To want to burn one of each Religious text today?

[JustMakingAPoint]

Not because I hate or dislike them.

Not because I think burning books is good (I do not)

But because I should be able too. Because we have no Blasphemy laws and mean as it is, it’s not illegal and shouldn’t be.

And I want to do it to all of them to make the point it’s not about Islam, though it is provoked by today’s news.

This country is secular, blasphemy laws do not exist. And they shouldn’t.

if it takes every person burning a single religious book of their choosing to make the point - then I’m up for that.

The problem is that burning a book is not a crime.
And shouldn’t be either imo.

Your user name is very apt.

But I would like to know if you're deliberately intending to spread disinformation or whether you're just incapable of evaluating your own sources of information effectively.

Go for it, @JustMakingAPoint . You need to do an Instagram Live though.

You know what they say, if an attention-seeking, self-indulgent, pointless, nonsensical, disrespectful gesture isn't live streamed, did it really happen?

Exactly this. It’s done with the intention to harass and intimidate, and this is no different.

Burning shit on the street should be a crime, regardless of what is actually being burned.
The charges (if true) are odd and will likely be kicked out of court, but he should be charged with something!

You sound bonkers frankly. Burning books is inherently bad. Religious or not.
IMO burning religious books is deliberately provocative and unpleasant.
Use your life and your energy for something positive and joyful.

Here is the context. A Turkish man was charged with harassing the ‘religious institution of Islam’ by burning a Koran in the UK in protest at the Turkish president. Akua Reindorf is defending him. The CPS has now said the charge wording was wrong and has amended it.

https://archive.ph/5yKFe

Any move toward a de facto blasphemy law is seriously worrying and not a petty thing for OP to be concerned about. Perhaps the wording was a one-off admin cock-up by the CPS, but the fact is that this man is still being charged for an act (burning a religious book in a political protest) that should be protected.

Oh do get over yourself! Christians at my work in financial services wear crosses, English people acknowledge St George’s day openly and no one bats an eyelid. We acknowledge other religions celebrations and all this is secondary to our work. We do try and have empathy and take an interest in each other. As for being a Christian country it is but you might want to address why the numbers of Church goers are in decline and have been for years.

Bad, yes, but it shouldn’t be criminal.

It's not disrespecting believers, it's disrespecting religion, which is fine, or should be.

You should be free to do it, blasphemy laws have no place in a modern country.

But actually doing it would be stupid and will only bring hate and escalation.

And add to air pollution, no thanks! I’ll happily recycle any number of religious tones, however…

Because you can’t be charged with harassing an ideology, it’s not a crime. Harassing a person is. Honestly don’t know what on earth the CPS thinks it’s doing.

I dont know what this particular case is you are going on about, but clearly its possible to threaten and harass others by doing things that arent in themselves illegal. Like for example if I put a teddy in a noose or burnt an effigy of someone . Its the intent to cause alarm/distress that makes it a crime. A secondhand bookshop burning religious texts that it needs to dispose of is not committing any crime.

More information about the context would be interesting but if this was a political protest, I am surprised the CPS has decided to prosecute.

Harassing a religion - which is how the charge seems to be worded - is just blasphemy by another name, surely? And that’s not something we want or need in our laws.

They were lampooning. I’m fairly certain that you two are actually in agreement.

Yes exactly, it’s actually a very slippery slope to curbs on free speech. You don’t have to like what he did to concede that he has a right to do it.

You can see OP how many sheep do not understand the fundermantal principles of a free democratic society that you should be able to do that kind of stuff. They are they people that would follow absolutely anything. That's how Hitler was able to have a folllowing. They'll be the first ones to adopt whatever the state tells them. Very 1984, very devoid of critical thinking or appreciating the freedoms we have.

The whole point of this case seems to be that the man has been charged with harassing ‘the religious institute of Islam’. That’s entirely different to harassing a person which would be a chargeable offence.

It’s not Islamophobic to question the CPS’ judgment. The problem with the CPS taking on this case (arguably they wouldn’t if he’d burned a Bible), is that it makes Islamophobia worse, not better.

If the CPS has changed the wording of the charge, can anyone tell me what it is now?

I agree with you OP, the right to offend is a vital part of free speech.

That's how Hitler was able to have a folllowing

hitler loved a book burning…

The government is bringing in (or has, not keeping up with this) new anti-Islamophobia laws - so one religion will be more protected than any other, even the religion that happens to be the state religion in the UK (the religion whose members are most frequently attacked across the globe). I disagree with blasphemy laws in general and this one in particular. But I am not into burning books. The context is that an autistic boy dropped or threw a koran and bent a page and his mother was made to grovel to the local mosque by the boys' school. I would not have done this (but my DS is not likely to be throwing korans or any other book about so not likely to be asked, either) and think the school was wrong to do this - and the mosque. The school should have issued a detention for throwing a book, which is dangerous, and that's it.
OTOH Muslims protested hugely about the content of a sex education kit some years ago, and they were right to protest. The kit in question sexualised children and taught things most of us would object to primary school children being taught - including gender woo. They were denounced as bigots.
So the government protects those who are prepared to commit violence over a book (surely a species of idolatry?) but thinks parents concerned their primary age children are taught they can change sex, or that butt plugs are a normal part of sexual activity for everyone, are bigots. SC ruling may mitigate some of this stuff, but not all.

What I would like to know is if the man burning the text has now been charged with insulting a religion (or whatever back door blasphemy law they are using), has the man with the knife who tried to stab him for burning the book, been charged with anything?

I think that it is a very slippery slope to charge someone with offending a religion...allowing a backdoor blasphemy law to take hold leads to a dangerous place IMO. I don't believe that burning religious texts (or any books/flags etc) is acceptable and he was being deliberately offensive or provocative, but I also believe in free speech and the right to question a religion/ideology etc. (I also don't think that if someone burnt a Bible, that there would be the same level of police interest).

I'll lend you my lighter. They're all made-up fairy stories for dimwits.