Banning desecration of the texts of Abrahamic religions, PMQs

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[Outrider]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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'.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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"?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.