"why should a hatred inciting book should be subjected to tougher rules than other hatred inciting books (religious ones)?"
Good that you asked. I was actually already writing this when you responded:
This question pertains to the historiographic context, evaluation, and interpretation of the issue of religion and its conflict vis-a-vis hate speech. By nature religions are ancient forms of ideology:
Specifically, any contemporary viewpoint emerging that stated that "All Pakistanis are centipedes"* would be outlawed. It would not be permitted to form and become an actual religion, as its premise would conflict with present laws. In terms of historiographic context, there wouldn't be any, as it would be a new movement. Rather than a 'religion', it would be classified as a form of political activism, formed around the practice and incitement of hatred and racism. It wouldn't fly.
Religions, on the other hand, are an entirely different thing. To begin with, they are ancient. They cannot be held up to scrutiny and moral interpretation from a contemporary context (and perspective). They are worldviews that emerged during very different times, when humanity had different contexts for interpreting morality, violence, jurisprudence. Societies of the time lacked the very concepts of discrimination, freedom of conscience, and all other developments of the Enlightenment. Even if stupid, religion is usually seen as a moral guide where people can interpret the word of God and attempt to inform a moral framework that will guide their actions. Liberal states tolerate the presence of religion on the grounds of individual freedom and aforementioned rights of speech. To retroactively interpret them as racist, hateful, and the sort would be an anachronism and missing the point of religion as interpreted philosophy.
Let us see an example in practice:
I have two quotations here, one from Bible, the other from the Quran. I am not going to reveal which is which.
"Whoso fighteth in the way of God, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward".
"Make ready to slaughter the infidels' sons, because of the iniquity of their fathers. They must not arise and take possession of the earth and fill the face of the world with their cities".
Aside from the obvious debate over the fact that an adherent of a religion can interpret these passages in non-violent ways, to accomodate moral evolutions in the 1500+ years since these worldviews emerged: In the contemporary context, both passages could/would be seen as inciting hatred and violence. Yet we do not bestow upon the entire religion, or their adherents, the accusation that they are themselves inciting hatred and violence. The moment these passages cease to be merely a matter of freedom of religion, and are transformed into actual excitations of violence, that's when we proceed to try and imprison those particular individuals. In doing so, we cannot and do not hold the entire religion as accountable.
In other words: are you throwing pamphlets inciting hatred? You should be banned from entry, or if you are British you should be fined and imprisoned accordingly to the severity of your actions. Are you in a protest against Danish cartoons and inciting hatred? You should be banned from entry, or if you are British you should be fined and imprisoned accordingly to the severity of your actions.
I am only saying that the law should have the same face.
* To any Pakistani person, I hope you read this with the sarcasm intended, and not take any offense in this joke which actually caricatures those who are ridiculously biased or racist to others.
