Hate speech and atheism.

Forums › Off topic › Hate speech and atheism.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#302388 19-Nov-2022 20:30

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/11/hate-speech-laws-government-makes-one-change-to-human-rights-act-after-years-of-divisive-debate.html

"Currently, under the Human Rights Act, it is illegal to publish or distribute threatening, abusive, or insulting words likely to "excite hostility against" or "bring into contempt" to any group on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins. The changes will extend this to cover religious beliefs."

Is non belief covered by this ?

Can religious organisations still portray various groups (LGBTQ, other religions, Atheists) as sinners who will go to hell ?

Is that not hate speech based on someone else's religious stance ?

Can religious schools discriminates against people who do not share their faith ?

How do we go with evolution ?

This changes creates more problems than it solves I suspect.

It will be interesting if one of the mega churches uses a public platform to cause hate/discrimination/insuting words etc toward those not of their faith.

<edit: forgot the put in the link to the news article about the Hunan rights changes>

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Webhead
3319 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1983

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2998518 19-Nov-2022 20:47

The article talks about them making "one change to address incitement towards religious communities"

"under the Human Rights Act, it is illegal to publish or distribute threatening, abusive, or insulting words likely to "excite hostility against" or "bring into contempt" to any group on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins. The changes will extend this to cover religious beliefs."

Doesn't look to me like that means it opens the doors for religious institutions to "publish or distribute threatening, abusive, or insulting words likely to "excite hostility against" or "bring into contempt"".

Not sure how this would open up the gates for religious institutions to discriminate against people who don't share their faith.

How do you reach that conclusion?

Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2998524 19-Nov-2022 21:02

jarledb:

The article talks about them making "one change to address incitement towards religious communities"

"under the Human Rights Act, it is illegal to publish or distribute threatening, abusive, or insulting words likely to "excite hostility against" or "bring into contempt" to any group on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins. The changes will extend this to cover religious beliefs."

Doesn't look to me like that means it opens the doors for religious institutions to "publish or distribute threatening, abusive, or insulting words likely to "excite hostility against" or "bring into contempt"".

Not sure how this would open up the gates for religious institutions to discriminate against people who don't share their faith.

How do you reach that conclusion?

Its NOT about opening the doors for religious groups to hate, its opening the doors for others to call religious doctrine hate.

Is not calling someone a sinner, someone who is going to hell, telling their followers that you are less than them and can be treated accordingly. Is that not inciting hate ?

Is not denying a person access to education also discriminating against someone else because of religion ?

Or put it another way.

Can Muslims preach anti-semitic views publicly , or vice versa.

So does that also mean they can not preach against atheists ?

farcus

1626 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 437

#2998526 19-Nov-2022 21:15

sir1963:

Is not calling someone a sinner, someone who is going to hell, telling their followers that you are less than them and can be treated accordingly. Is that not inciting hate ?

If a Christian tells me I am going to hell for not believing, I do not interpret that as hate speech. I interpret it as them being foolish for thinking they can make me feel bad about something happening to me that I do not believe will happen.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2998529 19-Nov-2022 21:35

farcus:

sir1963:

Is not calling someone a sinner, someone who is going to hell, telling their followers that you are less than them and can be treated accordingly. Is that not inciting hate ?

If a Christian tells me I am going to hell for not believing, I do not interpret that as hate speech. I interpret it as them being foolish for thinking they can make me feel bad about something happening to me that I do not believe will happen.

That same argument could be used for everything though "The victim chooses to be victimised"

As an atheist I have certainly had evangelicals etc "gang up" on me in various chat groups. The bible even condones slavery, is that not a form of hate ?

This law is. double edged sword, it may protect them from hate, but it also stops them from hating.

May be (currently ?) less of a problem here in NZ than the USA, but certainly religious hate is taught.

ezbee

2651 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3089

#2998530 19-Nov-2022 21:37

You look at some of the preaching by a number of sides at 'speakers corner' in Hyde Park London.
There is certainly agrro from those perceiving grave 'insults'

There is the problem that an 'insult' is a perception.

The tricky one here is the use of the very subjective word 'insulting'.
I'm not sure we can protect anyone from being insulted,
as some are 'very' easily insulted.

Criticism of Destiny Church or Brain Tamaki is to be off the table due to perceived insult.

So I have my Church of the scared 'tiddlywink'.
Your natural flippant reaction to game of tiddlywinks being a holy sacrament may insult me.

Some may remember the 'virgin in a condom' artwork.
Pretty strong words and arguments, but did not decend into violence or honour killing.

So having word 'insulting' in there, would this 'artwork' now not be possible.

Could one as a member of the Church of the Jedi now take action in NZ against the showing of
blasphemous insulting programs by the new revisionist Disney Lucasfilm.

insane

3324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1006

ID Verified

Trusted

2degrees

Subscriber

#2998532 19-Nov-2022 21:43

Sounds like the OP has a very misguided view of what Christianity and actual faith is about, perhaps derived from only viewing The Simpsons or listening to a certain self proclaimed Bishop :P

I always like to ask 'what problem are we trying to solve' with any new legislation. If that can't be answered easily and clearly then perhaps then we need to question the motives behind it?

Will be interesting to see how this plays out and where this leads.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2998534 19-Nov-2022 21:43

ezbee:

You look at some of the preaching by a number of sides at 'speakers corner' in Hyde Park London.
There is certainly agrro from those perceiving grave 'insults'

There is the problem that an 'insult' is a perception.

The tricky one here is the use of the very subjective word 'insulting'.
I'm not sure we can protect anyone from being insulted,
as some are 'very' easily insulted.

Criticism of Destiny Church or Brain Tamaki is to be off the table due to perceived insult.

So I have my Church of the scared 'tiddlywink'.
Your natural flippant reaction to game of tiddlywinks being a holy sacrament may insult me.

Some may remember the 'virgin in a condom' artwork.
Pretty strong words and arguments, but did not decend into violence or honour killing.

So having word 'insulting' in there, would this 'artwork' now not be possible.

Could one as a member of the Church of the Jedi now take action in NZ against the showing of
blasphemous insulting programs by the new revisionist Disney Lucasfilm.

Yes, AND there is a difference between one person saying something offensive and an institution having that same attitude taught as dogma tp its members , eh white supremeicists with their anti Semitic / anti Muslim views. Thats kind of thing should not be worked around by delaying yourself a religion.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2998536 19-Nov-2022 21:48

insane: Sounds like the OP has a very misguided view of what Christianity and actual faith is about, perhaps derived from only viewing The Simpsons or listening to a certain self proclaimed Bishop :P

I always like to ask 'what problem are we trying to solve' with any new legislation. If that can't be answered easily and clearly then perhaps the we need to question the motives behind it?

Will be interesting to see how this plays out and where this leads.

Actually I was raise Anglican.

Its later in life I became an atheist.

I have good friends who are of various religions and my wife is a Seventh Day Adventist.

She will not eat pork which means as a rule unless we are out for a meal I don't either, but that is hardly an issue, I like steak too.

If I really wanted pork products, I just cook them separately. From our perspective this is no different from her not lining Mushrooms, a non issue.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2998584 19-Nov-2022 22:06

So does calling yourself a religion exclude you from preaching dogma.

For example we have

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/weddings/75107725/church-of-flying-spaghetti-monster-approved-to-perform-marriages

can any group call themselves a "religion" and get away with stuff, ie "The church of the holy un-vaccinated", would something like that stop discrimination etc based on so called religious grounds.

Would telling that group "don't be stupid" or "Of course we can exclude you and your silly religion" not be considered a breach of their human rights based on religious grounds.

This change is NOT clear cut, sure the intention is to stop extremists from publishing "hate" material, but that opens a massive can of worms. Can we protest against the death sentences give to LGBTQ+ for religious reasons ? I can in some countries be put to death for being an atheist because of that countries religious belief, is that not hate ?

How is this any different from the Chch shooters hate ?

Could his hate have been protected if it were religious ?

Is ti then the religion that is wrong, or the people who practice it, even though the dogma of that religion justifies/demands that hate ?

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10209

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2998631 19-Nov-2022 22:23

I think adding religion to the list is a step in the wrong direction, that sort of thing should have protections removed, not added.

Richard rich.ms

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2998632 19-Nov-2022 22:37

As an interesting side note, under NZ law

"The person making an affidavit can either affirm or swear an oath on the Bible or Koran that the contents of the affidavit are true."

So people of other faiths are not allowed to use their religious texts, is that not discrimination ?

Why should other religions be forced by the state to use an affirmation ?

And WHICH bible, there are thousands of christian denominations all with their own version of the bible, all saying the other are wrong.

The government has opened a massive can of worms here.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

panther2

385 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 143

#2998634 19-Nov-2022 22:40

Govt over reach yet again

insane

3324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1006

ID Verified

Trusted

2degrees

Subscriber

#2998638 19-Nov-2022 23:23

sir1963:
As an interesting side note, under NZ law

"The person making an affidavit can either affirm or swear an oath on the Bible or Koran that the contents of the affidavit are true."

So people of other faiths are not allowed to use their religious texts, is that not discrimination ?

Why should other religions be forced by the state to use an affirmation ?

And WHICH bible, there are thousands of christian denominations all with their own version of the bible, all saying the other are wrong.

The government has opened a massive can of worms here.

Two things come to mind.

1. Those are the two largest Monotheistic religions
2. After events of CHC we've welcomed Islam into NZ with fairly open arms. Recall the nationwide prayer.

As to other Christian denominations having their own conflicting texts - that's not fully true either, not unless you include the fringe religions trading under Christianity when they are not - Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.

It's a fascinating field of study - just remember that you need to look at the full text of any translation, and in context, not just a single sentence at a time from one translation. Just as English words change over time, so to do some of the translations to try keep the message modern and understandable.