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!

....

TERFs, trans and Anjem Choudary - 21st century blasphemy laws

“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!”

The words of Henry II are remembered because some of his knights took his exclamation of anger and frustration as a call to arms and proceeded to murder the priest in question, Thomas Becket. These words came to my mind as I pondered where we are going with laws to control 'hate speech' and, in passing, the high profile release of Anjem Choudary from jail on completion of his sentence for terrorism. A reminder of what the judge said at the time:

“The jury were sure that you knowingly crossed the line between the legitimate expression of your own views and the criminal act of inviting support for an organisation which was at the time engaged in appalling acts of terrorism.”

The important thing here is, however, that Choudary wasn't jailed for any acts of terrorism but for saying that the cause of ISIS was a good cause - he was jailed for his words not his deeds. We consider, in the manner of these things today, that his speech was hateful and sought to promote ideas that endanger the values of our civilised nation. Surely, if you believe in free speech (and think, for example, that Jeremy Corbyn promoting the cause of Hamas is OK) then you need to ask why our civilised, free nation felt it right to lock up Choudary for what he said but lets Jeremy lead the Labour Party.

The problem with wanting to deal with the case of Islamism and its promotion of violence is that it opens up the argument for reciprocity - if supporters of Tommy Robinson attack Islam in hateful terms they become 'far right' and must receive the same mistreatment as Anjem Choudary. It's only fair. So, to execute this fairness, we must believe that the threat from the 'far right' to the values of our civilised nation is as great the treat to those values from Islamism.

So far, so good. The targets are extremists of one sort or another so (at least as the 'stop hate' theorum goes) fair game. But where's the boundary? How far into conservative Islam do we go before hate becomes the expression of religious faith? And how far leftwards from the scarier parts of the 'far right' do we go before hate changes to allowable political rhetoric? It is impossible to answer these questions satisfactorily - Boris Johnson talking about letter boxes was crass and unpleasant but hardly hate speech. Or was it? Look at the debate in the Labour Party over what constitutes antisemitism - for some that party is now an institution wedded to the idea of antisemitism whereas others say instead that all Labour leaders are doing is highlighting the cause of the Palestinians. Who is right?

The problem with using laws to try and prevent hate speech is that it requires a set of what are, in effect, commandments setting out those things which are not permissible in speech. The principal of these commandments isn't enshrined in statute but is a definition agreed by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service:

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

The caveat here, of course, is that this hate crime definition requires a criminal offence before it can be invoked. And, conveniently, various laws exist that criminalise speech (Public Order Act 1986, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 are a few examples - remember Choudary was done under anti-terrorism laws) thereby allowing for the criminalising of pretty much any speech touching on matters referred to in that hate crime definition. It's this definition that has resulted in women's groups getting investigated for 'transphobia' while conducting a campaign to keep the law unchanged.

Not only is all this - the privileging of certain groups and opinions - an assault on free speech (anyone who thought it wrong to local up Count Dankula for teaching his girlfriend's pug a Nazi salute should also be worried about to jailing of Anjem Chaudary for his unpleasant, if less humorous, speech) but it also becomes a tool for bullies and mobs. Because the police (and the agencies, often private agencies for all their charitable status, they work with) encourage reporting of 'hate crime' the opportunity arises to use this as a means of closing down debate. This is what we've seen with the campaign around the current consultation on the Gender Recognition Act - loud opposing voices result in official intervention to prevent debate:

We recently received a request for a meeting to be held at Leeds Civic Hall by Women’s Place UK. Since accepting the booking, we have been made aware of further details regarding some of the views which have been raised by this group previously, which are not in line with Leeds City Council’s values on gender and equality. We have therefore decided that Leeds Civic Hall is not an appropriate venue for this event and have informed the organisers.

"...made aware of..." views - this is what we can expect as the hate speech agenda gets embedded. Because the voice of "transgender identity or perceived transgender identity" looms large in that definition (unlike being a woman), public authorities respond immediately to accusations of 'transphobia' even when such allegations are, at best, contested and, at worst, complete fiction.

All this seems a bit like a minority sport - trans versus TERFs isn't exactly mainstream in most folks' lives - but the direction of travel here is towards the further extension of hate speech interventions. The Law Commission says that hate speech definitions should encompass misogyny, ageism and perhaps even misandry. With each extension the degree to which our speech is policed becomes more and more intolerable while the mobs and bullies extend their domination of politics to the exclusion of modest, moderate and considerate voices. 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.

.....

Quote of the day: On hate crime

This is about the sum of it:

The true story here is not that Britain became more hateful post-referendum, but that officialdom, aided by spectacularly uncritical commentators, has developed new ways of cynically constructing crime epidemics. And to what end? To the explicitly political end of demonising the choice made by voters in the referendum and depicting Britain outside of the EU as a dangerous place in which old and ugly views have been emboldened. Rarely has the political motivation behind spreading a crime panic been so obvious, so shrill, as this.

And it continues with ever more spaces and places to report such crimes. Most of which is purely and simply an attack on free speech.

...