More on the Religious Hatred Bill

Yesterday's demonstration outside the House of Lords,  against the Religious Hatred Bill,  was an odd affair.  It had been organised by evangelical Christian groups and their members formed the majority of the protesters.  There was more hymn singing than shouting and chanting, so it didn't feel much like a proper protest.  At one point,  I heard someone say,  "Is this it then? What happens now?"  Maybe he was expecting an invasion of the House,  Countryside-Alliance style.  Sympathisers like Baroness Cox and the Bishop of Southwell addressed the crowd but most of the time,  we stood around talking and listening to some pleasant singing. 

So why are evangelical Christians so opposed to the bill?  Is it because,  as one of their banners said,  free speech is a Christian tradition?  I'm not so sure.  Some of them that I spoke to see the relationship between religions as competitive. They are not really into this inter-faith stuff.  They want to protect their right to convert people from any other religion,  including Islam.  To do that,  they need to be able to criticise the teachings of Islam.  That seems to be their main motivation for opposing this bill.  Most of the demonstrators had placards saying "Defend Free Speech".  I couldn't help wondering how many of the same people had been out earlier this year demanding the banning of  "Gerry Springer: The Opera." 

The debate in the Lords went on until about 10.30.  Traditionally,  the Lords do not vote on a bill's second reading,  so it has been referred to the committee stage.  If it survives unamended and passes its third reading,  it will become law.  If we want to get it dumped, time is running out.

Comments

[EU Serf]

.......They want to protect their right to convert people from any other religion, including Islam.......

You can't blame them for that. Their predecessors may well have burnt people at the stake for their beliefs, but you can't fault their current position.

[Steve]

Serf, I don't blame them and I defend their right to try and convert who they like. My criticism is that I suspect that many of them are protesting about restrictions on their own free speech, arther than about free speech generally. Christians are just as quick to call for the banning of books, plays and films that they don't like.

[Irene Adler]

A couple of the Dutch cases of burka wearers involved women who wanted to teach small children in kindergarten and day care.

I think it's cruel to expect a child to have a teacher whose face they can't see. It must be a frightening and extremely uncomfortable experience. Not to mention the negative images of women this child will grow up with because of it.

I also wouldn't want a burka-wearer as a doctor or a nurse, for example. Imagine getting the news you have cancer from some lady whose face you can't see - quite a cold and shocking experience I can imagine.

No, we don't need the burka in our societies. Secondly burkas/niqabs/face coverings aren't required in Islam, only the hijab. So if it is not a requirement of their religion why should we tolerate it?

[Steve]

Irene, I think this comment was probably meant for the above post on the Burka. I've tried to move it but my technical skills aren't that good. I will reply above, just to keepth thread inthe right place.

[Irene Adler]

Yes sorry Steve, I did mean it for the burka thread! My bad!