The UK has, amongst other anti-hurt-feelings legislation, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. In a ten year period there were ten individuals who were arrested for publicly saying words out loud in public that were considered to be ‘hurty’. Note that in all cases once arrested no further action was taken. Some of these arrests were for the ‘offence’ of preaching from the Bible or rather some bits that criticised particular lifestyles. The UK does not have a blasphemy law but ninety plus countries in the world do.
Two Californian Assembly Bills just enacted mandate training, for companies with five employees or more, on recognising, reporting and confronting workplace speech that ‘vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred’ against people based on protected characteristics and one of which ‘requires paid local officials, to receive “anti-hate speech” training as part of their existing harassment training, and directs the state to develop an online course “on responding to hate” for state officials’. These have churches in a tiswas because the fear is that the legislation will be used to prevent them from proselytising.
In no way are we encouraging the propagation of religious hooey. The prohibition, or attempted prohibition, of speech can lead to unintended consequences. The encouragement of ‘protected characteristics’ whereby those placing themselves in such categories see themselves as victims or special because they’re in an exclusive club is not the benefit that some might think. Division merely profits the minority class.
In September a visit to the Eiffel Tower by Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha Hindu monks (BAPS) resulted in individuals born with XX chromosomes becoming personae non gratae. Females were not allowed to be seen, heard or make their presence felt in any way lest it upset the delicate sensibilities of the Hindu monks. BAPS say that that decision lay with the Tower bosses and was nothing to do with them. But where did the bosses get the idea that monks would be defiled by the sight of, or interaction with, women?
Just as bizarre, an American council meeting opened with a prayer to Satan. Some were not amused. Why is such poppycock occurring anyway, whichever sky muppet is being invoked?
It is not often that this column feels sympathy for Church of England wage slaves, the ones with the back to front collar, but it was elicited recently when two members of the cloth were harassed and abused online forcing them to block and lock their social media accounts. Described as ‘satan spawn’ and ‘evil’, their monstrous ‘crime’ must have been unspeakably vile.
Actually it was to post that you don’t need to spend one hundred and twelve quid on an advent calendar when you can get a nicer one for six. This apparently triggered the distributor’s supporters to a state of hysterical frenzy and a barrage of abuse.
One cannot help but think that even if clergymen were a group with ‘protected characteristics’ this particular ad hominem would still have occurred.
DC
1 comment:
First mention of the word 'tiswas' in the history of the Standard?
Quite possibly.
Post a Comment