Denigrating Other Faiths

[PaulS]

In Australia we currently DO have laws criminalizing hate speech but as I have mentioned, they are not restricted to religion (which is actually probably one of the lesser areas of concern for us with hate speech). These laws (sometimes criminal, sometimes civil, sometimes both depending on jurisdiction) give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification, and/or injury on account of their ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, etc.

 

Incidentally, this picture is from the Sydney protest I mentioned and has certainly concerned the community and authorities. I don't think it is illegal (I could be wrong) until it is demonstrated that there is a victim.

 

A wide range of penalties are available to our judiciary. Depending on the seriousness of the speech and/or harm it may cause, courts can impose penalties including community service orders, fines, suspended sentences, or in extreme cases jail time.

 

Naturally like a number of laws (think drug possession) arresting all those in breach of the law can prove logistically difficult, but catching people is only one aspect of the law. Another aspect is that the law sets out what behavior a society expects of its people.

 

As for the US examples you cite, I'm not familiar with them. Like any breach of the law I see jail as a last resort, yet sometimes a necessary punishment.

[Neon Genesis]

It's just that considering how many Republican politician leaders say offensive things on Fox News every week without anyone batting an eye, I don't know how you could execute a hate speech law in the U.S. fairly and justly without arresting at least over half of the GOP politicians and American evangelical preachers. And considering how the U.S. has been handling the Bradley Manning/Julian Assange situation, I would trust them to handle free speech as far as I can throw them. Maybe it works in some more liberal places like Australia but America is too polarized for it to be handled effectively now.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Neon Genesis

[PaulS]

Perhaps so Neon, but never say never!

 

Australia is liberal in some ways, archaic in others. Ours is by no means a utopian society. We don't have the history of your founding fathers of course which clearly plays a huge part in this issue and your Constitution. Rather than a society that resulted from breaking free of its British controllers, many Aussies take pride in the fact that our society grew from being England's dumping ground for its criminals (who it must be said were often very unfairly deported here).

[PaulS]

Neon, incidentally the mother of this child came forward today. I don't expect charges to be laid.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/mother-of-toddler-holding-up-beheading-poster-at-sydney-protest-turns-herself-in/story-e6frg6nf-1226476342768

 

[glintofpewter]

So if we're going to criminalize people for hate speech, what should the punishment for hate speech be? Should people go to jail for it? For how long and what for? Should they have to pay a fine and how much? Should we arrest members of the Tea Party for their racist speech and hate speech against Obama and Democrats? Should Todd Akin go to jail for his offensive speech about women?

 

A long list of questions like this is a logical fallacy also. These are the questions legislators and courts ask of themselves and others in their conversations. It seems obvious that Australia and the US have arrived at different places on this issue which is not black and white.

 

Dutch

[Neon Genesis]

That's not a logical fallacy I learned in Philosophy class, glint. These may be discussions the courts have with themselves but it's important for us to address them as well. As with the pro-life movement that wants to criminalize abortion, I don't think people who want to criminalize speech are thinking through the consequences of their advocacy nor have considered how exactly this would play out in the real world when the government puts the law into effect.

[glintofpewter]

Neon,

This last post is a good description of your position. And, yes, we are part that of the public conversation. But it does not change the fact that the Australians also are having this conversation and have reached a different conclusion.

 

I have not had formal logic in college but I believe your earlier post falls under the less formal but recognized "fallacy of many questions".

 

Dutch

[Raven]

The trouble with trying to criminalize the "offensive" is that absolutely anything can be offensive, depending on the person and the context. What makes something "hate speech"? (I don't mean the legal term - I mean individually -- what's "hate speech"?)

 

I think the Tea Party says some things that are unkind, uncivil, and untrue. I don't think they should go to jail for it. Mudslinging, from the basic and harmless to the outright volatile, is part of politics. Anyone who goes into politics has to have a thicker skin than that. (And the mudslinging usually goes both ways. I have never seen a campaign, ever, that didn't.)

 

I don't think people should go to jail just for saying things - to me, that's dangerously close to engaging the Thought Police, and I want no part of that. People have a right to their opinions, and they have a right to express them.

 

What people DO, on the other hand, and how it effects other people - that's a different story.

 

If people come to actual harm (or have reasonable cause to believe it may happen), that's a problem. If people get irritated by the things people say, well that's a shame of course, but it's not in the same league.

 

For the record, I do my very best not to say things that are hurtful/offensive to other people. (Eph. 4:29 comes to mind) The truth is, though, that these days, there is absolutely always someone willing to be offended by something, to the point that it's reached the ridiculous. I refuse to be afraid to express my opinions and ideas simply because it might bother someone, somewhere.

 

I haven't seen the video (returning to OP) or even the trailer, but I've read a bit about it here and there. It sounds awful, and rude, and probably really ill-informed. It sounds like a stupid idea. But if humans don't have the right to be stupid, there are an awful lot of people going to jail. Truthfully, I think some people just look for things to get mad about. (Living in a litigious society helps fuel that flame, I think.)

[Neon Genesis]

One could easily argue that the bible itself is hate speech since there are many passages in the bible that call for death and violence towards heretics and people who don't believe in Yahweh.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Neon Genesis

[PaulS]

One could easily argue that the bible itself is hate speech since there are many passages in the bible that call for death and violence towards heretics and people who don't believe in Yahweh.

 

Perhaps so...and perhaps an excellent example of how societal attitudes and 'inalienable rights' can change over time. It seems to me that some things that I'm sure those cultures once considered fundamental rights, were adapted/modified/disregarded as society continued on its path.

[PaulS]

I did say earlier that Australia is no utopia. Here's a headline from our eastern seaboard today:

 

VICTORIA Police have declared they will deploy record numbers to manage a proposed demonstration in Melbourne on Sunday after an explicit anti-Islamic text message urging a violent uprising began circulating across the state.

Deputy Victorian Police Commissioner Tim Cartwright says police will be out in force "above and beyond our standard response to a peaceful rally."

"We are not just talking about people who would be people who are a part of the protest, we would be also very concerned about anyone who is visiting the protest to start violence," Deputy Cartwright said.

 

The text message calls upon non-Muslim Australians to attend the protest in response to the brutal riots in Sydney last weekend.

The message, its sender so far unknown to authorities, urges people to be "ready for a battle for our rights and our land," and threatens: "They thought the Cronulla riots were bad."

 

The Facebook page for the pro-Islamic protest "Stand up against racism and rally in defense (sic) of Islam," has already received swarms of threatening messages slandering Muslims, calling Islamic people "hairy dogs" and other profanities.

The text message reads in part: "ATT: All Australians, this Sunday these Muslim DOGS are planning a protest in OUR city. I call on all brothers and sisters to meet at (location and time deleted) on Sunday for a united march to the state library. ''

 

I don't know Neon, I think sometimes maybe it's best to silence some people.

Edited September 19, 2012 by PaulS

[Hhanover]

GeorgeW is on to something. Incident after incident has shown us that attacks on the Prophet or the Qur'an create a violent response from some Muslims. The violent response is dumb, demeaning to God by inferring that God is a weakling unable to protect God's self, but it is entirely predictable. If someone of a particular political bent wants to create a crisis during an election year, what better way to do it than to use a time honored method of raising a riot in a sensitive part of the world? For years, until people smartened up a little, the Westboro Baptists could predictably stir up some legislature to pass an unconstitutional law, violate the law, challenge the conviction and get their attorney fees reimbursed when they (always) won. Some arguably overly devout Muslims are being manipulated by the movie maker, but are we also?

 

Have you noticed that the response of Muslim protesters to the film is aimed at America as a whole and that our response to the protesters (and murderers) is aimed at Islam as a whole? We are being fiddled by expert fiddlers. Criticizing the artistic merit of the film ignores how very effective it was.

[Raven]

A couple of points:

 

Re - the Bible as "hate speech" - have to disagree. As we have discussed here at length, many times over, the Bible was written in an entirely different time. Society does not exist in a vacuum; the framework changed, and many people's views have therefore changed. Slavery, child marriage, and polygamy are examples of things that were the norm then, but are not now.

 

In my mind, for something to count as "hate speech" or "hate literature," there has to be an actual point to it. As in, trying to create violence, or be actively discriminatory. If someone says, "I disagree with homosexuality," I don't find that to be "hate speech." If they say, "F----ts should be killed," then that's absolutely hate speech, both by using a derogatory expression, and advancing an idea of hatred.

 

If you wrote something like the Bible today, with everything the same, it would be seen as hate, because we would be looking at it through today's lens. It's a totally different perspective. I think that's where a lot of us enjoy the "progressive" part of Christianity, where we can maintain spirituality but also move forward.

 

**

Regarding this ongoing out-stupiding battle... when will enough be enough? Here in Toronto, recently, people tried to organize a dog walk outside of a mosque, in response to a Muslim man being upset (supposedly) because someone had brought a dog to *another* protest/rally/event, and some Muslims consider dogs to be extremely unclean animals. Soooo... some people came out, and walked their dogs outside the mosque. Members of the mosque came out, and of course the police were called, and insults and xenophobic comments were thrown back and forth. What did that accomplish? Absolutely nothing.

 

Making the video, if it's what people say it is, was a stupid idea geared toward getting people upset. Surprise, people got upset. And the reactions and counter-reactions are just going to continue.

 

I will say though, in the interest of being completely honest, I do find myself very upset that the extremist folks in the Muslim community react the way they do. There's nothing wrong with disliking, or even hating, something someone has said about you and your community, but to riot and kill every time someone steps out of line (in your opinion) is really, really awful. Say what you will about the Tea Party - at least they haven't bombed anyone...

[Neon Genesis]

 

I don't know Neon, I think sometimes maybe it's best to silence some people.

Yet hate speech laws don't seem to be helping at all with stopping violent riots.

 

Re - the Bible as "hate speech" - have to disagree. As we have discussed here at length, many times over, the Bible was written in an entirely different time. Society does not exist in a vacuum; the framework changed, and many people's views have therefore changed. Slavery, child marriage, and polygamy are examples of things that were the norm then, but are not now.

But whenever evangelical Christians use hate speech, they almost always are quoting from the bible. Consider the preacher that prayed for Obama's death. He was quoting directly from the Psalms so should quoting the Psalms be banned as hate speech?

[PaulS]

Yet hate speech laws don't seem to be helping at all with stopping violent riots.

 

Perhaps, or perhaps some people do take notice of the standard the law sets, so we have less trouble than we would otherwise.

 

Without getting too technical, such laws are technical, and there are very specific elements that have to be met for prosecution to be initiated and successful. You might say such elements are there to protect people from the sort of airy-fairy, my-opinion-is-better-than-your-opinion type concerns you have about such laws and potential for abuse.

[Raven]

Neon, the Bible isn't to blame for people taking it and twisting it to their personal viewpoints. The Bible is open to a lot of interpretation, and people see what they want to see. Yes, parts of it are bloody and violent - but I don't think it constitutes hate speech. Historical documents offer us glimpses of the past. What was said, done etc in the past does not always carry over into the future. As a Christian, I hate that right-wing evangelists use a Holy book to support their views - but it's their right to do so. The preacher who prayed for the death of Obama was/is likely guilty of hate speech (I don't know the details, as I never heard about it), but to say the Bible is responsible is ridiculous. Scriptures and Holy texts from all different faiths have been used by different people at different times to support their beliefs.

[Neon Genesis]

You also have to take into account though that most of these violent riots tend to happen mostly in either middle Eastern countries with poor socio-economic environments and European countries where Muslim communities are largely isolated from the rest of society. While Muslims still unfortunately face a lot of discrimination in the U.S., they seem to be much more integrated into mainstream American society than in some European nations and American Muslims in general tend to be a peaceful bunch. At least you don't seem to see riots as extreme as the U.S. Embassy riots over here as much as you do overseas.

[PaulS]

I agree with Raven in that the Bible can't be 'blamed' for what people do today - if people choose freely to adopt the view that things that were written by different cultures, over 2000 years ago, precisely applies to modern society, then that is them and not the Bible saying so. The Bible doesn't say "this is what you must do in 2012" - only some of its proponents do.

 

Clearly much in the Bible does demonstrate bigotry, racism, vilification, sexism, discrimination etc. It is possible that such may have been the hate speech of its day and that there were alternate voices which simply didn't make it into the book. But that aside, the book is what it is. It does contain stories, language and laws that many of us find ignorant these days. Some of it doesn't align with what many in our modern society have come to learn of other cultures, sexual orientation, equal rights, etc.

 

If people want to adopt such beliefs, they have every right to. To some extent I think they even have a right to say they're right and I'm wrong. What I personally don't agree with is that anybody thinks that because their book or set of rules says it is okay, that they think they are allowed to denigrate and/or harm another. I don't think people should have to experience or tolerate that sort of behaviour in a modern society. Obviously I don't have a problem with laws that say certain responsibilities must accompany the right to freedom of speech. One shouldn't be allowed the right if they don't accept the responsibility the communtiy expects, along with it.

[Neon Genesis]

Neon, the Bible isn't to blame for people taking it and twisting it to their personal viewpoints. The Bible is open to a lot of interpretation, and people see what they want to see. Yes, parts of it are bloody and violent - but I don't think it constitutes hate speech. Historical documents offer us glimpses of the past. What was said, done etc in the past does not always carry over into the future. As a Christian, I hate that right-wing evangelists use a Holy book to support their views - but it's their right to do so. The preacher who prayed for the death of Obama was/is likely guilty of hate speech (I don't know the details, as I never heard about it), but to say the Bible is responsible is ridiculous. Scriptures and Holy texts from all different faiths have been used by different people at different times to support their beliefs.

So what's the proper interpretation of Deuteronomy 13?

 

If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.

If anyone got up and said something like this today, they would be branded a terrorist but because it's in the bible, it's considered sacred and the word of God by many American Christians who will defend the inerrancy of this passage to the death. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...

[glintofpewter]

There are many lines from literature that threaten death. I think people are pretty good at figuring that the quoted text isn't what is carrying the hateful intent to harm another. The Bible in and of itself is text, an inanimate object, just like a gun. It is not the Bible or the gun that speaks hatefully or kills. It is the person holding one that harms another.

 

I wonder if either praying for the president's death or an atheist wishing the president dead would rise to 'hate speech' in the countries that have such laws.

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

From npr today:

 

U.S. notions of free speech are actually quite unique, even among democratic countries.

 

While even racially and religiously offensive material is protected in the United States, hate speech or speech that incites racial hatred is illegal in Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and other European countries. In much of Europe, Holocaust denial is specifically criminalized.

[PaulS]

I wonder if either praying for the president's death or an atheist wishing the president dead would rise to 'hate speech' in the countries that have such laws.

Dutch

 

Dutch, I don't think it would in Australia (I could be wrong) simply because with our laws one has to demonstrate that they were a 'victim' of the speech/behaviour. Simply wishing out loud that Obama was dead, or that 'God would take him' probably wouldn't stand up to the test that Obama experienced victimisation. I imagine if it could be demonstrated that he suffered as a result of the speech, for example somebody refused to employ him only on the grounds that he was about to be killed by God, then perhaps action could be taken.

 

This is where I think the law appropriately addresses the difference between hurt feelings/offence and genuine harm caused by actions/speech.

[Neon Genesis]

There are many lines from literature that threaten death. I think people are pretty good at figuring that the quoted text isn't what is carrying the hateful intent to harm another. The Bible in and of itself is text, an inanimate object, just like a gun. It is not the Bible or the gun that speaks hatefully or kills. It is the person holding one that harms another.

 

I wonder if either praying for the president's death or an atheist wishing the president dead would rise to 'hate speech' in the countries that have such laws.

 

Dutch

Most Christians in America don't see the bible as merely literature but they view the bible as the divine Word of God and in many cases, they believe the bible is the literal word of God. Many American Christians see the quoted passage as a real historical fact that was approved of by the god they worship and not just as a fanciful story like a Greek tragedy or whatever. There was a case awhile back in the UK of a Christian who was arrested merely for saying homosexuality was a sin. He didn't hurt anyone physically at all and there was no evidence to my knowledge he had discriminated against anyone but for merely saying he thought homosexuality was a sin he was arrested for speaking about his religious belief. It all made me think of George Orwell and the Thought Police in 1984.

[glintofpewter]

It doesn't matter what people say about the Bible or anything else. People make the decision and take action. I dont't any court will find the Bible or Mein Kampf or an assault weapon guilty. It doesn't matter what they hold in their hand including any slogans used to support one's desire to take away another's humanity - which comes BEFORE the use of 'authority' to justify or weapon to carry it out.

 

I think you change people by relationship not by an historical analytic study of the Bible.

 

Seeing homosexuality as a sin or sickness was not only Christians thinking. It wasn't until the middle of the last century that psychologists decided it was not a mental illness. The Bible wasn't the issue for them. Being homophobic doesn't necessarily grow out of the Bible. Many more read the Bible and came to the opposite conclusion.

 

I think your railing against the Bible obscures your argument.

 

Dutch

[PaulS]

Most Christians in America don't see the bible as merely literature but they view the bible as the divine Word of God and in many cases, they believe the bible is the literal word of God. Many American Christians see the quoted passage as a real historical fact that was approved of by the god they worship and not just as a fanciful story like a Greek tragedy or whatever. There was a case awhile back in the UK of a Christian who was arrested merely for saying homosexuality was a sin. He didn't hurt anyone physically at all and there was no evidence to my knowledge he had discriminated against anyone but for merely saying he thought homosexuality was a sin he was arrested for speaking about his religious belief. It all made me think of George Orwell and the Thought Police in 1984.

 

Then you would have been relieved Neon when the case was tossed out and police were ordered to cover his costs of about $11,000. It seems justice can prevail.