Main Edition
US
FR
November 27, 2024 - 4:45pm
Labour MP Tahir Ali has today advocated for blasphemy laws during Prime Minister’s Questions.
The MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley asked Keir Starmer if he would “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions”. Speaking in the Commons, Ali added that “November marks Islamophobia awareness month,” and that “last year the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution condemning the desecration of religious texts, including the Quran, despite opposition from the previous government.”
The Prime Minister replied that the Government is “committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division”, including Islamophobia and antisemitism. Ali said that “mindless desecration only serves to fuel division and hatred,” with the Prime Minister adding: “desecration is awful.” A video of Ali’s question has gone viral on X, receiving much criticism.
There has been concern around the re-establishment of blasphemy laws in the UK in recent years. In 2021, a teacher at Batley Grammar School was forced into hiding and received death threats after showing an illustration of the prophet Muhammad in class. Earlier this year, Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP for Batley and Spen, said a report into the incident “makes for deeply disturbing reading”. The independent review, led by Government adviser Sara Khan, described the teacher’s forced exile as a “harrowing example” of “freedom-restricting harassment”.
Another incident in nearby Wakefield last year raised similar worries about the imposition of blasphemy laws, particularly from the Muslim community. In February 2023, four pupils were suspended from a secondary school after a copy of the Quran was damaged. The book remained intact and the head teacher said there was “no malicious intent” from those involved. However, there was much outrage from Muslim parents and a meeting was held with the headteacher and Islamic community leaders.
The debate around Islamophobia and what to do about it has emerged again in the wake of the Southport stabbing attack in July. The new Labour government blamed the unrest on online misinformation which alleged that the attacker had an Islamic name and was an immigrant. It was later disclosed that his name was Axel Rudakubana, although it was not until three months after the attack that the public were informed that he was in possession of an al-Qaeda manual. Mosques were often the targets of protests and unrest after the stabbings.
In response to Ali’s comments today, the National Secular Society said it is “deeply alarming that an MP is calling for the introduction of new blasphemy laws”. The organisation added: “Concerningly, the Prime Minister offers no defence of free expression. MPs should uphold values which are foundational to our society — not seek to dismantle them.”
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.
SubscribeTahir Ali does not understand British values or their historical development, and his party should endeavour to educate him in them. Perhaps he holds certain cultural values above British ones, in which case perhaps he should reconsider his residency here.
Does Kier?
Yeah, THAT is the real question.
Is Kier really a Trotsky-ite as claimed by Hitchin?
If by Trotsky-ite, you mean terrorist defender, he is one. The Lotus Eaters have put out a video naming terrorists that he defended. He is the reason we can’t deport them today.
“If by……you mean….”!! Trotskyite means something specific and that isn’t a “defender or terrorism” but following the political approach of Leon Trotsky! Also, one man’s terrorist etc etc. I dislike Starmer and disagree with his politics for many reasons, but you appear to be suggesting than the whole British justice system which includes the ability to mount a a defense with professional support should be abandoned. Are you?
In 1986, Starmer lived in a bedsit in Highgate from which he ran a publication called ‘Socialist Alternatives’.
Socialist Alternatives was the publication of the British section of the pro-self-management, ex-Trotskyist group, the International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency, and Starmer’s contributions to the magazine included an article about the Wapping dispute in which he denounced the use of ‘paramilitary’ policing methods. He also wrote earnestly about the creation of a ‘self-managing socialism’ that would be ‘based on democratic control of production for “use” rather than “profit”.
He’s definitely a marxist (socialist), but Trotsyite? Not so sure. Trots believed in permanent revolution and the decentralisation of planning and control of production – 2TK appears very much to be an authoritarian, central command and control type – “Do as I say, not as I do” just like uncle J Stalin.
I cannot stand the man.
Starmerde is a National Socialist and Britain is reliving post January 30 1933 in Germany.
Starmers actions suggest he is more right than most Tory PMs
They really don’t
Values are the nub here. One wonders whether this chappie’s values come from exposure to the Labour Party in his teens or from being directed to kneel frequently on a piece of axminster and pray towards Mecca, which I believe is in Saudi Arabia, at the age of seven. It may be time for the the MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, an English constituency to declare his priorities publicly before bringing such a divisive suggestion to a British Parliament.
Sorry but Blasphemy was only removed from criminal law in 2008, by…guess who…yes the last Labour govt. And there were plenty on the Right that objected. There may well have been some on Left who also objected, but it was prioritised and passed by Labour.
Through an amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats . . . not by Labour . . .
Unfortunately you don’t understand that back then without Lab support for the amendment it wouldn’t have been passed. They controlled the legislative timetable and what amendments were accepted.
And just how exactly is the Labour Party in a position to educate anybody on British Values?
Interestingly it was Labour that removed Blasphemy from the criminal law in 2008. Against some opposition too.
Now maybe not so knee jerk til perhaps you’ve checked out the subject a bit more?
Actually it was Liberal Democrat MP Dr. Evan Harris who proposed the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill that sought to abolish the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel; it was not labour – so objectively the credit in this instance goes to the LibDems.
Furthermore, the majority of objections came from the house of lords not the house of commons. The bill passed in the HoC 387 to 57 – hardly in the teeth of huge resistance.
Exactly, because Labour had a majority and anything they wiped MPs on, which they did here, passed. This was not a Free vote bit of legislation.
It’s not uncommon for there to be general agreement to an amendment and who actually proposes it not be an issue.
So why reintroduce it then?
Who’s re-introducing it?
One MP doesn’t determine the legislative programme of the Govt, and this MP isn’t a Govt Minister. It’s not in the Kings Speech legislative programme, nor Manifesto. It’s a story to play to the gallery and get a bit of mouth foaming going.
The difficulty with any law of the kind proposed is that the first thing you would have to do is ban the Qur’an. In fact, the possession of this book already puts you in contravention of a whole plethora of existing laws.
Good point.
As of course does the Bible, esp the Old Testament.
To repeat – Labour banned Blasphemy as an offence in British Law in 2008, against some resistance.
The debate would be better directed to an understanding of the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred legislation and how well that is consistently applied.
I’m sorry but that’s not true about the OT and is bandied around often – the OT is not prescriptive but descriptive which is a huge difference – the OT is also fulfilled by Jesus who only prescribed love – “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, blessed are the peacemakers etc”
I suspect JW hasn’t read either.
I don’t agree with your point about the OT. There are many examples of God condoning killing or even doing the killing. One example – God instructed Israel to execute everyone in Jericho except for Rahab and her family (Joshua 6:17, 21).
Now I would agree the NT quite different and I think the Jesus of Nazareth Sermon on the Mount one of the most remarkable orations in all History.
I’ll say one thing for you: no-one is ever going to accuse you of being unpredictable.
The Bible is a Roman invention. The Old Testament has little or nothing to with the teachings of Christianity. Nobody acts on its prescriptions. By contrast, an awful lot of people, many of them children, have died in this country at the hands of superstitious men acting on mandates from the other book.
Your point was about a book that breaks a whole plethora of laws, and not what was or wasn’t an invention. That’s a separate debate on which we may well agree. So your logic means we’d be banning both. That’s probably fine with some, but as much chance of that as you becoming Chief Imam
The Bible is a book of stories. The Qur’an is a set of instructions. I suspect you haven’t read either.
The most revelatory point here HB is you imply you’ve read all through the Qur’an. Can you confirm that?
It would seem that elite US University education you had had a module in Arabic. Chapeau.
Your ignorance of the Bible is astonishing and undermines everything you say on the matter. Jesus said that the whole of the Old Testament spoke about Him [Luke 24:27]. Either you are right or He is. The New Testament is full of Old Testament quotations. The 10 Commandments are followed by Christians, so you are wrong on that one as well.
Absolutely. This is officially a Christian country, mostly secular in practice, but nevertheless imbude with Christian values. Our goverment ought to be upholding these values not sending us backwards into blasphamy laws. We need a PM with the moral courage to stand by our social contract
It was in fact primarily Christian organisations that objected to the 2008 Act that removed Blasphemy from the criminal code.
Yes it was, however the CoE themselves did not oppose the abolition when they were consulted, they merely expressed reservations about the timing. In the HoL a number of bishops voted against and a number for the abolition.
Evidence please.
Just go to Wiki and look up UK Blasphemy laws. It’s all there. Then google a few of the key bits to validate with other sources.
I feel your pain that Labour in fact passed this law.
considering who he’s defended in the past, and the fact he didn’t outright say NO, tells you we have a PM with no moral courage, who favours those who hate Britain
Tell us, do you understand the cab rank system for lawyers and who has to take the next case? Or do you just believe everything you’re told without a little bit of inquisitiveness?
Far too polite of you!
I’m coming round to the view that any cause that has an “awareness month” is probably a grift.
I’m also wondering what the word for “hatred” of Christianity is. I can’t ever remembering hearing one.
Quite how carving out special protections for selected religions (what’s so special about the Abrahamic religions ?) is compatible with all the equalities and human rights legislation on the statute books appears to have been overlooked by this genius of an MP.
Scrap all this nonsense and just treat everyone equally. No special treatment for any pressure group. Think how much we’d save on lawyers. We could get by with a lot fewer MPs if we did that too.
In Scotland and Ireland the word is ‘hun’.
“Another feature of the prevailing vision is that the anointed must try to change the fundamental character of their fellow human beings, to make them more like themselves. Thus phrases about “raising the consciousness” of others, making them “aware,” or hoping that they will “grow.” In other words, the anointed must not only design a different social world from that which exists, they must people that world with different creatures, custom-made for the purpose.”
― Thomas Sowell, The Vision Of The Annointed: Self-congratulation As A Basis For Social Policy
Our laws and values are fundamentally Judeo-Christian, these were fundamentally different from the dominant civilizations at the time of their foundations and all contributors here profess a belief in those values. So it follows both that those anointed were successful in their endeavours and also that you applaud their success.
Awarness month! Undoubtedy these are generated mostly by grifters with the rest just peple with a conscience, but don’t know how to manage it so tick support for awarness months in order to off load feelings of helplessness. Violence against women and girls awareness moments pass by without any change whatsoever.
Protecting the Abrahamic religions, is just a smoke screen, anyone with half a brain cell knows that 2 of the 3 will be thrown under the bus.
Exactly what Peter Hitchens warned about. How dare such a demand be made in the British Parliament.
It is time more was written about the heinous blasphemy laws that are routinely abused in Pakistan as a means to persecute religious minorities such as Christians. I’m sick and tired of the cover up that goes on across our media. We have a sizeable and growing population with roots in that country – many occupy positions of great power ( extraordinary isn’t it, given the strident claims made by some of the most successful British Muslims of the rampant islamophobia and racism that stalks this country) Tahir Ali’s parents were from that country and it appears he is intent on bringing that horrific law- that has seen politicians in Pakistan who dared to demand a change or for it to be rescinded assassinated – to further harass the people of this country with.
Mr Hitchens once wrote that ‘Islam has penetrated the heartland of its old enemy’.
Are the Parliamentarians such as Ms Leadbetter ‘disturbed’ enough that they will ensure that no one else is sent into internal exile?
Indeed Islam is getting a tighter and tighter grip here. If we are forced to remain silent, it wont beling berore my grandaughters are covered up from head to toe.
Mrs R the Article was published, and probably requested, to generate exactly the sort of rage you convey. It’s as much chance of becoming law in the UK as you do of becoming the next Pope. It was a classic ‘trigger’ Article.
I wish these people would just f@*# off
Careful now, two tier Keir will lock you up for saying that
It turns out, you already have blasphemy laws
Turns out when he was a HR lawyer he actually defended accused against Blasphemy laws in ex- commonwealth countries.
He also defended terrorists and murderers. Watch a segment by the Lotus Eaters on who he defended. He’s the reason we can’t deport terrorists today.
Cab rank principle for lawyers, but the stuff he did outside UK was specific.
He defended and got Lee Clegg off too.
You see you are easy fodder for those who play you a half the story because it triggers your bias.
If God isn’t resilient enough to ignore blasphemy from unbelievers then he’s not very strong. My God doesn’t approve or like it, but he doesn’t need man-made laws to protect him.
I’m an atheist, but your position is absolutely correct; intellectually, morally and spiritually.
Any so-called ‘god’ that can’t bear to be criticised wouldn’t be worthy of worship, just as any believer in a god/prophet who can’t bear criticism is a poor example of their faith.
Ali’s request comes from a position of weakness, not strength. We should always bear that in mind.
But the representatives of God (various) have often got very thin skins – because if their God is disrespected then they lose authority.
I think from recollection an eminent MP made much the same point during the debates in 2007 when the Law removing Blasphemy from criminal code was debated before being passed and becoming law in 2008.
This is not about blasphemy. Someone says ‘I hate Christianity”. Is that a hate crime? No. Someone says “I hate Islam” Is that a hate crime? Yes. Think about it.
Blasphemy laws aren’t there to protect God but to shape society into one that is more God-revering.
I don’t want blasphemy laws but it is importing to understand the theory underlying them.
I largely agree with you, but laws against blasphemy do not make anyone ‘revere’ God; they merely make people obey the law of the land. I think the underlying theory is somewhat flawed.
Just another day in the dystopian version of 1984 playing out in real time.
Yes, tiny little steps to the end.
The world of science and democracy is a de-sacralised world. Is this a mistake that the elected representatives should correct?
It is obviously necessary to hear a debate in the HoC attempting to define how the Popol Vuh or the Papyrus of Hunefer can be desecrated.
If a book which was a ‘religious text’ was remaindered by a bookseller, would that be an act of desecration? Does Butler’s Lives of the Saints count as a religious text?
A document, a shrine, or a grave can be desecrated, but a person can only be disrespected or criticised. Is anyone’s sensibilities likely to be inflamed if the prophet Joel were to be criticised? If anyone in print or in speech does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth as ‘The Lord’ Jesus, is that ‘desecration’?
What penalty should there be for screening the infamous Life of Brian? Would the police have to search for cinematic versions of the speakeasy? “No, officer, the film’s in the can, we aren’t ‘taking it in’.”
Would confining ‘desecrations’ to the prophets of the Abrahamic religions be considered as de-sacralising the founders of the Sikh religion who are regarded as gods?
I was once acquainted with a lady priest of the Church of England who on doing her interfaith outreach visited local places of worship. At the local mosque she was presented with a copy of the Quran. On receiving it she was told she must never place it on the floor, keep it in the ‘smallest room in the house’, and on no account hold it while menstruating.
Who can doubt that the Commons and the Lords possess the wisdom of Solomon sufficient to devise a penalty for just being a woman undergoing a natural bodily process. As well as the capacity to explain to their constituents why this offends the Most High. And the subtlety to ensure that transwomen were not excluded, to avoid adverse implications that would that have on the movement.
These are surely important matters and questions bearing on community relations that Sir Kier ought not to dodge.
It’s a slippery slope when first you practice to appease
Correction. You state that Sir Keir Starmer said he was committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division including Islamaphobia and antisemitism. He did not. He only mentioned Islamaphobia, not antisemitism.You also made anothor big miss by not noting that Tahir Ali’s call to take “measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions” did not include Hinduism, Budhism and Sikhism. In other words Tahir Ali was saying he had no such qualms about the desecration of the works of these faiths. That’s the nub of what he said and the worst of it was that Keir Starmer didn’t pick up on this and recognise the clear bigotry in Ali’s statement.
No surprise there Rodney is thick as
`the Abrahamic Religions’ we know that two of the three will be thrown under the bus, they’ll “just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.”
The way Tahir Ali phrased it, i.e. “desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions”, it looks like he is taking a pop at the Hindus.
He is also – perhaps unwittingly – including the Mormons, the Unification Church of Sun Yung Moon, and the Branch Dravidians in that loose description. Plus shielding any Abrahamic cult that I might feel like setting up as a tax dodge that is not open to criticism.
What about the Church of Satan? Where do they fit in?
Now you’re asking?
Or was the Right Honourable gentleman making a form of special pleading?
Jesus of Nazareth is regarded as a prophet by Muslims. But not as God, as Christians do. At the same time, it is a blasphemy in Islamic thought to conceive of God as having a companion, counsellor, or son.
A law which penalised ‘desecrating prophets’ of the Abrahamic religions might be considered to be a Trojan horse that established in law the belief that the prophet of Islam is ‘The’ prophet. It wouldn’t give the same shielding from disbelief or criticism to the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is God as well as a prophet.
Furthermore, it was only when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire that blasphemy became an offence against the state as well as an offence against the Church. A law which penalised disrespecting a holy figure is close to elevating the religion concerned into a state religion.
That science de-sacralised the world is self-evident. Mechanical operation replaced divine will. That the sacred was at the same time democratised is also important in the context of any proposed law.
The sacred was associated with the vertical in the liminal space of cathedrals. When the seaside holiday was developed by the working class of the industrial towns of the North of England in the 19th century, the liminal space of the coast became associated with the sacred.
The horizontal replaced the vertical. Lord Byron was able to write that the sea was now ‘the seat of the Infinite’. However the Infinite is conceived, any form of veneration that can be described however loosely as spiritual can find a place there.
This can be seen in the wide variety of dedications to the deceased on the wooden benches and other forms of people’s memorial that have been donated to seaside resorts by relatives or friends. The deceased loved one is brought into the presence of the Eternal. No prophet is required. No law is necessary.
I concur with your point that he was engaged in “special pleading”. That is also why he refers to desecrating “texts”. As we know, the actual text itself has a special significance to Muslims.
I think the ancients had blasphemy type laws before Christians took over.
I would like to hear from the British (given their good knowledge of the situation on the ground) how soon the law on the compulsory wearing of burkas by women will be passed.
.
PS. Looking at Starmer’s terrifying activity, I think I’ll see it very soon
You’d probably look very fetching in one EU, so the law will be passed very soon, to include anyone who shrieks.
Is “shrieks” about me? Just question
You are being a Jeremiah. Oops, I just desecrated a prophet of an Abrahamic religion. Where’s the delete post button?
What else am I doing wrong?
You Brits seem way too nervous when I ask this simple question about burkas. By the way, I’m not a believer, it’s too late for me to become one, I’m just extrapolating the direction Britain is moving.
Holy Moses, El Uro! (Oh no, that’s another Abrahamic prophet desecrated) You are doing nothing wrong. Here in Scotland, under Scots Law, blasphemy was punishable by death by hanging until 1825 and it was only finally abolished as an offence this year. But the previous head of the Scottish Government, Humza Youssaf (I leave you to guess which Abrahamic faith group he is from) effectively re-introduced it in his Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill where it is called “stirring up hatred”, including on grounds of religion. You can even be accused if your utterance was in the privacy of your own home. So Scotland is in the vanguard of regress, compared to other parts of the UK, on this one.
I see, thank you
If anyone says what they think about burkas, in a negative light, that can be interpreted as Islamaphobia, a hate crime.
Now you understand why everyone is nervous.
Thank you
Wasn’t Jeremiah a bullfrog?
This is just the beginning of it all. And with the various hate crimes and non-crimes no one can even talk about it.
I’m trying to recall if this is in Orwell. I don’t believe so. How terrifying.
Islam takes advantage of two structural flaws that exist in the Western society. One is political correctness and other is the decline of morality.
Ali Sina
I’m not sure about that. What Islam takes advantage of is our sense of ethics which functions on tolerance and our ideas of morality and how we live it. Islam itself does not take advantage, it’s those who use Islam for their own ends and do whatever it takes to win.
Why just Abrahamic religions? Sounds remarkably discriminatory for a supposed Labour MP. They have got his affiliation right and he is not one if these new pro-Palestinian MPs? Is he perhaps seeking to fend off challenge by one of these far right sectarian MPs?
Why on earth is Two Tier pandering to this ridiculous demand. Those who believe should have nothing but pity for the ignorant blasphemer. Those who don’t should be free to say what they wish. It is part of their quasi-religious belief.
He’s only really concerned about one Abrahamic religion.
Smurfs?
There are lots of things I would like to say. I’ve written out three comments, but then got cold feet.
Why? The Muslims don’t know where you live, do they?
I asked the Telegraph if they would hand over all my online comments and my personal data if the police asked for it.
I got no reply.
LOL
Ironic given the recent spot of bother their star columnist has been embroiled in.
Well, there you go then! They didn’t say they would!
VPN
I thought you Brits already had blasphemy laws on the books. After all, you can already go to jail for a hateful text…
You can criticize the Pope, and the Church of England with as many spicy tweets as you want….
And the Islamifacation of the UK and Europe continues unabated.
And I thought that blasphemy laws were already alive and well in the UK…
In any case, Starmer didn’t say no, did he?
They’ve been here for a while. When you can threaten a student with death for scuffing a book, when you can threaten a teacher with death (still in hiding) for showing a picture, when you can threaten teachers with death and rape for running a secular school, and not be arrested charged and imprisoned, it signals that defacto blasphemy laws are already in place
Also, still no charges for the Manchester Airport thugs, and it has been 4 months-the police handed the info to the CPS in August. No charges were made against the mob that surrounded the police station.
As far as I understand it, and remember, the boy was 16 and autistic, The book feel off his desk. The police were called in and the boy was made to appear before local ‘community leaders’. I don’t know if a non-crime was recorded. What do you think?
The boy and his mother (suitably veiled) had to grovel in the local mosque.
And the police were in attendance. The police are Not our friends
Did the boy not have his own ‘community leaders’ to back him up?
When do you think membership in the Church of England fall below those who practice Islam? What happens to England then?
Dunno. A fortnight on Tuesday?
I assume that’s already happened — anyhow it’s not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. The CoE has lots of lukewarm members and Islam has lots of not lukewarm members, regardless of that specific tipping point.
Islamists will terrorise us into adopting blasphemy laws. We’ll rationalise it by endorsing equal treatment of all religions.
Religion is a political mechanism designed to force obedience to the locally-approved theocrat. There is no such entity as “god” and, if everyone could get over that, we’d all lead more peaceful lives. .
Your right to some degree, but don’t place it all at the feet of religion. The Communists, sworn atheists, behaved the same way, as do the progressives today demanding obedience to their ideology. Religion is a target for the intellectually lazy.
Indeed – North Korea is a Totalitarian State with a Deity at its’ head.
Also we have the Gender Religion driven by Very Noisy Trans Activists and their allies.
Acts of faith although the former citizens have no choice.
This is an idea so idiotic that even Starmer couldn’t embrace it.
Oh, I think we will find that he can
He didn’t say No.
Let us cut to the chase here- Why is no single politician in posession of the guts backbone and courage to state simply that Islamic countries not only activly discriminate against Judaeo Christian believers, but in some situations execute them, and ask the likes of the MP in question, and others, publicly to discuss this?
Blasphemy Laws. Ha that would end you River to the Sea marches stone dead.
Ah yes not having them is why no Muslims are shouting about Sudan’s civil war and the massacre of hundreds of thousands.
This discussion is largely academic. We already have de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam alone.
Almost since its inception Christianity has been exposed to debate, usually from within its ranks by disagreements over subtle phrasing of the nature of Christ.
One person’s probing question is Tahir Ali’s blasphemy. Welcome to democracy, Tahir
——-
I seriously know no actual Christians that give 2 hoots about blasphemy and I’ve been in church all my 51 yr old life. If God is real he’s very capable of standing up for himself and knows exactly what is the motivation in people’s hearts without reacting thin-skinned to certain behaviour…Jesus even said that it’s a blessing when people go round saying evil about people that follow Him, as was done to Him personally, and that your loving reaction to it reveals him to others…
All this ‘hate speech’ business is really simple.
Hate speech is offending, insulting, or threatening people based on some immutable characteristics – age, sex, skin colour, etc – plus some belief choices they make.
Hate speech is a criminal offence, punishable by fines, gaol time, or other penalties.
Religious beliefs come into the category of ‘protected beliefs’, and are thus protected by law.
Many religious beliefs include insults, offence, and threats aimed at non-adherents, which would be categorised as ‘hate speech’.
However, these beliefs of such religions are protected.
Therefore religious hate speech is criminal behaviour protected by law because the perpetrator follows, or claims to follow, a religion.
Simple, see? Barking mad, dangerous, but simple.
He is quite sound in general, but Tahir Ali is still an MP only because there were two pro-Gaza Independents against him. They came second and third, and their combined vote was higher than his total.
As for a blasphemy law in England and Wales, there is not going to be one, but there was one in Scotland until this year, and there is one in Northern Ireland to this day. In their own terms, what good do they do? As much as the one here used to do. The same would apply again.
Even to address the problems identified by Ali, there is already public order legislation, in particular. For example, the only reason publicly to set fire to a copy of the Bible or the Quran would be as a provocation such as that legislation was specifically designed to cover.
Still, successive Governments have effectively criminalised criticism of the State of Israel, and why should sauce for the goose not be sauce for the gander? Stop to this sort of thing by recanting the IHRA Definition.
Not that free speech has ever been especially robust in Britain. D-Notices have just been extended to counterterrorism policing. They are not the law, but they attain their desired end because the entire media have the necessary class loyalty. The “centrist” liberals still think that they are insurgents against the Establishment, while even the very individuals who used to pride themselves on being members of that now call themselves “populists”. If either of them were right, then whatever else there may be, there could be no such thing as D-Notices.
Is public order the sole point here?
Is it the case that certain religious are concerned that there may be maladjusted people in the country who are placing the holy book of the religion of peace on the floor or holding it while menstruating in the privacy of their own homes in deliberate acts of disrespectful non-belief and Islamophobia?
Burning books in public is a bonfire. Burning holy books as a public demonstration is ignorant and unimaginative. Protecting holy books by law is close to elevating the religion concerned into a state religion.
The incident at the Batley grammar school wasn’t created by burning a book. On one side there were merely discussions.
We know that if people set fire to the Bible the would be no repercussions, except a few angry letters to the newspapers.
Classic UnHerd Dog Whistle article. The MP has zero chance of an introduction of Blasphemy laws and the Author opts not to actually inform the reader of the important related recent history.
Here’s one the Unherd base will love – Gordon Brown’s Govt abolished Blasphemy laws in 2008!
There is interesting case law up to that point and to jog a few memories some may remember the attempts to prosecute ‘Jerry Springer: the Opera’ and citations of ‘The Love that dare not speak it’s name’ in early 2000s.
Perhaps a better focus would be on the ‘Racial and Religious Hatred’ Act of 2006 and the definition of ‘stirring up religious hatred’, largely a Judicial interpretation task in most instances if the matter gets to Court. And perhaps whether it should be deployed more, or less?
Thus I’d strongly contend Blasphemy focus would be better debated alongside the 2006 Act so folks can understand in the UK we distinguish. Criticism of a religious faith remains entirely legit, but seeking to generate hatred another matter. Alison Pearson take note.
I can down tick you but I am not allowed, because of the law, to tell why you are wrong and what you are excusing.
Be assured I’m not in least worried by ticks either way.
Which fact was wrong out of interest?