Amidst the Danish toon non-troversy, the Muslim Council lost a vote in the UK parliament this week on a bill banning insults to religion (via Asians in Media).
Supporters of the bill wanted to ban anti-Muslim ads by right-wing political parties. They also argued Hindus and Muslims deserved the same protection against incitement to violence already granted to Sikhs, Jews and Christians under racial hatred and blasphemy laws.
Opponents, such as comedian Rowan Atkinson, said the bill was a sop to Muslim voters, was overbroad and would also ban religious satire like Monty Python’s The Life of Brian. The bill passed in a weakened form with only the hatred and incitement to violence planks intact. Incidentally, Mr. Bean is married to a desi woman.
Salman Rushdie… “There are moments when one is profoundly grateful for, and proud of, British Parliamentary democracy. This is one of them…”Hanif Kureishi… “This is an amazing result and a great achievement for writers and intellectuals when they unite…”
Hari Kunzru… “I was very happy to wake up to this news. The Government’s loss is Britain’s gain… This defeat should be another signal to the Government that in its disregard for civil liberties, it’s losing touch with the mainstream of British opinion…”
[PEN…] “… It will now be criminal to publish posters showing women of many colours in hijabs with the slogan ‘Muslims go home…’ ” [Link]
That blasphemy laws still exist on Britain’s books, pushed by the government church and enforceable by the state, makes me doubly glad of the upcoming 230th anniversary of American independence.
By the way, U.S. commenters here have been very confused about free speech and the First Amendment. Constitutional experts, feel free to chime in:
It’s public, not private. You have the right to say whatever you wish in a publicly-owned space*. That means your blog or a taxpayer-funded city street — not someone else’s blog (we have an anti-idiotarian comment policy), my living room or a privately-owned shopping mall. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to private property.
As a general rule, the owner of private property is free to restrict expressive activitites of others on the property. You are under no First Amendment obligation to admit people into your living room and then listen to them blow off about any topic of their choice. Similarly, an owner of a restaurant has no duty to allow persons who dislike the food she serves into the restaurant so the person can annoy customers or discourage others from eating there. [Link]
It’s about the government, not private citizens. You have the right to insult a prophet, garland a deity with penises, abuse call center workers or insult an ethnic group. The government cannot stop you. But your customers have the right to boycott. The Constitution guarantees free expression, not income.
* Except threatening or inciting violence or creating a public nuisance
Related posts: Provocation, The Danish cartoon controversy
