I’m not a huge fan of Rowan Atkinson’s Mr. Bean (or much of his besides Blackadder), but I think he’s spot on in this particular critique.
To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion – that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticise ideas — any ideas even if they are sincerely held beliefs — is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. And the law which attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed. It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness — and the other represents oppression.
It’s all part of the debate a proposed bill in the British Parliament:
Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which will have its second reading in the Commons today, anyone judged to have stirred up religious hatred through threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, would be liable to a maximum of seven years in prison.
Yeah, because by criminalizing insults you’ll make folks be nice and tolerant and happy.
The bill supporters claim that the threshold for such prosecution will be very high, but aside from the chilling effect (second-guessing whether something you say might go over the ambiguous threshold and so further suppressing your own speech), it’s always dangerous to base criminal law on subjective evaluation of ideas expressed. There may be times when it’s necessary, but they only should be in the most extreme and dangerous cases.
(via Andrew Sullivan)
Read that yesterday on the BBC and found Atkinson to spot on in his arguement.
Love both Blackadder and Mr. Bean.
So no Baby eating Bishops of Bath and Wells for you.;->
Or, if you happen to be a Dawn French fan.
No Vicar of Dibley for you either.
On that note: Some things are legislated, some things are http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4077987.stm “target=”register only”>reflexive.
While I dislike popular opinion (perceived or real) getting in the way of my seeing what I want to see, there’s a significant difference between a movie studio asking for changes in a screenplay (or not making a film at all) because of fears it won’t be commercially viable, and their being concerned that they could be thrown in jail if they produce it.
I love, btw, the Vicar of Dibley series. And I consider it to be, ironically, a religiously positive set of shows. That some folks would think differently should not mean that Dawn French gets tossed in the slammer. Rrg.
No, no, no, no, no, no, er yes.;->
Yep, great show that I have to watch every time it’s on.
We have the collection on tape (and I keep thinking I should invest in the DVD set, as a sign of support if nothing else).
Not quite the party pleaser of, say, “Coupling,” but a very fine show.
well..
The bad joke portion at the end might be though.
More on the bill here. Main money quotes:
During a Commons debate on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, he said it was not intended that telling jokes about a faith should be caught by the offence, which carries a seven-year jail term.
But critics said the wording – which does not contain a definition of religion – was too loose and represented a threat to free speech. It says religious hatred “means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief”.
Mr Blunkett said: “The offence will not criminalise material that just stirs up ridicule, prejudice, dislike, contempt or anger or which simply causes offence.
“A person who does not intend to stir up hatred is not guilty if they did not know that their words, behaviour, written material, recording or programmes were threatening, abusive or insulting.
“The offences do not apply to anything that takes place in one’s own home. All prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney General, which will prevent the offences being misused through private prosecutions.”
I’m a big believer in LBJ’s adminition: “You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.” Mr Blunkett can assert all he wants about how the law will be interpreted and applied , but at best he can only speak for his own administration. Should some future British government decide that matierial that “just stirs up ridicule, prejudice, dislike, contempt or anger or which simply causes offence” *does* qualify as inciting religious hatred, there seems to be little from stopping them.