Pandering to the Islamists

Michael Burleigh in the Daily Telegraph (registration required) calls Britain’s religious hatred bill exactly what it is: a blatant Labour vote grab in radicalized Muslim areas.

The Home Office airily explains that the proposed legislation “will not interfere with legitimate debate or religious activities”. The proposals “carry a high threshold in order to protect freedom of speech”, whatever that means. Offensive words or actions “must be threatening, abusive or insulting and must either be intended or likely to stir up hatred”. “Hatred”, we are informed, “is a strong term going beyond simply causing offence or hostility”, and aimed at “groups” rather than “ideologies”. The ultimate arbiter of whether to bring a prosecution will be the Attorney General.
Rarely can legislation touching on so many historic freedoms and rights have been botched up and inserted in such an inappropriate context, allegedly at the behest of “key leaders in all the major faith communities”, none mentioned by name.

Leaving aside the prospect that Britain’s secular liberal comedians will become even less funny, there are the serious objections from those who feel the proposed law will inhibit religious debate, or stifle legitimate criticism of religious groups.

The Barnabas Fund, which campaigns for Christians in Islamic societies, rightly points to how such a law will make it harder for them to protect people whose choice renders them second-class citizens, or who are denied any opportunity to worship publicly. Expressions of support for an apostate like Hirsi Ali – who has pointed out that she would have been executed in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia or Syria – will potentially attract the unwanted attentions of the Attorney General, police and courts. So might anyone who feels moved to expose paedophile shenanigans in the Roman Catholic Church. And then there are cults. I happen to think that Satanists and Scientologists are mad; am I going to be prosecuted for saying so in print?
. . .

Has it canvassed other protected “minorities”, such as women or homosexuals, regarding whether Islam should be insulated from criticism of how it treats both “groups”? If such a law had existed in the 1980s, Salman Rushdie might have been prosecuted for writing Satanic Verses rather than being protected by the British state. It will soon be illegal to criticise, say, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who, on a recent trip to Britain, entertained Mayor Ken Livingstone with the chilling intelligence that homicide bombers can “legitimately” kill women and children in Israel, husbands can beat their wives everywhere and that homosexuals should be put to death.
. . .

If Ms Ali lived here, she could find herself facing a seven- year prison sentence, for publicising the fact that in some Islamic societies, women cannot leave the home, let alone drive a car. Rather than dabbling in areas where it has no business, the Government should be wondering how to defend the likes of Ms Ali, since it is – tragically – too late for Theo van Gogh.

It is worth noting that, even without the bill, Britain is hardly a free speech haven. The notorious anti-Semite David Irving brought a lawsuit against Penguin Books for calling him exactly that, and there was good reason to fear he might win. Even though he lost, Penguin spent over £2 million pounds, which they will never recover. The Observer likewise spent about £600,000 defending a similar action brought by Irving, which they too will never recover. People without the resources of the Observer and Penguin just keep quiet.