To not want blasphemy laws in the UK?

[Blueybanditbingochilli]

https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/24516089.sutton-man-61-chanted-who-f-allah-jailed/

Thug sentenced for violent disorder and threatening police, all good.

But the chanting? Maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick but I thought criticising religion, even crudely, is permitted in the UK and not a crime so long as it doesn’t stray into harassment or incitement of another crime.

Labour are allegedly considering new legislation around the extent to which people can criticise Islam.

AIBU to think people should have the right to criticise religion (even crudely), and that we should not revert to having blasphemy laws in the UK? I apply this to all religions, including my own, and not just Islam.

He was violent... Doesn't it mention it in the screenshot you shared earlier?

This, @MMOC . Hope you see what we've been trying to say now! His comments weren't the issue - his actions were.

I think you were always going to reach that conclusion somehow.

Isn't that what you said in your previous post though? The one about not being allowed a problem with Islam? If that's not what you meant, feel free to correct me and clarify what you actually meant

As someone who is critical of all organised religion, and who's been in many debates on the subject, I’ve noticed that, more often than not, those who claim "you can't criticise Islam" fall into one of two categories.

Either they're completely and utterly unwilling to explain what it is they feel they can't critise or their critisisms aren't specific to Islam (and are almost always based on false stereotypes and misinformation, if not outright racism).

Which category did the teacher fall into?

So far we have:

• no evidence that Mr Spring was convicted for his comments re: Allah
• no evidence that these comments were even referred to in court
• no evidence that Mr Spring would have been given a lighter sentence were his comments about Jesus
• an OP who resolutely ignores requests for evidence.

But sure, Mr Spring is a martyr who is being persecuted for expressing his views.

Nobody has said he was convicted for chanting. He had 2 charges - neither related to the chanting specifically, but it was mentioned in court as part of a wider display of criminal behaviour.

You know this - you’re just desperately trying to paint me as a secret fan of his because you dislike what I’m saying.

You've already mentioned this on another thread, so your agenda is quite clear.

"Depends on the crime.

18 months for chanting anti religious slogans was outrageous and chilling IMO"

It's literally in your OP.

You've spent this thread complaining that we have blasphemy laws by stealth.

If he wasn't convicted for it, what have you spent the thread whining about?

Also you've literally said he got 18 months for chanting.

Can you paste verbatim where I said he got 18 months for chanting?

Poorly worded on my part, I assumed after my OP (where I clearly said the sentence was for violent disorder and threats) you would understand I meant as part of a wider picture, but I apologise for the sloppiness.

Since you missed it the first time.

What agenda? Discussion? Why is an interest in a topic only ‘an agenda’ when somebody disagrees with it?

Ok, so if the sentence was for violent disorder etc, what's the issue?

Nobody has mentioned Charlie Hebdo in quite a while. It was the ultimate attack on freedom of speech/expression and it was good to see France doubling down on refusing to let religion, any religion, seep into its institutions and interfere with personal liberties. I really, really admire them.

Well, I'm going to stay perched on my fence until our new Govt start to propose and enact legislation on any issue before I start pontificating.

Just like the kids going back to school after their summer break, our parliamentarians are getting back to their place too; finding their seats, rooms and timetables; key staff, rules, and etc.....

If you’re planning on Pontificating then your mind is probably already made up regarding freedom of speech about religion.

Your OP also clearly said

"But the chanting? Maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick but I thought criticising religion, even crudely, is permitted in the UK and not a crime so long as it doesn’t stray into harassment or incitement of another crime."

So I'm sure you can forgive a lot of us for thinking you were under the impression that he was being sentenced for the chanting, specially when you then seemed to double down on it later.

Still curious about what you meant when you said something about no one being allowed a problem with Islam. I'm ready to apologise and acknowledge that I've misunderstood your posts as soon as you explain what you actually meant. Hard to acknowledge I was wrong without it, really.

Now you are making things up. You have no evidence that his statements were adduced as part if the crime. Often when a person is arraigned or charged—especially for crimes like participating in a mob action—all the things that they were seen to do including statements, gestures, and even clothing can be mentioned as proof that the authorities are describing the scene snd person accurately. “What was the gentleman doing?” “Gentleman was observed chanting—before spitting/attacking/refusing to disperse.”

I was quoting another poster who said ‘It's clearly not just blasphemy laws you have a problem with, it's Islam. And that's just not ok.’

It’s not ok for me to have anything other than completely neutral or approving feelings towards Islam, according to this poster.

You stated that a right- wing thug convicted of violent disorder was convicted of anti- religious chanting, directed at Islam. You implied this would lead to anti-blasphemy laws. Neither of those things are true. It’s only because people can search that you were caught out on it.

That was me who said that, and you absolutely did not quote that in your previous comment. A quote would be verbatim.

Not discriminating against people because of their belief is different from criticism of a religion/ belief/ ideology itself. Isn’t it?