Blasphemy Laws

[User37482]

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.

So some mad mullah can come and nick my TV if he thinks I've blasphemed Mohammed?

We already have this to a degree where we cannot openly talk about women and their biological reality. We get frowned up, shunned, sacked, arrested, taken to court and cancelled if we don’t want to include men in the definition.

This ‘religion’ is already supported by the Prime Minister and police forces. The Scottish government enshrined it in law supported by Amnesty international this week.

So this week it’s a sly creep of pronouns, so what if next week it’s PBUH or ‘There is only one God’? Let’s just rip up freedom of speech and freedom of thought - what’s happened to women proves it no longer seems to matter.

Who is inciting people to set fire to buildings- sorry I have completely lost you. Has anyone done that on this thread? What point are you trying to make

Can I start a religion where anyone who annoys me (precisely how I'll determine later) has to pay me £10K then? If not, why not?

And I say this as someone of sincere religious faith.

You were the one who referred to 'Two Tier Keir' - this is a term used by people who believe that the rioters who attacked asylum seeker hotels and community libraries, as well as those who incited them online, were treated differently from other protesters. Which is nonsense. Using the term suggests that you believe it to be true, however.

I think you must be on the wind up my dear.

If you're not and you'd like to live in such a society there are plenty of options for you in the middle east. Off you pop.

Sorry, maybe I can explain it this way. Mr Ali specifically mention Abrahamic prophets.

Yes the Abrahamic faiths are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But he specifically mention “prophets” Here there is a problem in relation to Jesus. To Christians he is the Messiah, son of God and God. He is not a prophet. Judaism hadn’t got a set view on Jesus but generally he wouldn’t seem to be a profit as these are all contained in the Old Testament. Therefore Jesus would be excluded from Mr Ali’s blasphemy laws

Islam sees Jesus as a prophet and therefore if one looks at it from islams perspective Jesus would be included. But it would be heretical in the eyes of Christianity to reduce the son of God to a prophet. So it might seem to have been an inclusive comment but as calculated to be a very divisive one and one designed to be completely framed within an Islamic ideology. This is why he stated Abrahamic prophets not faiths

Done deliberately I would imagine.

To live in a country where one can cause offence is a wonderful freedom.

I totally agree with you.

Blasphemy laws belong in the Dark Ages. Anyone defending them is beneath contempt in a democratic country. They have no place here.

Much appreciated, Feelingathomenow; I was aware of the above but it's actually my fault for not giving sufficient weight to him remarking on prophets rather than the overall religions themselves

Seen in that light (and now I've caught up ) I'd have to agree that his interest probably lies in only one prophet, and while that's absolutely his choice to make it's certainly not his place to impose his religious perferences on everyone else

As for the advocacy for sharia law on this thread, words fail me. There's been a lot said about "community cohesion", but arguing for something like this really doesn't seem to me to be the way to achieve it

This by @HotSlippergirl is an excellent point:

We cannot deal with intolerant religious or secular beliefs by allowing them to be intolerant of us

On the other hand, @ParkBench5 's contributions sound deranged, I'm afraid.

Do you remember years ago the poor Christian woman in Pakistan who was accused of blasphemy by a certain religion

Certainly don't want that nonsense in the UK

That's not what people mean when they say two tier kier though. The term refers to the difference in the way some communities are treated versus others, within the same country. What some communities can get away with, when others would feel the full force of the law for much less. It's about unfair application of policing and justice. The term seemed to come about because of what happened to the men at Manchester Airport, to the young girls, and the riots, but that isn't what it specifically refers to.

I've seen a YouTube called the black belt barrister describe it really well with solid examples, and reference to the law.

@Unrulyrabbit I've seen the black belt barrister video where he discusses this and we will have to disagree on how good he is. The Manchester accused did not get processed as quickly because 1) they did not plead guilty and 2) their crimes were of a severity that could not be handled in a magistrates' court. There is no indication that they will be treated more leniently than the rioters.

I’m looking forward to Father Peter and an Iman attending a satanic ritual for reeducation - this could be a great idea

As usual it's a case of people from other countries telling the people of the UK to respect them but they don't respect others.
The faster we get rid of religion the world might become a better place.
Religion is the route of all evil. These so called religious leaders seem to be all men,
who are disrespectful to women all over the world.

Disrespecting a Quran is rude but should not be illegal. Same goes for a Bible or any other book held in special esteem by some group. We really need to reinstate the category of "rude, but not illegal" in society, by the way. There's no need to actually outlaw everything we'd rather someone didn't do.

Politely disagreeing with what any book or religion says isn't even rude, and certainly shouldn't be illegal.

Drawing a picture of the prophet Muhammad on the toilet and fly posting it, also shouldn't be illegal. Perceived as rude and offensive by some yes, but illegal or justification for threats or violence of any kind whatsoever, no.

The MPs asking for this are asking for the curtailment of both freedom of speech and belief in the name of a what is a deeply divisive and misogynistic religion.

The are effectively advocating for religious fascism and should be expelled from their party for doing so. If they were Tories and were advocating for this kind of snatching away of rights, there would be hell on. It doesn't surprise me that Starmer is weak on this, look how weak he was in the face of transactivists. He couldn't even admit he knew what a woman was. I think it's pretty clear who the nasty party is these days.

People will be angered and disgusted by these requests alongside the pernicious behaviour of many Muslims around depictions of Mohammed etc. They see the two tier system of dealing with Muslims. Look at the way the Sarah Everard protestors in London were treated during covid compared to the Muslim parents outside the school where the cartoon was showed. The police there were told to be strictly hands off despite the protestors breaking lockdown restrictions.

Our weak arsed politicians continue to piss away our values and freedoms. Islam doesn't need special protections, it needs to be subject to exactly the same level of ridicule and approbrium as anything else. Let's face it, if Allah is real and omnipotent. He's unlikely to be so sensitive that's he's upset by a cartoon. Christians on Mumsnet are regularly told their God is a sky fairy and there is absolutely no reason that the people that offend those Christians shouldn't be free to offend Muslims too.

Offending people that think the answer to male sexual violence is to blame women and cover them up head to toe is a good thing in the eyes of many.

Reform will continue to gain momentum because of this type of issue. Trump has just been elected again in the states. Someone is waiting to capitalise on the very real discontent these issues are causing.

Ok maybe the fly posting bit.. I guess the definition. 'Widely distributing..'

I'm in full agreement with this. I wouldn't do it, and if, say, one of my children did, I'd tell them that was rude and unkind. But it absolutely should be legal.

I suspect the weakness of Starmer over the next 4.5 years will result in a Reform/tory powershare at the next election. Starmer has 4 years to act decisively in this area. It’s becoming the main issue for many many voters and will be the election decider