To prohibit the desecration
Labour MP Tahir Ali has today advocated for blasphemy laws during Prime Minister’s Questions.
The MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley asked Keir Starmer if he would “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions”. Speaking in the Commons, Ali added that “November marks Islamophobia awareness month,” and that “last year the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution condemning the desecration of religious texts, including the Quran, despite opposition from the previous government.”
Then the UN Human Rights Council needs to have a word with itself. Goddy rights are the enemy of human rights. “Prophets” are the fictional goon squad that enforces bad retrograde misogynist religious laws and we have every right to say what we think of them. MP Tahir Ali has no right at all to impose his religion on anyone else (including his own children), any more than trans ideologues have a right to impose trans ideology on anyone.
The Prime Minister replied that the Government is “committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division”, including Islamophobia and antisemitism.
Oh did he now. Listen up, Mr Starmer: we get to dislike Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism. We get to dislike the “Abrahamic” religions. We get to say what we dislike about them. They’re all forms of illegitimate power, and it’s not a secular official’s job to put up a fence around them.
Ali said that “mindless desecration only serves to fuel division and hatred,” with the Prime Minister adding: “desecration is awful.”
Oh shut up. Theocracy is awful. The imaginary Eternal Prime Minister we can never vote out, never dissent from, never correct, never tell to fuck all the way off, is not something secular heads of secular governments should be shielding from the people.
They never stop waving aound their “hurt religious feelings,” do they?
Nope. Iss IsslamO’Phobeeaah innit.
If anything deserves the death penalty it is any attempt to enact or enforce a law against blasphemy.
Of course every religion is blasphemy according to every other religion, so here’s my suggestion:
1. Ban Islam for blaspheming against Christianity and Judaism.
2. Ban Christianity for blaspheming against Judaism and Islam.
3. Ban Judaism for blaspheming against Islam and Christianity.
IIRC Ian McKellen makes a point of tearing the most offensive pages of Leviticus from the Gideon Bibles in the hotel rooms in which he stays. I think even the current UK Labour Party leadership might just be clueful enough to avoid the risk of making him a martyr.
This is another facet of the confusion between advice and legal requirement. It’s one thing to advise that people not do things that a government agency or a panel of experts considers harmful, and quite another thing to declare that non-compliance is punishable by law. I don’t mind so much if the government gives medical or nutrition advice that I think is wrong, but to require people to abide by this advice is unreasonable. Similarly, I don’t mind the government promoting the idea that we should all love each other and come together as a big community, but I don’t want the government “tackling all forms of hate and division”. They can’t change people’s feelings, anyway.
Bjarte @ #4: OK, but IMHO historical order is important in this connection. In order of appearance for those 3 religions, it is 1. Judaism; 2. Christianity; 3. Islam. So the bannings should be in reverse order, but with problems. Banning Islam would generate fatwahs all over the place, and one helluva worldwide jihad. Banning Christianity would result in witch-hunts and burnings-at-the-stake likewise, and re-runs galore of the post-Reformation wars of religion. And Judaism set out form the get-go to ban all other religions, as per the First Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (KJV) That implies that a lot of other gods were already in business, together with their separate prophets and priesthoods.
I tell thee truly, it’s a can of holy worms.
With respect I think McKellen has it wrong. A better strategy I think would be gluing the most offensive page to the cover complete with red marker underlinings of particularly relevant verses. He might also add a few questions like “what is a reasonable price for selling your daughter into slavery in the modern world”.