Comments on: UK waters down EU religious hatred ban http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2007/04/18/uk-waters-down-eu-religious-hatred-ban/ Watching. Pointing. Laughing. Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:09:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Elliott Grasett http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2007/04/18/uk-waters-down-eu-religious-hatred-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-109790 Elliott Grasett Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:16:54 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=708#comment-109790 On 04 February 2006 Matthew Parris said in TimesOnLine, "We must never relinquish, nor lightly value our right, not to argue in the face of other people's Gods, but to fart." Alas, we Canadians enjoy no such right. "Blasphemous Libel "Offence "296. (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. "Question of fact "(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel. "Saving "(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject. "R.S., c. C-34, s. 260." I should dearly love to see this section of the Criminal Code of Canada tested and found wanting under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On 04 February 2006 Matthew Parris said in TimesOnLine, “We must never relinquish, nor lightly value our right, not to argue in the face of other people’s Gods, but to fart.”

Alas, we Canadians enjoy no such right.

“Blasphemous Libel

“Offence

“296. (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

“Question of fact
“(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.

“Saving
“(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.

“R.S., c. C-34, s. 260.”

I should dearly love to see this section of the Criminal Code of Canada tested and found wanting under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

]]> By: tom p http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2007/04/18/uk-waters-down-eu-religious-hatred-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-109767 tom p Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:40:48 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=708#comment-109767 I guess that one could show that it is a pretext for inciting hatred against a racial group if an organisation had previously published such attacks on a racial group and then simply changed the racial term to a religious one, eg the BNP switching from Pakis/Asians to Muslims once racial hatred was outlawed. Failing that, one might, for example, covertly record meetings of such a group and show that when it was not on paper that the language reverted to racial rather than religious. I guess that one could show that it is a pretext for inciting hatred against a racial group if an organisation had previously published such attacks on a racial group and then simply changed the racial term to a religious one, eg the BNP switching from Pakis/Asians to Muslims once racial hatred was outlawed.
Failing that, one might, for example, covertly record meetings of such a group and show that when it was not on paper that the language reverted to racial rather than religious.

]]>