The alarming call for the blasphemy law in Britain and threat to free speech.

[oldbadger]

Which is already covered by law.

Yes, but in addition to make these offences when connected to religions or cultures more serious, probably carrying heavier penalties.

 

[oldbadger]

I actually wish sexual abusers got heavier prison sentences
But you know we are dealing with understaffed, overstretched and underpaid police and lack of prison cells currently, yet Tariq wants to add to that by getting people arrested for saying mean things about dead people

Yes.....?
...mean things about dead people?

Can I see a real example that would be covered by the new legislation?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Yes.....?
...mean things about dead people?

Can I see a real example that would be covered by the new legislation?

There’s no new legislation. We are talking about how some MPs want there to be new legislation centred specifically around Islam. We already have laws against targeting people based on identity.
what I take issue with is this: “prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions.”
If someone wants to desecrate a book that belongs to them - they should be able to. if it belongs to someone else, that falls under criminal damage which we already have laws for. I’m not sure what “desecration of prophets” refers to but since those prophets are already dead, I’m assuming it means criticising them? Insulting them?
Maybe in which case a lot of posts on RF would be considered a crime if desecration of prophets were prohibited.
Tariq should consider himself lucky that he lives in a country were there is freedom of religion and he is granted protections here regardless of the fact that there are aspects of his religion that is offensive to a lot of people. Including the insults towards Jews in the Quran and the vile statements made about women in the Sunnah. If he doesn’t like it, it’s not by force he has to be here - the world is a big place.

 

[GoodAttention]

There’s no new legislation. We are talking about how some MPs want there to be new legislation centred specifically around Islam. We already have laws against targeting people based on identity.
what I take issue with is this: “prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions.”
If someone wants to desecrate a book that belongs to them - they should be able to.

I think not having people buy bibles or qurans for the purpose of destroying is good for society.

if it belongs to someone else, that falls under criminal damage which we already have laws for. I’m not sure what “desecration of prophets” refers to but since those prophets are already dead, I’m assuming it means criticising them? Insulting them?
Maybe in which case a lot of posts on RF would be considered a crime if desecration of prophets were prohibited.
Tariq should consider himself lucky that he lives in a country were there is freedom of religion and he is granted protections here regardless of the fact that there are aspects of his religion that is offensive to a lot of people. Including the insults towards Jews in the Quran and the vile statements made about women in the Sunnah. If he doesn’t like it, it’s not by force he has to be here - the world is a big place.

I think labelling Muhammad in such a way that would describe him as a criminal under todays laws is what they want to prohibit.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I think not having people buy bibles or qurans for the purpose of destroying is good for society.

and what if I bought a religious book, I read it and I didn’t like what was written in it, so I tore it in two and threw it in the bin? It’s my property. Yes there will always be people who do and say things deliberately to try and provoke negative emotions in others. That’s life.

I think labelling Muhammad in such a way that would describe him as a criminal under todays laws is what they want to prohibit.

And why should that be prohibited? Muhammad is not venerated by all people, so of course there are people who will label him negatively based on what was written about his behaviour. Why should Islamic standards be forced onto the rest of us?

 

[danieldemol]

I think not having people buy bibles or qurans for the purpose of destroying is good for society.

You can't demonstrate your view is correct, and it is well documented how violent Pakistani society is because religion is protected from criticism in my view.

I think labelling Muhammad in such a way that would describe him as a criminal under todays laws is what they want to prohibit.

And good people everywhere will fight to oppose that because certain dogmatic narratives about Muhammad on which Muslims believe and emulate would make Muhammad a criminal by today's standards in my view.

 

[GoodAttention]

and what if I bought a religious book, I read it and I didn’t like what was written in it, so I tore it in two and threw it in the bin? It’s my property.

Perhaps consider borrowing one first?

Yes there will always be people who do and say things deliberately to try and provoke negative emotions in others. That’s life.

It can also be against the law.

And why should that be prohibited? Muhammad is not venerated by all people, so of course there are people who will label him negatively based on what was written about his behaviour. Why should Islamic standards be forced onto the rest of us?

The argument is you are applying todays criminal laws and labels retrospectively, and therefore unjustifiably.

I think this is more about stopping Muslims from leaving the faith in the UK than anything else.

 

[GoodAttention]

You can't demonstrate your view is correct, and it is well documented how violent Pakistani society is because religion is protected from criticism in my view.

Every book has the same purpose.

And good people everywhere will fight to oppose that because certain dogmatic narratives about Muhammad on which Muslims believe and emulate would make Muhammad a criminal by today's standards in my view.

Example?

 

[danieldemol]

The argument is you are applying todays criminal laws and labels retrospectively, and therefore unjustifiably.

It is not unjustifiable because those dogmatic narratives are considered worthy of emulation by certain people *today*, which is why it's fair to judge them by today's standards in my view.

 

[GoodAttention]

It is not unjustifiable because those dogmatic narratives are considered worthy of emulation by certain people *today*, which is why it's fair to judge them by today's standards in my view.

Example?

 

[danieldemol]

Every book has the same purpose.

No they don't in my view, do you seriously think a mathematics text book has the same purpose as a fiction novel?

Example?

Example people who think it's ok to consumate a marriage with a girl who has barely had her first period. This happens in Islamic societies in my view.

 

[GoodAttention]

No they don't in my view, do you seriously think a mathematics text book has the same purpose as a fiction novel?

All books were made to be read.

Example people who think it's ok to consumate a marriage with a girl who has barely had her first period.

You realise this is only legal in Afghanistan?

Taliban are already considered outcasts.

This happens in Islamic societies in my view.

Name these socities?

 

[stvdv]

Criticism: Your/his/her attire is not appropriate for this occasion.
Denigration: Your/his/her kind is not appropriate for this occasion.

Criticism directly: Christians+Muslims believe their Religion is superior
Criticism indirectly: Abrahamics believe their Scriptures are superior
Denigration directly: Hinduism is not a True Religion
Denigration implied: Christianity is the only True Religion

 

[danieldemol]

All books were made to be read.

Did you have a point to make with this?

You realise this is only legal in Afghanistan?

And you are ok with that?

Taliban are already considered outcasts.

Not in Afghanistan apparently

Name these socities?

You named one already, here is another one;

Child marriage in Pakistan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[RestlessSoul]

God is a poop head. I blasphemed. Come lock me up.

Are you 12 years old?

 

[GoodAttention]

Did you have a point to make with this?

Yes. Read book as they were intended, not burn them.

And you are ok with that?

Not in Afghanistan apparently

What has Afghanistan got to do with the UK?

You named one already, here is another one;

Child marriage in Pakistan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Did you read your source? Child marriage has been outlawed in 2019.

 

[danieldemol]

Yes. Read book as they were intended, not burn them.

Why shouldn't a person burn a book that is their own property if it contains a message that is hurtful enough to them to evoke such a strong form of protest?

What has Afghanistan got to do with the UK?

Blasphemy law which prevented criticism of religion allowed Afghanistan to degenerate to the state its in and it is reasonable to assume that the same law applied elsewhere would allow a similar degeneration of culture in my view.

Did you read your source? Child marriage has been outlawed in 2019.

Yeah, outlawed as a long process of criticism of aspects of Pakistan's prevalent religion undertaken in free societies which forced an apologetic response in my view.

 

[stvdv]

The alarming call for the blasphemy law in Britain and threat to free speech.

Errrm no mention of Bhuddist , Hindus , Shinto etc , why is that?.

IMO
{{{
Blasphemy law would be only useful/correct/okay: IF
a) Christians can't say "Jesus is the Only way"
b) Christians can't say "Bible is the only book of God"
c) Christians can not belittle Atheists and non Christians
d) Muslims can't claim their Religion is superior
e) Hindus can't claim their Religion is superior
z) ..etc.. Theists end Theist Supremacy proselytizing

People only feel the need to blaspheme, because these theists belittle all humans except their own sect

It's about time they solve the source of blasphemy: Religious Supremacy feeling
}}}

 

[GoodAttention]

Why shouldn't a person burn a book that is their own property if it contains a message that is hurtful enough to them to evoke such a strong form of protest?

Violence and impulse isn’t the answer. Clearly the book wasn’t for that person, and burning it achieves nothing except self gratification.

Blasphemy law which prevented criticism of religion allowed Afghanistan to degenerate to the state its in and it is reasonable to assume that the same law applied elsewhere would allow a similar degeneration of culture in my view.

Yeah…don’t think that is true

Yeah, outlawed as a long process of criticism of aspects of Pakistan's prevalent religion undertaken in free societies which forced an apologetic response in my view.

So what is your point mate? You want to have a go at Mexico’s laws next? Is that the Catholic Church’s fault?

 

[danieldemol]

Violence and impulse isn’t the answer. Clearly the book wasn’t for that person, and burning it achieves nothing except self gratification.

I disagree, for one we are talking about "violence" against a piece of paper, not something sentient. What you are proposing is using government sanctioned violence against sentient people for the sake of protecting a lifeless piece of paper in my view.

And protest does achieve something, it raises awareness of how strong a person's sentiment and sense of violation at receiving a message of hate is all without harming an actual person in my view.

Yeah…don’t think that is true

i believe you dont engage in critical thought much at all, how do you explain the degeneration of Afghanistan's culture?

So what is your point mate? You want to have a go at Mexico’s laws next? Is that the Catholic Church’fault?

I have already made my point which is that in my view protecting religion from criticism can and likely will cause culture to degenerate.

Your bringing of Mexico into this seems irrelevant in my view.