The latest Jesus and Mo strip, called “obvious”, came with a note and a link:
They UK gov just aren’t going to let this one go, for some reason: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrjzp42v4zo
It’s paywalled, but you can find the full article archived here; it’s titled, “Ministers finalising definition of anti-Muslim hatred.” Here’s an excerpt (for some reason the BBC turns every sentence into a paragraph). I’ve put the draft definition in bold.
The government is considering a draft definition of anti-Muslim hatred which does not include the term “Islamophobia”.
The BBC has seen the form of words from the Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim hatred working group, which the government has taken to stakeholders for consultation.
Free speech campaigners have expressed concerns that protections for “Islamophobia” would mean it would not be possible to criticise the religion itself.
Members of the working group argue the definition protects individuals while avoiding overreach.
A working group was established in February to provide the government with a working definition of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia.
A working group was established in February to provide the government with a working definition of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia.
They submitted their proposal to the government in October.The definition will be non-statutory, meaning it is not set in law or legally binding, but will provide a form of words public bodies can adopt.
It provides guidance to the government and other bodies on what constitutes unacceptable treatment of Muslims, aiming to help them better understand and quantify prejudice and hate crimes against this group.
The draft definition is: “Anti-Muslim hostility is engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their religion, ethnicity or appearance.
“It is also the prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics, to stir up hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.
“It is engaging in prohibited discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.”
In today’s cartoon, Jesus is right: if all religions are protected from hatred and discrimination, there’s no need to single out Muslims, giving them their own special protection that’s identical to everyone else’s. If the government wants to protect everyone equally, they only have to change the draft definition from “Anti-Muslim hostility” to “Anti-religious hostility.” Jesus points this out:
I guess Hitchens’ concise statement has gained traction.
That is good. Because as he said, the right to complain will be the next thing to be taken from you.
There’s some Hitch tributes the past few days – basically, some of his most brilliant, piercing quotes.
HITCH
In other areas, laws that single out protections for a particular group (gays, and so on) were passed because members of those groups were subjected to an increased amount of violence, intimidation, and discrimination in housing and employment. This despite the fact that broader laws existed that included them as a protected group. The intention of those laws were create greater public awareness of the problem, since prior laws clearly were not good enough.
Yikes! Say it ain’t so, Mark. Please cite for me a single U.S. law that singles out any particular named group as deserving special protection, instead of just barring discrimination against anyone on the basis of race, sex, or creed. What law specifically says, “for further clarity” that homosexuals are entitled to special, extra protection that straight people don’t get? Yes we know that interpreting “sex” as “sex plus sexual orientation” means in practice that most litigants will be homosexuals claiming they were discriminated against because they were homosexual. But the same law as written would still allow a heterosexual bartender to sue a bar in Provincetown for declining to hire him because he didn’t look gay enough, or a landlord refusing to rent to her and her husband because the landlord wanted to maintain the character of the gay ghetto. No one tells them, “You can’t allege discrimination under this law because it applies only to homosexuals.”
And the laws on race preference have been struck down. Blacks do not have special protection from racial discrimination that only they enjoy.
Now, the state may well investigate and enforce the law more vigorously against anti-gay straight people than against bigoted gay people, sure, or more vigorously against anti-black white people than against bigoted black people. But that’s just selective enforcement discretion to curry favour with client groups, not a special law just for blacks and homosexuals.
Thank you, Jerry for the setup you give in this edition of Jesus ‘n’ Mo.
Seems to me that based on numerous recent events, infidelophobia is a far greater problem.
You are only allowed to do hatred if it is mandated in your own holy scriptures.
Tribal hatred in scripture is not to be scrutinized.
A common Christian saying is “love the sinner but hate the sin” but it should really be, “Try to have a caring attitude towards others and do critical analysis of the behaviour in question, the pros and cons. Be sufficiently specific. Point out the reasons in favour of what you see as being the way of truth”
It is more about recognizing that people often use shorthand phrases like, “I hate you” when they really mean eg, “I’m really annoyed by what you did there”
The key thing is being able to translate , but we do get the gist anyway.
As Jesus might put it, “Blessed are you when others point out to you the reasons to think that your religion is largely based on fictions, shifting sand dunes of mythology. For then you will be less likely to waste your life on it”
However religion is sometimes about getting power and influence to get stuff, the small print doesn’t matter.