This piece was first submitted to The Daily
Telegraph
Is Professor Dawkins Guilty of Inciting Religious
Hatred?
By Dwight Longenecker
Last week in Exeter a thirty-three
year old engineer named Alistair Scott was convicted of religiously
abusive behaviour.
Scott insulted Mohammed Hudaib, a Muslim post-graduate student
at Exeter University. Hudaib had said that, ‘Osama bin Laden
was a great man and that all Americans were stupid and deserved
to die.’ Mr. Scott retaliated by saying he hated Muslims because
of the September 11 attacks, and then threatened Hudaib’s family.
There are several fascinating
questions raised by this case. First of all, one wonders why
Mr Hudaib wasn’t
the one charged. After all, in the present climate, to say that ‘Osama
bin Laden is a great man and that all Americans deserve to die’ might
be construed as dangerous and threatening behaviour. But Hudaib
did not break the law because he did not insult Mr Scott’s race
or religion. Mr Hudaib may have insulted Americans, but he did
not attack their religion. The outcome may have been different
had Mr. Hudaib to Mr Scott, ‘all Americans are stupid, fundamentalist
Christians who deserve to die, and you’re as bad as they are.’
Even more interesting are
the ramifications of this prosecution. Mr Scott was convicted
under the government’s
new Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act. Among other things,
this quickie legislation inserted some amendments into the 1998
Crime and Disorder Act. The Crime and Disorder Act had added
more severe penalties to existing crimes if they turned out to
be racially motivated. The act also referred back to the 1986
Public Order Act which had made it a crime to harass, threaten
or insult someone because of their race or ethnic origin. The
Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act simply added the words ‘or
religiously’ to the clause in the Crime and Disorder Act which
had described crimes as ‘racially aggravated.’ The result is
that one can now be prosecuted for insulting another citizen
not only for their race, but also for their religion; and Alistair
Scott was the first person to be prosecuted for this crime.
Notice that the two men involved in the Exeter
upset were not backstreet thugs. As far as we know, the engineer
Mr. Scott is not a skinhead white supremacist. Neither is the
post-graduate Mr Hudaib an ignorant Islamic extremist. My point
is that well educated people may also be found guilty of threatening
and religiously insulting behaviour.
This leads me to another well-educated person
who may be guilty of the same crime. The biologist Richard Dawkins
was interviewed recently by the Irish journal, The
Dubliner. In the article Professor Dawkins outlined his hatred
for the Catholic Church. According to Dawkins the Catholic Church
is ‘one of the forces for evil in the world.’ He finds the sexual
abuse of children in the Catholic Church deplorable, but claims
that such practices are ‘not so harmful as the grievous mental
harm in bringing up a child Catholic in the first place.’ In
other words, any parent who brings their child up as a faithful
Catholic is worse than a paedophile. Dawkins expresses delight
that seminaries are closing in Ireland. He goes on to accuse
the Catholic Church of using ‘brilliant techniques in brainwashing
children.’ He thinks teaching children to fear hell is a terrible
crime and ‘devoutly hopes’ that the Catholic Church will die
out.
Should Professor Dawkins
be the second person to be prosecuted for religiously abusive
behaviour? Barrister
Jamie Bogle, who is experienced in defending those who are religiously
persecuted, doesn’t think so. Bogle said, ‘It is highly unlikely
that Professor Dawkins would be prevented from expressing his
views however strongly put. Provided he did not seek to threaten,
abuse or insult an individual person for his religious views
or racial background.’ It is true that Professor Dawkins did
not threaten or insult a particular person. He insulted a billion
people: the world’s Catholics. Furthermore, the legislation now
in effect doesn’t need to include physical and specific threats.
For some time the law has prohibited the publication of any material
that is racially abusive, insulting or likely to stir up hatred,
and the new legislation widens this prohibition to include material
that is religiously abusive.
Does Professor Dawkins’ interview published
in Ireland fall into this category? Ireland is notorious for
its long history of sectarian and religious violence. Couldn’t
it be argued that publishing such inflammatory views in Ireland
is very likely to fuel anti-Catholic hatred and incite further
violence? To use a parallel example, how would the authorities
feel if Professor Dawkins launched a similarly violent and intemperate
attack on the religion of Islam in a magazine that was published
in Bradford or Burnley?
Indeed, what would happen
if Professor Dawkins were to turn his hatred towards the abusive
elements of Islamic
generally? Muslim parents teach their children about hell. Are
they also worse than paedophiles? Extremist Muslims are clearly
a ‘force for evil in the world’. If Dawkins applied his same
critique to Muslims rather than Catholics would he then be prosecuted
for inciting religious hatred?
The question becomes more
involved for Professor Dawkins and all of us, because the legislation
as it now stands
may threaten our freedom of speech. Jamie Bogle says, ‘My understanding
of the new law is that it is intended to circumscribe threat
or abuse at a personal level. It is certainly not intended to
curtail free speech.’ In fact, I believe the prosecution of Alistair
Scott to be wrong, and I would not wish Professor Dawkins to
be prosecuted. Like all of us, Professor Dawkins enjoys freedom
of religion and freedom of speech. If his religion happens to
be a narrow minded form of atheism, and if his religion thrives,
like all bigoted religions, on attacking other forms of belief,
then he should be free to express himself. We all have the right
to be wrong.
As an American, living
in Britain, I would be the first one to defend Professor Dawkins’ right to express his
views—no matter how benighted and bigoted they might be. But
as an American I was not only taught to defend freedom of religion
and freedom of speech. I was also taught that the freedoms were
hard won, and that with every right goes a responsibility. All
of us are likely to lapse into prejudice and bigotry at times.
The mature person admits this tendency and tries to curb it with
tolerance. He does not indulge it with violence.
Dwight Longenecker is a journalist, author
and broadcaster. Among other books he is the editor of The
Path to Rome—Modern Journeys to the Catholic Church.
