Freedom of speech - illegal to criticise religions?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by murff576, Apr 3, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Illegal to criticise religions? No. UN wants to make it illegal to criticise Islam.
     
  2. I dont see what difference it will have on me, or anyone I know.

    CNN sensationalist bullshit.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies that there are limitations on what constitutes "Freedom of Speech". Hate speech is one such limitation, hate speech is defined as -

    This from country that promotes democracy, freedom and equality for all...
     
  3. IMHO There is a whole heap of diference between saying something which is critical of another group and something which incites hatred.
     
  4. Seconded :D
     
  5. Never mind the religion bollocks, not allowed to rip gwars???!!! :evil:
     
  6. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    The UN is taking us back 600 years. They can fcuk right off.

    Islam? Stick it up your pipe, it's for suckers. Mohammed was a paedo by the definition of OUR laws.

    Christianity? For losers, ex-Hitler youth movement, the weak of mind and paedos.

    Judaism? You can stick your skull cap where the sun don't you cretins.

    Don't like it? Have an inquisition and burn me at the stake!

    Am I angry about this? Why yes, I think I am. How dare these freaks who all say that THEIR sky fairy is better than all the OTHER sky faeries deny me the right to tell them they're all nutters?

    Imagine where this will go next? Are we going to jail every turbaned tw@t who says there is only ONE true god and his name is Allah? We should, because it denigrates christianity, and Judaism, and every other religion, including the ones that deify COWS!

    This is the right potion for another series of pogroms, religious wars, genocides and fatwahs.
     
  7. No I reckon Gwars wil be exempt and therefore still fair game :)
     
  8. I think this is, as a previous poster has said, going to have a limited effect on us given that we already have a law against incitement to religious hatred. The UN resolution prohibits acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion arising from defamation of religion rather than defamation of religion itself.

    Our law on incitement to religious hatred as it stands however I think is a disgrace, surely freedom of speech should be paramount. Criminal acts are criminal acts without any further justification, in my opinion you shouldn't ban something that doesn't directly hurt anyone (feelings don't count).

    Besides this if all the nutters (of any religion/political hue) are allowed to spew their bile publically then they can usually be recognised for the pricks they are. In addition if they do this publically you can challenge their position and you can tell more easily if they pose an actual threat to anyone than if you've driven them underground. By banning someone's views no matter how distasteful you they are you run a serious risk of creating a martyr out of a no mark who would have otherwise been ignored.
     
  9. Unless they are Welsh,obviously.
     
  10. Thing is, when a religion is a fundamental part of a state's make up, criticising the religion becomes criticism of the state and all kinds of nationalistic feelings are stirred up. For instance, going to the Orkneys and criticising Presbytarianism would be taken as a de facto slur against Orcadians.

    And vice versa.

    So criticising an Islamic state for acting in a manner intrinsic to Islam becomes a religious hate crime. Thus, speaking out against human rights abuses in Pakistan (women jailed for being victims of rape) becomes an attack on Islam.
     
  11. Religion is a personal choice. I agree it is 'not sport' to attack (verbally or otherwise) an individual because of their beliefs or lack thereof.

    This law is trying to make criticism of religion in general illegal. There was a recent book which caused problems, because it happened to mention the FACT, that, by modern western standards, mohammed was a child molester. (one of his wives was 9 (it may have been 7) years old when he married her).

    Obviously members of the 'religion of peace' protested about the book, and the publishers withdrew the book out of fear. Muslims are trying to suppress these facts and to turn the clock back in the western world to a time when religion was 'allmighty'. It was called the dark ages for a reason. The current policy of appeasement which is being followed by western countries, is not working. It is simply making those who wish to impose islam on the rest of us, more bold. The only way we are going to remain free, is to call a stop to the policy of appeasement and deal with these issues. In the short term there will be trouble, but batting the issue off to the next election cycle (Which labour do for all problems) is nothing short of cowardice and is betraying future generations.

    There was a time when criticising the catholic church would have meant a death sentence. Many lives were lost to buy the freedoms we now enjoy. If we wish to keep these freedoms, we must speak up.
     
  12. Not all beliefs are equal. If someone believes that aliens are projecting mind rays into his head, I reserve the right to call him a frackin' nutjob. And so what if lots of people believe the same thing? A lie believed by a million people is still a lie.
     
  13. Oh well, if you insist.

    Let him who is without sin light the first match ...
     
  14. Well, in this case the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and Her Majesty The Queen may well be having their 'collars felt' by the ever correct politicised police.

    Why?

    The Book of Common Prayer says in The Articles of Religion, at Article 37:

    'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

    Critical or what?