Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

By "we" I am talking primarily about here in the UK but I think the question applies more broadly across Western Europe. Technically blasphemy laws in the UK were abolished in 2008 and the last successful prosecution for blasphemy was back in 1977.

But back in February this year a man who burned pages of the Quran (in solidarity with a man who was murdered in Sweden ahead of the verdict in his criminal trial for burning four Qurans in separate incidents) pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially or religiously aggravated intentional harassment or alarm".

A second man was charged with a crime after burning a Quran, this time outside the Turkish Embassy in London. He was charged with ‘intent to cause against religious institution of Islam, harassment, alarm or distress’.

So while it is not technically illegal to burn the Quran, to do so in public will likely be seen as doing so with "intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress" against those who follow Islam. But note that burning other holy books is far less likely to lead to violent protests and public outrage as we see with Islam so surely what we have are essentially de facto blasphemy laws that protect Islam. And we are rewarding people who violently protest rather than protecting the rights to free speech and expression.

And it is not just about burning the Quran. A few years ago a teacher who allowed a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed to be passed around class had to go into hiding after protests outside the school led him to be suspended and to receive death threats.

But instead of doing more to stand up for freedom of expression our government is considering adopting a strong definition of "islamophobia" into law that many believe goes well beyond merely protecting muslims from prejudice and discrimination to protection from having to endure criticism of their beliefs.

Back in the day, Monty Python got into some fairly hot water with their film "The Life of Brian" which satirised the story of Jesus Christ. Such a film would likely not have as much difficulty if it was released today but I dread to think of the reaction if a similar film satirising Islam was made now.

[Pattern-chaser]

By "we" I am talking primarily about here in the UK but I think the question applies more broadly across Western Europe. Technically blasphemy laws in the UK were abolished in 2008 and the last successful prosecution for blasphemy was back in 1977.

But back in February this year a man who burned pages of the Quran (in solidarity with a man who was murdered in Sweden ahead of the verdict in his criminal trial for burning four Qurans in separate incidents) pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially or religiously aggravated intentional harassment or alarm".

A second man was charged with a crime after burning a Quran, this time outside the Turkish Embassy in London. He was charged with ‘intent to cause against religious institution of Islam, harassment, alarm or distress’.

So while it is not technically illegal to burn the Quran, to do so in public will likely be seen as doing so with "intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress" against those who follow Islam. But note that burning other holy books is far less likely to lead to violent protests and public outrage as we see with Islam so surely what we have are essentially de facto blasphemy laws that protect Islam. And we are rewarding people who violently protest rather than protecting the rights to free speech and expression.

And it is not just about burning the Quran. A few years ago a teacher who allowed a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed to be passed around class had to go into hiding after protests outside the school led him to be suspended and to receive death threats.

But instead of doing more to stand up for freedom of expression our government is considering adopting a strong definition of "islamophobia" into law that many believe goes well beyond merely protecting muslims from prejudice and discrimination to protection from having to endure criticism of their beliefs.

Back in the day, Monty Python got into some fairly hot water with their film "The Life of Brian" which satirised the story of Jesus Christ. Such a film would likely not have as much difficulty if it was released today but I dread to think of the reaction if a similar film satirising Islam was made now.

I think we passed a new law, didn't we? I seem to remember (!!) that it protected only Moslems — a very bad mistake, in my opinion. It's a good law, but it should apply to all religions, all forms of hate speech, not just one. So I agree with your sentiment.

But is there a great deal more than this, for us to discuss here, in this topic?

[Fried Egg]

Should publicly burning the Quran, satirising the prophet Mohammed or other similar kinds of thing be regarded as Islamophobic?

Do people have a right to protection from feeling harassed, alarmed or distressed when someone criticises or disrespects their religion?

[Fried Egg]

(by the way, I'm unaware of any recently passed law that protects only Muslims.)

[Pattern-chaser]

Perhaps I misremembered? It happens more often these days...

[Good_Egg]

I seem to remember (!!) that it protected only Moslems — a very bad mistake, in my opinion. It's a good law, but it should apply to all religions, all forms of hate speech, not just one. So I agree with your sentiment.

It's a good principle - that all citizens should be equal under the law, that it should offer any particular type of "protection" to everybody or nobody.

But if you try to apply that principle to all belief-systems, religious or otherwise, whether they have hundreds of millions of adherents or only a handful, what does such a law look like ?

[Fried Egg]

I think we should be able to protest against any religion. And that such protests should be able to take the form of burning holy texts or satirising holy figures.

[Pattern-chaser]

I seem to remember (!!) that it protected only Moslems — a very bad mistake, in my opinion. It's a good law, but it should apply to all religions, all forms of hate speech, not just one. So I agree with your sentiment.

It's a good principle - that all citizens should be equal under the law, that it should offer any particular type of "protection" to everybody or nobody.

But if you try to apply that principle to all belief-systems, religious or otherwise, whether they have hundreds of millions of adherents or only a handful, what does such a law look like ?

I imagine that such a law looks like a tolerant guideline, that shows respect for all belief-systems. But not actual *acceptance* of those beliefs, of course. And such basic laws as are already in place, like those prohibiting murder, rape, and so forth, would continue to apply. Even if belief-system-dogma is not upheld. Sacrificing virgins is no longer permitted.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think we should be able to protest against any religion. And that such protests should be able to take the form of burning holy texts or satirising holy figures.

In other words, you require the Freedom to Insult, that Elon Musk bought Twitter to maintain and guarantee. This is another issue, and you already know *my* feelings about it, so I won't state them again.

[LuckyR]

So should the act of insulting and inciting Pacifists (who will ignore the actions) and identical actions against White Supremacists (who are highly likely to retaliate) be handled the same by the authorities?

Should pouring some flammable liquid on a building and throwing a match on it be handled the same if one episode uses motor oil and a second uses gasoline?

[Fried Egg]

I think we should be able to protest against any religion. And that such protests should be able to take the form of burning holy texts or satirising holy figures.

In other words, you require the Freedom to Insult, that Elon Musk bought Twitter to maintain and guarantee. This is another issue, and you already know *my* feelings about it, so I won't state them again.

Can you insult an idea, an institution, or a religion? Or is it only people that get insulted? Some people will feel insulted whenever an idea they believe in deeply gets criticised so if you think people have a right not to feel insulted when something they believe in is criticised, you are not only advocating for blasphemy laws but pretty much for all ideas to be protected from criticism.

Which, to my mind, is down right wrong and dangerous for society.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think we should be able to protest against any religion. And that such protests should be able to take the form of burning holy texts or satirising holy figures.

In other words, you require the Freedom to Insult, that Elon Musk bought Twitter to maintain and guarantee. This is another issue, and you already know *my* feelings about it, so I won't state them again.

Can you insult an idea, an institution, or a religion? Or is it only people that get insulted? Some people will feel insulted whenever an idea they believe in deeply gets criticised so if you think people have a right not to feel insulted when something they believe in is criticised, you are not only advocating for blasphemy laws but pretty much for all ideas to be protected from criticism.

Which, to my mind, is down right wrong and dangerous for society.

Let's not go round this again. Humans feel insulted if one insults their deeply held beliefs. I don't want to stop criticism, but only insults, which are not the same thing.

[Sy Borg]

I don't want to stop criticism, but only insults, which are not the same thing.

Today, criticism is regularly treated as an insult, which allows people to claim moral high ground.

We two had this very issue on another thread, where I said you had engaged in virtue signalling, which was meant as criticism but you claimed it was abuse.

Modern Islam is a blight on the world, creating extraordinary conflict, suffering and subjugation.

Fair's fair, if it's illegal to blaspheme against Islam then it must be illegal for Islamists to speak out against western secularism. Or better, simply have open disagreements, and may the best arguments win.

[Fried Egg]

Humans feel insulted if one insults their deeply held beliefs. I don't want to stop criticism, but only insults, which are not the same thing.

I guess framing something like the burning of the Quran as "criticism" is not quite right - I would say that it is more of a protest, an attack on a symbol of Islam. But aren't all protests symbolic in this way? Some people burn flags in protests. Or satirise / insult the institutions that they are protesting against. Should protests all be banned because the people who believe deeply in the things others will feel insulted?

In the 'Freedom of Speech', thread, you seemed to agree that the insult/hate is in the intent of the speaker, not in the feelings of the one who hears it. So why can't someone protest against the ideology of Islam without the intent to hurt Muslims? Can one not hate Islam without hating the people that follow the religion? Just as one might hate capitalism without necessarily hating those that believe in it?

There is no clear distinction between criticism and insult. You are now including protests and satire as "insults" but would it even stop there? Do you think the fanatics who sent death threats to the teacher that showed cartoons of the prophet Mohammed around the classroom would not also see a simple critical argument against Islam as just as insulting?

From the understandable desire to protect individuals from discrimination, persecution and harassment because of some immutable characteristic, we are seeing major scope creep towards protecting them from anything that might hurt their feelings. And hence the de facto re-introduction of blasphemy laws against Islam.

[Sy Borg]

Should we ban Life of Brian? Some Christians would see it as insulting. Then again - up to a point - who cares what they think - or what fundie Muslims think? Not that I recommend giving them trouble but if we can't laugh at their ridiculousness, then we can't laugh at any human ridiculousness, in which case we can't laugh. Being politically incorrect is much more fun. I'm fine with people satirising me, and the the things I care about, as long as they aren't hateful.

Ultimately, the old cliché (since Marcus Aurelius) is true that we can't control what others think about us, but we can control how we respond.