Tuesday, 18 December 2012

Is Geoffrey Clarke of UKIP guilty of inciting religious hatred?

...  Other items for review: ceasing all free IVF treatment on the NHS; cutting unecessary waste e.g the destruction of drugs in care homes when residents move on to the next care home or the next world; the pregnancy abortion time limit; compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Downs, Spina Bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, could render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family. CLARIFICATION TO AVOID CONFUSION AND MISREPRESENTATION: I do not, and UKIP does not, endorse any of these ideas: they are suggestions of matters for the review body to properly consider in light of the stated desire of all political parties to reduce the national debt.

Geoffrey Clarke got into trouble over this for his perceived callousness towards the disabled.  I would not have put it quite like that however.   My modest proposal was to give the parents of the unwanted unviable disabled infant and their proxy the midwife the option of committing infanticide without getting into trouble with the law.   However, what is in fact more shocking was what he said about the Koran and Muslims.

Here are some passages from the Koran [Penguin Classics version]:-

WOMEN: 4:24
You are forbidden to take in marriage married women, except captives whom you own as slaves.

WOMEN: 4:25
If any one of you cannot afford to marry a free believing woman, let him marry a slave-girl who is a believer.

WOMEN: 4:34
Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior over the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them.

What sensible person believes that stupidity today? Anyone who does believe it today must be a scumbag and must be told so. Stop being squeamish about telling scumbags that they are scumbags, just because they happen to be Muslim scumbags.

The Koran is 1300 years old and is in desperate need of updating so men cease to abuse it. You will doubtless agree that the Koran needs to address women as well as men, and a lot of updating is needed. How can such a book be respected – quite aside from being followed? UKIP has a solution. The leaders of the main faiths should get together in 2013 and agree to update all their holy books by 2020 then re-issue them as appropriate for the world in which we live today, not for the world of hundreds of years ago. Then, women were subservient and it was "sort of OK" to have slaves. Today it is unconscionable behaviour. 

I am not so much shocked by this reference to Muslim "scumbags" (for we already know how deeply Islamophobic both UKIP and the BNP are) but by his scriptural ignorance of the Bible - a religion that he claims to wish to defend.  
You will find many more offensive references to women there than you ever will in the Koran.

Below is another questionable sentence:
"Defend the freedom of religion, other than wearing the burkha."

However, for this ungrammatical non sequitur of this sentence, and for proposing that the Koran be updated, he should be expelled for the crime of inciting religious hatred under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

Section 29B:
(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred

I think any group of people with a holy book would feel threatened if someone whom they knew hated their religion, their holy book and them and who called them "scumbags" were threatening to rewrite or "update" their holy book.

It can be safely inferred that someone who calls Muslims "scumbags" has every intention of stirring up religious hatred.

A successful prosecution is certainly possible, in my opinion.  It is pretty much an open and shut case.


Would you like to nominate Claire Khaw for the iPM New Year Honour for being the most entertainingly philosophical, political and theological Woman of the Year?  Go on, go on, go on!


Democratic Nationalist said...

Fuck you and fuck your precious Koran! That just proves that if a Muslim captures and rapes some women and uses them as slaves, then they must marry him because God has made men superior to women. Despicable ideas you hold!

Are you a woman or a man in a woman's body?

Because you should be a slave to a man then and get the beating as well if you misbehave.

Claire Khaw said...

Where in the Koran does it say "if a Muslim captures and rapes some women and uses them as slaves, then they must marry him because God has made men superior to women"?

What do you think happens to women anyway when their country is invaded by marauding soldiers?

What do you think the Russians did to German women when they entered Germany after Germany lost WW2?

My word, you are naive. At least Muslim soldiers were told they could and should marry their slave girls and then maintain them after they were knocked up by them.

Have you never heard of the rape of the Sabine women?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Muzz Khaw can't see that when a "people with a holy book" have an agenda to take your society over, with no consideration for how you may feel about it, and oponly consider you inferior to them, then you are entitled to stir up hatred against them in most reasonable peoples viewpoint.

Democratic Nationalist said...

"Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."- 33:5

Even if it does not say that it is okay to rape, it is still speaking on behalf of those who wish to do such things.

Claire Khaw said...

How interesting that you say that all men of war wish to rape.

Perhaps this verse might restrain their violence a little by suggesting to these men that they might wish to marry them after raping them.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, yes so if somebody rapes you you will marry them?

I bet you would if they were rich or Muslim.

Claire Khaw said...

Rapists were expected to marry their victims and fornicators their partners in crime in the olden days since no one else would want those women as wives after it became common knowledge that they could not be virgin brides.

This Koranic verse seems to be conferring the same duty upon marauding soldiers, which may have restrained the excesses of these men.

Men may treat what could become their property better, so yet again the humanitarian nature of the Koran is highlighted even as an uneducated ignorant Islamophobe tries to throw mud at it.

A rich Muslim might to some seem to be a better husband than a revolting peasant, for example, but each to her own!