Banning desecration of the texts of Abrahamic religions, PMQs

[Nearly Sane]

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

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Nearly Sane]

National Secular Society's comments

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2024/11/nss-mps-call-for-new-blasphemy-laws-deeply-alarming?v=2

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

I’m wondering the reaction to picking up dog’s dirt with this article.

  Why? Do you support Tahir Ali's suggestion?

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Why? Do you support Tahir Ali's suggestion?

No, of course not....Do you support the continued book burning?

[Nearly Sane]

No, of course not....Do you support the continued book burning?

What book burning?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What book burning?

You seem incapable of answering questions.

[Nearly Sane]

You seem incapable of answering questions.

I asked for clarification,  you're the one refusing to answer.

[Outrider]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Outrider]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.