Irish pastor on trial for 'insulting Islam'

[Terrywoodenpic]

This is outrageous and an offense to human rights to freedom of speech.

There are no internationally agreed total rights of free speech.
during the McCarthy hearings it was clear that the USA did not subscribe to them either.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

and you, my dear fellow, would be sadly mistaken in that perception. We do also have "Hate Speech Laws" so you can say anything you like as long as you are not calling for or advocating or supporting violence against any identifiable group.

So your free speech is selective in much the same way ours is.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

In this case, context is important. If it's true that the individual was using public funds and public assets (as in taxpayer supported) to deliver hate speech, at a minimum his use of those assets should be immediately terminated. While he has the right to spout whatever inaccurate and bigoted garbage he wants, he should not have the right to use taxpayer dollars to do so. That said, I have no idea what the legal policies are on this sort of thing in my own country, much less in Ireland.

Is calling a religion ( as opposed to its' adherents) "satanic" and "heathen" hate speech? I get the feeling hate speech legislation was aimed more at protecting citizens than ideologies. Arresting somebody for what they say in a place of worship (as long as it isn't advocating or instigating criminal behaviour) sets a very dangerous precedent for religious freedom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unless the article is missing some relevant details (e.g. a call to kill Muslims or something), I think the preacher's sermon should be protected as free speech.

Whether it violates Irish law... I have no idea.

One thing I forgot to mention is that he's being charged for something he said at the pulpit.

Why should that matter? Should speech made in other places be any less protected than speech at a pulpit?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Unless the article is missing some relevant details (e.g. a call to kill Muslims or something), I think the preacher's sermon should be protected as free speech.

Whether it violates Irish law... I have no idea.

Why should that matter? Should speech made in other places be any less protected than speech at a pulpit?

Yes. On the grounds that just as religion has no place interfering in government, government has no place interfering in religion (aside from the example I already gave). The state deciding what is okay and not okay for a religion to teach is a massive and unwarranted intrusion. I realise it's the slippery slope fallacy here, but how long would it be before religious clerics are in the dock for merely quoting their own scriptures which say homosexuality is sinful (again, as long as they're not doing it to instigate or advocate criminal behaviour)? A guilty verdict here would set a dangerous precedent - religion is immune from criticism.

 

[Quintessence]

Is calling a religion ( as opposed to its' adherents) "satanic" and "heathen" hate speech? I get the feeling hate speech legislation was aimed more at protecting citizens than ideologies. Arresting somebody for what they say in a place of worship (as long as it isn't advocating or instigating criminal behaviour) sets a very dangerous precedent for religious freedom.

Seeing as how religions are necessarily connected to a person or persons, I don't see a functional distinction between slandering a person and a pivotal component that defines their entire way of life (aka, their religion). Unless one's religion is a superficial label - in which case I'd argue that isn't the person's actual religion at all - slandering one's religion is little different than slandering the individual. And, where religion is used to refer to a group of people, I'd consider that kind of hate speech substantially worse than targeting merely a single individual. Nothing breeds prejudice and bigotry better than malicious talk about groups of people. It prompts us to ignore the individual factors and judge someone based on a stereotype. This little punk is doing nothing but feeding into a bigoted mindset, and there are more than too many people doing that with Islam right now. To those who support such "free speech" they really need to ask themselves if they're wiling to die on that hill.

 

[Shusha]

The Irish law appears, from my very very brief search, to be based on the fact that the words were "offensive" and publicly disseminated. I don't think we have a right not to be offended. We do have the right not to have hate incited against us. But it seems to me that the line between those two things may be very difficult to draw.

Is calling someone's faith satanic incitement to hate? Is calling someone an unbeliever incitement to hate? I personally don't think so. But where can we draw a legal line that doesn't depend on someone's personal opinion, but can be objective and apply universally?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. On the grounds that just as religion has no place interfering in government, government has no place interfering in religion (aside from the example I already gave). The state deciding what is okay and not okay for a religion to teach is a massive and unwarranted intrusion. I realise it's the slippery slope fallacy here, but how long would it be before religious clerics are in the dock for merely quoting their own scriptures which say homosexuality is sinful (again, as long as they're not doing it to instigate or advocate criminal behaviour)? A guilty verdict here would set a dangerous precedent - religion is immune from criticism.

IMO, there's no such thing as freedom of religion as a thing in and of itself; it's just one specific example of general freedoms like freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. A person expressing an unpopular - and non-religious - view on a street corner should be just as protected as someone expressing an unpopular religious view on a street corner.

Also, in this particular case, the quid-pro-quo arrangement you describe is already broken. In Ireland, churches generally get subsidized by the state. I'd argue that with government funds should flow accountability to the government.

While I would rather there be no religious interference in government or vice versa, given the arrangement that exists in Ireland, I'd say that religious sermons from the pulpit should be more restricted than other speech, not less. Effectively, this preacher is a government contractor (AFAIK) and should therefore be held to a higher standard than the general public.

Edit: though the way I'd solve this problem is to cut off government funds to churches, not restrict the speech of pastors.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think that as long as the law considers it an offense, then it is an offense and action should be taken, regardless to what that offense is. Breaking the law is wrong.

The law could be having it as an offense for security reasons, for example. Maybe they don't won't to provoke terrorists or maybe they have political relationships with an Islamic country, who knows.

I personally consider rudeness an offense. People can criticize respectfully and to construct. I think criticism is used as an excuse by some people to bash and cause trouble. That's generally speaking. As for this specific case, I think calling Islam satanic and heathen is not worth a trial or making a big deal out of it. Sounds like neutral opinion and view to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I must agree with Revoltingest's OP.

Unless he was calling for violent acts or targeting actual people as opposed to the beliefs themselves, he was just blaspheming, if even that.

And blasphemy must be protected as free speech.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

IMO, there's no such thing as freedom of religion as a thing in and of itself; it's just one specific example of general freedoms like freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. A person expressing an unpopular - and non-religious - view on a street corner should be just as protected as someone expressing an unpopular religious view on a street corner.

Also, in this particular case, the quid-pro-quo arrangement you describe is already broken. In Ireland, churches generally get subsidized by the state. I'd argue that with government funds should flow accountability to the government.

While I would rather there be no religious interference in government or vice versa, given the arrangement that exists in Ireland, I'd say that religious sermons from the pulpit should be more restricted than other speech, not less. Effectively, this preacher is a government contractor (AFAIK) and should therefore be held to a higher standard than the general public.

Edit: though the way I'd solve this problem is to cut off government funds to churches, not restrict the speech of pastors.

Irish churches are not funded by government. Nor indeed is the church of England.
nor does the governmen have a role in Irish churches.

 

[Crypto2015]

An evangelical pastor is in a Northern Irish court because he called Islam "satanic" and "heathen" during a sermon he had streamed over the Internet.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...rts-with-hour-of-service-on-dvd-34284348.html

From the report: "He faces two charges - improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network - after remarks made at Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle were streamed online."

What do people think of this? Should it be a crime to condemn a belief system in this manner? Should the law differentiate between condemning a belief system and its adherents?

Personally, I think this is being used as a blasphemy law to silence Islam's critics.

I definitely think that this is a sort of blasphemy law to prevent people from criticizing Islam. If someone had said the same things about Christianity or Buddhism, no one would have cared.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Irish churches are not funded by government. Nor indeed is the church of England.
nor does the governmen have a role in Irish churches.

Looks like I was wrong on that. For the life of me, I thought that Ireland was one of the countries that gives subsidies to churches based on the size of their membership, but now that I look for corroboration, I can't find any. My apologies.

 

[Altfish]

This is Northern Ireland, so doesn't it come under UK law? As far as I am aware (I stand to be corrected) we do not have blasphemy laws anymore.
You are allowed to be critical of faith but not attack the person or incite violence/hatred. So I assume it is the incitement of hatred that the case is being brought under.

 

[Altfish]

Irish churches are not funded by government. Nor indeed is the church of England.
nor does the government have a role in Irish churches.

They may not fund the churches but UK law gives them some pretty damn good tax breaks!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is Northern Ireland, so doesn't it come under UK law?

D'oh! I think we all misread that.

As far as I am aware (I stand to be corrected) we do not have blasphemy laws anymore.

Since 2008, apparently.

You are allowed to be critical of faith but not attack the person or incite violence/hatred. So I assume it is the incitement of hatred that the case is being brought under.

No - it's broadcast standards, basically:

From the report: "He faces two charges - improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network - after remarks made at Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle were streamed online."

I think that using this sort of law against speech on the internet is worrying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They may not fund the churches but UK law gives them some pretty damn good tax breaks!!

You have bishops in your upper house of Parliament and your (and my) head of state is the head of a church.

 

[Altfish]

You have bishops in your upper house of Parliament and your (and my) head of state is the head of a church.

Oh yes, but I thought we were just talking of funding/money.
There is a lot more religious favour in our backward nation.


btw I think (hope) this case will get thrown out and is a total waste of tax payers money.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Irish churches are not funded by government. Nor indeed is the church of England.
nor does the governmen have a role in Irish churches.

Actually the Church of England is government (and taxpayer) funded. Money for building repairs comes straight out of the Budget as demonstrated here: https://www.churchofengland.org/med...-£40-million-for-church-building-repairs.aspx

This money is pooled from taxpayer's monies from all parts of the UK - even ones where the Church of England doesn't have any significant presence.

There's also chancel repair liability where ordinary citizens are expected to stump up amounts totalling tens of thousands of pounds in order to fix nearby Anglican properties; even if they're not Anglican. This liability can be placed on them even if no mention of it was made in the deed to their property.

 

[Augustus]

I think that using this sort of law against speech on the internet is worrying.

Britain has had some ridiculous prosecutions in the past couple of years using these laws.

Didn't someone get jailed for making an offensive joke about a murdered child or something? Jailing people for simply being offensive, rather than inciting violence is immoral as well as being a terrible waste of public finances.

My solution: Every time someone makes an offensive online comment that the authorities want to prosecute as it has created a media frenzy, just don't do it and donate a 100 grand to a random primary school instead.

Society is the winner.