Dårligt nyt fra UK (igen)

Niels A. Nielsen poster i en kommentar ovre på professorvældet dette link, som er værd at gengive:

I dag træder en række nye love i kraft i den engelske og walisiske lovgivning, heriblandt en meget omdiskuteret paragraf, der gør det muligt at straffe “opfordring til had mod en person på grund af religion” hårdt.

Paragraffen, der blev kongeligt stadfæstet allerede februar 2006, lukker et hul i race-lovgivningen, der tidligere kun åbnede mulighed for at straffe medvirken til religiøst had, når det gjaldt sikher og jøder. De to grupper var eneste beskyttede, da de ifølge de britiske domstole var ene om gå under betegnelsen “racegrupper”.

Da den nye lov i 2001 blev foreslået, vakte det en del bekymring. Blandt andet blandt Storbritanniens komikere, der mente, det havde fatale konsekvenser for ytringsfriheden. Flere frygtede, at loven reelt ville betyde, at blev ulovligt at være vittig på religioners bekostning.

Blandt dem var komikeren og Mr. Bean-skuespilleren Rowan Atkinson, der mente, at en sådan paragraf ville have den modsatte virkning og gøre forholdet mellem religiøse grupper endnu mere anspændt.

…

Atkinsons tidligere indvendinger kan blandt andet ses her, i en tale han holdt for ca. 2 år siden. Her er et uddrag, men læs den endelig i sin helhed:

The prime motivating energy for the Bill seemed to come not from communities seeking protection from bullying by the British National Party but from individuals with a more aggressive, fundamentalist agenda. Those who have sought, from the very day of the publication in 1989 of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses, to immunise religions against criticism and ridicule – or at least to promote legislation that is so sinister and intimidating, it can provide that immunity without even the need to prosecute anyone. In other words, to impose self-censorship.

The starting point for my objections to this Bill is to argue with its supposedly inarguable premise: the ‘ooh Yes Religious Hatred, that sounds like a bad thing, let’s have a law against that’. As hatred is defined as intense dislike, what is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion, if the activities or teachings of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be intensely disliked?

[...]

If Jews and Sikhs are protected from criticism of their religious beliefs or religious activities, then that is a wrong and the idea of extending that to other religions is also a wrong. To criticise people for their race is manifestly irrational but to criticise their religion, that is a right.

The freedom to criticise or ridicule ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is a fundamental freedom and a law which says that you can ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas, is a very odd law indeed. It promotes the idea that there should be a right not to be offended, when I think that the right to offend is far more important than a right not to be offended.

…

Lovforslaget er faldet to gange før. Min respekt for Rowan Atkinson er vokset stærkt de sidste par år. Min respekt for britiske politikere på den anden side…