By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Helloplite on 10 April 2018
Edit Thread
LurkerJ said:

I think you should either go after both or let both be. Lauren pamphlets are obviously begging for a reaction, and I get that. But I don't find the reaction she was purposely looking for more problematic than what religious teachings result in. Therefore, I will never understand why hate speech laws can be enforced selectively against Lauren but not Imams in mosques.

I am generally happy as well but let's not pretend things will always be the same, the ongoing demographic changes with Muslims constituting a bigger piece of the pie will have negative effects on what freedom of speech means. But perhaps, this is a completely different topic.

This is an entirely different topic indeed. This concern is nevertheless a very unlikely prospect.

I also take an issue with this paragraph, why should a hatred inciting book should be subjected to tougher rules than other hatred inciting books (religious ones)? The intent might be different but the end result is the same.

Anyhow, I think you get where I am coming from by now and I understand where you're coming from as well. I'll try to articulate my thoughts better in future discussions but this is the best I can do for now. 

My concern was, and is, that it was implied that things in UK have become so bad that one can say that Jesus is gay with no repercussion, but one is jailed for saying that Allah is gay. I pointed to you the relevant legal passage and why the issue is not with the freedom to call the divines gay, but actually the underlying incitement of hatred that this woman practiced. I then proceeded to show you that the law in UK treats both groups in the same way, and does not in any way favour Muslims or disproportionally protect them from other groups. 

The question over whether we (should) subject religion itself to this kind of scrutiny is a well-open debate. But opening this can of worms would actually damage freedom of speech and conscience. The moment you decide that a religion can itself be inciting hatred, there is nothing stopping others from making the same case for just about any religion or ideology in the world. There is no end-state in this case, and certainly not an end-state that the liberal democratic framework can accommodate. Now, if you lived in Nazi Germany, it would be easy to vilify an entire religion. And guess what, it happened!

Last edited by Helloplite - on 10 April 2018