Ganesh's beer, Mohammed's child bride and gay Jesus - more on 21st century blasphemy

It's always best to start with a beer:

Baffo’s Ganesh IPA carries an image of the multi-armed Hindu deity Ganesha holding a beer mug, a beer bottle, barley and what appears to be a hop cone.

In a statement, president of the Universal Society of Hinduism, Rajan Zed, said that the “inappropriate usage of Hindu deities, concepts or symbols for commercial or other agendas” was unacceptable as it would “hurt the devotees”.

Zed added that linking an alcoholic beverage with a Hindu deity was “very disrespectful”.

Ganesha, traditionally depicted as having multiple arms and a human body with the head of an elephant, is the Hindu god of wisdom and is known as the ‘remover of obstacles’.

Baffo describes its 5.8% IPA as a double malt amber-coloured craft beer brewed in the English IPA style.

It seems that, despite the offence taken at this blasphemy from the Universal Society of Hinduism, the brewer in question isn't budging and plans to carry on selling the beer. The organisation making the complaint is based in Nevada (and seems to have a thing about searching for beers using iconography from the Hindu pantheon as this micro brewery in Keighley discovered) and say:

“Usage of Hindu deities, concepts or symbols for commercial or other agendas is not okay as it hurts the devotees."

The central argument here isn't the fact of the blasphemy - “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” as the second commandment puts it - but rather that followers of the religion might be upset at others' blasphemy. It's a second order modern blasphemy that, at least in Europe, seems to be supported by the human rights courts:

"An Austrian woman's conviction for calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile did not violate her freedom of speech, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that Austrian courts carefully balanced the applicant's "right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria."

I don't consider that calling Mohammed a paedophile is done for any reason other than, as the court observed, "...having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship." The problem is the bit about "preserving religious peace in Austria" where a collective concern (followers of Mohammed might be unpeaceful if people are gratuitously rude about their prophet's matrimonial arrangements) is imposed on an individual right to speech. We should be concerned, moreover, that protecting religious 'feelings' is given as a reason to suppress speech.

This second order blasphemy where the crime is the upset caused to worshippers rather than the blasphemy itself sit oddly at a time when the West in general and Europe particularly is becoming less and less religious. And, as the Irish will vote today, specific blasphemy laws are seen as anachronistic (it's pointed out that, until Stephen Fry said something rude about God, the Irish had rather forgotten they had a blasphemy clause in their constitution).

For us Brits it took 30 years from the 1976 prosecution of Denis Lemon and Gay News for publishing a James Kirkup poem about Jesus being gay before we finally rid ourselves of any laws specifically criminalising blasphemy but now it is allowed for us to use religious symbolism satirically, attack the tenets of religions and call their founders rude names. Except, it seems, if doing this offends "religious feelings" or undermines "religious peace". I am reminded how I wrote, only a few days ago, how identity politics was creating a new form of blasphemy law:

We will have a scripture written down in legalese by government, police, CPS and courts with hate speech being to offend against these commandments - in effect what we'll have is a 21st century blasphemy law. And it will be a blasphemy law enforced by the unholy alliance of fanatical partisans, the Calvinists of Social Justice, and public authorities keen to be seen upholding the scriptures of political correctness. Free speech will have died.

I hadn't expected, when writing this about the widening reach of so-called 'hate crimes', that these would be used to reintroduce the crime of blasphemy - at least as regards Islam (Ganesh beer and gay Jesus have yet to find themselves in the European human rights courts although the UK Supreme Court has rules on gay cakes). The outcome of the ECHR's decision won't be a rash of court cases but rather the gradual adjustment of public diversity policies all wrapped round a wider definition of Islamophobia to encompass upsetting Muslims rather than just being prejudiced against Muslims.

I think we are watching as the right to speak as we see things, even if that upsets people, is being ended. People will still tell us they think free speech is important but then ruin this truth by saying that some forms of speech aren't free speech - "hate speech isn't free speech" they'll assert expecting us to nod and say "of course we can't let people say that sort of stuff". This isn't free speech it's exactly the same as that stiff old world of blasphemy laws where politicians, courts and public authorities decide what you are or are not allowed to say. Welcome to 21st century blasphemy where the possibility of offence - even faux offence from an obsessive little organisation in Nevada - is sufficient for your speech to be banned. As Ireland votes to remove its blasphemy law, the ECHR puts it back in!

....