Banning desecration of the texts of Abrahamic religions, PMQs

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Outrider]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

So, it isn't Islamophobic by definition.

No, although it could be depending on circumstances and motivation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?   

[Nearly Sane]

No, although it could be depending on circumstances and motivation.

Which shows you disagree with Starmer's blanket condemnation.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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]

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.