Is Telling the Truth About Religion a Crime?

People in Europe, and Britain especially, should be concerned about the direction their societies are taking. Any society where telling the truth or speaking your opinion about a religion can lead to interrogation by the police, much less prosecution by the state, is not a truly free and liberal society. It might sound completely bizarre to even suggest that such a thing is possible, but not only is it possible, it's actually happening — and in the context of more than one religion, too.

Recently, Channel 4 was accused of lying to the public by making Muslim clerics look like they were violent radicals through creative editing of interviews and speeches. In reality, everything in the documentary was true:

Its undercover journalists infiltrated radical mosques. They recorded assorted preachers calling for the subjugation of women, the murder of homosexuals and Jews, the replacement of the 'man-made' laws of a democracy with the religious edicts of a theocratic state and the eternal damnation of Muslims who did not follow Wahhabi doctrine and infidels who did not accept the true faith.

The station took every care to ensure the accuracy of the programme. I speak from experience when I say that being edited by Channel 4's commissioning editors is like having a team of revenue inspectors going through your accounts. Its lawyers swarmed over the script of Undercover Mosque to make sure it complied with the law and Ofcom's regulatory guidelines. Two weeks before transmission, they sent letters to every cleric criticised in the film explaining what Channel 4 had accused them of and offering them a chance to reply.

Source: Guardian

The documentary wasn't critical of Muslims as Muslims, but of Muslim clerics who preached violence, murder, and the end of democracy. Muslims themselves condemned the clerics because many worry about what will happen to Islam in Britain if clerics like these retain their power and influence. Ofcom (the regulatory authority for communications industries in the UK) rejected the claim that Channel 4 did anything wrong and the police refused to apologize, so Channel 4 properly took them to court in a libel suit which they won.

Thus far, the police haven't explained why they did what they did — there is no explanation for the basis of their allegations against Channel 4 or even why they thought it was a case worth pursuing in the first place. It is thought by some that the reason is simply because telling the truth about extremist Muslim leaders is embarrassing and that runs counter to a quasi-official policy of appeasing extremists who are not yet violent:

The National Secular Society wants an inquiry to force them into the open. Until we get one, the best explanation lies in Patani's title: assistant chief constable (security and cohesion). Since 9/11, not only police officers, but New Labour ministers, the Home Office, Foreign Office and pseudo-left journalists and councils have sought to promote 'cohesion' by appeasing Islamist groups which aren't quite as extreme as al-Qaeda. ...Elements within the government thought that if they could co-opt the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami and ignore their foul beliefs, they would isolate the terrorists to their right. Even Labour now admits that the policy has been a practical failure and moral shambles.

The mere fact that someone isn't involved with flying planes into buildings doesn't mean that they aren't violent or that they aren't responsible for violence. In the case of Muslim extremism in Britain, the victims of violence are the already-vulnerable population of immigrant women:

Far more vulnerable people than journalists are suffering from the double standard. Earlier this year, the Centre for Social Cohesion issued a report on honour killings and beatings. South Asian and Middle Eastern women's groups reported an increasingly widespread trend. Officials who should treat all women equally were deciding that where their community's religious and cultural practices conflicted with the law, the law had to give way.

Zalikha Ahmed, director of the Apna Haq refuge, told the report's researchers: 'We don't visit the station when certain Asian officers are on because some of them are perpetrators and one of them said that he would not arrest someone who used force on his wife.' A worker in a women's group in the north, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals, added she had been 'appalled' by an Asian 'chief inspector who had offered to help a family track a girl down'.

Is it a coincidence that in this report, the one place described as having the worst problems is the same West Midlands police department which brought the allegations against Channel 4? Perhaps it is a coincidence, but I have my doubts.

It's not just Muslim extremists who are getting official police protection from their critics. Scientology centers around the world have been targeted for protests by people who object to the organization's tactics and, in Britain, one young protester may have to go to court for holding a sign saying that Scientology is a "cult".

Officers confiscated a placard with the word "cult" on it from the youth, who is under 18, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. ...Anonymous, who were outside the church's £23m headquarters near St Paul's cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was "abusive and insulting".

Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: "I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: 'Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.'

"'Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector."

A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and "strongly advised" him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.

The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".

Source: Guardian

So, is it illegal in Britain now to say something that can be deemed "abusive and insulting", or is it only illegal when a religious group decides that someone's professed opinion is "abusive and insulting"? Or is it only Scientology that I can't say something "abusive and insulting" about? Can I say something insulting about the police and prosecutors who try to enforce such standards, or will that get me taken to court as well? Is it just holding a sign that's illegal, or is it also illegal to speak the words aloud? What if I publish them online?

The case here isn't exactly equivalent with the libel against Channel 4. Whereas Channel 4 appears to have been a victim of quasi-official government attempts to appease extremists, protesters against Scientology are victims of ridiculous police who are receiving great financial benefits from the same Scientology organization they are protecting from critics:

The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology.

The City of London Chief Superintendent, Kevin Hurley, praised Scientology for "raising the spiritual wealth of society" during the opening of its headquarters in 2006. Last year a video praising Scientology emerged featuring Ken Stewart, another of the City of London's chief superintendents, although he is not a member of the group.

Now, I'm not saying that Scientology has been bribing the police to protect them from public criticism, nor am I saying that police officials are so prejudiced in favor of Scientology that they will go out of their way to do things for Scientology which the law doesn't mandate and which they won't do for other organizations. I do, however, think the facts described above are worth taking into consideration and I personally wouldn't trust police in such a position to do the right, fair, just or legal thing where Scientology is concerned.

Sadly, Britain is not the only place where religion is getting special protection from critics. A Dutch cartoonist has been arrested for publishing "insulting cartoons" on the internet:

The complaint which Public Prosecutor's Office is handling was made in 2005. The Public Prosecutor's Office's issued a press release saying: "The investigation has revealed that a number of cartoons published on the internet were, according to our office, insulting to Muslims and to people of colour. Moreover, the Public Prosecutor's Office believes the cartoons could inspire hatred."

Minister Hirsch Ballin says the Netherlands has an international obligation to crack down on this type of discrimination.

Source: Radio Netherlands

So, it's "discrimination" to draw and publish a cartoon that is "insulting"? What about writing words that are "insulting"? Who determines what is "insulting enough" to amount to discrimination — are we supposed to trust the government to make such a determination, or will the government simply abide by whatever the "insulted" group says? Where is the "discrimination" in "insulting" cartoons — is it because the artist picked a particular group or ideology to criticize, or because he was too "insulting" with his criticisms? In the former case, almost any editorial cartoon could be "discrimination."

I don't buy the idea that the Netherlands has any obligation to crack down on this sort of behavior, even if they can label it "discrimination." There are no international treaties or obligations for a government to oppress it's own people or suppress free expression for the sake of preventing other people from feeling insulted. People of course have a right to feel safe from violence and oppression, but not to feel safe from being insulted by the opinions of others — especially opinions about an ideology or belief system.

What kind of standard is it to criminalize material that could inspire hatred? Any sort of harsh criticism, even if true, could inspire hatred. And let's assume, for the sake of argument, that telling the truth does risk inspiring hatred... doesn't this mean that telling the truth becomes a crime? Who is to be protected from this — every group and organization, or only the organizations which the state wants to privilege? An anti-Nazi site may have material that could inspire hatred of Nazism, but will the authors there be arrested?

[Lawyer Gerard] Hamer described the arrest as "Pure intimidation": "If it isn't really necessary to arrest people you shouldn't do it. Our freedom is a great good, as is the freedom of expression. By arresting someone you have an influence on free expression. You show that because of his cartoons he has a real chance of losing his freedom. This is what they do in Zimbabwe, or in other countries; there it happens all the time. One hopes that the Amsterdam Public Prosecutor's Office won't end up making this a habit."

The Dutch government said on a previous occasion that insulting religion should remain a punishable offence. Many MPs disagree and want to abolish the law. On Tuesday, Parliament will continue to debate freedom of expression and the arrest of Gregorius Nekschot.

Hamer is right that this is a form of intimidation. Artists and even writers who might want to criticize Islam or another religion will be more inclined to self-censor and perhaps not say anything at all if they think they have a legitimate fear that doing so will lead to arrest and incarceration. This is in fact one of the best ways for the government to get people to self-censor: arrest them for "crimes" that will never lead to successful prosecution, but which nevertheless cause enough harassment and intimidation to create the same effect as deliberate censorship.

The idea of "insulting religion" is not only a bad law, but it's an incoherent concept. Only a person can be insulted, not an ideology or philosophy, so only Muslims can be insulted, not Islam itself. What this means is that laws against "insulting religion" are really laws against "insulting religious believers." Why should religious believers be protected from being insulted? Why shouldn’t everyone be protected equally?

The answer is because religious believers think that they and their beliefs are special and deserve special laws, special rules, special consideration, and extra deference from society. This is wrong — it's immoral, it should be illegal, and it certainly violates the principle of equal protection under the law which should be central in every liberal democracy. No matter how much people may dislike being insulted, no one deserves to have the power of the state protect them from being insulted — not even if the insult involves opinions of theirs which they hold very dear.