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

[Wherenextcolumbus]

After this

Labour realised that no amount of alphabetical olympics could make it racism,still,today in parliament a call for blasphemy laws to be reinstated at PMQs,Labour MP Tariq Ali asked: ‘Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?’.

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

Starmer ‘Desecration is awful, and we are committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including Islamophobia.’

The Spectator
Desecration is, of course, a powerful emotion. It is a deeply engrained transgression that is a common feature of multiple times and cultures. Indeed, such is the visceral reaction to desecration that for many centuries there were laws on the British statute book banning people from denying the truth of Christianity.

The Spectator ,great article btw Why is a Labour MP calling for a blasphemy law?

Nothing is sacred,challenging questioning or criticising an idea is free speech and a precious right,agree?.

I’ve discovered that the article gets his name wrong
It’s Tahir Ali not Tariq Ali … nah, that’s bloody out of order

 

[stvdv]

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

I suppose it is a matter of semantics,

It's indeed about the meaning, semantics
And the dictionary gives clear definitions

and might be the rules here or elsewhere--I haven't been here long enough to figure all that out yet-

Okay, fair enough. Took me some time also to figure these things out. RF Rules are helpful

but I personally would not classify any one of those statements as denigration

You are free to NOT accept Oxfort dictionary in the West maybe
BUT
There are countries where, if you say those things,
arguing "I don't classify.." might still cost you your life

Google: What does the word denigration mean?
: to deny the importance or validity of : belittle

This proves: "Christianity is the only True Religion" = Denigration
Because it clearly implies that the Abrahamic Religions are Superior and Dharmic Religions are all inferior (that is called Abrahamic Supremacy, which is worse than White Supremacy)

What does denigrate mean (Oxford dictionary):
to criticize someone or something unfairly; to say someone or something does not have any value or is not important synonym belittle

Wiki: Below makes it even more clear:
Blasphemy refers to an insult that shows contempt, disrespect or lack of reverence concerning a deity, an object considered sacred, or something considered inviolable.[1][2][3][4] Some religions, especially Abrahamic ones, regard blasphemy as a crime, including insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad in Islam, speaking the sacred name in Judaism,[5] and blasphemy of God's Holy Spirit is an eternal sin in Christianity.[6] It was also a crime under English common law, and it is still a crime under Italian law

 

[danieldemol]

Religious tolerance should be a part of a reasonable democracy.

Why the need for the qualifier "religious"? Tolerance should be part of a reasonable democracy and that includes toleration of the views of atheists in my view.

Who GAF? We are talking about the UK.

Afghanistan is a theocracy, UK one of the oldest democracies, you think this is worthy comparison?

It is because blasphemy laws are one of the distinguishing features of theocracy. In my view you want to have a theocratic purely nominal democracy and then wonder why it all goes to poop.

The law is clearly specific for prophets, that is Muhammad, so your view on how this law will work is wrong.

Bare assertion unsupportee by reason in my view.

If you think it is going to cause the UK culture to degenerate then your pessimism should be awarded.

If the world were just my pessimism towards blasphemy laws would be awarded in my view.

Why?

Your raised girls reaching puberty and then being consumated, this is permitted in Mexico.

You have nothing to say about that?

I simply did not know about it, so i have looked it up;

'Child, Early and Forced Marriage and Unions (CEFMU) are driven by gender inequality and the belief that women are somehow inferior to men.'

'In some communities, CEFMU is encouraged to avoid pre-marital sex.'

'CEFMU is most common in rural areas of Mexico, particularly among indigenous groups, including the Chiapas, Guerrero and Veracruz, where customary laws prevail over state legislation.'


Source: Mexico

So i suppose you think the religious beliefs of those people has nothing to do with the belief that women are inferior and their customary laws?

 

[England my lionheart]

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

That would be retarded,the UK has been there and done that,if a culture or religion is so fragile that it cannot withstand criticism or even mockery then it probably needs to look in the mirror.

 

[GoodAttention]

you seem to fail to understand that that level of freedom is also granted to Muslims so while we have the freedom to venerate Muhammad we also have the freedom not to and this should remain as it. Quit while you’re ahead

That’s not difficult to understand.

The UK loves free speech so much it even allows hates speech.

Understand your society before you put the lipstick on the pig.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

That’s not difficult to understand.

The UK loves free speech so much it even allows hates speech.

Once again the freedom of information and freedom of religion that we have here means we also tolerate hate speech in religious scriptures.
If you want us to be against all that contains hate speech, you’ll be putting certain religious scriptures at risk of censorship.
We have laws against hate speech within certain settings/contexts

Understand your society before you put the lipstick on the pig.

i do and I don’t want to live in a society that prosecutes living people over their opinion of a dead person just because some people believe dead person is a prophet.
If this is something someone wants then they are more suited to living in a country where people can already be imprisoned or executed for criticising a prophet and leave Britain as they found it

 

[GoodAttention]

Once again the freedom of information and freedom of religion that we have here means we also tolerate hate speech in religious scriptures.
If you want us to be against all that contains hate speech, you’ll be putting certain religious scriptures at risk of censorship.
We have laws against hate speech within certain settings/contexts

i do and I don’t want to live in a society that prosecutes living people over their opinion of a dead person just because some people believe dead person is a prophet.
If this is something someone wants then they are more suited to living in a country where people can already be imprisoned or executed for criticising a prophet and leave Britain as they found it

Lol.

Leave Britain as they found it.

Good one.

 

[oldbadger]

That would be retarded,the UK has been there and done that,if a culture or religion is so fragile that it cannot withstand criticism or even mockery then it probably needs to look in the mirror.

Huh? English law has been written in situations where a seriously dangerous action has only a moderate sentence attached to it.

A typical example of this is with crimes like robbery which without special inclusion of words 'threat of force' would only be theft. Theft carries a maximum sentence of 5 years whereas robbery can attract many more.

You see? People trashing and obliterating religious books and signs can expect much harsher punishments.

Good job too......... Perpetrators of such things are just 'rubbish'.

 

[England my lionheart]

Huh? English law has been written in situations where a seriously dangerous action has only a moderate sentence attached to it.

A typical example of this is with crimes like robbery which without special inclusion of words 'threat of force' would only be theft. Theft carries a maximum sentence of 5 years whereas robbery can attract many more.

You see? People trashing and obliterating religious books and signs can expect much harsher punishments.

Good job too......... Perpetrators of such things are just 'rubbish'.

In your opinion of course,if someone owns the book it’s their property and can dispose of it as they wish and as long as there is no incitement to violence there is no crime,this is the problem with proselytising religions,imposing on the rights of others.

There’s a schoolteacher still in hiding for fear of his and his family’s life because he showed a picture of Muhammad as part of a lesson,this is Britain 2024 not the 7th century desert.

 

[oldbadger]

In your opinion of course,if someone owns the book it’s their property and can dispose of it as they wish and as long as there is no incitement to violence there is no crime,this is the problem with proselytising religions,imposing on the rights of others.

Diberately defacing/burning one's own book with the intention of upsetting others should definitely be included in any new legislation.
Are you thinking of doing anything to upset other people in public places? If not then you could stop worrying about such morons....yes?

There’s a schoolteacher still in hiding for fear of his and his family’s life because he showed a picture of Muhammad as part of a lesson,this is Britain 2024 not the 7th century desert.

Yes. Imo ....but what an idiot!
Teachers should deliver teaching in such a way as to avoid such upsetting scenes, whether there are pupils or not who belong to cultures/religions which could be upset.
I seem to remember that the teacher showed very upsetting pictures to a class which included Muslim pupils, without thinking about how such scenes would be reacted to either in class or outside.

 

[Father Heathen]

Right back at you

btw, have you asked that same question to those who lather themselves up into a frothing rage over silly cartoons and whatnot?

Diberately defacing/burning one's own book with the intention of upsetting others should definitely be included in any new legislation.
Are you thinking of doing anything to upset other people in public places? If not then you could stop worrying about such morons....yes?

Yes. Imo ....but what an idiot!
Teachers should deliver teaching in such a way as to avoid such upsetting scenes, whether there are pupils or not who belong to cultures/religions which could be upset.
I seem to remember that the teacher showed very upsetting pictures to a class which included Muslim pupils, without thinking about how such scenes would be reacted to either in class or outside.

Should globes be banned to avoid offending flat earthers?

 

[oldbadger]

Should globes be banned to avoid offending flat earthers?

What action are you thinking of?
Burning it in public?
Scrawling messages all over it?

Pictures of flat earth scenes and pictures with curved horizons are probably safe...... So I hope you won't worry too much about any globes you've got.

---

 

[England my lionheart]

Diberately defacing/burning one's own book with the intention of upsetting others should definitely be included in any new legislation.
Are you thinking of doing anything to upset other people in public places? If not then you could stop worrying about such morons....yes?

No,they have the right,personally I wouldn’t want to,they have the right to be vocally critical of any religion too.

Yes. Imo ....but what an idiot!
Teachers should deliver teaching in such a way as to avoid such upsetting scenes, whether there are pupils or not who belong to cultures/religions which could be upset.
I seem to remember that the teacher showed very upsetting pictures to a class which included Muslim pupils, without thinking about how such scenes would be reacted to either in class or outside.

So reacting to it with death threats is ok?.

 

[oldbadger]

No,they have the right,personally I wouldn’t want to,they have the right to be vocally critical of any religion too.

Defacing a book which they know will cause upset? Let them be nicked for that under any new law.

So reacting to it with death threats is ok?.

No. Catch and nick the threateners..... if you can.
Professional teachers need to be professional.....not idiots who deliberately or stupidly cause such upsets.

 

[England my lionheart]

Defacing a book which they know will cause upset? Let them be nicked for that under any new law.

They have the right to feel offended but that’s where it ends,of course they could always leave,maybe go to Saudi,they still chop people up for all sorts of trivia.

No. Catch and nick the threateners..... if you can.
Professional teachers need to be professional.....not idiots who deliberately or stupidly cause such upsets.

Are the contents of the Quran threatening?,yes very,maybe we should arrest and deport the imams when they preach their sermons for the horrific contents of the Quran or they can just be thankful they live in a free country and grow some.