Is Islam 'Spawned in Hell'?

Controversy has surrounded a Belfast preacher’s comments that Islam ‘is a doctrine spawned in hell’.  Northern Ireland’s First Minister appeared to support him, then apologised to Northern Ireland’s Muslim community for ‘any offence caused’. Moral outrage has been bounced around like a beach-ball by social commentators, politicians, church leaders and the press. The preacher is under hate-crime investigation by the police.

While I disagree both with the comments expressed and their proclamation during a service of worship, it is crucially important that we think through our reaction to this incident. In the United Kingdom and most of the rest of Europe the right to criticise or to disparage any system of thought is upheld.  The relevant piece of legislation states:

‘Nothing….. prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system’.

What is not permissible in law is to attack people who adhere to a particular religious, political or philosophical viewpoint.  Again, the relevant laws state:

‘A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress’.

‘A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if— (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby’.

The balance is carefully set and ought to be maintained with equal care: people are protected; religions and philosophies are not.

The Belfast preacher, also spoke in unacceptable terms of Muslims not being trustworthy and of there being Muslim ‘cells’ (similar to IRA cells) throughout Great Britain, equating Muslims with extreme Islamists. For these comments he is, rightly, under police investigation.

Is Islam ‘spawned in hell? I do not believe so, but preachers are entitled to say so if that is what they think. Are Muslims untrustworthy? No more and no less than any other group of people. Are they terrorists?  This is a preposterous and dangerous thing to say and to encourage people to embrace this thought deserves censure.  Paradoxically, however, some of those censuring the Belfast preacher have come dangerously close to engaging in hate-speech themselves; genuine tolerance, it seems, doesn’t come easily…..

The Thought-Police are Alive and Well

Two well-publicised incidents of private conversations-made public have caught my attention: the Chief Executive of the Premier League’s sexist emails and the Prince of Wales’ comments likening Putin to Hitler. I oppose sexism and I dislike lazy historical parallels, but it is an underlying issue that is exercising my mind: the public policing of personal opinion.

Leaving to one side the motivation behind those who ‘expose’ personal comments and the sanctimonious manner in which the media deals with such exposures, is it right to judge a person’s ability to do his or her job on the basis of which opinions they might hold or express in private?  This is a thorny issue and it affects more than public figures; there are many cases of co-workers embroiled in disciplinary procedures because of perceived offence.

There is no doubt that if we discover that individuals hold opinions that are odious to us, it will affect how we think of them.  We might be offended, outraged or angry and we might choose to have as little to do with them as possible.  This is, however, very different from saying that if people hold odious opinions they cannot, or ought not to be allowed, to do their jobs.

I hate discrimination and I am more than happy to challenge it either in private or in public and I have no time for the ‘nod and wink’ culture that suggests that as long as we are ‘all mates together’ we can engage in racist, sexist or any-other-ist talk. If I have any backbone, I will challenge opinions that I find offensive.

I am, however, deeply concerned by the attitude that suggests that offensive opinions ought to be punished.  I accept that some opinions equate to ‘hate-speech’ and are illegal or they equate to harassment or bullying and are rightly matters for disciplinary procedures, but most offensive statements fall short of that mark.  There is no ‘right not to be offended’ even though we do have a right not to be treated in a deliberately offensive manner.  Too often that distinction is not recognised. 

Once we go down the road of punishing people for their opinions (however offensive they might be) instead of opposing them by counter-argument we head down the road of censorship and heresy trials.  Centuries ago people were burnt at the stake because they held theological opinions that outraged their contemporaries but which are barely understood by most people today.  We need to be extremely careful that we don’t simply replace one type of inquisition by another.

We Can't Hide Behind the 'N-Word'

The ‘N-word’ has been in the News over the past week or so with two BBC presenters being called to account; one for muttering it under his breath and another for playing an old version of ‘The Sun Has Got His Hat On’.  The famous TV personality got his knuckles rapped; the little-known local radio presenter got sacked (although the BBC later offered to reinstate him once it realised that he had not known that the offensive word was part of the original lyrics).

The word is now deemed to be so offensive that it cannot be uttered or written and must be substituted in conversation by ‘the N-word’.  Is this an over-reaction or a necessary guard against incipient racism?

I general, I am in favour of free-speech and take a dim view of people taking offence at robust language, but I do believe that certain lines ought to be drawn and not crossed.  Some words have a history that makes their social use equivalent to assault and ‘nigger’ is one of them.  Their use ought not to be permitted any more than a slap to the face ought to be dismissed as a mere ‘domestic tiff’.

The term, when used by any white person cannot be divorced from the appalling legacy of slavery, humiliation, discrimination and oppression that black people suffered for generations.  It does not matter if, had the tables been turned, black people might have treated white people in a similar way; the facts are that history happened the way it did.  In our culture, it is essential that the history of black-white relationships is not glossed over.

The truth is that only a few decades ago it was acceptable for ‘back and white minstrels’ to appear in prime-time TV shows, for the word ‘nigger’ to guarantee a laugh when slipped into a flagging sit-com script and for children to be treated to a ‘white-washed’ version of slavery in Disney’s ‘Song of the South’.  Gibbering and cowering black men were ‘humorously’ contrasted with courageous whites in comedy horror movies and it was thought to be hilarious to throw bananas at black footballers (the banana throwing continues, but no one pretends that it’s funny).

I sympathise with the hapless local radio DJ who did not preview a song that he was going to play, but careless (never mind intentionally offensive) social use of the term is dangerous.  Even deliberately satirical use of the term ought to be handled with care.  Racism lurks at every white person’s door; just think of why (if you are white) you might want to put ‘the other side of the argument’ to this article.  I do have a problem, however, with the use of ‘the N-word’; ‘nigger’ is an ugly, destructive word and its use ought not to be sanitised…..ever.

Turning a Blind Eye: The Politics of Policing

‘Political interference’ in policing is in the News once more following the arrest and questioning of Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams with regard to the 1972 IRA murder of Jean McConville.  On the face of it, this is a simple matter: if Mr Adams was criminally involved in her horrific death he ought to be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced; if not, he ought to be released from custody and given an apology. 

This analysis, however, depends on strict adherence to the principle that justice must be blind to every factor other than the guilt or innocence of individuals who, rightly or wrongly, have been implicated in a crime. The police ought to investigate all suspected crimes with vigour and the courts ought to apply the law without fear or favour.  Straightforward as it sounds (and much as I should like to endorse it), there are problems with this approach.

In the first instance, what about crimes that ought not to be classified as such?  In the UK it used to be a crime for consenting adults to engage in ‘homosexual acts’.  Was it just for the police and the courts blindly to pursue the application of this law?  Similarly, ought police to be banging on the doors of countless adolescents’ bedrooms (not to mention those of their parents) at the first whiff of cannabis-laden smoke when police resources are stretched and there is little evidence that such a pursuit would have any positive effect?

Even in cases of murder, criminal proceedings are not always the best way forward.  In the aftermath of the appalling Rwandan genocide the only way to heal a traumatised society was to exchange criminal proceedings for reconciliation procedures that blended guilt with forgiveness rather than conviction with punishment.  There is also little doubt that the Northern Ireland Peace Process would have foundered had a blind eye not been turned to some criminal paramilitary activity while negotiations were ongoing. 

It is clearly unacceptable for police and the judiciary to be simple extensions of political parties or governments. In such cases all hopes of impartial policing disappear as can be seen, for example, in the recent history of Egypt.  The criminal justice system, however, cannot fail to be a reflection of the society in which it is imbedded.  That means that ‘political’ decisions have to be made all the time with regard to which crimes to pursue.  At times, in order to effect personal, communal and social cohesion or healing, a blind eye might have to be turned or an alternative approach taken, although such policies ought to be rigorously justified in every single instance. That this should be so is an unsavoury admission of human failure and impotence, but to pretend otherwise does justice to no one.