Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Nanny's Religious Hatred
As you are no doubt all aware, Nanny has rather a busy legislative programme ahead of her over the coming few months.
Not only has she to get her much vaunted ID card bill through parliament, ban smoking and end world poverty; but she also has to impose her religious hatred bill on her long suffering "charges".
Many argue that the religious hatred bill is yet another attempt by Nanny to stifle free speech and debate.
However, I read yesterday about this disgusting incident which may make a case for the religious hatred bill.
A Sikh couple were trying to hold their wedding at the Baylis House Hotel in Slough this weekend.
The guests had turned up, for what was meant to be a happy day for the couple; yet the day quickly descended into chaos, as a group of 40 youths arrived in a bus and deliberately disrupted the wedding and celebrations.
The priest was attacked and the holy book, which was to be used by the priest to perform the wedding, was stolen.
Needless to say, Nanny's police managed to arrive too late to do anything; doubtless they were too busy chasing speeding motorists and enforcing smoking bans.
The police found a scene of chaos when they arrived, the priest lying in the car park and the couple clearly shocked and upset at the disaster that had befallen them.
The police then stood guard whilst the wedding was bravely re planned with hotel management.
How in Britain could such an attack take place, or indeed be allowed to take place?
The above is clearly a prime example of what Nanny's religious hatred bill is trying to stamp out.
People should be allowed to practice their religions without fear of persecution.
Oh, by the way, I think I forgot to mention one small thing.
The 40 thugs who attacked the wedding were in fact Sikhs themselves. This group, calling themselves "Respect for Guru Granth Sahib Ji Campaign", have been recently disrupting Sikh weddings for religious reasons.
Their prime objection is the fact that the Sikh book of scriptures should not be in a place where alcohol, meat and cigarettes are available.
Seemingly this band of "religious enforcers" scour the net for weddings and other gatherings where the book may be present, and then rush to the scene to rescue the book.
Now this case presents something of a problem for Nanny. In the event that her religious hatred bill was actually up and running, who should be prosecuting whom?
Should the gang of 40 thugs prosecute the couple for bespoiling their sacred book?
Should the couple be prosecuting the gang for disrupting their wedding, on the grounds of religious intolerance?
Should interfering busybodies be prosecuting both parties for bringing the Sikh religion into disrepute?
Those of you who manage to come up with an answer, that can satisfy all, should please forward it to Fungus Clarke. Doubtless he is desperately trying to find some shred of logic, with which to cover the glaring intellectual and moral inadequacies of Nanny's religious hatred bill.
The lesson from this sorry tale is really rather simple. Despite what the politicians claim is the intention of their legislation, and despite teams of lawyers working all hours to take into account all possible scenarios, life is never what you expect.
The more legislation there is, that attempts to control how we live our lives, the greater the opportunity for those with an agenda to use it for their own ends.
To my view, if Nanny is sincere in her claim that she wishes to create an equal and tolerant society; where people of all faiths can practice their religions without fear, less is more.
In other words, remove the blasphemy law from the statute books. This will place all religions on the same level.
Healthy religions, that are comfortable with engaging in open and rigorous debate as to the meaning of life and other issues, will flourish. Those religions that attempt to stifle debate will die.
The trouble is Nanny introduced the religious hatred bill to buy off the Muslim vote, not to protect religious freedom, or am I being just a little too cynical?