Banning desecration of the texts of Abrahamic religions, PMQs

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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".

[jeremyp]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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/

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?         

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[jeremyp]

...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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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