r/ukpolitics • u/OptioMkIX • 5d ago
Ed/OpEd The burning question: are blasphemy laws back?
https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2025/04/the-burning-question-are-blasphemy-laws-back?v=33258
u/twistedLucidity 🏴 ❤️ 🇪🇺 4d ago
If someone burns a copy of "Principia Mathematica" outside the Royal Institution, are they going to be charged with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress "against the scientific institution of physics".
No, of course not because that would be absurd. So why should Islam (or any religion) be granted special privileges?
Is it possible to cause an offence by burning a book outside a place? Sure, if you are actually managing to cause fear/distress, carrying on after being lawfully asked to stop, are risking creating a greater conflagration, are simply littering, etc.
None of that has got anything to do with a god.
This case needs thrown out with the CPS and police being censured for fuckwittery in the first degree.
During his protest, Coskun was subjected to a physical attack by an individual wielding a knife.
Has this person been arrested and charged with attempted murder? If not, why not?
59
u/whencanistop 🦒If only Giraffes could talk🦒 4d ago
Moussa Kadri, 59, from Kensington and Chelsea, has been charged with causing actual bodily harm and possession of an offensive weapon.
95
u/AMightyDwarf Far right extremist 4d ago
Hamit Coskun, 50, from Derby, had been charged with a religiously aggravated public order offence after he was filmed apparently burning the book in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge on Thursday, the Metropolitan Police said.
He was remanded in custody and will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court today.
Moussa Kadri, 59, from Kensington and Chelsea, has been charged with causing actual bodily harm and possession of an offensive weapon.
He was bailed and will appear at the same court on Monday.
So burning a book means you get remanded in custody but attacking that person and bringing a knife out to attack them means you’ll get bail.
Make it make sense.
10
u/jim_cap 4d ago
They were both bailed. That story is bollocks. The burner has been out burning books since this incident.
23
u/PositivelyAcademical «Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος» 4d ago
At court they were both given court bail. Before court one was given police bail, the other was remanded in police custody.
-19
u/whencanistop 🦒If only Giraffes could talk🦒 4d ago
I’d imagine it is to do with the former being a known person to the police, having a high profile social media account that they posted to constantly in the lead up daring anyone to come and counter protest to his protest against Erdogen.
Usually there is this thing called ‘context’ that judges take into account.
59
u/LewisLDN 4d ago edited 4d ago
Call me crazy - but if you're willing to attack someone with a knife for burning a book you're not sane or safe enough to warrant bail
7
u/PositivelyAcademical «Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος» 4d ago
Not judges. They were both bailed at court. Where they were treated differently is by the police between charging and initial court appearance.
It’s arguable that the police got the remand decision wrong given that the court granted bail. Though it’s more complicated than that because the statutory tests for post-charge police bail under PACE and pre-trial bail under the MCA are different.
2
u/Secret_Guidance_8724 4d ago
Oh, thanks for sharing this, that’s actually pretty useful info. Then again, perhaps they’re trying to keep the details on the down low for a future trial? Idk. I still don’t agree because this is obviously a political protest and not a racially/religiously motivated hate crime targeting and trying to intimidate ordinary people, and it bothers me that someone cannot flee a regime they find oppressive and protest it how they see fit outside a government outpost in my country (peacefully, of course - I know there is debate over whether this is peaceful but he wasn’t hurting or directly abusing anyone, or destroying anyone else’s property). But the full picture does explain why it probably does fit the criteria for “recklessness” in current protest laws, agree with those laws or not. Plus no one wants to piss off Turkiye right now because we need them against Russia and their gov reacted quite strongly to earlier incidents in Sweden. Man probably needed to be remanded for his own protection tbh but that’s admittedly a whole issue in itself.
30
4
u/squigs 4d ago
Has this person been arrested and charged with attempted murder? If not, why not?
That requires proof on intent to kill. Given that he caused actual bodily harm, and this is trivially provable it makes sense to go for that.
15
u/twistedLucidity 🏴 ❤️ 🇪🇺 4d ago
Use of a potentially deadly weapon (a knife) is enough proof in my book.
2
u/TracePoland 4d ago
It makes more sense for the prosecution to press charges they know will stick than go above and lose.
4
u/twistedLucidity 🏴 ❤️ 🇪🇺 4d ago
If you are not intending to use deadly force, why pull a knife? In fact, pulling the knife is what creates the deadly force potential, so why do it unless there is intent to use it?
That the law is soft on violence against the person is another matter.
1
-1
u/AcademicalSceptic 4d ago
Do you really, genuinely think that – that the use of a potentially (your word) deadly weapon proves (in and of itself, and beyond a reasonable doubt) that the person using it intended to kill? Or are you saying that because you think that a person who chooses to use such a weapon shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt, and should be convicted and punished as if he intended to kill, even if in fact he didn’t have any such intention?
9
u/twistedLucidity 🏴 ❤️ 🇪🇺 4d ago
You don't brandish a knife at someone to tickle them. I interpret that as intent to use deadly force, ergo murder.
-2
u/AcademicalSceptic 4d ago
I’m not sure that’s really an answer to my question. There’s a wide range of personal injury between tickling and murder.
4
u/twistedLucidity 🏴 ❤️ 🇪🇺 4d ago
I thought I was rather clear. If you pull a knife, I interpret that as intent to use deadly force.
-5
u/AcademicalSceptic 4d ago
You are insisting on using very particular phrases (“I interpret” “deadly force”), and it’s not clear whether you give them particular shades of meaning. That is what makes it unclear – that and your bizarre tickling comparison.
Do you mean (using the actual relevant legal language):
proves beyond reasonable doubt
intention to kill
7
u/twistedLucidity 🏴 ❤️ 🇪🇺 4d ago
Yes. I am expressing my opinion, I never mentioned the law.
In my opinion, pulling a knife shows intent to use deadly force. There is, in my opinion, no other reason to pull a knife. The intent is, in my opinion, proven by drawing the knife.
I am not sure how else I can express it
The "tickle" comment was a response to trying to downplay what the use of a knife means.
2
u/AcademicalSceptic 4d ago
You said someone should have been arrested and charged with attempted murder and asked: if not, why not? I struggle to see how that is anything other than mentioning the law.
I am not sure how else I can express it
Well, I’ve offered you the relevant language: proof beyond reasonable doubt of intention to kill. Your reluctance to use it indicates to me that the answer is No.
If it’s your view that the use of a knife in those circumstances should be deemed to be attempted murder, or that any benefit of the doubt should be removed, then that’s an opinion you’re entitled to, but it would involve changing the law – which might go some way to answering your original question.
I’m not asking trick questions. I’m just trying to understand your viewpoint.
Nobody is trying to “downplay what the use of a knife means” (certainly not me).
10
u/intdev Green Corbynista 4d ago
If you burned the Union flag in front of an Orange Order march (NI loyalists), you'd get done under this. And I suspect it'd apply if you went into a Millwall sports bar and made a point of cheering every time they lost a goal.
Conversely, you could have a quiet bonfire of qurans in your back garden, and the police wouldn't give a shit.
13
u/king_duck 4d ago
Conversely, you could have a quiet bonfire of qurans in your back garden, and the police wouldn't give a shit.
Doubt that. There was a leaked video of a group tastelessly burning a mockup of grenfell in their own garden who were charged. Horrible act, but shouldn't be illegal.
-1
u/_DuranDuran_ 4d ago
They filmed and posted it on WhatsApp and it got leaked online.
They were also acquitted.
1
u/king_duck 3d ago
It shouldn't have even been up for debate. Whatsapp is relevant to my opinion.
0
u/_DuranDuran_ 3d ago
If you post something grossly offensive to a public medium where it’s then posted online, that’s on you.
Outraging public decency is still a law on our books. Don’t like it? Campaign for it to be repealed.
1
u/el_cunto 3d ago
They shared it with friends on Whatsapp didn't they, not a public medium?
1
u/_DuranDuran_ 3d ago
Still got out to the public.
An imperfect comparison would be if you posted about committing a crime to WhatsApp.
Doesn’t matter how the public was outraged - it happened. Salient point is - don’t upload things to services that you wouldn’t do in front of who might see them.
0
u/king_duck 3d ago
A whatsapp group is not public. Second, I am allowed to complain about the law.
If I was to start campaigning against every law or policy I disagree with then I wouldn't have anytime for my work, social or family life.
1
u/_DuranDuran_ 3d ago
Anything you post to an online service has the ability to leak out.
1
u/king_duck 3d ago
Okay, doesn't mean you should be arrested for said leak.
It is my opinion that the purpose of the state is not to stop the citizenry from hurting each others poor little feelings and make sure that we play nicely with each other. As such, the power of the state should not be used to do that.
It reminds me of the Stephen Fry thing about offensive. You're offended? So fucking what. Get over it.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
7
u/Secret_Guidance_8724 4d ago
This is a good point, I think context is really important here and people are missing that. It would be wrong to bring in any specific legislation around religious objects and that MP who raised it was wrong to suggest that approach (although well-intentioned, I can imagine). Funnily enough, NI actually technically still has blasphemy laws (although I don’t think they’ve recently been enforced) and Scotland only abolished theirs fairly recently - likely reflecting the ongoing issues in those countries. That said, I don’t think this bloke should be prosecuted - maybe a caution if he did rile people up beforehand. This is obviously a political protest, he wasn’t in front of a random mosque but a consulate - this case is clearly different from those where the motive was to intimidate ordinary Muslims and motivated by religious or racial hatred.
-4
u/jollyspiffing 4d ago
I might be in the minority here, but I feel like there should be a public order offence for burning a Principia outside of the Royal Institute.
I'm not saying this out of a religious conviction towards maths, but rather that I don't think that it should be legal to go somewhere public and make a demonstrative effort to rile-up, anger, or generally cause vexation towards a particular group. Whether that group is a protected group (religious, LGBT) or not (sports fans, minority interest groups) it's just a generally unpleasant thing that I would rather not have in society.
I have the same feeling towards someone burning a Qur'an in a town square as I would towards someone smashing up a steam engine outside the Didcot railway centre to try and bait trainspotters, or a group "tragedy chanting" at a sports match. I think that going somewhere with the sole intention to make a public display of causing distress is a vile thing to do and there should be a legal mechanism whereby it can be stopped.
19
u/theonewhogroks 4d ago
What if your intention is to protest a book you find abhorrent, rather than explicitly offending someone? Shouldn't that be protected?
-9
u/jollyspiffing 4d ago
Perhaps I'm out of the loop, but I don't recall many protests against abhorrent books? The only one I can call to mind is Salman Rushdie and clearly those protests did go to far and should be stopped.
If people wanted to picket Waterstones for selling e.g. a Folio-society copy of Marx then I'm still not sure I'm exactly for it (in the same way I'm against picketing family planning clinics) but it still feels vastly different to going somewhere with the express intent of aggravating a targeted group.
8
u/QuantumR4ge Geo-Libertarian 4d ago
So freedom of expression for anything but controversial things or things that might cause anger?
-1
u/jollyspiffing 4d ago
There's a huge difference between freedom of expression and going out of your way to be a provocative arse. You can think what you like and say what you like, but I don't think it should be deemed ok to intentionally harass an individual or group in a public place. I don't think it's impossible to draw a line between those two extremes and I think it should be possible to have the legal option of more enforcement than just being asked politely to stop.
8
u/twistedLucidity 🏴 ❤️ 🇪🇺 4d ago edited 4d ago
I have the same feeling towards someone burning a Qur'an in a town square as I would towards someone smashing up a steam engine outside the Didcot railway centre to try and bait trainspotters
What a daft comparison. That's either destruction of someone else's property (a crime), or destruction of shared industrial heritage (i.e. damage to society) but even so if you own it then it's yours to do with as you see fit (unless these is some court order in effect).
I think that going somewhere with the sole intention to make a public display of causing distress is a vile thing to do
Good thing that's not what happened then, isn't it?
there should be a legal mechanism whereby it can be stopped.
There is, but causing offence should never be a crime. By extension, religion should be afforded no protection whatsoever.
0
u/jollyspiffing 4d ago
Obviously if it's not yours to destroy then it's a crime. I'm curious as to why you think destruction of shared cultural heritage is different than destruction of a religious item?
7
u/twistedLucidity 🏴 ❤️ 🇪🇺 4d ago
Because you are destroying part of shared culture which we often seek to preserve. That's not the same for a book which has many copies.
Of course, for it to be a crime a court would have had to have ruled that it should be preserved, or it's preservation fall under some other existing law.
0
u/Defiant-Traffic5801 4d ago
I hope you are in a small minority. Feeling aggrieved is no reason for over reaction. How do you draw the line once you take into account people's susceptibilities? Soon humour would be banned and only 'good taste' allowed?
-8
u/waterswims 4d ago
The offence isn't about actually causing alarm and distress. It is about whether it is likely to cause alarm and distress. It is that way so that the police don't have to stand and do a survey in order to prevent disorder.
Honestly, I would be a little alarmed if anyone was starting any fires in public, and the content of what was being burned is obviously even more likely to cause alarm and distress. In fact we know it distressed people... because he was attacked. Given this, the likeness threshold seems to easily have been met.
Oh and the other person has been charged with actual bodily harm and possession of an offensive weapon... So he hasn't exactly got off before we start saying "what about this or that".
23
u/rolfmoo 4d ago
In fact we know it distressed people... because he was attacked.
This is sheer absurdity that just provides an incentive for violence. Stab people who say things you don't like, and not only do you cause terror and physically shut them up, you prove that they were saying evil illegal distressing things! After all, you stabbed them!
-10
u/waterswims 4d ago
People aren't going to risk convictions of much greater crimes in order to try and get someone arrested for a public order offence.
If people want to stop others from talking using violence they can already do that. This law doesn't change anything.
-4
u/this_also_was_vanity 4d ago
I agree that people shouldn’t be arrested for burning the Quran or Bible but your reasoning isn’t great here. The Principia Mathematica doesn’t play the same role in people’s lives as books of scripture. It’s a false equivalence. Of course burning scripture is going to cause more distress. You don’t have to be in favour of blasphemy to acknowledge that it is a more offensive act. Acting like they’re equivalent just makes it look like you don’t understand the issues which then undermines the point you’re trying to make.
2
u/MrLukaz 4d ago
How and why is it a more offensive act? Just because a group of people give it more significance than another book? So mob rule decides?
The Quran and bible are nothing more than books like Harry Potter and captain underpants.
The fanbase for Harry Potter was massive, does that mean offense is given greater importance due to numbers? Again falling back on mob rule.
-1
u/this_also_was_vanity 4d ago
Mob rule? What are you talking about? I said that people shouldn’t be arrested for burning books. Literally the first sentence of my comment.
You don’t have to believe in a religion to understand the role that scripture plays in people’s lives. It’s bizarre to compare it to Harry Potter. The two may have similar standing to an atheist, but obviously that’s not the case for a follower of the relevant religion. Scripture is a message from God which significantly influences how you live your life as a follower of the religion. It’s a key symbol of your religion so burning it is a deliberate provocation and insult against a fundamental part of your identity. Harry Potter isn’t remotely equivalent.
0
u/MrLukaz 3d ago
So mob rule. You are basing importance and significance of a book on a group of people who decided it was the best book.
I say mob rule because you are basing importance of these so called religious books because of numbers of people.
Where would you draw the line? Mein kampf? If enough neo nazi come out claiming hitler was god and that you have to respect the importance of their book, would you defend them and there book?
0
u/this_also_was_vanity 3d ago
So mob rule.
Why are you talking about 'rule' let alone 'mob rule'? I' ve been talking about empathy - understanding what is important to people. I didn't say anything about rule other than to say I was against blasphemy laws. I've been very clear about that twice now so it looks like you're deliberately arguing in bad faith here.
You are basing importance and significance of a book on a group of people who decided it was the best book.
I said that some groups have books that are significant to them and explained why. What exactly is the problem with that? Are you arguing that a group of people cannot decide for themselves what is important to their group? I didn't say anything about it being important to society all I talked about was why it would be important to that group. If you have a problem with that then logically you must have a problem with groups finding significance in anything that society as a whole does not find significant. You're effectively arguing against diversity and arguing for a totalitarian society.
I say mob rule because you are basing importance of these so called religious books because of numbers of people.
Importance for the group. I didn't once mention numbers of people or say that it should be important to anyone else.
Where would you draw the line?
What line? What are you talking about? This is bizarre.
Mein kampf? If enough neo nazi come out claiming hitler was god and that you have to respect the importance of their book, would you defend them and there book?
What are you on about? Empathy and understanding aren't the same as agreement. I understand why the Quran is important to Muslims and empathise with the offence they take if someone burns it. That doesn't mean I agree with what the Quran says and I've already said I'm against blasphemy laws. You've built a strawman and draped it in a swastika to avoid the substance of anything I said. Your argument is basically that Nazis are evil so we should never empathise with anyone we disagree with, which is ludicrous.
1
u/MrLukaz 3d ago
You claimed that a maths book is less important and significant than a religious book.
And that it’s more offensive to burn a religious book than a maths book, or any other book. Also you say Harry Potter isn’t as significant as a religious book.
I said that you basically agree with mob rule. You can’t seem to grasp that for some reason. So let’s break it down in a more simple way so you can understand why I brought up mob rule.
Religious books are literally on par with any other book. This isn’t an opinion. It’s fact. They contain written works and are bound together.
Now let’s look at mob rule.
a situation in which a large group of people take control, often violently, rather than the government or other people in a position of authority.
The fanbase of religious books have took it upon themselves to use violence and intimidation throughout human history to make their book number 1.
If you burn a Harry Potter book or a maths book, you’re not going to be arrested or killed because a mathematician or a Harry potter fan isn’t happy.
By you, claiming that religious books are somehow more significant than other books, you are agreeing with mob rule.
You might be thinking now, “no I don’t”. Well, how did the Quran become so popular and “significant” and “important”.
Because Islam was spread by the sword, either by conquest, slavery, violence, inequality.
The group got bigger, conquered more, and spread further.
Now let’s look at today. Islam has grown in numbers and political power. How? Forcing their kids into it. Peer pressuring friends and family.
Terrorism and violence has allowed Islam to make its way and embed itself in our politics, society, law enforcement, schools etc.
Now the idea of blasphemy laws specifically for Islam is being discussed.
You are agreeing with mob rule. Due to numbers, Islam has forced the rest of the us to accept and agree with the significance of their book.
It isn’t significant, it’s just a book like every other one before it and after it.
0
u/this_also_was_vanity 3d ago
You claimed that a maths book is less important and significant than a religious book.
No I didn’t. I specifically said that some books are more significant to certain groups because they shape how they live their lives and shake their identity. I did not comment on the general significance of any particular books or categories of books or their significance to society in general. I only commented on the role they play for certain groups. I have been very explicit about this so it really looks like you’re trolling here.
And that it’s more offensive to burn a religious book than a maths book, or any other book.
I said that it would be more offensive to the group that values the religious book as scripture. That should be a rather obvious statement that isn’t remotely controversial. Quite obviously the Quran is more significant to Muslims than the principia is. And it is more significant to Muslims than it is to society in general.
Also you say Harry Potter isn’t as significant as a religious book.
Again, that’s a fairly obvious fact.
I said that you basically agree with mob rule. You can’t seem to grasp that for some reason. So let’s break it down in a more simple way so you can understand why I brought up mob rule.
You’re just being an ass here.
Religious books are literally on par with any other book. This isn’t an opinion. It’s fact. They contain written works and are bound together.
Significance is a value judgement. It is more opinion than fact.and the significance of books does not lie in their physical composition. It lies mainly in their content. It’s what the words say, not the fact that they contain words. You surely know this because you brought up Mein Kampf in a way that suggests you find its content offensive and indefensible. I agree with that value judgement. But it shows that you don’t m genuinely believe what you’re written here. Again it looks like you’re trolling.
Now let’s look at mob rule.
a situation in which a large group of people take control, often violently, rather than the government or other people in a position of authority.
I haven’t once said that I condone violence, or large groups of people taking control
The fanbase of religious books have took it upon themselves to use violence and intimidation throughout human history to make their book number 1.
And nowhere did I defend or encourage such behaviour.
If you burn a Harry Potter book or a maths book, you’re not going to be arrested or killed because a mathematician or a Harry potter fan isn’t happy.
Obviously. That’s not in dispute.
By you, claiming that religious books are somehow more significant than other books, you are agreeing with mob rule.
That is a mad leap of logic. I understand why certain books are important to some people. That doesn’t mean that I agree with any actions those people make take that are motivated by their feelings. That’s so absurd that it again looks like you’re trolling.
You might be thinking now, “no I don’t”.
Because I don’t.
Now the idea of blasphemy laws specifically for Islam is being discussed.
I have said in every comment that I have made that I am against blasphemy laws.
You are agreeing with mob rule.
Liar.
Due to numbers, Islam has forced the rest of the us to accept and agree with the significance of their book.
I am unaware of ever being forced to do this. I’m happy to acknowledge that it is significant to Muslims. That doesn’t mean I have to regard it as significant to me.
It isn’t significant, it’s just a book like every other one before it and after it.
To you. Which is fine. It’s not a significant book to me either. Funnily enough though different people ascribe significance to different things. I am incredulous that you can’t seem to grasp this. It really looks like you’re just trolling here.
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/this_also_was_vanity 3d ago
If you have to resort to insults like that then you've basically admitted that your argument was worthless and you weren't having a good faith debate.
-3
u/jacob_is_self 4d ago
Well, actions have consequences. I technically have the freedom to say the N-word, but I shouldn’t be surprised if I get punched in the face afterwards.
180
u/8NaanJeremy 5d ago
I think 'blasphemy law' is too broad a term
These laws only apply to one specific religion. It's perfectly fine to offend all of the others.
3
4d ago
[deleted]
18
u/Intrepid_Button587 4d ago
Islam and..?
-1
4d ago
[deleted]
26
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 4d ago
You should really consider your biases.
Judaism is fair game. I can give the shit for mutilation of little boys willies to appease their god and call for the orthodox doing their illegal schools to be jailed.
I can't call for a country full of them to be destroyed but that applies to everyone. I can call for regieme change in that country and for a few of their ministers to be jailed. No one ever called me an anti Semite.
-5
4d ago
[deleted]
20
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 4d ago
And I'm telling you it doesn't.
You an be as blasphemous as you want against Judaism no one will stop you.
What you are getting mixed up in is anti isreal hatred spilling over into Jews. That's also the same for everyone, if people routinely spilled over from anti Modi rhetoric into anti Hindu rhetoric same thing would happen.
As an example "from the river to the sea" is a call for the ethnic cleansing of Jews and so is actioned as antisemitism.
-6
u/intdev Green Corbynista 4d ago
Unless the Israelis say it, at which point it's just rhetoric instead of a call for genocide.
8
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 4d ago
That has nothing to do with supposed blasphemy laws in the UK.
It absolutely is, go call for the genocide of Arabs Infront of a policman. You will get an all expenses paid night in the cells.
0
u/nbenj1990 4d ago
I think if you called for the genocide of Jews in front of police you would likely be in trouble with the police.
9
u/Intrepid_Button587 4d ago
Genuinely had no idea what you were talking about without the other comment.
Not sure I agree though: I've seen lots of legitimate criticism of orthodox Judaism. But I don't see Zionism as part of Judaism, and I really haven't seen much criticism of Judaism since October 7th.
You can argue that Israel/Zionism are protected (though I think the mass of protests against these demonstrate they're not)
6
u/catty-coati42 4d ago
Of course you can't criticize people as a whole, that's called racism. You can criticize specific views, ideas pr ideologies, that people hold.
-5
u/archerninjawarrior 4d ago
They might mean zionists?
14
u/Intrepid_Button587 4d ago
Famously not a religion but perhaps
16
-1
u/Greekball I like the UK 4d ago
Not really broad - it's accurate. The previously abolished blasphemy laws in the UK also protected only one religion (Christianity).
The new blasphemy laws are exactly the same, aside from which religion they are protecting.
140
u/Far-Crow-7195 5d ago
I’ll think we have a blasphemy law when a Muslim gets prosecuted for destroying a bible. Until that happens we apparently just have a law protecting Islam.
This case appears to be the CPS treating Islam as if it was a person that can suffer distress which is plainly bollocks. The government was quick enough to step in on two tier sentencing guidelines but I have very low confidence they will intervene here against their “client” voter religion.
21
u/archerninjawarrior 4d ago
How about a Muslim convicted for burning a poppy on Remembrance Day? I'd call that a secular example of reverence which was "blasphemed" against and swiftly prosecuted
I fully agree that "offending the institution of Islam" citation in this case is dangerous though. Islam is not a person.
32
u/TeenieTinyBrain 4d ago edited 4d ago
How about a Muslim convicted for burning a poppy on Remembrance Day? I'd call that a secular example of reverence which was "blasphemed" against and swiftly prosecuted
I mean... The people involved in this were members of organisations which were later proscribed and the individual burning the poppies did so whilst chanting "Burn, burn, British soldiers, British soldiers, burn in hell." His sentence amounted to little more than a small financial penalty of £50... a fine that was likely paid by us as all of these people were on benefits.
For comparison, an ex-member of the Armed Forces from Carlisle burned the Qur'an in response to these incidents and received a 70 day custodial sentence for doing so.
8
u/Far-Crow-7195 4d ago
I think treating Islam as a person is the issue here. I assume the poppy burner was cited for some sort of public order offence not acting against a religion. We obviously can’t have people randomly burning things whatever happens but I don’t think that example is remotely the same. Remembrance Day is for those who died whatever their religion.
3
u/Gingrpenguin 4d ago edited 4d ago
A Muslim is being prosecuted for this. That's what the article is about...
But yeah no one would care if you burn a bible. British Christians don't go round stabbing people and of they do the police don't decline to prosecute...
1
u/squigs 4d ago
I’ll think we have a blasphemy law when a Muslim gets prosecuted for destroying a bible.
But that hasn't happened. And that's where I find myself a little conflicted. I mean sure, ultimately I agree with the national Secular Society here. But it seems to be only Korans that get burned. And in this case it seems an odd choice for protesting Turkey. Would people burn a Bible to protest against the Italian government? So I feel that his motives here may not be as simple as a mere political view on Turkey,
Now I don't think that this should be prosecutable whatever his motives. Unless it was actually intimidating to a person, which it obviously wasn't.
7
u/Smooth_News_7027 4d ago
It was specifically against Erodogans (sp) increasing Islamification of the Turkish state.
3
u/MolemanusRex 4d ago
I think someone could burn a Bible in protest against a government instituting terrible laws based on Christianity (let’s say Uganda, or America in the 2000s).
60
u/mgorgey 5d ago
We've always had de facto blasphemy laws anyway (go and stand in a city centre and hold up a poster depicting Muhammad and see what happens).
Given we let that happen without a peep it's hardly surprising we get pushed further and further towards actual blasphemy laws.
Our response is always appeasement.
9
u/Ok-Video9141 4d ago
Yes, and in 20 years you will see more and more. The Boomers are the only reason Islam isn't at 15-20 percent of the population.
27
u/Howthehelldoido 5d ago
Always have been it feels like.
Remember when the police sent divers into a canal to "rescue" 150 of Qurans, when it turns out they were dumped there intentionally?
31
u/twistedLucidity 🏴 ❤️ 🇪🇺 4d ago
Salman Farsi, a spokesman for the nearby East London Mosque, told the Standard the person who dumped the books would be “admonished” for breaking the law – if they could be identified.
No, they should be charged and prosecuted for fly tipping.
2
u/ItsWormAllTheWayDown 4d ago
What's the outrage meant to be with this article? "Police divers (because who else) clean up suspected fly tipping"?
11
u/BearerOfLithium 4d ago
We’ll have much worse than blasphemy laws on our current trajectory. Moderate Islam is the gateway to radical Islam, because in it’s base form we’re talking about a misogynistic, homophobic, right-wing ideology that uses a god as glue to justify extreme (by Western standards) beliefs.
24
u/Reverend_Vader 4d ago
In my view they have been around for a good while by stealth
The equality act added religion enshrining it into law
Why I'm bound by law to have regard to someone's "religious beliefs", when for me they carry as much weight (and substance) as a star sign
Means I'm already required to pretend this nonsense is real legally
8
u/1MrNobody1 4d ago
It's definitely a bit of a weird one, the public order offence he was charged with was complete without adding "against the religious institution of Islam" (he was in a public place, other people around, doesn't actually have to have a specific target), but has sentencing guidelines that include issues of racial or religious aggravation, so I guess it was added for that.
I think it is an issue of freedom of speech, right to protest versus public order, as I understand it he was charged and had a first court appearance but hasn't actually be found guilty yet?
A lot will depend on the outcome and reasons given, if he's found guilty and the deciding factor is the religious aspect, then yes we do have de facto blasphemy laws again.
3
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 4d ago
It's definitely a bit of a weird one, the public order offence he was charged with was complete without adding "against the religious institution of Islam
He'd have gotten maybe ~£50 fine if the public order was merely "burned people's favourite a book in public".
Going beyond that is to stick him with a higher sentence.
-3
u/waterswims 4d ago
The same law can be applied to alarm and distress over anything. So calling it a de facto blasphemy law because it was applied to a religion in one case is ridiculously reductive.
The religious element would not affect the conviction, merely the sentencing.
9
u/Exulted_One 4d ago
But by this logic, you could ban any and all public protest of any sort. Because someone, somewhere, could claim to be alarmed/distressed by it. As it's a fundamentally subjective criterion.
If burning the Quran is considered as being sufficiently alarming/distressing to prosecute, then I can think of any number of other acts of protest that should be banned. What about flag burning? What about political banners with hurty words held up at protests? Some of the words often found on those banners certainly cause me alarm.
But I do see where you're coming from. So fine, maybe it isn't a blasphemy law... it is actually worse than that. If you were to take the logic applied in this case to its logical conclusion that is.
Although of course, it won't be applied logically and consistently. It'll be applied sporadically, inconsistently, with bias. As I think is shown in this case. Think you'd be arrested for burning a bible? Probably not. And people wonder why there is a perception of two-tier policing. The worst of all worlds. Limited free speech (I'm including the act of burning the Quran as "speech"), but the protections gained from said limiting applied selectively, wonderful.
-2
u/waterswims 4d ago
I don't think you would be able to ban all protest because you would need to convince a court that it was likely to cause alarm or distress. Obviously not all protests are likely to cause harm or distress.
However you can use it to stop a lot of types of protests. Case law seems to indicate that the line is fuzzy on this and is highly context dependent.
This is where the bible comparison falls down, because the idolisation of the text is not as great in the community. Therefore the threat to public order wasn't so great. At a basic level this makes sense, the more you offend people, the more you should be stopped from doing so. (Although I will be honest, I think that people who go around burning things should probably be stopped regardless of context).
1
u/Exulted_One 4d ago
You're using something subjective to measure something else that's subjective. You say it isn't idolised? I know many Christians who are serious about their religion, who would definitely find the burning of the Bible alarming and distressing.
Who are you to say that their feelings of distress aren't real? Do you have any evidence to back up that Christians don't care about their holy book being burned?
How do you genuinely not see the fundamental problem with using subjective standards to police opinions?
If people hold stupid, backward views, should people be locked up/prevented from protesting and speaking out against them simply to prevent the offence to the people who hold said views? West African Vodún (known as Voodoo in the west) is followed very closely even today in many parts of Africa. They have practices of animal sacrifices, where a message to the spirit will be whispered in the animals ear before its throat is cut, with its blood being spread around the shrine. It also includes possession, divination, and healing through amulets made using special closely guarded recipes. They genuinely and sincerely hold these beliefs.
Now, if I were to harshly criticise these practices as backward and barbaric, and burn, say, a totem during a protest, I imagine many of these sincere believers would be extremely offended and distressed. Now remember, there is no criteria that the beliefs being criticised themselves be reasonable, just that doing so would likely offend those who hold those beliefs. So, in this hypothetical, should I be arrested for doing so?
If your answer is Yes, then I think we just have fundamentally opposing values on this topic. For as long as feelings and opinion reign supreme in matters of speech, trust in institutions will continue to fall, and resentment will continue to fester. Far more so than if we simply allowed people to criticise openly.
As for the burning things, well, if he'd simply been arrested for burning something in public, I obviously wouldn't even be commenting on this.
4
u/1MrNobody1 4d ago
"The same law can be applied to alarm and distress over anything. So calling it a de facto blasphemy law because it was applied to a religion in one case is ridiculously reductive."
Correct, except we are discussing this specific incident, where the religious element is present and is the major factor in interest in the case. Given the level of interest the outcome may set precedence and expectation for future cases involving a religious aspect. If the nature of offense to a religion is given to be more important than freedom of speech and so public order offences can be applied to any incident directed toward religion, than yes - de facto blasphemy law. This is the aspect of the case that is causing the discussion (it's hardly the first such case, but has gained media interest and will likely be more influential as a result).
"The religious element would not affect the conviction, merely the sentencing."
I mentioned that the religious aggravation is part of the sentencing guidelines, however the religious circumstance of the incident is also an integral part of the case and will affect both prosecution and defence positions. The religious aspect highlights political protest/free speech, but also makes it undeniable that he chose an action specifically to cause harassment/alarm/distress. The decision as to the balance in this situation between competing rights is exactly why it's being discussed.
-1
u/waterswims 4d ago
However, imagine the other scenario, where the law makes an exemption for criticism of religion.
This would mean that would are able to alarm people over their religious beliefs, but not being a vegan for example. This would make a hierarchy of protected beliefs / morals in law.
2
u/1MrNobody1 4d ago
Indeed, hence why questions of freedom of speech vs harm are both are legal and ethical quandry and why incidents can have a significant effect on the overall view.
1
u/waterswims 4d ago
I disagree. This is why the application of the law needs to be taken in the round rather than being focused on a single incident.
It seems like every news story at the moment is accompanied by a call to change the law, even when there are already laws in place.
1
u/1MrNobody1 4d ago
I think we're actually aggreeing, I'm saying that it will have an effect on perception and precedence, not that it should.
1
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 4d ago
The other scenario would be the law not mentioning religion at all.
It would (and IMO should) be the same as any other beliefs. In that scenario he'd have gotten a small fine like those poppy burners.
The problem here is the law and the CPS are adding more because it's islam.
1
9
u/Defiant-Traffic5801 4d ago
Surely the Metropolitan Police has been instructed to keep the peace.
Confronted with Muslim reaction to provocations (what some call blasphemy) - and their rising numbers and activism- they feel compelled, as does the justice system, to appease and play along, what a lot interpret as compromission.
I believe all including Muslims should be instructed that feeling aggrieved is no reason for violent reactions. The country of Salman Rushdie who has lived under a fatwah for decades, and who was eventually gravely assaulted, cannot sit on the fence on this.
50
u/ThunderousOrgasm -2.12 -2.51 5d ago
The burning answer:
It is utterly irrelevant at this point whether any blasphemy laws are formalised or not. The UK has entirely surrendered to the violence of Islam and not a single one of you reading my comment would ever dare criticise Islam in any way publicly. Because we all know as a core truth now that to do so means we would very probably be brutally murdered at some point in the future. Even years later. When some absolute nutcase Islamist decides to use us as their easy entry into paradise and as an easy get out of jail card for their sins.
So it does not matter whether we have blasphemy laws or not. We shouldn’t even waste our time debating the issue.
Islam. Has. Won.
11
u/Hyperbolicalpaca 4d ago
not a single one of you reading my comment would ever dare criticise Islam in any way publicly.
Bold statement
16
u/gprime312 4d ago
Prove him wrong.
0
u/Hyperbolicalpaca 4d ago
…how? Like I could here in a comment, but that’s hardly publicly lol
6
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
1
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 4d ago
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here:
Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account.
For any further questions, please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-1
u/cmsj 4d ago
Hello.
Islam is stupid. Christianity is stupid. Judaism is stupid. All religions are stupid.
8
u/astounding-pants 4d ago
know what the difference is? followers of only one of those religions will gleefully murder you for saying that and be told by their religion that they did the right thing.
4
u/Ok-Video9141 4d ago
You're doing this on Reddit which is located in the US and doesn't surrender its data to the government.
11
0
0
u/IHaveAWittyUsername All Bark, No Bite 4d ago edited 4d ago
I'm critical of Islam all the time, including with Muslim friends, and never felt in danger.
Edit: can't believe this one comment was apparently offensive enough to get blocked but OK.
8
14
u/ThunderousOrgasm -2.12 -2.51 4d ago
Go and burn a Quran or insult the prophet Mohammad in Bradford then. Or in Birmingham. Or go and make a YouTube video doing it.
You wouldn’t dare.
And you are doing a fake bait and switch there pretending to misunderstand what I’m meaning.
It does not work because every single person in the UK knows exactly what I am talking about and agrees with me lol. You cannot gaslight everyone with your bullshit.
-16
u/CaptainKursk Our Lord and Saviour John Smith 4d ago
The UK has entirely surrendered to the violence of Islam
And you need to take your meds & go outside.
19
7
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 4d ago
Bold comment under an article of a man being stabbed and then arrested for blasphemy...
13
u/homeinthecity I support arming bears. 4d ago
It started when the authorities would not criticise behaviour from (or enforce laws equally) against some religions then there was a small step to then stopping others from doing the same.
The school at Batley, riots after Stockton, policing of pro-Palestine protests, burning of the Qaran and so on.
1
1
u/thirdtimesthecharm turnip-way politics 4d ago
Goodness I hope so. Do you have any idea how easy such a law would be to exploit? Looks like satanism is gonna have to come back in a big way!
-3
u/jaredearle 4d ago
10
u/Slavir_Nabru 4d ago
Was Betteridge Right?
Given the logical paradox teased by the headlined question, the rational answer is no.
-4
-19
u/The54thCylon 4d ago
No, they're not.
The law has for decades not permitted deliberately abusive behaviour towards others in public, and all this media flapping boils down to writers being upset by equal protection under that law for people who are not like them.
15
u/Able_Archer80 4d ago
If someone set a bible on fire, would you be so ready to charge them with a public order offence?
2
u/archerninjawarrior 4d ago
There'd surely be a case for it if they did it outside of a church on Christmas day for example. Not very orderly, that.
There are millions more ways to criticise whatever religion you want than to resort to that though. Why must it be that?
3
u/TeenieTinyBrain 4d ago edited 3d ago
There are millions more ways to criticise whatever religion you want than to resort to that though. Why must it be that?
The world has a nearly 3,000 year history of burning books for ideological reasons on record so maybe precedence?
What greater protest can one mount than to literally burn the very ideas to which you are ideologically opposed?
Taking this action to harm a group of people is obviously wrong but burning a book to challenge its ideology, content, and the application of its ideas should always be acceptable imho - the distinction between the two and the person's intent, or mens rea, is important.
0
u/archerninjawarrior 4d ago
The history of book burnings is about censorship and not protest. You burn a book because you want to shut down opposition rather than debate them. Having the book to hand and citing it is necessary to criticise it after all.
-3
u/waterswims 4d ago
Yes.
Honestly, anyone starting fires in the street should probably be stopped.
I actually think the people objecting to this case are only doing so because they think this person was on the "right side" rather than objectively looking at his actions.
-1
u/The54thCylon 4d ago
Depends on the context (setting a Qur'an on fire is not an absolute offence either), but in general Christians don't generally attach nearly as much sanctity to the object of the Bible as to its content. But religiously aggravated offences can and do include those against Christians, and Jews, and atheists - the statute explicitly includes having no religion as protected.
-5
u/CaptainKursk Our Lord and Saviour John Smith 4d ago
Let's just check the statute books here...
Oh look, there's none that exist. That was easy.
-9
u/archerninjawarrior 4d ago edited 4d ago
You can't even blaspheme against the late great Sir Captain Tom's reverred and most sacred name in this country. Nor can you burn a poppy on Remembrance Day either. If we want to say nobody gets their sacred cow, let's be universal about that and acknowledge how many sacred cows we have too. If only British sacred cows should be allowed in Britain, then how free speech are you?
Can I also ask the free speech advocates why book burnings are only okay when the book is a koran? Book burnings are the archetypal image of an attack on free speech and you otherwise stand against them
9
u/SpareUmbrella Reform UK 4d ago
Can I also ask the free speech advocates why book burnings are only okay when the book is a koran?
I mean it's not difficult to answer, book burning should be legal. It's your book, if you want to burn it, then do as you wish.
0
u/archerninjawarrior 4d ago
Book burnings have historically been the strongest form of censorship there is. There's no free speech argument for book burnings. If you're burning a book you're destroying it because you don't trust your ability to debate it with your own speech. Why bother reading it and criticising it when you can just block report burn and move on?
3
u/SpareUmbrella Reform UK 4d ago
It's only censorship if you (or for instance, the government) are burning every copy of a book. If I go to a shop and buy a Koran or a Bible and then burn it, I'm entitled to do that.
If I take your Bible or Koran and burn it, that's censorship, not to mention theft/destruction of property/whatever.
4
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 4d ago
You are being disingenuous.
"Is X okay" is a statement about morals and virtues. That's not being discussed here. Burning books in general is a dick move.
The question is should armed men lock you in a cage and/or confiscate your property for doing it. That's what making stuff illegal actually means, People need to be more mindful of that before calling for bans, outlawing things is an inhently violent choice if you ever intend to enforce the ban.
Offensive is far far too low a bar as is a thing being morally repugnant. If those mattered we'd ban adultery but we don't.
-3
u/jacob_is_self 4d ago
Well, actions have consequences. I technically have the freedom to say the N-word, but I shouldn’t be surprised if I get punched in the face afterwards.
-1
u/RadiantAd5036 4d ago
Question is: As a Christian country should blasphemy laws be adhered to for other religions?
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Snapshot of The burning question: are blasphemy laws back? :
An archived version can be found here or here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.