Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 27, 2024, 02:53:50 PM
-
Tahir Ali asking Starmer to ban desecration of the texts of the Abrahamic religions, and Starmer doesn't have the guts to say no but condemns such desecrations. Just fuck off with attempts at blasphemy laws.
https://x.com/TahirAliMP/status/1861765654178640014
-
Imran Hussain asking Starmer to ban desecration of the texts of the Abrahamic religions, and Starmer doesn't have the guts to say no but condemns such desecrations. Just fuck off with attempts at blasphemy laws.
At 10:58 in link.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0025lsj/prime-ministers-questions-27112024
It seemed to me he spent a whole minute waffling on about Islamophobia and then asked the prime minister to condemn Islamophobia. Didn't hear anything about sacred texts.
-
It seemed to me he spent a whole minute waffling on about Islamophobia and then asked the prime minister to condemn Islamophobia. Didn't hear anything about sacred texts.
Apologies, wrong question and MP. I really shouldn't rely on other people's work.
Tahir Ali
https://x.com/TahirAliMP/status/1861765654178640014
-
National Secular Society's comments
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2024/11/nss-mps-call-for-new-blasphemy-laws-deeply-alarming?v=2
-
Is there any reasonable suggestion that the current government is likely to bring in any blasphemy laws? I seriously doubt it and a single MP calling for this hardly suggests the government will act on the basis of his wish.
-
Is there any reasonable suggestion that the current government is likely to bring in any blasphemy laws? I seriously doubt it and a single MP calling for this hardly suggests the government will act on the basis of his wish.
Is there anyone reasonable suggestion why Starmer couldn't have just said it wasn't hoping to happen?
-
National Secular Society's comments
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2024/11/nss-mps-call-for-new-blasphemy-laws-deeply-alarming?v=2
I’m wondering the reaction to picking up dog’s dirt with this article.
-
I’m wondering the reaction to picking up dog’s dirt with this article.
Why? Do you support Tahir Ali's suggestion?
-
Apologies, wrong question and MP. I really shouldn't rely on other people's work.
Tahir Ali
https://x.com/TahirAliMP/status/1861765654178640014
That makes a lot more sense. I agree that the prime minister's answer was appalling.
I had a read of some of the comments on the tweet and it looks like the Twitterati have more guts.
-
Is there any reasonable suggestion that the current government is likely to bring in any blasphemy laws? I seriously doubt it and a single MP calling for this hardly suggests the government will act on the basis of his wish.
That's not the point of concern. The real issue is the prime minister's utterly anodyne and cowardly response. He needed to point out that such a law would contravene principles of free expression and he abdicated his responsibility.
-
I’m wondering the reaction to picking up dog’s dirt with this article.
I'd be incredibly impressed if you could pick up dog dirt with a web page. If, however, somebody printed it off and then used the paper to pick up dog dirt, it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow with me. Anybody who can't tell the difference between the ideas expressed by a text and the paper it is printed on shouldn't be involved in making adult decisions.
-
That's not the point of concern. The real issue is the prime minister's utterly anodyne and cowardly response. He needed to point out that such a law would contravene principles of free expression and he abdicated his responsibility.
It's PMQs, what kind of response would you expect - a PM isn't going to make policy on the hoof and there isn't really any need to clarify that you aren't going to make a policy change that you ... err have no intention of making.
I actually listened to the question and the PM's answer was largely a condemnation of islamophobia, which I hope we can all agree with. And the desecration of texts (whether religious or otherwise) can, under certain circumstances, be considered a hate crime and an aggravating factor. See what happens if you graffiti SS on a war memorial.
And there is an important difference between condemning something and outlawing it.
-
Why? Do you support Tahir Ali's suggestion?
No, of course not....Do you support the continued book burning?
-
No, of course not....Do you support the continued book burning?
What book burning?
-
I'd be incredibly impressed if you could pick up dog dirt with a web page. If, however, somebody printed it off and then used the paper to pick up dog dirt, it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow with me. Anybody who can't tell the difference between the ideas expressed by a text and the paper it is printed on shouldn't be involved in making adult decisions.
You would print it off and publicly announced what you are doing and video it.
How would you feel about someone taking a dump on Bertrand Russell’s grave?
-
It's PMQs, what kind of response would you expect - a PM isn't going to make policy on the hoof and there isn't really any need to clarify that you aren't going to make a policy change that you ... err have no intention of making.
I actually listened to the question and the PM's answer was largely a condemnation of islamophobia, which I hope we can all agree with. And the desecration of texts (whether religious or otherwise) can, under certain circumstances, be considered a hate crime and an aggravating factor. See what happens if you graffiti SS on a war memorial.
And there is an important difference between condemning something and outlawing it.
Sp it's not Labour party policy to oppose blasphemy laws?
-
What book burning?
You seem incapable of answering questions.
-
You seem incapable of answering questions.
I asked for clarification, you're the one refusing to answer.
-
How would you feel about someone taking a dump on Bertrand Russell’s grave?
I'd make a pun about how that was a pretty shit attempt at an ad hominem, and go about my day. Person shits on piece of ground is not something to get upset about; Prime Minister fails to object when someone tries to shit over our right to free speech is something to get agitated about.
O.
-
It's PMQs, what kind of response would you expect - a PM isn't going to make policy on the hoof and there isn't really any need to clarify that you aren't going to make a policy change that you ... err have no intention of making.
He wouldn't be making policy on the hoof. He'd be articulating the fact that the government stands for free expression - or maybe you think the government doesn't stand for free expression.
I actually listened to the question and the PM's answer was largely a condemnation of islamophobia, which I hope we can all agree with.
But it wasn't an answer to the question.
And the desecration of texts (whether religious or otherwise) can, under certain circumstances, be considered a hate crime and an aggravating factor. See what happens if you graffiti SS on a war memorial.
Graffiti is vandalism no matter what you write. I would suggest there is a big difference between a memorial to people who objectively gave their lives in service of their country and one of many millions of copies of a religious text written by superstitious people who didn't know any better.
And there is an important difference between condemning something and outlawing it.
You should be condemning anything that seeks to chill free expression.
-
I'd make a pun about how that was a pretty shit attempt at an ad hominem, and go about my day. Person shits on piece of ground is not something to get upset about; Prime Minister fails to object when someone tries to shit over our right to free speech is something to get agitated about.
O.
Good answer. Can you Ad hominem an old shagger who’s died?
-
Good answer. Can you Ad hominem an old shagger whose died?
Oh, Vlad, I'm pretty sure you could ad hominem pretty much anyone without trying - surely you'd be inclined to accuse him of anti-theism before you straw-manned one of his arguments. Whether he's dead or not wouldn't stop you playing the man instead of the ball.
O.
-
You would print it off and publicly announced what you are doing and video it.
Would I? Why?
By the way, Google Streisand Effect for a reason why it might be counterproductive to do that with the NSS article you posted.
How would you feel about someone taking a dump on Bertrand Russell’s grave?
Pretty much the same as I would feel about somebody taking a dump in any public space.
-
Would I? Why?
By the way, Google Streisand Effect for a reason why it might be counterproductive to do that with the NSS article you posted.
Pretty much the same as I would feel about somebody taking a dump in any public space.
As I asked Nearly Sane, would you support burning a bible? If so, would that not be a ‘Book burning?
-
As I asked Nearly Sane, would you support burning a bible? If so, would that not be a ‘Book burning?
That's not what you asked. You asked "Do you support the continued book burning?" . No mention of a bible, and based on some ongoing activity that I asked for clarification on.
I support people's rights to burn books that they own.
-
Oh, Vlad, I'm pretty sure you could ad hominem pretty much anyone without trying - surely you'd be inclined to accuse him of anti-theism before you straw-manned one of his arguments. Whether he's dead or not wouldn't stop you playing the man instead of the ball.
O.
All I was asking was can you Ad hominem an adulterous old goat who has passed on.
-
Graffiti is vandalism no matter what you write. I would suggest there is a big difference between a memorial to people who objectively gave their lives in service of their country and one of many millions of copies of a religious text written by superstitious people who didn't know any better.
You might, others might not - point is that the significance of the action will depend in part on the motivation of the person who grafittis (whether on a wall, war memorial or scrawled across a book) and the significance of the damaged article to individuals who might care about it. And these will, rightly in my mind, be potential aggravating factors.
So someone who scrawls 'Mick was here' on a random bit of wall will not, and should not be treated identically to someone who deliberately scrawls 'Hilter was right' on the wall of a synagogue. So you can't really consider the scrawl in the abstract, you need to consider what is written, where it is written and the motivation behind the person doing the deed.
You should be condemning anything that seeks to chill free expression.
But free expression isn't absolute - there are limits and those limits might involve situation where someone deliberately intends to be gratuitously offensive (which we might condemn) and where that expression is likely to incite hatred and violence (where we might outlaw).
-
All I was asking was can you Ad hominem an adulterous old goat who has passed on.
You mean by emphasising adultery instead of the body of philosophical works for which he's famous? Let me think about that for a moment...
O.
-
As I asked Nearly Sane, would you support burning a bible? If so, would that not be a ‘Book burning?
If people want to burn a Bible for whatever reason, I don't care. If they are just doing it to troll Christians rather than for any good reason, I would consider it a juvenile act of vandalism.
If somebody wanted to burn all the Bibles, I would object to that. There's a difference between book burning and burning a book.
-
You might, others might not - point is that the significance of the action will depend in part on the motivation of the person who grafittis (whether on a wall, war memorial or scrawled across a book) and the significance of the damaged article to individuals who might care about it. And these will, rightly in my mind, be potential aggravating factors.
I'm sorry but, if you are going to pretend that vandalising the Cenotaph is equivalent to burning one of millions of copies of the Koran, you are talking bollocks.
-
If they are just doing it to troll Christians rather than for any good reason, I would consider it a juvenile act of vandalism.
If you considered it to be a juvenile act of vandalism, would you condemn it JP, even if you wouldn't outlaw it.
-
If you considered it to be a juvenile act of vandalism, would you condemn it JP, even if you wouldn't outlaw it.
I'd roll my eyes at the people who did it.
-
I'm sorry but, if you are going to pretend that vandalising the Cenotaph is equivalent to burning one of millions of copies of the Koran, you are talking bollocks.
In your opinion, and also in my opinion. But that isn't the point - there are others who may consider a war memorial to be a completely pointless jingoistic homage to militarism, but would consider the Koran, and any and every copy of the Koran, to be sacred.
If you believe in free expression, then those people are just as entitled to their view as you and I are of ours. My point is that were someone to vandalise something, in order to consider our response to that act we need to consider what is written (if vandalised by writing across it), the significance of the vandalised object to others and the motivation of the vandal. And in particular if the motivation of the vandal is to cause deliberate hurt/distress to people who consider that object to be of great significance and importance.
-
You mean by emphasising adultery instead of the body of philosophical works for which he's famous? Let me think about that for a moment...
O.
It’s true he was as incontinent with philosophical greatness as he was with his penis.
-
I'd roll my eyes at the people who did it.
And were the item vandalised to be something of real importance to you, so for example a bench in a park that you had installed as a memorial to a child who had died. Would you still just 'roll your eyes' or would you condemn that act?
-
And were the item vandalised to be something of real importance to you, so for example a bench in a park that you had installed as a memorial to a child who had died. Would you still just 'roll your eyes' or would you condemn that act?
Since you are rightly emphasising context matters, doesn't ownership change the context so that the analogy doesn't work?
-
In your opinion, and also in my opinion.
No it's not an opinion, it is a fact.
But that isn't the point - there are others who may consider a war memorial to be a completely pointless jingoistic homage to militarism, but would consider the Koran, and any and every copy of the Koran, to be sacred.
And they would be wrong, at least about the "every copy" part. That's absurd and a moment's thought would tell them that.
If you believe in free expression, then those people are just as entitled to their view as you and I are of ours.
People are entitled to believe what they want. What they are not entitled to do is coerce other people into their beliefs nor punish them for not toeing the line with respect to their superstitions.
My point is that were someone to vandalise something, in order to consider our response to that act we need to consider what is written (if vandalised by writing across it), the significance of the vandalised object to others and the motivation of the vandal. And in particular if the motivation of the vandal is to cause deliberate hurt/distress to people who consider that object to be of great significance and importance.
You are conflating "The Koran" wit individual constructions of paper and ink that convey the text of the Koran. If I burn Tahir Ali's copy of the Koran that's one thing. If I go out and buy my own copy of the Koran and burn it, that is entirely another and principles of free expression suggest I should be allowed to do it no matter who it offends.
And the prime minister should have answered "no" when asked if he was going to criminalise me for burning my own Koran. It's not making up policy on the hoof because, as you said, the government is not going to introduce a law against desecrating religious texts.
-
Since you are rightly emphasising context matters, doesn't ownership change the context so that the analogy doesn't work?
Yes and no - sorry to be a bit waffly.
So if it is your properly and has monetary value then of course that would be considered - the actual cost of compensation. But I rather deliberately used the bench example as something that might not be owned by the person who places huge significance in it, and that significance has nothing to do with its monetary value, nor its ownership. So the bench might actually be owner by the council, but placed there in memorial to a child who had died. So the person, or people who place great significance in that object might not be owners, and a bench in their garden (that they might own) or a bench elsewhere in the park might have similar monetary value but no significance to those individuals.
Another example - yesterday I went past the memorial to the people who died in the Kings Cross fire - it is of interest to me, but of no great significance. It will be likely to be of great significance to friends and family of those that died, although they definitely won't own the plaque.
-
And were the item vandalised to be something of real importance to you, so for example a bench in a park that you had installed as a memorial to a child who had died. Would you still just 'roll your eyes' or would you condemn that act?
I'd be upset and I'd seek to bring the perpetrators to justice for their vandalism. However, that's different to me burning a copy of a book that I own and it's different to me vilifying Mohammed for being a child molester.
-
Yes and no - sorry to be a bit waffly.
So if it is your properly and has monetary value then of course that would be considered - the actual cost of compensation. But I rather deliberately used the bench example as something that might not be owned by the person who places huge significance in it, and that significance has nothing to do with its monetary value, nor its ownership. So the bench might actually be owner by the council, but placed there in memorial to a child who had died. So the person, or people who place great significance in that object might not be owners, and a bench in their garden (that they might own) or a bench elsewhere in the park might have similar monetary value but no significance to those individuals.
Another example - yesterday I went past the memorial to the people who died in the Kings Cross fire - it is of interest to me, but of no great significance. It will be likely to be of great significance to friends and family of those that died, although they definitely won't own the plaque.
But isn't owned by the person vandalising it.
-
And the prime minister should have answered "no" when asked if he was going to criminalise me for burning my own Koran. It's not making up policy on the hoof because, as you said, the government is not going to introduce a law against desecrating religious texts.
But it is a bit of a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question, when allied with the topic of islamophobia. I see no reason why Starmer shouldn't condemn islamophobia (which he did) but not feel the need to refute something (bringing in blasphemy laws) which as far as I'm aware the government has no intention of doing.
The key here, surely, is whether the exchange gave any indication that the government was in support of bringing in blasphemy laws - and it didn't. So 'move along folks, nothing to see here'.
-
But isn't owned by the person vandalising it.
Can you vandalise your own property NS - I thought the whole point of vandalism is that you are damaging someone else's property.
-
Yes and no - sorry to be a bit waffly.
So if it is your properly and has monetary value then of course that would be considered - the actual cost of compensation. But I rather deliberately used the bench example as something that might not be owned by the person who places huge significance in it, and that significance has nothing to do with its monetary value, nor its ownership. So the bench might actually be owner by the council, but placed there in memorial to a child who had died. So the person, or people who place great significance in that object might not be owners, and a bench in their garden (that they might own) or a bench elsewhere in the park might have similar monetary value but no significance to those individuals.
Another example - yesterday I went past the memorial to the people who died in the Kings Cross fire - it is of interest to me, but of no great significance. It will be likely to be of great significance to friends and family of those that died, although they definitely won't own the plaque.
Do you think that the significance of the Kings Cross memorial to many people should mean the government should make a law so that its owners (presumably TfL) cannot move it or remove it?
What if there's a company producing exact replicas of the memorial. Should it be illegal for me to destroy one of these replicas that I bought just because it might upset some people associated with the fire?
-
Can you vandalise your own property NS - I thought the whole point of vandalism is that you are damaging someone else's property.
And contextually, that's different from a blasphemy laws so your ability doesn't work.
-
But it is a bit of a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question, when allied with the topic of islamophobia. I see no reason why Starmer shouldn't condemn islamophobia (which he did) but not feel the need to refute something (bringing in blasphemy laws) which as far as I'm aware the government has no intention of doing.
The key here, surely, is whether the exchange gave any indication that the government was in support of bringing in blasphemy laws - and it didn't. So 'move along folks, nothing to see here'.
Is burning a bible always to be condemned?
-
And contextually, that's different from a blasphemy laws so your ability doesn't work.
You mean the laws that there is no intention by the government to impose.
-
But it is a bit of a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question, when allied with the topic of islamophobia.
No it isn't.
I see no reason why Starmer shouldn't condemn islamophobia (which he did)
But that wasn't what he was asked to do in that question.
but not feel the need to refute something (bringing in blasphemy laws) which as far as I'm aware the government has no intention of doing.
But he was asked to confirm or refute the bringing in of blasphemy laws.
The key here, surely, is whether the exchange gave any indication that the government was in support of bringing in blasphemy laws - and it didn't. So 'move along folks, nothing to see here'.
He avoided answering the question at all. Why is he afraid of saying "no blasphemy laws" in response to the question "will you please bring in blasphemy laws"?
-
You mean the laws that there is no intention by the government to impose.
The laws that he was asked about but couldn't find the guts to say no to.
-
Is burning a bible always to be condemned?
No - although if it is deliberately and gratuitously done to cause offence, then yes, I might condemn it. But that doesn't mean that I would want to ban it by law.
There are plenty of things people do that I might condemn without considering that they should be outlawed.
-
The laws that he was asked about but couldn't find the guts to say no to.
Yawn - going round in circles. Without any credible evidence that the government intends to impose a particular law I really don't think it is beholden on the PM to deny doing something that his government never intends to do. Otherwise the government would spend half its time denying things that aren't part of its agenda.
-
No - although if it is deliberately and gratuitously done to cause offence, then yes, I might condemn it. But that doesn't mean that I would want to ban it by law.
There are plenty of things people do that I might condemn without considering that they should be outlawed.
So Starmer's blanket condemnation was wrong then?
-
Yawn - going round in circles. Without any credible evidence that the government intends to impose a particular law I really don't think it is beholden on the PM to deny doing something that his government never intends to do. Otherwise the government would spend half its time denying things that aren't part of its agenda.
He was asked about it specifically. He used more than enough words to say the govt weren't in favour of blasphemy laws.
-
So Starmer's blanket condemnation was wrong then?
I read that as condemning islamophobia, given that the link here is islamophobia awareness month. Do you condemn islamophobia NS?
-
He was asked about it specifically. He used more than enough words to say the govt weren't in favour of blasphemy laws.
So what is the issue then - there are no plans for the government to introduce blasphemy laws and yesterdays engagement didn't shift the dial on that 'lack of plan to introduce blasphemy laws' whatsoever.
-
I read that as condemning islamophobia, given that the link here is islamophobia awareness month. Do you condemn islamophobia NS?
He was asked about desecration of the Abrahamic texts and he said that desecration eas awful and should be condemned. So a blanket condemnation. So therefore you think he's wrong.
-
So what is the issue then - there are no plans for the government to introduce blasphemy laws and yesterdays engagement didn't shift the dial on that 'lack of plan to introduce blasphemy laws' whatsoever.
You should earlier that he didn't to make policy on the hoof, as he wouldn't gave been why not just say that he didn't agree with the suggestion of blasphemy laws? What reason other than cowardice are you suggesting for him not saying it?
-
It’s true he was as incontinent with philosophical greatness as he was with his penis.
You're not even trying to make an argument and it's fallacy bingo...
O.
-
And just to answer the question of Oslamophobia in context, I would say that it's not Islamophobic by definition to burn a Qu'ran.
-
He was asked about desecration of the Abrahamic texts and he said that desecration eas awful and should be condemned. So a blanket condemnation. So therefore you think he's wrong.
Err - in the context of islamophobia and in the context of islamophobic awareness month. I don't read that whatsoever as a blanket condemnation of any action which damages an abrahamic text, but doing so deliberately to cause grave offence to muslims.
-
And just to answer the question of Oslamophobia in context, I would say that it's not Islamophobic by definition to burn a Qu'ran.
I think I'd been clear on this - it would depend on context and motivation. If the intention was to cause deliberate and gratuitous offence then yes, it may well be islamophobic
-
Err - in the context of islamophobia and in the context of islamophobic awareness month. I don't read that whatsoever as a blanket condemnation of any action which damages an abrahamic text, but doing so deliberately to cause grave offence to muslims.
In reply to a question about making illegal the 'desecration' of the sacred texts of Abrahamic religions, you don't read desecration is to be condemned as referring to that on context? Really?
-
I think I'd been clear on this - it would depend on context and motivation. If the intention was to cause deliberate and gratuitous offence then yes, it may well be islamophobic
So, it isn't Islamophobic by definition.
-
You're not even trying to make an argument and it's fallacy bingo...
O.
My argument is that he had less control over his Hector than might have been the case. Are you saying that's a Phallusy?
-
So, it isn't Islamophobic by definition.
No, although it could be depending on circumstances and motivation.
-
Prof,
I think I'd been clear on this - it would depend on context and motivation. If the intention was to cause deliberate and gratuitous offence then yes, it may well be islamophobic
But if the demand is for legislation to prohibit "desecrating" supposedly holy texts (an appalling idea, for reasons NS has set out) how could legislation be framed even in principle that would take into account the motivation of the perpetrator?
-
No, although it could be depending on circumstances and motivation.
Which shows you disagree with Starmer's blanket condemnation.
-
Prof,
But if the demand is for legislation to prohibit "desecrating" supposedly holy texts (an appalling idea, for reasons NS has set out) how could legislation be framed even in principle that would take into account the motivation of the perpetrator?
Part of the whole reason why hate crime is a nonsense
-
Which shows you disagree with Starmer's blanket condemnation.
That's not how I read his comment - I read it that he condemned desecration of texts which was hate-inspired, which is why he specifically said that he 'is committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division including, of course, islamophobia in all its forms'.
I don't think that Starmer, for one second, was considering someone who might scribble a phone number in the corner of a page of a sacred text as it was thing that was to hand. No, his comments to me were specifically about people who do this out of hatred.
-
That's not how I read his comment - I read it that he condemned desecration of texts which was hate-inspired, which is why he specifically said that he 'is committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division including, of course, islamophobia in all its forms'.
I don't think that Starmer, for one second, was considering someone who might scribble a phone number in the corner of a page of a sacred text as it was thing that was to hand. No, his comments to me were specifically about people who do this out of hatred.
And yet he answered a question which made no such specific statement, so contextually, which as you have correctly pointed out is important, you would be wrong.
-
Prof,
I don't think that Starmer, for one second, was considering someone who might scribble a phone number in the corner of a page of a sacred text as it was thing that was to hand. No, his comments to me were specifically about people who do this out of hatred.
But in legislative terms what would be the difference between me burning your house down because I hate you and me burning your house down just because I'm an arsonist? Is the first crime somehow more serious than the second? Why?
-
The context of this question from Tahir Ali to the PM appears to be this UN Resolution which among other things, called on countries to take steps to “prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/12/un-bodys-motion-on-quran-burning-how-did-your-country-vote
So I agree with PD that Starmer did not issue a blanket condemnation.
-
The context of this question from Tahir Ali to the PM appears to be this UN Resolution which among other things, called on countries to take steps to “prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/12/un-bodys-motion-on-quran-burning-how-did-your-country-vote
So I agree with PD that Starmer did not issue a blanket condemnation.
He did in terms of the question being about acts of 'desecration' to Abrahamic religious texts. He didn't qualify that at all in the answer.
What is your opinion of Ali's proposal?
-
Prof,
But in legislative terms what would be the difference between me burning your house down because I hate you and me burning your house down just because I'm an arsonist? Is the first crime somehow more serious than the second? Why?
Yes it would - perhaps not in the context of arson, because that is such a serious crime anyhow, but certainly in the context of lesser crimes.
So this would play into the concept of aggravating factors. So if I spray graffiti over your wall but that is just a random act, I could have chosen any wall that would be a crime. However if I specifically targeted your wall because I know you and hate you, then that would be an aggravating factor. If I specifically target your wall, not because I know you at all, but because I know that people who live there are muslim, or black, or gay and I have a generalised hatred of muslims, or black people, or gay people then that may be a further aggravating factor. So for example you'll often hear of a racially aggravated assault - in other words that the victim was chosen because of their race, rather than at random, or because the attacker knew and disliked the individual.
In some cases aggravating factors don't change the base crime but may lead to a longer sentence. In other cases the aggravating factors are sufficient for this to be a different and more serious crime.
-
He did in terms of the question being about acts of 'desecration' to Abrahamic religious texts. He didn't qualify that at all in the answer.
No I don't think Starmer issued a blanket condemnation. It was in the context of the first few sentences in Ali's question about the UNHRC resolution, which itself was in the wake of a public burning of the Quran in Sweden outside a mosque during a Muslim religious festival. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/28/quran-desecrated-in-sweden-during-eid-al-adha-holiday
What is your opinion of Ali's proposal?
I don't agree with blasphemy laws. PD made some good points though about desecrating the war memorial and how people might respond emotionally to that and therefore law and order considerations might restrict freedom of expression.
[/quote]
-
Hi Prof,
Yes it would - perhaps not in the context of arson, because that is such a serious crime anyhow, but certainly in the context of lesser crimes.
So this would play into the concept of aggravating factors. So if I spray graffiti over your wall but that is just a random act, I could have chosen any wall that would be a crime. However if I specifically targeted your wall because I know you and hate you, then that would be an aggravating factor. If I specifically target your wall, not because I know you at all, but because I know that people who live there are muslim, or black, or gay and I have a generalised hatred of muslims, or black people, or gay people then that may be a further aggravating factor. So for example you'll often hear of a racially aggravated assault - in other words that the victim was chosen because of their race, rather than at random, or because the attacker knew and disliked the individual.
In some cases aggravating factors don't change the base crime but may lead to a longer sentence. In other cases the aggravating factors are sufficient for this to be a different and more serious crime.
Yes I’m familiar with aggravated circumstances in law, and I can see the sense of it in cases of, say, aggravated burglary when violence is also involved. That is, the violence is also a crime in its own right. What I look askance at though is crime considered aggravated when the aggravating factor isn’t also itself unlawful. Thus committing an arson attack on the home of an Asian family is bad, but committing an identical arson attack when the arsonist has a history of racism is worse.
The reasoning seems to be that the arsonist’s lawful (albeit repugnant) motivation should be assumed and should add to the punishment tariff, but I’m not sure of the logic for that.
-
No I don't think Starmer issued a blanket condemnation. It was in the context of the first few sentences in Ali's question about the UNHRC resolution, which itself was in the wake of a public burning of the Quran in Sweden outside a mosque during a Muslim religious festival. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/28/quran-desecrated-in-sweden-during-eid-al-adha-holiday
I don't agree with blasphemy laws. PD made some good points though about desecrating the war memorial and how people might respond emotionally to that and therefore law and order considerations might restrict freedom of expression.
To quote Ali
"November marks Islamophobia awareness month. Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?”
And Starmer went along with the idea of all 'desecration' of such texts to be condemned. Blanket condemnation.
-
Yawn - going round in circles.
That's actually your fault.
Without any credible evidence that the government intends to impose a particular law I really don't think it is beholden on the PM to deny doing something that his government never intends to do. Otherwise the government would spend half its time denying things that aren't part of its agenda.
He was asked a direct question. Surely it is beholden on him to answer it, even if the answer is "we have no plans to introduce such a law".
-
To quote Ali
"November marks Islamophobia awareness month. Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?”
And Starmer went along with the idea of all 'desecration' of such texts to be condemned. Blanket condemnation.
But, on the other hand, he didn't answer the question that was asked.
-
To quote Ali
"November marks Islamophobia awareness month. Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?”
And Starmer went along with the idea of all 'desecration' of such texts to be condemned. Blanket condemnation.
You forgot a bit.
To quote Ali (from your link in the OP and the link to the NSS article):
"November marks Islamophobia awareness month. Last year the UNHRC adopted a resolution condemning the desecration of religious texts including the Quran despite opposition from the previous government. Acts of such mindless desecration only serve to fuel hatred and division within our society.
Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?”
The question and Starmer's reply seem to be in the context of the UNHRC resolution. So I don't see it as a blanket condemnation of all desecration as the UNHRC resolution specifies the type of desecration it is against.
With a vote of 28 in favour, 12 against and 7 abstentions - the UNHRC adopted the resolution entitled “Countering religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
The resolution underscored the need for holding those responsible to account in a manner consistent with obligations of States arising from international human rights law. It also called upon States to adopt national laws, policies and law enforcement frameworks that address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and to take immediate steps to ensure accountability.
https://unric.org/en/human-rights-council-condemns-the-burning-of-the-quran-as-a-religious-hate-act/
-
You forgot a bit.
To quote Ali (from your link in the OP and the link to the NSS article):
"November marks Islamophobia awareness month. Last year the UNHRC adopted a resolution condemning the desecration of religious texts including the Quran despite opposition from the previous government. Acts of such mindless desecration only serve to fuel hatred and division within our society.
Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?”
The question and Starmer's reply seem to be in the context of the UNHRC resolution. So I don't see it as a blanket condemnation of all desecration as the UNHRC resolution specifies the type of desecration it is against.
With a vote of 28 in favour, 12 against and 7 abstentions - the UNHRC adopted the resolution entitled “Countering religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
The resolution underscored the need for holding those responsible to account in a manner consistent with obligations of States arising from international human rights law. It also called upon States to adopt national laws, policies and law enforcement frameworks that address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and to take immediate steps to ensure accountability.
https://unric.org/en/human-rights-council-condemns-the-burning-of-the-quran-as-a-religious-hate-act/
That the blasphemy laws is backed by UNHRC doesn't change that it's a blasphemy lawabout the 'desecration' of a set of religious texts, and is a blanket approach on those religious texts, and astatmer went along with that.
-
That the blasphemy laws is backed by UNHRC doesn't change that it's a blasphemy lawabout the 'desecration' of a set of religious texts, and is a blanket approach on those religious texts, and astatmer went along with that.
I don't know about blasphemy laws - the MP might well be trying to get blasphemy laws re-introduced. I also don't know what would be defined as desecration. Or what you mean by a blanket condemnation.
The OP shows an MP referencing the UNHRC resolution, which does not seem to be a blanket condemnation but amongst other things seems to focus on criminalising an act which could amount to incitement - see extract below (my emphasis):
".....Acknowledging that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities and that restrictions on this right shall only be such as are provided by law, and in this context ensuring respect for the rights or reputations of others, as stipulated in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and acknowledging also its article 20, which states that any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law,
Noting with deep concern the rising incidents of desecration of sacred books and places of worship as well as religious symbols, which could constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,
Affirming that it is offensive, disrespectful, a clear act of provocation and a manifestation of religious hatred to deliberately and publicly burn the Holy Qur’an or any other holy book with the intent to incite discrimination, hostility or violence, and affirming also that this act shall be prohibited by law...."
Obviously as someone else posted, similar to "Hate" legislation, the definition of many of these terms is open to interpretation so the courts will need to decide what constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence vs freedom of expression.
Does it matter whether we are discussing showing a lack of respect for religious texts vs a lack of respect for people's feelings? Since the religious text desecration is done to offend people's feelings.
There was that case of the guy found guilty of sharing a video of a model of Grenfell Tower burning on a bonfire https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61160971
He was prosecuted under Grossly Offensive, Indecent or Obscene communications
Section 127 CA 2003 and section 1 MCA 1988 each encompass communications which are 'grossly offensive' or 'indecent’, which are ordinary English words: see Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 ALL ER 1012.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/communications-offences
He was first cleared of the charge, the CPS appealed, and a higher court quashed the verdict and ordered a retrial, where it was decided he was guilty of being 'grossly offensive' or 'indecent’.
When the High Court quashed the original verdict they apparently also ruled that he had to pay the CPS' costs of £6,095 within 28 days
https://news.sky.com/story/man-faces-retrial-over-sharing-video-of-grenfell-tower-model-burning-12368205
What is your opinion about that?
-
I don't know about blasphemy laws - the MP might well be trying to get blasphemy laws re-introduced. I also don't know what would be defined as desecration. Or what you mean by a blanket condemnation.
The OP shows an MP referencing the UNHRC resolution, which does not seem to be a blanket condemnation but amongst other things seems to focus on criminalising an act which could amount to incitement - see extract below (my emphasis):
".....Acknowledging that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities and that restrictions on this right shall only be such as are provided by law, and in this context ensuring respect for the rights or reputations of others, as stipulated in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and acknowledging also its article 20, which states that any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law,
Noting with deep concern the rising incidents of desecration of sacred books and places of worship as well as religious symbols, which could constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,
Affirming that it is offensive, disrespectful, a clear act of provocation and a manifestation of religious hatred to deliberately and publicly burn the Holy Qur’an or any other holy book with the intent to incite discrimination, hostility or violence, and affirming also that this act shall be prohibited by law...."
Obviously as someone else posted, similar to "Hate" legislation, the definition of many of these terms is open to interpretation so the courts will need to decide what constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence vs freedom of expression.
Does it matter whether we are discussing showing a lack of respect for religious texts vs a lack of respect for people's feelings? Since the religious text desecration is done to offend people's feelings.
There was that case of the guy found guilty of sharing a video of a model of Grenfell Tower burning on a bonfire https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61160971
He was prosecuted under Grossly Offensive, Indecent or Obscene communications
Section 127 CA 2003 and section 1 MCA 1988 each encompass communications which are 'grossly offensive' or 'indecent’, which are ordinary English words: see Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 ALL ER 1012.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/communications-offences
He was first cleared of the charge, the CPS appealed, and a higher court quashed the verdict and ordered a retrial, where it was decided he was guilty of being 'grossly offensive' or 'indecent’.
When the High Court quashed the original verdict they apparently also ruled that he had to pay the CPS' costs of £6,095 within 28 days
https://news.sky.com/story/man-faces-retrial-over-sharing-video-of-grenfell-tower-model-burning-12368205
What is your opinion about that?
That in the context of this debate, it's essentially irrelevant. And if you didn't know what I meant by blanket condemnation, then saying that it wasn't is a bit odd.
-
VG,
Since the religious text desecration is done to offend people's feelings.
Not necessarily, but in any case which do you think should have the greater legal protection: the right not have have your feelings offended, or the right to behave in ways that could offend people's feelings?
-
That in the context of this debate, it's essentially irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant? Both situations are about burning things and causing offence.
And if you didn't know what I meant by blanket condemnation, then saying that it wasn't is a bit odd.
I thought I understood what you meant by "blanket condemnation" when I said I did not think this was a blanket condemnation of desecrating religious texts since it was in the context of desecrating texts that could be incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
So I think this means defacing religious texts is ok unless it is done to incite discrimination, hostility or violence. So if there is defacement that would not be condemned then this would not be blanket condemnation.
But despite this, if you still think it is a blanket condemnation, I want to know what you mean by blanket condemnation.
-
VG,
Not necessarily, but in any case which do you think should have the greater legal protection: the right not have have your feelings offended, or that right to behave in ways that could offend people's feelings?
I think the right to behave in ways that could offend people's feelings should have greater legal protection. But I think this would inevitably be constrained by the state's resources to maintain law and order as there is a good chance voters would probably prioritise personal safety over freedom of expression.
-
VG,
I think the right to behave in ways that could offend people's feelings should have greater legal protection.
Good. So do I.
But I think this would inevitably be constrained by the state's resources to maintain law and order as there is a good chance voters would probably prioritise personal safety over freedom of expression.
But what’s to stop someone who feels offended from committing an act of violence to express their offence, and then looking to the state to prohibit the offending party’s action in order to prevent their violence? The Rushdie case is one obvious example of people acting violently pursuant to feeling offended.
I can see that publishing leaflets saying “kill all muslims” or some such is an incitement to violence, but why would, say, burning a “holy” text be one too when the resulting violence is perpetrated by the offended party?
-
Why is it irrelevant? Both situations are about burning things and causing offence.
I thought I understood what you meant by "blanket condemnation" when I said I did not think this was a blanket condemnation of desecrating religious texts since it was in the context of desecrating texts that could be incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
So I think this means defacing religious texts is ok unless it is done to incite discrimination, hostility or violence. So if there is defacement that would not be condemned then this would not be blanket condemnation.
But despite this, if you still think it is a blanket condemnation, I want to know what you mean by blanket condemnation.
It's irrelevant because it would only be about establishing a case against absolute free speech, since I don't believe in absolute free speech, it's too specific to deal with the case of specially privileging a set of specific religious texts.
The 'blanket condemnation' is that Starmer doesn't think contextualise his answer in terms of the govts opposition so he accepts the premise from Ali that 'desecration' is bad. The problem with Ali and the UNHRC approach is that I can't see any way of an intentional act of 'desecration' being defined as not intended to cause offence because the decision is based on the offence taken.
Do you think what Ali proposes should be made law?
-
I think the right to behave in ways that could offend people's feelings should have greater legal protection. But I think this would inevitably be constrained by the state's resources to maintain law and order as there is a good chance voters would probably prioritise personal safety over freedom of expression.
Which plays into telling Rushdie to shut up because some religious nutters want to attack people for his writing.
-
VG,
Good. So do I.
Glad we agree on some opinions.
But what’s to stop someone who feels offended from committing an act of violence to express their offence, and then looking to the state to prohibit the offending party’s action in order to prevent their violence? The Rushdie case is one obvious example of people acting violently pursuant to feeling offended.
I can see that publishing leaflets saying “kill all muslims” or some such is an incitement to violence, but why would, say, burning a “holy” text be one too when the resulting violence is perpetrated by the offended party?
I am not referring to what should happen. My simple answer to what should happen is that people should not act violently if they are offended and if they do act violently pursuant to feeling offended, the police should intervene to either have a word if that will calm the situation or if not arrest them, prosecute them/ jail them/ shoot them if necessary to protect others.
I am predicting that practical considerations will probably mean that many voters will want their government to protect them from violence as they are going about their business and if the government has constrained resources, that those voters might not prioritise their freedom to offend over their personal safety.
-
Glad we agree on some opinions.
I am not referring to what should happen. My simple answer to what should happen is that people should not act violently if they are offended and if they do act violently pursuant to feeling offended, the police should intervene to either have a word if that will calm the situation or if not arrest them, prosecute them/ jail them/ shoot them if necessary to protect others.
I am predicting that practical considerations will probably mean that many voters will want their government to protect them from violence as they are going about their business and if the government has constrained resources, that those voters might not prioritise their freedom to offend over their personal safety.
And some voters may want to have anyone suspected of promulgating such threats of violence shot at dawn. So what?
-
...it was in the context of desecrating texts that could be incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
That's good to know. If this is the case, it is already pretty much illegal under English law to incite people to violence. Why couldn't the prime minister have said this?
-
VG,
Good. So do I.
But what’s to stop someone who feels offended from committing an act of violence to express their offence, and then looking to the state to prohibit the offending party’s action in order to prevent their violence? The Rushdie case is one obvious example of people acting violently pursuant to feeling offended.
First of all, if you have already committed the violence, there's no point in prohibiting the action. Secondly, I don't think any act of incitement makes you immune to prosecution for your violence.
I can see that publishing leaflets saying “kill all muslims” or some such is an incitement to violence, but why would, say, burning a “holy” text be one too when the resulting violence is perpetrated by the offended party?
Maybe "provocation" is a better word than "incitement" for this scenario.
-
It's irrelevant because it would only be about establishing a case against absolute free speech, since I don't believe in absolute free speech, it's too specific to deal with the case of specially privileging a set of specific religious texts.
The issue in both situations seems to be related to doing offensive acts that are publicised so I don't think it's irrelevant.
In the UNCHR resolution, they condemned a public burning of a Quran. Since Ali referenced the UNCHR resolution and spoke about fuelling hatred and division in society, it sounds like he is narrowing the criminality to an act that is intended to fuel hatred and division in society. The UNCHR narrowed it further to desecrating texts that could be incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
If someone burns a Quran in their house - obviously I can't be sure but I don't think the law being proposed by Ali would make that an offence. I think that would be stupid to criminalise burning a book in your own house. It's just a book.
Burning a model of the Grenfell Towers might be considered offensive if people found out about it later, even if you did not publicise it, because people died in that fire. But the criminality came from filming and distributing it as that affects society.
The 'blanket condemnation' is that Starmer doesn't think contextualise his answer in terms of the govts opposition so he accepts the premise from Ali that 'desecration' is bad. The problem with Ali and the UNHRC approach is that I can't see any way of an intentional act of 'desecration' being defined as not intended to cause offence because the decision is based on the offence taken.
Agreed that the subjective nature, as with hate speech, is problematic.
Is the intent of desecration to have people feel bad because you are disrespecting what they care about?
Is the person desecrating something simply making a statement that they do not respect something?
Or do they actively want other people to feel upset that what they care about is being desecrated?
Either way, the government can say an act is bad without seeking to criminalise it.
Do you think what Ali proposes should be made law?
No.
-
And some voters may want to have anyone suspected of promulgating such threats of violence shot at dawn. So what?
I think shooting someone at dawn will be a lot more expensive for a government than not allowing book burning publicity stunts that it might have to police.
Guess it would depend on the available resources as to how often people would be allowed to burn books.
Maybe book-burning could be a once-a-month activity on the 4th plinth at Trafalgar Square - they could take turns setting fire to religious books, political books, philosophy books, science books, art books, music books etc. The 4th plinth was originally intended to hold an equestrian statue of William IV, but remained empty due to lack of funds. This would generate some interest - when money is short they could just have a sculpture of someone burning a book.
-
I think shooting someone at dawn will be a lot more expensive for a government than not allowing book burning publicity stunts that it might have to police.
Guess it would depend on the available resources as to how often people would be allowed to burn books.
Maybe book-burning could be a once-a-month activity on the 4th plinth at Trafalgar Square - they could take turns setting fire to religious books, political books, philosophy books, science books, art books, music books etc. The 4th plinth was originally intended to hold an equestrian statue of William IV, but remained empty due to lack of funds. This would generate some interest - when money is short they could just have a sculpture of someone burning a book.
Applaud