Do you consider this a "faith crime"?

Lothian said:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherent
Click to expand...

Whew!
 
Mycroft said:
What exactly is a "faith crime." Is it bashing religion? Inciting hatred against a religion?
Click to expand...
I linked to the act above. The act lists the offenses under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. (Linked again)

Perhaps we can speculate on unlisted faith crimes that should be incuded in a rewrite. Perhaps

It shall be a crime to discriminate on the grounds of religious texts.
It shall be a crime for heavenlike gatekeepers to operate a discriminating entry system based on the religious beliefs of would be entrants.
It shall be a crime to baptise or to perform another initiation ceremony on a person before that person has reached the age of consent.
It shall be a crime to mutilate a child on the grounds of religious practice.
 
Darat said:
Sorry - I didn't paste all of my text into the OP. From the interview the preacher seemed to be saying the photo alone should be enough for police action and the resignation of the head of the GPA.
Click to expand...

The picture alone is in poor taste, and unnecessarily alienating, maybe.

Really, the picture alone, without context, would just be confusing… Is that paint, ketchup? Ah, blood. The blood of Christ, then?

I’d worry how, for example, the Episcopals I know would react to such a portrayal of their holy book. They mean gays no harm, support equality in their church and government. Some are, in fact, gay. Don’t your Episcopal churches even march in the gay and lesbian parades? They always, gratefully, show at ours.

It probably doesn’t meet the standard of a faith crime, but it’d not be my choice if I were deciding for the GPA.
 
Scot C. Trypal said:
The picture alone is in poor taste, and unnecessarily alienating, maybe.
Click to expand...

.... neither of which are offenses against the Act.

One of my favorite shirts is also in poor taste and unnecessarily alienating (it has a picture of John Cleese and a rather famous Monty Python quote on it). Would you suggest I be prosecuted for wearing it?
 
It doesn't strike me as threatening. I can't see how it would violate the statute.
 
Scot C. Trypal said:
The picture alone is in poor taste, and unnecessarily alienating, maybe.
Click to expand...

As an image, I see the undeniable connection between Religion and Conflict. It may be interpreted as positive, or negative. So is Christ on the cross poor taste?
 
drkitten said:
.... neither of which are offenses against the Act.
Click to expand...

Sure.

One of my favorite shirts is also in poor taste and unnecessarily alienating (it has a picture of John Cleese and a rather famous Monty Python quote on it). Would you suggest I be prosecuted for wearing it?
Click to expand...

No.

I’d certainly not want them prosecuted either, even if the law did say they should be. I don’t even have anything inherently against things that most would consider in poor taste or alienating to certain groups. But I still find this advertisement to be both.

I simply don’t like the way it could be seen to lump all Christians in with acts of violence, and worry how alienating this could be to Christians who don’t deserve it, those working to aid gays and lesbians. (I guess, I also find the blood, presumable to represent that of a gay victim, to be too much, admittedly just a personal sense of appropriateness regarding the use of something so personally and emotionally traumatic to advertise for some group.)
 
Raphael said:
As an image, I see the undeniable connection between Religion and Conflict. It may be interpreted as positive, or negative. So is Christ on the cross poor taste?
Click to expand...

For me, it depends on the context. A bloody writhing Christ on the back of a t-**** (Edit: Lol, Did I really misspell that? Shirt!) on the guy standing in line in front of my kids at Disney Land... I find that to be in poor taste. In some reverent work of art in a gallery or cathedral. I'd not call that in poor taste. Don't know where most would draw the line though, and would not want to restrict any by law.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Therefore they need to show my intention was sinister when I walked round the high street imploring people to “bash the bishop”.
Click to expand...
[Monty]
Son: (coming in the door) 'Ello Mum. 'Ello Dad.
Klaus: 'Ello son.
S: There's a dead bishop on the landing, dad!
K: Really?
Mum: Where's it from?
S: Waddya mean?
M: What's its diocese?
S: Well, it looked a bit Bath and Wells-ish to me...
K: (getting up and going out the door) I'll go and have a look.
M: I don't know...kids bringin' 'em in here....
S: It's not me!
M: I've got three of 'em down by the bin, and the dustmen won't touch 'em!
K: (coming back in) Leicester.
M: 'Ow d'you know?
K: Tattooed on the back o' the neck. I'll call the police.
M: Shouldn't you call the church?
S: Call the church police!
K: All right. (shouting) The Church Police!

(sirens racing up, followed by a tremendous crash)
(the church police burst in the door)

Detective: What's all this then, Amen!
M: Are you the church police?
All the police officers: (in unison) Ho, Yes!
M: There's another dead bishop on the landing, vicar sargeant!
Detective: Uh, Detective Parson, madam. I see... suffrican, or diocisian?
M: 'Ow should I know?
D: It's tattooed on the back o' their neck. (spying the tart) 'Ere, is that rat tart?
M: Yes.
D: Disgusting! Right! Men, the chase is on! Now we should all kneel!
(they all kneel)
All: O Lord, we beseech thee, tell us 'oo croaked Leicester!
(thunder)
Voice of the Lord: The one in the braces, he done it!
Klaus: It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.
Detective: Agreed. We'll be charging them too.
[/Python]
 
drkitten said:
.... neither of which are offenses against the Act.

One of my favorite shirts is also in poor taste and unnecessarily alienating (it has a picture of John Cleese and a rather famous Monty Python quote on it). Would you suggest I be prosecuted for wearing it?
Click to expand...

John Cleese? - you were ripped off, mate. Return it and demand a genuine one with Graham Chapman on it. :)
 
Didaktylos said:
John Cleese? - you were ripped off, mate. Return it and demand a genuine one with Graham Chapman on it. :)
Click to expand...

Given that the quote in question is from Cleese, I'm afraid the shopkeeper might not be especially helpful. I can see the exchange now....

A customer enters a pet shop.

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

(The owner does not respond.)

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?

Owner: What do you mean "miss"?

Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

Owner: We're closin' for lunch.

Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this shirt what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the one with a picture of Graham Chapman on it. What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead Python when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
 
I'm against the incitement to religious hatred laws, but I am beginning to favor laws against inciting python :p
 
Scot C. Trypal said:
Sure.
I simply don’t like the way it could be seen to lump all Christians in with acts of violence
Click to expand...
I wonder how many religions subscribe to the teachings of a book called the Holy Bible? It must be a few.

I think this subtly made point is crucial here - they're not criticising just one religion, but lots, perhaps most of them.
 
Lothian said:
I thought the Religious hatred bill was stuck between the Commons and Lords. Has it been passed ?
Click to expand...

Lothian said:
I finally found the text of the act. I don’t think it applies to this advert but without knowing the section of the act under which the preacher thinks an offence has been committed, it is difficult to say for sure.

Section 29C of the act says A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
Click to expand...
Fortunately they were forced to remove the bit that said that someone could be found guilty if he made a statement and was "reckless as to whether religious hatred would be stirred up". A prosecutor will now have to show that they intended to stir up religious hatred. The mere fact that the statement does this, or more importantly that someone is claiming that it does this, is not enough for a conviction.
 
Darat said:
The advert in question is this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/144bf68615704b.jpg

The original complaint to the police came from a Christian preacher, he states that the picture alongside the text (which made a statement that something like 75% of crimes against homosexuals had some motivation arising from the criminals religious beliefs - I'm trying to track down where that statistic came from) in means it is in breach of the new anti-religious hatred legislation. In the interview I heard he stated that the picture alone makes it a faith crime.
Click to expand...

I thought that thread title was a joke at first. I've heard that there are laws against "blasphemy" in Europe, but I always thought they were kind of like laws against sodomy (any sex will do) in the US. Not applied for a long time.

"Faith Crime" just sounds so silly and holier than thou politically correct.
 
Elind said:
I thought that thread title was a joke at first. I've heard that there are laws against "blasphemy" in Europe, but I always thought they were kind of like laws against sodomy (any sex will do) in the US. Not applied for a long time.

"Faith Crime" just sounds so silly and holier than thou politically correct.
Click to expand...
the "blasphemy" have been rendered practically unenforcible, however the crime of inciting religious hatred is very new. It is actually based on our crime of inciting racial hatred, a long standing law in the UK. Under existing legislation Jews and Sikhs where counted as "ethnic" groups, as well as religious groups, so acts which intended to incite hatred against Sikhs or Jews was illegal. The resurgence of the far right in the UK has mainly been focused against Muslims, many people where upset and or concerned that speech which incited hatred against Muslims was legal, whilst speech which incited hatred against Jews and Sikhs was illegal. The new legislation makes it a crime to incite hatred against any faith, or people with no faith, on the same bases that ethnic groups had been protected.
It's important to note that it is still OK to criticize religion, just as it was always legal to criticize Sikhism and Judaism, so long as that speech is not intended to stir up hatred against the people who practice those faiths.
 
brodski said:
It's important to note that it is still OK to criticize religion, just as it was always legal to criticize Sikhism and Judaism, so long as that speech is not intended to stir up hatred against the people who practice those faiths.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the eye of the beholder is just as likely to consider criticism or ridicule as hate, so who judges? "Faith Crime" still sounds like a bad cartoon joke to me......Seen any good Faith Based cartoons lately?:boggled:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom