Polly's Not A Cracker

Words of wisdom from Polly Toynbee in today's Guardian, regarding Britain's odious new anti-blasphemy bill:

This bill is not "closing a loophole" as Labour claims, but marches right into dangerous new terrain. Here is an example: it is now illegal to describe an ethnic group as feeble-minded. But under this law I couldn't call Christian believers similarly intellectually challenged without risk of prosecution. This crystallises the difference between racial and religious abuse. Race is something people cannot choose and it defines nothing about them as people. But beliefs are what people choose to identify with: in the rough and tumble of argument to call people stupid for their beliefs is legitimate (if perhaps unwise), but to brand them stupid on account of their race is a mortal insult. The two cannot be blurred into one — which is why the word Islamophobia is nonsense. And now the Vatican wants the UN to include Christianophobia in its monitoring of discriminations.

What, exactly, is the crime that this bill's supposed to solve? Do people of faith really want to present themselves as mewling crybabies who deserve special protection against having their feelings hurt? Why are so-called adults worse at practicing the old sticks-and-stones adage than pretty much any sensible sixth-grader? More to the point, if you're a true believer, who could ever damage your faith?

If Muhammed is your guy, and you're secure in the knowledge that he has given you an inviolable roadmap to living a moral life, why would you care if some ass-hat thinks your beloved prophet was a bloodthirsty pedophile? Or suppose you've turned over your life to Jesus Christ Your Savior — does it really not occur that you that if Jesus readily forgave the men who drove iron spikes through his hands and feet, you should be able to deal with the terrible inconvenience of hearing a Christianity joke from time to time?

          _=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=

P.S.  Good discussion, as usual, at Harry's Place. I particularly like this sentiment from David Bruno, who neatly sums up my own feelings about laws that punish so-called hate crimes:

I would hate to see a law introduced to prevent people from expressing 'homophobic' sentiments. Why? Because it would prevent freedom of speech. It would also create other aggrieved people who would rightly state that their own concerns could not be legally expressed. It might seem superficially that such a law would protect homosexuals from discrimination, but in reality it would not. It would drive the problem underground. It would make resentments fester. It would make extremists with more dangerous axes to grind seem more reasonable when compared to the out-of-touch PC fantasists who drafted the law. In other words, such a law would be unnecessary and may even increase prejudice and ill feeling towards people who should be treated as adults, not as a special group needing special protection.

My own view is that rather than introduce a whole set of laws aimed at protecting all sorts of 'vulnerable minorities,' it is time to repeal all such laws, and to rely solely on incitement-to-violence laws which prosecute actions and statements whose specific goal is to effect violence against an individual or group of people. We already have these.

Comments

[Phil]

Political Correctness' "War Against Comedians" contines unabated.