Scrutable

Yesterday Tahir Ali asked whether the government would commit to banning the desecration of religious texts and prophets of Abrahamic religions: https://x.com/TahirAliMP/status/1861765654178640014

We got rid of blasphemy laws in this country and this is an attempt to get them back on the books.

Starmer's response was weak. Why couldn't he give a firm "No it won't" ?

I found a moment to listen to the recording before responding.

We already have laws against religious hate crime. So there is no need for a specific law on desecration. If desecration is a hate crime, it's already illegal. And we know how blasphemy/desecration laws can be abused. So let's just stick with the sensible law. I would doubtless have said that if I had to answer such a question.

But Starmer didn't say that. He condemned Islamophobia and desecration, which might be politically useful. Maybe it is better to keep these people onside not to actually say you won't do what they want. They probably know that hateful desecration is already illegal, and want the illiberality of the desecration law. So maybe Starmer is actually a better politician than me, in these polarised times. Right wingers might be more likely to give Ali what he wants. Better not to push him into the arms of the right wingers over one issue.

In addition to "desecration of religious texts" he also wants to prohibit "targeted vilification of all the prophets of the Abrahamic faiths."

Does this count as vilification of prophets?

Or

Indeed. That's exactly what's wrong with specific blasphemy, desecration, vilification laws. Ali makes it look like he is asking for a law against religious hate crime, which we already have, and is hard to disagree with. But in effect in asking for those specific laws, we can surmise he might be an illiberal bigot who understands perfectly well what he is asking for. Whilst it might have been enjoyable to hear Starmer saying, in effect, shut up you illiberal bigot, maybe he did well to agree with being opposed to religious hate crime, and avoid saying that, which might not have gone down very well. The alternative would have been to say to him, I'm sure you aren't an illiberal bigot, so it would be a bad idea to have these specific laws that enable illiberal bigotry, and lets stay with the religious hate crime laws we already have, which already outlaw the things of this nature that should be outlawed.

I'm just offering this as an idea, I don't know if even I agree with it, and would be interested in other's thoughts.

bob sterman wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:20 pm In addition to "desecration of religious texts" he also wants to prohibit "targeted vilification of all the prophets of the Abrahamic faiths."

Does this count as vilification of prophets?

No, because Brian wasn't a prophet, he was a very naughty boy

If you believe in an all-powerful God, why do your holy books, prophets, etc. need legal protection?

I've always seen blasphemy laws as one of the strongest bits of evidence that the sort of god the Abrahamic religions worship does not exist.

Ah, well, the Almighty was working through that lynch mob.

Martin Y wrote: Mon Dec 02, 2024 2:57 pm Ah, well, the Almighty was working through that lynch mob.

Any lynch mob saying they're doing God's work is admitting that they believe their God is not omnipotent

..though to be fair, logic is not usually a strength in such types

And pointing that out never seems to help

Interestingly(*), 12 of the MPs who voted against the abolition of the blasphemy laws in 2008 are still sitting in the House of Commons today. I generated the list by crossing those who voted with the current list of MPs, and then lost it *doh*, but I remember that one was Sammy Wilson of the DUP and the other 11 were Tories. I wonder if any of them let out a loud "Hear, hear" when Tahir Ali made his request of Starmer, or is their definition of blasphemy different from his?

(*) Usual disclaimers apply.

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2024 12:51 am Interestingly(*), 12 of the MPs who voted against the abolition of the blasphemy laws in 2008 are still sitting in the House of Commons today. ... I wonder if any of them let out a loud "Hear, hear" when Tahir Ali made his request of Starmer, or is their definition of blasphemy different from his?

In all likelihood. Those who voted to keep the blasphemy laws in 2008 were voting to retain a law that specifically protected Christianity, and not any other religion. Blasphemy cases were far from frequent in recent times. But as it notes in this bit of Wikipedia, a 1979 law lords ruling found that it (still) only protected Christianity. And a 1991 high court ruling did not deviate from that precedent, and specifically denied any protection to Islam. These were probably the last cases to test the point before abolition.

So Ali's indication that his new blasphemy law should protect all Abrahamic religions - observe, still falling short of all religions - is quite different from what those retainers were voting for.