Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Blasphemy Laws

206 replies

User37482 · 27/11/2024 17:58

Tahir Ali (Labour) got up in parliament and asked Starmer

'to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions'.

Just the Abrahamic religions of course no mention of the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Taoism etc etc

AIBU to think most people absolutely do not want want blasphemy laws in the UK and would like to retain the right to say what they would like about any religion.

I don’t even know what a desecration of a prophet is? i’m going to assume it’s taking the piss out of one.

OP posts:
DoreenonTill8 · 28/11/2024 15:31

ParkBench5 · 28/11/2024 15:17

@NewGreenDuck

I think we should look at the offence and harm caused to the affected community. Clearly, burning the Quran or depicting the Prophet Muhammad is distressing for the Muslim community, whereas criticising Norse gods isn’t so serious.

I would also involve members of the relevant community in deciding what redress is appropriate. So, a panel of Muslim or Christian community leaders could make a judgement on the harm caused and a suitable remedy. Principles from their own religion could be used to do this, such as sharia.

For minor offences, the offender could go through a process of education and learning could be, whereas stronger sentences may be necessary in other cases.

whereas criticising Norse gods isn’t so serious.
Who are you to say that?! According to your views followers of the Norse Gods are now absolutely entitled to decide what they deem to be appropriate punishment for your blasphemy. Whether 'reeducation' or something stronger... up to them to decide.... happy?

T4phage · 28/11/2024 15:34

ParkBench5 · 28/11/2024 15:17

@NewGreenDuck

I think we should look at the offence and harm caused to the affected community. Clearly, burning the Quran or depicting the Prophet Muhammad is distressing for the Muslim community, whereas criticising Norse gods isn’t so serious.

I would also involve members of the relevant community in deciding what redress is appropriate. So, a panel of Muslim or Christian community leaders could make a judgement on the harm caused and a suitable remedy. Principles from their own religion could be used to do this, such as sharia.

For minor offences, the offender could go through a process of education and learning could be, whereas stronger sentences may be necessary in other cases.

I'm a Christian. I have to put up with people writing JFC constantly on here. Is that okay? I mean, He's not a Norse god or anything. Heaven forbid other religions would like things to be equal.

Feelingathomenow · 28/11/2024 15:38

DoreenonTill8 · 28/11/2024 15:31

whereas criticising Norse gods isn’t so serious.
Who are you to say that?! According to your views followers of the Norse Gods are now absolutely entitled to decide what they deem to be appropriate punishment for your blasphemy. Whether 'reeducation' or something stronger... up to them to decide.... happy?

Yep, maybe a Lucifarian could “re-educate” the Archbishop of Canterbury (well the new one who will replace Justin now he’s off after the er less than Christian behaviour) about how Lucifer isn’t evil and make sure all the priests clearly state how lucifer has been wrongly cast as the bad guy.

Maybe a Christian could ask for their local Iman to be “educated” for his blasphemy that Jesus isn’t the son of God and part of the Trinity? Henceforth Trinitarianism will be taught in every mosque.

mmmm- starting to see a problem here

Feelingathomenow · 28/11/2024 15:42

ParkBench5 · 28/11/2024 15:17

@NewGreenDuck

I think we should look at the offence and harm caused to the affected community. Clearly, burning the Quran or depicting the Prophet Muhammad is distressing for the Muslim community, whereas criticising Norse gods isn’t so serious.

I would also involve members of the relevant community in deciding what redress is appropriate. So, a panel of Muslim or Christian community leaders could make a judgement on the harm caused and a suitable remedy. Principles from their own religion could be used to do this, such as sharia.

For minor offences, the offender could go through a process of education and learning could be, whereas stronger sentences may be necessary in other cases.

Why? Why is it ok to criticise one religion and not another?

RamblingEclectic · 28/11/2024 15:42

Rather than criticising these practices (which is offensive), we should be respectful and open-minded if we want to encourage cohesive community relations. Many of those shouting about Islam or other religions being oppressive haven’t the first idea of what they actually entail.

Many of the people discussing the oppression of Islam, Christianity, and other faiths are people who were raised in them, experienced abuse, left and speak out against the abuses & have faced threats and violence for speaking out. Why should we not be protected in being able to speak out against the beliefs that actively harmed us? Why should we be dismissed as not having 'the first idea of what they actually entail' when it was our lives? Why are our beliefs and experiences less worth protecting or expressing than theirs?

You are aware that's what abusive religious members do, right, there is a whole thing about 'true believers' never leave and that speaking out proves we were not one of them and deserve their wrath? That these practices include violence?

You have devotees take pictures outside of where you study, telling you how the 'fruit of your womb' rightfully should be theirs, and see how open minded and compliant you want to be to them. Them deciding the 'redress' of the insult of my leaving and speaking out against corruption in the church would be them having my kids, like 're-educating' me. I will not be respectful to the religious group that stalked me and threatened to kidnap my kids because they viewed them as their property because I was baptised into it as a child and dared to leave. I will not be silenced by people who think if we don't speak out, don't ruffle feathers, that it encourages community relations - it doesn't, it only encourages them to push further. What is needed for peace is the cultural ideal we already have if we still fall short - that we are all equal as people, that no one can use their beliefs in any faith to silence another. None of us have the right not to be offended.

You should also be aware that some blasphemy laws prevent both victims of abuse from speaking and academics from discussing their work - things like evidence of the texts being edited over time or the archaeological and textual evidence of monolarty rather than monotheism or debates in translation. It's not really about respect or open-minded if we can't let those who have direct experience of harm or even most basic academic discussions on it.

whereas criticising Norse gods isn’t so serious.

Surely, to be open-minded and respectful, that should be up to those that follow Heathenry.

T4phage · 28/11/2024 15:43

Feelingathomenow · 28/11/2024 15:38

Yep, maybe a Lucifarian could “re-educate” the Archbishop of Canterbury (well the new one who will replace Justin now he’s off after the er less than Christian behaviour) about how Lucifer isn’t evil and make sure all the priests clearly state how lucifer has been wrongly cast as the bad guy.

Maybe a Christian could ask for their local Iman to be “educated” for his blasphemy that Jesus isn’t the son of God and part of the Trinity? Henceforth Trinitarianism will be taught in every mosque.

mmmm- starting to see a problem here

Oh, yes, please! The fallout would be hilarious 😂 take our minds off our daily woes for sure 😁

HotSlippergirl · 28/11/2024 15:43

ParkBench5 · 28/11/2024 15:17

@NewGreenDuck

I think we should look at the offence and harm caused to the affected community. Clearly, burning the Quran or depicting the Prophet Muhammad is distressing for the Muslim community, whereas criticising Norse gods isn’t so serious.

I would also involve members of the relevant community in deciding what redress is appropriate. So, a panel of Muslim or Christian community leaders could make a judgement on the harm caused and a suitable remedy. Principles from their own religion could be used to do this, such as sharia.

For minor offences, the offender could go through a process of education and learning could be, whereas stronger sentences may be necessary in other cases.

Well you are basically asking for a theocracy, which is a multi-faith theocracy.

Even before this post your arguments were essentially the same as the leaders of theocracies around the world., which is basically that you have to enforce submission to the faith for community cohesion.

Naunet · 28/11/2024 15:44

ParkBench5 · 28/11/2024 09:53

The fact is we are now a multi-cultural society and it is right that different religious views are protected from abuse and desecration. Too many people use ‘free speech’ as an excuse to be Islamophobic.

I don’t see the issue with requiring people to be respectful and understanding of others. I think it’s perfectly reasonable that those who defile the Quran or its contents (or any other religious text) are held to account in order to prevent community tensions.

Why should I have to be respectful to any made up religion, most of which don't respect women, especially ones that mutilate little girls? Give me one good reason.

I respect people's right to believe, but I don't respect any religion and cannot be forced to.

CaravaggiosCat · 28/11/2024 15:44

Lilifer · 28/11/2024 13:44

Mike drop 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Hmm....don't see people being terrorised in the name of the Monarchy in 2024....blasphemy and Sharia laws however have NO place here...AT ALL and those 2 MPs can get in the bin with this notion.

BobbyBiscuits · 28/11/2024 15:51

Where do you draw the line though. If my opinion was that 'Jehovah's witness seems abusive and a doomsday cult, and I totally wouldn't want to be one', is that blasphemy?
If I said I believe that 'all followers of it are abusive and are horrible people who should be exterminated, or barred from practicing', then that seems much more offensive as it's aimed at actual human beings.

Insulting other people should be considered worse than questioning or being negative about a set of ideas/belief in a 'god' figure.

Everyone should be able to practice whatever religion they like without open prejudice. As long as it doesn't hurt others. But people can also have an opinion on whether they would follow it or not themselves.

HotSlippergirl · 28/11/2024 16:01

To all those saying things like, 'why should I have to respect a made up religion'. That is not really the point. The merits of the belief is not the point.

The point is that in a tolerant, pluralistic society citizens are allowed to critique and argue and joke about the beliefs of others. Whether this causes offence is not the hallmark of whether someone can say something or do something. If we cannot debate and argue, we cannot discern the good ideas from the bad in society. We cannot argue against ideas and laws which cause harm. (Which is perhaps why religions have tended to enforce blasphemy laws).

Democratic, fair, tolerant societies have to allow freedom of belief and of speech to remain democratic, fair and tolerant. We cannot deal with intolerant religious or secular beliefs by allowing them to be intolerant of us.

elenaeels · 28/11/2024 16:14

Life of Brian: many Christians thought it bad taste, but very few wanted it banned. Many Many more thought it very funny and did not affect our beliefs at all.
Their was a film with really vulgar depiction of rape of Mary I think. Very bad taste I think.
Lutfur Rahman Mayor of Tower Hamlets wants to restrict dogs in parks and public areas of his Borough. Many Muslims regard dogs as unclean and if you touch one you have to go through a cleaning ritual. Reports on this vary!!

In Iran most lorry drivers and Bus drivers have pictures of Mohammed in their cabs to keep them safe. (Don't ask about road casualty figures in Middle East).

Unrulyrabbit · 28/11/2024 16:17

Labour are going to use their parliamentary majority and power to pass laws and do whatever they want. If they had told everyone what they planned to do before the election, noone would have voted for them. So they didn't tell us.

Unrulyrabbit · 28/11/2024 16:22

HotSlippergirl · 28/11/2024 15:43

Well you are basically asking for a theocracy, which is a multi-faith theocracy.

Even before this post your arguments were essentially the same as the leaders of theocracies around the world., which is basically that you have to enforce submission to the faith for community cohesion.

What if the so-called perpetrator doesn't believe in any of their silly religion, is exercising their freedom of speech (freedom to be offensive, as inoffensive does not need to be protected), and has done nothing wrong so there should be no redress. They don't need to submit to some council of religious leaders and pay penance, they are living in a free democratic society.

Womblingmerrily · 28/11/2024 16:26

@ParkBench5

You say we have a multicultural society.

I say that multiculturalism has failed, creating pockets of the UK which share no values with the rest of the UK and that we need to build a society around shared values.

Religion is just a belief system - like Veganism.

Just because your religion is very very important to you does not matter to anyone else. It confers no responsibility onto other people to do or say things that you want them to do or say.

In fact I think you need to realise that lots of people disagree with all religions and religious practices- and that they are allowed to say that without fear of retribution.

Many of use really dislike religions and out of courtesy keep quiet about it - I think it's time relgious people did the same or we all get to say clearly how we feel.

I have no time for religions that make women and young girls responsible for the actions of men, no time for religions that threaten violence to people who disagree with them, no time for religions that expect others to make way for them.

T4phage · 28/11/2024 16:27

Unrulyrabbit · 28/11/2024 16:17

Labour are going to use their parliamentary majority and power to pass laws and do whatever they want. If they had told everyone what they planned to do before the election, noone would have voted for them. So they didn't tell us.

All sadly predictable. I couldn't bring myself to vote for them and I'm not surprised at what they've done/doing.

HotSlippergirl · 28/11/2024 16:29

Unrulyrabbit · 28/11/2024 16:22

What if the so-called perpetrator doesn't believe in any of their silly religion, is exercising their freedom of speech (freedom to be offensive, as inoffensive does not need to be protected), and has done nothing wrong so there should be no redress. They don't need to submit to some council of religious leaders and pay penance, they are living in a free democratic society.

You seem to think I have said the opposite of what I actually argued.

HotSlippergirl · 28/11/2024 16:31

I have no time for religions that make women and young girls responsible for the actions of men, no time for religions that threaten violence to people who disagree with them, no time for religions that expect others to make way for them

I agree with this, except I would extend it to any belief system, religious or secular. Gender ideology does all the above and I have not time for that either.

Womblingmerrily · 28/11/2024 16:33

@HotSlippergirl Yes, changing religions to 'belief systems' would work well - was just a bit longer.

110APiccadilly · 28/11/2024 16:40

I don't see how you could possibly even have a blasphemy law which covers all the Abrahamic religions.

For instance, it's a fundamental belief of Christianity that Jesus is God. It's a fundamental belief of Islam that he isn't. Any genuine Christian is a blasphemer if you're a Muslim; any genuine Muslim is a blasphemer if you're Christian, surely?

TENSsion · 28/11/2024 16:41

It’s genuinely terrifying that Starmer even pretended to entertain it. I’m hoping he was just pretending anyway.

Irridescantshimmmer · 28/11/2024 16:41

Policing blasphemy laws would cause an absalute torrent of work for Police and LA's where I live, every other word I hear in my local town is from people of all ages.

Does it bother me?
Not in the slightest! 🤣, its just the way they are.

"kin this......effing that kin the next and so on" inbetween yelling at their kids to pack it in!

I hear it so often, I don't hear it any more!

Feelingathomenow · 28/11/2024 16:48

T4phage · 28/11/2024 16:27

All sadly predictable. I couldn't bring myself to vote for them and I'm not surprised at what they've done/doing.

Yes I would like to say I’m shocked by the amount of people who didn’t realise what sort of government Labour would be. All they needed to do is read animal farm

Chocolatehamper · 28/11/2024 16:56

They are trying to outlaw freedom of speech. What one person finds offensive might be perfectly reasonable to someone else - what they need to remember is that you cannot 'give' offence, offence is taken and it is for the offended party to deal with. Freedom of speech is a founding stone of UK society and should not be buried under platitudes to other cultures who have relocated in.

pointythings · 28/11/2024 16:57

Feelingathomenow · 28/11/2024 16:48

Yes I would like to say I’m shocked by the amount of people who didn’t realise what sort of government Labour would be. All they needed to do is read animal farm

It's a bit pathetic to treat this as if it's definitely happening just to have another thread attacking Labour. Let's wait and see if this becomes policy before we all get our knickers in a twist about it. Labour aren't stupid; they know full well that the UK is largely a secular country now and that any hint of a 'blasphemy law' is going to cost them massively.