Main Edition
US
FR
November 28, 2024 - 1:30pm
Yesterday in Parliament, Labour MP Tahir Ali asked Keir Starmer whether the Government would “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions”. Both the question and the Prime Minister’s response have already attracted a great deal of attention and criticism, but of perhaps overlooked significance is the way in which the question was introduced with reference to Islamophobia Awareness Month.
Critics of both the term “Islamophobia” and its proposed definitions have long warned that it could amount to a backdoor blasphemy law. In response, they have frequently met with scorn, derision, and allegations of Islamophobia — which you’d think rather proves their misgivings.
Now, however, the connection between Islamophobia and an outright proposal for blasphemy laws has been made aloud, and occurs shortly after the case of Samuel Paty, the French teacher who was murdered for allegedly showing his class cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, has re-entered the news cycle. That is because the schoolgirl who originally whipped up the allegations of Islamophobia, attracting the attention of local Islamist preachers and subsequently a jihadist’s blade, has now admitted she made it up.
An allegation of Islamophobia is not simply to be accused of being discriminatory or bigoted towards human beings: it is to be accused of being against Islam, making it a short leap to the sometimes-fatal allegation of blasphemy. That leap has been made a little bit shorter by Ali’s comments in the House of Commons yesterday.
Once the allegation of either Islamophobia or blasphemy is out there, the accuser has no control over who hears it and what they see fit to do about it. Those who seek to weaponise these allegations can then use this to their advantage with plausible deniability. The French anthropologist Florence Bergeaud-Blackler discovered this the hard way last year, when her book on the European activities of an Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, was met with an Islamophobia backlash cynically orchestrated by the very subjects of her research from their positions dotted around academia, civil society and the media. After receiving death threats, Bergeaud-Blackler was forced under police protection.
In Britain, we have had our own sorry episodes. Would the 2021 film The Lady of Heaven, a production by Shia Muslims which was subject to protests and was pulled from many UK cinemas over safety concerns, come under such proposed legislation?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeBlasphemy laws are the opposite of freedom. We should not even be entertaining the possibility of them. Unfortunately we are already travelling down that path with the concept of “hate” crimes and the performative hysteria which greets even the most sensible challenges to Progressive sensibilities.
And where does Tahir Ali get off elevating the Abrahamic religions above others. Are Buddhists and Hindus unworthy of the same respect in his estimation?
My only hope is that by vocalising this outrageous demand, it exposes Starmer’s snivelling appeasement of his party’s most undemocratic elements.
But of course he didn’t really mean the ‘Abrahamic religions’, that was just a fig leaf to make his remarks seem a little more acceptable. I suspect he has only one religion in mind.
Like the Trojans had a horse.
We battled for to long to ensure that we were not persecuted by the Christian church to be prosecuted by a foreign faith
Of course there is an alternative solution
The alternative solution is authoritatian as Hugh Bryant remarks below! I am so glad to live in a country where there is freedom of religion.
Starmer’s snivelling appeasement
Islam is authoritarian. Starmer is an extreme authoritarian – just look at the prison sentences being handed out to people right now for expressing quite innocuous opinions. What did he do as DPP about the grooming gangs? What makes you think what he’s doing is ‘appeasement’ and not whole-hearted endorsement.
Islam is an ideology. Like all others it can be interrogated, mocked, satirised and rejected It has no special status. Its followers, Muslims, aren’t a race. They have no special status.
But Islamists are capable of special intimidation.
Phobia means irrational fear of or dislike of.
9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Manchester, Hebdo, Bataclan, Rigby, Paty, Nice, Borough Mkt, London Bridge, and on and on and on.
Islamophobia is the wrong word. There is nothing irrational about it.
Nor should it be deemed phobic for women to fear this religious ideology and culture, there is great, extensive evidence for women to do so.
I weary of the political obsession with hate speech, non-crimes, racism, equity and ‘islamaphobia’, – whatever that means. I can guarantee that a party that cannot even define what a woman is will have a much harder task with that word. I do wish the entire edifice of “Hate” legislation and “protected characteristics” was simply abolished.
Personally I have little time for any religion, regarding most of them as “the easiest way of getting fundamentally decent people to do very bad things”. They are just ideologies, like socialism or capitalism or dadism. They are not exempt from critique and neither are their adherents.
I certainly do not like islam; I think it is crude, medieval, of questionable moral foundation, demeaning to women, intolerant of others and seeks to aggressively proselytise itself. And its adherents range across the spectrum of being mildly deluded at best to deeply dangerous at worst (like a lot of religions). I am quite happy to argue the case against it as well.
Do I think it should be banned? No. But it should not be permitted to interfere with, in any way, other peoples desire to believe what they want, live as they choose and say what they think. Nor indeed should any religion. However I would observe that it never seems to be adherents of christianity, or buddism, or hinduism, or judaism, or janism or any other credo who call for censure, punishment or worse for those who ‘disrespect’ their beliefs; that appears to be a preserve that is exclusive to islam and I think it needs to be watched very carefully.
To be honest I think the jig is already up and we have already sacrificed that bit of our liberal society which allows all religions to be freely criticised and made fun of.
Look at the opening ceremony of the Paris olympics and that scene with the drag queens which supposedly sent up the last supper. The Pope wasn’t impressed and some Christians got upset but everyone got over it fairly quickly and we all moved on as we are supposed to in a secular society. If there had been some kind of perceived slight on Islam, Paris would have been burned to the ground in short order.
It’s over. Criticism of Islam is now off limits in western Europe. The question of whether this situation is codified into law now is simply a rubber stamping exercise; there is no question left to answer about what direction our western European societies are going to take now. That was answered long before we were even allowed to identify and acknowledge this is an important issue.
Whilst in a country that truly values freedom of thought and speech we shouldn’t have to congratulate the author of this article on not just his rigour but his bravery, i feel we must.
We need more such voices, since we won’t hear them from our elected representatives in parliament (i wonder if even Reform MPs would raise this matter in the chamber?)
It’s also worth exploring the link to the French anthropologist, who the author interviewed following the publication of her work which attracted death threats. The spirit of hard-won Enlightenment freedoms continues to shine, but currently with a reduced arc of luminosity.
Every decent parents knows that when a child throws a tantrum at being asked to do something you don’t give in to the child to stop the tantrum all that teaches them is that if they throw a tantrum they will get what they want it rewards the behavior. The same thing applies to the Muslims, if they decide to riot and break the law because they don’t get their way the solution is not to give in it just encourages the behavior.
Maybe we could send those who break the law and perpetrate mob justice to some sort of time out where they can think about their actions. I don’t know maybe some other country or something that doesn’t have freedom, say Pakistan or somewhere else in the MENA? Wait what’s that they almost all are from there?
Well how about only those who can appreciate a liberal democracy enjoy the benefits of living in a liberal democracy those who cannot can go back to their third world religious theocracies and enjoy countries where “blasphemy” is a crime.
Tahir Ali should go back to Pakistan where he’d feel much more comfortable, and there he could indulge his urges to persecute people for blasphemy, join in with the crowds storming the police station, dragging out and beating to death the blasphemer. As an Islamist, possibly he’d prefer decapitation, it’s a moot point.
There’s really is no place for Muslim’s in a civilised country. I’m furious the way they’re being pandered to, someone wants to burn the Queeran who gives a fig, no one shows respect for the Bible or taking the name of Jesus in vain. Why are they so special, go and live in an Islam country, good riddance. Starsimer is a weak willed salamander, he’ll never challenge the Mullahs. It’s sickening that our country is surrendering to them allowing them to fly foul anti-Semitic flags and build their indoctrination social centres with Qatari money, they’re the enemy.
Because they have to earn their way to life after death in heaven, they must obey all the rules.
Is it a phobia when the people involved often do mean harm to others?
The other question raised by Tahir Ali’s request is why should the three Abrahamic religions be treated differently and preferentially to any other religion.
in truth, his request focuses on just one of the three. The other two are used as cover to make the proposition more palatable.
“Once the allegation of either Islamophobia or blasphemy is out there, the accuser has no control over who hears it and what they see fit to do about it.”
You only have to witness how blasphemy allegations are used in Pakistan, obviously against non-believers, and the consequences that follow
A religion that cannot cope with being questioned is not a strong faith
If some followers of Islam are able to exploit a rich seam of blasphemy for ‘victimhood’ how long before other groups pile on?
Perhaps the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster needs to ride out again to expose the arbitrary nature of such claims.
I haven’t even thought of the good old CFSM for a long time! Thank you for mentioning that!
Ride out on a flying horse perhaps.
Along with some others, my comment made soon after this article was published has been removed. There was nothing remotely offensive in it although it made reference to Pakistan’s own heinous blasphemy laws and how they are routinely abused and used to persecute religious minorities. These are facts and must be considered when such a regressive law as the one being currently proposed by this government is being proposed.
I sometimes wait more than a day to see my comment appear.
In fact I’ve had enough and just cancelled my subscription.
I suspect the Paw of Dog leaving his or her ( not “their”) foul tracks.
Who defines the “desecration of…religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?” The government? The religions? The zealots? The mob?
I would think that any of these ‘enforcers’ will be dangerous to the liberty of the overall society and to the religious observers alike.
Such a law will inevitably require the chosen supreme mediator to pick a side when competing conflicts arise.
And the supreme mediator – depending on who or what it is – will quickly suffer from internal biases since many powerful and wealthy ideological groups (religious and non-religious) will immediately seek to ideologically capture the mediator to bend it to their own will, so that they can persecute anyone who does not believe as they demand.
We’ve all witnessed the government-sanctioned zealotry – and the subsequent real-world persecution and damage caused to innocent people – when these zealots rapidly elevated their Woke God to an unquestionable supreme status over the past 10-15 years. As the official corrupt high priests, the zealots deviously searched for their personally-defined ‘heathen’ within society in order to eliminate them, with the intended consequence of elevating the zealot themselves into unearned power and wealth and influence.
Everyone has their own preferred religion(s), belief systems, or no religion at all. And one should not be given the authorization to force another to observe their preferred choice, with the sword of “desecration” hanging over the other’s neck.
Religions and belief systems are kingdoms of conscience and choice, not authoritarian force.
This is the proverbial hill on which to die I think
I think so.
Probably literally.
As a Christian, the irony of a Blasphemer calling for an anti-blasphemy law is not lost on me.
I’m suggesting the strictest Sharia law for the next five years. First, it will immediately stop all small boats. Second,it’ll drive away the home “abrahamists”
Is anyone ever called technophobic anymore?
Can one thing be established? In a world that has been de-sacralised by science and democracy, what act would constitute ‘desecration’ of religious texts of certain religions?
In such a world, the gods no longer dwell. All is mechanics, not the will of God.
Blasphemy law holds certain truths to be self-evident. Previously, such a law made blasphemy not just a crime against the Church but also one against the state.
That this is even being proposed and discussed in one of the birthplaces of modern democratic government is shocking – but not surprising.
Starmer will always fold to whatever grouping puts most pressure on him. Could be argued that we currently have a delivery factory blasphemy law protecting a single religion.
Not only do we need to nip any calls for blasphemy laws in the bud, we need to remove ‘beliefs’ from any list of ‘protected characteristics’. Beliefs are a matter of choice, not innate characteristics such as age, sex, skin colour, and so on. If your beliefs aren’t strong enough to stand up to questioning, examination, and criticism, you should ask yourself why not. If they are, then you don’t need to be frightened to listen to criticism.
We already have them
Time for forced repatriation for anyone who won’t actively endorse Western liberal Judeo -Christian values.
Would we still be allowed to be phobic about Scientology? I have to confess I’ve ‘desecrated’ some of their literature. And after carefully reading the Book of Mormon from end to end I admit that I threw it in the trash. But I do still have my copy of the Koran, so maybe I’m OK.
The road to dhimmitude? Unlikely.
But what if Starmer takes a strong stance – or rather, makes a difficult decision – only to get murdered for it? Surely we can understand and excuse our stoic National leader’s wavering here?
Why?
If the PM is afraid to “take a strong stance”, what hope for the rest of us?
We’re in deep trouble, I fear.
What would he do if the majority of farmers turned out to be Moslems
Ahh, intersectionality!
What if he does nothing and innocent people get murdered by the sort of extremists going down this highly dangerous and quite unnecessary road is only going to encourage ?
Yes, perhaps it is better that he is murdered?
Yes please
If an individual fears “…mak[ing] a difficult decision,” then it’s highly probable they are not leadership material in the eyes of the citizens of any country on this planet.
Perhaps switching careers (e.g. to be a yoga instructor) is a good idea if one wants to be safe from difficult decisions and not take principled stands to support civilization?
A noble sacrifice, indeed. Statues would be erected.
There’s always hope.
Yes that would be a real shame. Oh well never mind.
‘…now the subject has been broached…’ Look there is more chance of Anjem Choundury becoming the next Pope than a new anti-Islamophobia being introduced.
If Unherd Authors weren’t tripping over themselves to offer a ‘triggering’ article for the subscriber base based on one MPs utterances about blasphemy they could do an interesting thought provoking piece on how the Racial & Religious Hatred 2006 Act has been interpreted by the Courts in the intervening 18 years. But no that’d be too much for most of the base to absorb.
Be aware when the Article is assuming you are a bit of a numpty.
Prior to working 14 years full time in Saudi Arabia, I attended a 1 week induction course dubbed “Islamotact”. The myriad dangers were explained and the relevant safety measures stressed: it would have saved all the victims in your essay.
Islam is Islam, it is not going to change just because it is now here in the UK: wise up, stay safe and get used to it.
So for you, the solution is simply to acquiesce in the UK becoming Saudi Arabia?
Islamotact for Saudi Arabia: Women: keep your abaya and veil on. Everyone: No food or water visible during Ramadan. Do not read the Bible in public, it can result in prison time. No swimwear on the beach, it’s blasphemous. Close your store on Fridays. No shoplifting.
Sounds good to me. Bring it on.