible and expect xtians to do the same.

From the NSS article:

Judge Qureshi also works as a 'judge' for the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which aims to help Muslims "resolve disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law."

It seems unlikely he's anything other than a devout Muslim.

[Ron Webb]

I may be jumping to conclusions but Judge Shamim Qureshi doesn't sound like he will be christian

That's true. I was writing about hate speech in general (and in Canada), not about this specific instance.

Does anyone have a link to the applicable British law(s)?

[Altfish]

I may be jumping to conclusions but Judge Shamim Qureshi doesn't sound like he will be christian

That's true. I was writing about hate speech in general (and in Canada), not about this specific instance.

Does anyone have a link to the applicable British law(s)?

I don't think it is that simple, there are various places IIRC, as usual Wiki is my usual starting point..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... ed_Kingdom

[Altfish]

Interesting article here...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/ ... and-speech

...it also references the law under which the case was brought.

The Peter Tatchell foundation said
Michael Overd's views on homosexuality are bigoted and I'd protest against him. But I don't think he should have been prosecuted merely for expressing an offensive viewpoint. Being spared offence is not a human right. Many of the most important thinkers in history have caused great offence: Galileo, Darwin, Freud and Marx. In a free, democratic society, the criminalisation of unpleasant opinions is a step too far. People should only be prosecuted if they threaten, harass or incite violence. Mr Overd did none of these things. If he decides to appeal, I'm willing to testify in his defence.

[Alan H]

Maryam Namazie: Secular activist barred from speaking at Warwick University over fears of 'inciting hatred' against Muslim students

A prominent secularist and activist has been barred from speaking at a student union event due to fears her speech would “incite hatred” against Muslim students.

Maryam Namazie had been booked by the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists (WASH) group to speak about secularism to Warwick University’s Student Union on 28 October.

However, the group was notified last month that Ms Namazie’s speech had been cancelled. The decision has led campaigners to raise concerns about student bodies across the UK thwarting freedom of speech on their campuses.

The union said that “after researching both [Ms Namazie] and her organisation, a number of flags have been raised. We have a duty of care to conduct a risk assessment for each speaker who wishes to come to campus”.

Articles written by Ms Namazie indicated she was “highly inflammatory” and “could incite hatred on campus”, according to the union.

Ms Namazie, who fled Iran with her family in 1980 after the revolution, said she was likely to have spoken about apostasy, blasphemy and nudity in the age of Isis. She told The Independent she was “angry” her talk had been blocked.

“They’re basically labelling me a racist and an extremist for speaking out against Islam and Islamism,” she said.

“If people like me who fled an Islamist regime can’t speak out about my opposition to the far-right Islamic movement, if I can’t criticise Islam… that leaves very [few] options for me as a dissenter because the only thing I have is my freedom of expression.

“If anyone is inciting hatred, it’s the Islamists who are threatening people like me just for deciding we want to be atheist, just because we don’t want to toe the line.”

Ms Namazie, who considers herself an anti-racist campaigner, added: “To try to censor me, does a double disservice to those people who are dissenting by denying people like me the only opportunity we have to speak.”

Warwick University Warwick University
WASH appealed against the union’s decision earlier this month. The group’s president, Benjamin David, said: “The infringement of free-speech is becoming insidiously ubiquitous, and many universities, including Warwick, are circumventing the freedom of speech in pursuit of inoffensive, sanitary narratives.”

The move has also been criticised by the National Secular Society, which said it would be writing to Warwick University “to remind them of their legal duty to promote and protect free speech”.

“Unfortunately it is part of a worrying wave of censorship that we’re seeing across British universities under the guise of ‘safe spaces’… it’s utterly disheartening,” said Stephen Evans, the society’s campaigns manager. The concept of “safe spaces” had a “chilling effect on free speech,” he added.

Isaac Leigh, president of Warwick Student Union said: “The initial decision was made for the right of Muslim students not to feel intimidated or discriminated against on their university campus… rather than in the interest of suppressing free speech.”

“A final decision on this issue will be reached by the most senior members of the Student Union in coming days,” he said.

Ms Namazie hoped her talk would be rescheduled.

[Alan H]

Petitioning Warwick Students Union: Allow Maryam Namazie to speak at The University of Warwick

[Dave B]

Petitioning Warwick Students Union: Allow Maryam Namazie to speak at The University of Warwick

I have my usual ambivalence here, to support Ms Namazie speaking I would also have to support the likes of Anjem Choudry to talk to students.

I would prefer not to support Choudry.

[Alan H]

Petitioning Warwick Students Union: Allow Maryam Namazie to speak at The University of Warwick

I have my usual ambivalence here, to support Ms Namazie speaking I would also have to support the likes of Anjem Choudry to talk to students.

I would prefer not to support Choudry.

Well, you don't have to listen to Choudry...

[Dave B]

Petitioning Warwick Students Union: Allow Maryam Namazie to speak at The University of Warwick

I have my usual ambivalence here, to support Ms Namazie speaking I would also have to support the likes of Anjem Choudry to talk to students.

I would prefer not to support Choudry.

Well, you don't have to listen to Choudry...

Perhaps, but if he were banned from speaking and a petition opened to lift the ban would this forum publish it and offer us the chance to support this man's freedom of speech? How many would sign such a petition?

One rule for all.

[animist]

we are kind of oscillating between two different things: hate speech and whether particular opinions constitute some incitement to violence. I think Abrahamic religion devotees inevitably make hate speech, but that does emphatically does not mean that they incite anyone to violence (which they sensibly leave to the God in which they believe).

British law may be different, which may account for our different points of view; but in Canada, incitement to violence is a form of hate speech.

I obviously did not read this closely enough first time. I don't think my view is different from the Canadian one. In effect, hate speech may or may not be construed as inciting violence (but OTOH, incitement to violence would normally involve hate speech). So one of these concepts (inciting to violence) is a narrower concept than the other (hate speech)

[animist]

One rule for all.

yes, one rule for all, which might be that people can be barred from speaking publicly if they have a record of supporting active terrorism. Choudry has such a record, Namazie does not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary

[Dave B]

Please define "terrorism", animist - not a dictionsry quote, what the word means to you.

[animist]

Please define "terrorism", animist - not a dictionsry quote, what the word means to you.

well, shan't! At least not for now, and I did guess that this might be your response. Not that it is not a fair one, but there will always be a point at which decisions come down to different interpretations of a word. In the case of Namazie, I don't think that one could accuse her of supporting terrorism in any shape or form, so I think that Alan's disgust at a university decision to bar her from speaking is quite reasonable

[Alan H]

Please define "terrorism", animist - not a dictionsry quote, what the word means to you.

well, shan't! At least not for now, and I did guess that this might be your response. Not that it is not a fair one, but there will always be a point at which decisions come down to different interpretations of a word. In the case of Namazie, I don't think that one could accuse her of supporting terrorism in any shape or form, so I think that Alan's disgust at a university decision to bar her from speaking is quite reasonable

Bear in mind this appear to be a decision by the Students' Union, not the University.