In the Sunday Times, Kathleen Stock warns that fear of offending is dragging us toward modern blasphemy laws, where protecting feelings trumps the freedom to think and speak clearly. Here’s an excerpt:
In the Commons last week a medieval-sounding concept made a comeback under modern cover. The Labour MP Tahir Ali began his question to the prime minister by noting that it was “Islamophobia awareness week” — so far, so very 21st century — but then suddenly plunged the House backwards in time. Specifically, he suggested the government consider introducing “measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions”.
Rising to answer, the Prime Minister offered a spirited rejection of blasphemy laws in the U.K., emphasising the vital roles of freedom of conscience and expression in a liberal democracy. Only joking — of course he didn’t. In fact he appeared to concede much of Ali’s point. “Desecration is awful and I think it should be condemned across the House,” he solemnly intoned. “We are committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including Islamophobia in all of its forms.”
This exchange was interesting because it brought something buried in talk of Islamophobia out into the light. Most definitions of the term connect it to racism. The all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, for instance, whose definition is endorsed by Labour, says that Islamophobia is “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. And this, I think, is how most people use it — as a shorthand for rejecting a particular form of racist prejudice.
But Ali’s proposal to criminalise blasphemy was not about racism but simply a move in favour of religious protectionism, all the way down. And despite his ecumenical talk of “Abrahamic religions”, the use of the I-word made clear that his main concern was outlawing disrespect to the Quran and its contents, rather than the Christian or Hebrew Bibles. Meanwhile, Starmer’s meek response illustrated the way many in power will make concessions to illiberal Islamists, if only to avoid the perception of racist taint. …
Unless we start to disentangle racial prejudice against ethnic minorities, many of whom tend to be Muslim, from criticism of Islamic teaching, we risk sleepwalking into accepting new blasphemy laws because we are too embarrassed to look racist by protesting against them. As others have pointed out, there are already de facto blasphemy regulations operating in some areas, as shown by the case of the Batley teacher still believed to be in hiding for showing a caricature of Muhammad to his class in 2021. Such shameful episodes are similarly caused by our collective failure to insist aloud that you can cause religious offence to Muslims without being racist, and that the right to do so is fundamental to the British way of life.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Well I don’t think anyone could accuse the UK police of ”racial prejudice against ethnic minorities”. Example 793 showing who gets a free pass to behave like a d*ck because they’re one of ‘the protected ones’ in society. Police are as pathetic as ever here;
https://x.com/HoodedClaw1974/status/1863161462996251047
Can I just ask, why are those Muslim Manchester airport thugs that violently attacked police and broke the nose of one officer still free when this guy, who just so happens to be white, also broke a police officer’s nose but was sent down for 4.5yrs?? Well I think I’ve just answered my own question. Total p*ss-take;
https://x.com/MerseyPolice/status/1861032820899987700
We are ruled by a minority for the minority….
This is hilarious. I would say don’t dignify it by discussing it or even thinking about it but they probably would pass such a law if they could get away with it. And I find the notion of exclusive protection of Abrahamic religions to be even funnier. Can you imagine a decadent crap hole like this one with an overlay of Abrahamic totalitarianism it is just bizarre.
https://www.youtube.com/live/RcxI3F_8pco?si=PMu67jj_MOnV9lrT
Meanwhile plod want Mahyar Tousi to stop by for a chat tomorrow at which time they will decide whether or not to arrest him.
https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FvK1066jWO5Y%3Fsi%3D8aO_oRz-0sxeqViQ%3AzPZUNeMotFpBvUFaO36_So0PJVs&cuid=7594221
The second short video is from Andre Walker. Despite my usual dismissal of him as a bit of a prat this promise of help for Mahyar is genuinely heart-warming.
Well, that hand written notice tells us all where the intolerance lies.
Prophet means intellectual, seer, visionary. Such people will always be attacked until the end of time. Any religion that seeks to prevent attacks upon prophecy is operating in an anti-divine manner. I have even heard saps on Radio 4 calling Mohammed ‘The Prophet’. He isn’t the prophet. He delivered a syncretic teaching based on a number of sources and even in the tone of their holy book there is a sense of doubt. This is nonsense. The whole point of the Christian teaching is the pervasiveness of light. There are many prophets and you can’t ask for them to be protected by law. They wouldn’t want that themselves they want the opposite.
There is no offence. If someone insults the divine in your presence then it is usually passion in the mode of ignorance or some emotional hang up. The fact that a human being says something against your belief system, that you find this hard to bear is simply a testament to your lack of faith. This is all nonsense. Theocracy has devious means of asserting itself and it never has much to to with God except as a means to an end which is as about as sinful as you can get.
“No matter who gets upset”——In an ideal world where everyone is equal that should certainly be the case. But it is quite clear that fear of offending Muslims is at a much higher level than fear of offending other religions. But the problem is that Islam is not just a religion. It is a Political and legal system s well. It will be the end of the free world if people cannot criticise, offend or disrespect Politics or Law. —–But religions should feel comfortable enough in their own skin to just ignore distasteful remarks about their religion.
Part of a free society is the freedom to exchange views on everything without breaking the law. I’m happy to discuss my religious views with someone whose religious views – either in favour of a different religion, or in favour of none – contrast with mine. I may not agree with the other person, and they may not agree with me, but that’s called open discussion or debate, and it’s fundamental to the British way of life. If God is offended by anything that’s said, then God is big enough to deal with it.
We must remain free to discuss contrasting views on religion, just as we must be free to discuss contrasting views on science (take Covid and the climate emergency, for example), politics etc. It’s healthy and actually helps increase understanding of people with different faiths and opinions. The alternative is that we all retreat into the bubble of our own world view and cease interacting with others in society.