4 ms·

I understand that it's anti-Muslim, but is that "hate speech"? If it were an anti-Christian video that showcased Jesus as a pedophile and philanderer, would it

by nhebb 14y ago

I understand that it's anti-Muslim, but is that "hate speech"? If it were an anti-Christian video that showcased Jesus as a pedophile and philanderer, would it be labeled as such? It's free speech.

DanBC 14y ago
In the UK: Yes, it probably would be labelled as hate speech. If someone was subject to violence and were called insults based on their Christianity the crime would be dealt with as a hate crime and the sentence would be more severe. Also: The UK for years[1] had laws dealing with Blasphemy (a crime that could only be committed against the Christian church) and laws that dealt with racial prejudice. Since Islam is not christian, nor a race, muslims were left unprotected. You may argue that Christians and jews should not have those protections. I hope you'd agree that it's iniquitous for one group to be left out of the protection of the law. [1] This was changed in 2006 with the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Act. Blasphemy was later repealed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act...)
- kbolino 14y ago
  The iniquity of failing to punish blasphemy against Islam is far outweighed by the injustice of punishing blasphemy in the first place. No set of beliefs should be so sacrosanct that the government must act to shield their fragile believers' minds from the criticism of others.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    I'd agree. But the fact remains that there was a discrepancy where one group was left without any protection. > No set of beliefs should be so sacrosanct that the government must act to shield their fragile believers' minds from the criticism of others. Let's not forget that 3,500 people died (and 47,000 were injured) during "the Troubles" which had sectarian religious aspects. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)
- bliving 14y ago
  In Canada, the slope is very slippery. Hate speech, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, is anything "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt". For better or worse, it certainly has a chilling effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

by nhebb 14y ago

I understand that it's anti-Muslim, but is that "hate speech"? If it were an anti-Christian video that showcased Jesus as a pedophile and philanderer, would it be labeled as such? It's free speech.

DanBC 14y ago

In the UK: Yes, it probably would be labelled as hate speech. If someone was subject to violence and were called insults based on their Christianity the crime would be dealt with as a hate crime and the sentence would be more severe. Also: The UK for years[1] had laws dealing with Blasphemy (a crime that could only be committed against the Christian church) and laws that dealt with racial prejudice. Since Islam is not christian, nor a race, muslims were left unprotected. You may argue that Christians and jews should not have those protections. I hope you'd agree that it's iniquitous for one group to be left out of the protection of the law. [1] This was changed in 2006 with the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Act. Blasphemy was later repealed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act...)

kbolino 14y ago
The iniquity of failing to punish blasphemy against Islam is far outweighed by the injustice of punishing blasphemy in the first place. No set of beliefs should be so sacrosanct that the government must act to shield their fragile believers' minds from the criticism of others.
- DanBC 14y ago
  I'd agree. But the fact remains that there was a discrepancy where one group was left without any protection. > No set of beliefs should be so sacrosanct that the government must act to shield their fragile believers' minds from the criticism of others. Let's not forget that 3,500 people died (and 47,000 were injured) during "the Troubles" which had sectarian religious aspects. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles)
bliving 14y ago
In Canada, the slope is very slippery. Hate speech, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, is anything "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt". For better or worse, it certainly has a chilling effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada