The blasphemy law is not a blasphemy law

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

They’re trying to square the circle.

A new tsar is to be created to tackle growing hatred towards Muslims. The ‘special representative on anti-Muslim hostility’ will be appointed to ‘strengthen understanding, reporting and response’, the Government said.

…

But ministers insisted the new definition would also guarantee ‘the fundamental right to freedom of speech’ amid fears it would create a blasphemy law by the back door.

The Government ditched a plan to give a definition for the word ‘Islamophobia’ amid free speech concerns and decided to adopt a definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ instead. 

In other words they tried to hide the fact that they are working to make it illegal to criticize Islam. It won’t fly. You can’t specify a particular religion as under government protection from debate without making it taboo to criticize that religion.

Islam is not like race or sex or place of birth or social status aka class. Islam is a religion, a bunch of rules and taboos in a book written 1400 years ago. The book is intensely hostile to women. How is The Government going to square protecting that hatred of women with its duty to protect the rights and freedoms of women?

Comments

8 responses to “The blasphemy law is not a blasphemy law”

  1. Mostly Cloudy Avatar
    Mostly Cloudy

    Um…. this particular story is over a month old.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15628589/Labour-appoint-Englands-anti-Muslim-hostility-Tsar.html

  2. Ophelia Benson Avatar
    Ophelia Benson

    And?

  3. Mostly Cloudy Avatar
    Mostly Cloudy

    The definition of “‘anti-Muslim hostility” that so excited the Daily Fail a month ago was discussed by other UK groups at the time. One of them was Humanists UK :

    The Humanists UK chief executive Andrew Copson said: “Hostility against Muslims and those perceived to be Muslims is on the rise in the UK and we all have a duty to stand up against it. We are pleased to see that the new definition of anti-Muslim hostility, along with its supporting guidance, does this while explicitly protecting speech that is critical of religious ideas, in line with international human rights standards.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/islamophobia-muslim-islam-politics-uk-b1274269.html

    I agree with Copson on this issue. I don’t think this new definition is an attempt to smuggle a “blasphemy law” that prohibits criticism of a particular religion into the UK’s statute book.

  4. Omar Avatar
    Omar

    Mostly Cloudy: Good old Wikipedia uses the common definition of ‘Islamophobia:’ “Islamophobia is the irrational fear of, hostility towards, or hatred of the religion of Islam or Muslims in general.”

    Thus it conflates criticism of Islam (a religion, or non-empirical philosophy) with attacking Muslims. The Pew definition did likewise, as does this bucket of sloppy thought: https://theconversation.com/islamophobia-in-western-media-is-based-on-false-premises-151443

    On consideration of its holy book and doctrines, I reject Islam. So I suppose that makes me an islamophobe to such learned thinkers as these.

  5. Omar Avatar
    Omar

    I should add that that link I cited asserts the following: “Islamophobia is an apt term for classifying inaccurate assumptions concerning Muslims and Islam. Those forwarding an anti-Muslim agenda believe that their viewpoints are coherent, but as Eli Massey and Nathan J. Robinson point out, the function of a prejudice ‘leads us to believe that our generalizations are based on reason and evidence, even when reason and evidence actually point in an entirely different direction.’

    “The main assertion that Muslims largely support extremist violence is groundless. Because Islamophobia distorts the western image of Muslims, scientific studies serve as an important corrective in two important ways. First, they expose Islamophobic attitudes that have gripped the West since 9/11 and second, they help to decrease the spread of anti-Muslim vitriol by providing a rational forum for discussion.”

  6. Mostly Cloudy Avatar
    Mostly Cloudy

    Omar: I don’t endorse the “Islamophobia” definition either. I believe no religion or belief system should be exempt from criticism.

    I support the fact that the UK government used the term ‘anti-Muslim hostility” instead of “Islamophobia”. That’s why the Humanists UK endorsed the former definition.

  7. Mostly Cloudy Avatar
    Mostly Cloudy

    Omar: “On consideration of its holy book and doctrines, I reject Islam.”

    I agree with you. I also reject Islam.

    That said, I’ve never had a bad experience with actual followers of Islam. The Muslims I’ve worked with and befriended are all nice people, whose contributions to the society I live in have been beneficial.

    Also, you can’t deny that a large part of the success of odious political figures like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, and Narendra Modi has been due to their demonizing of Muslim people.

    They don’t disagree with the “non-empirical philosophy” held by Muslims.

    They and their ideological allies have scapegoated and vilified Muslim people as part of their nefarious political programs, and thus added greatly to the suffering of millions, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

  8. Omar Avatar
    Omar

    NB: Any religion can be classified as a ‘non-empirical philosophy.’ They are all, to my knowledge, based on non-falsifiable and believe-it-if-you-want-to claims made by some prophet of long ago; eg Moses, Yeshua bar Joseph, Zoroaster, Mo.

    Even Popeye, with his holy spinach.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts