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.”
The Prime Minister replied that the Government is “committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division”, including Islamophobia and antisemitism. Ali said that “mindless desecration only serves to fuel division and hatred,” with the Prime Minister adding: “desecration is awful.” A video of Ali’s question has gone viral on X, receiving much criticism.
There has been concern around the re-establishment of blasphemy laws in the UK in recent years. In 2021, a teacher at Batley Grammar School was forced into hiding and received death threats after showing an illustration of the prophet Muhammad in class. Earlier this year, Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP for Batley and Spen, said a report into the incident “makes for deeply disturbing reading”. The independent review, led by Government adviser Sara Khan, described the teacher’s forced exile as a “harrowing example” of “freedom-restricting harassment”.
Another incident in nearby Wakefield last year raised similar worries about the imposition of blasphemy laws, particularly from the Muslim community. In February 2023, four pupils were suspended from a secondary school after a copy of the Quran was damaged. The book remained intact and the head teacher said there was “no malicious intent” from those involved. However, there was much outrage from Muslim parents and a meeting was held with the headteacher and Islamic community leaders.
The debate around Islamophobia and what to do about it has emerged again in the wake of the Southport stabbing attack in July.
The new Labour government blamed the unrest on online misinformation which alleged that the attacker had an Islamic name and was an immigrant. It was later disclosed that his name was Axel Rudakubana, although it was not until three months after the attack that the public were informed that he was in possession of an al-Qaeda manual. Mosques were often the targets of protests and unrest after the stabbings.
In response to Ali’s comments today, the National Secular Society said it is “deeply alarming that an MP is calling for the introduction of new blasphemy laws”. The organisation added: “[/b]Concerningly, the Prime Minister offers no defence of free expression. MPs should uphold values which are foundational to our society — not seek to dismantle them.”
I’m coming round to the view that any cause that has an “awareness month” is probably a grift.
[b]I’m also wondering what the word for “hatred” of Christianity is. I can’t ever remembering hearing one.
Quite how carving out special protections for selected religions (what’s so special about the Abrahamic religions ?) is compatible with all the equalities and human rights legislation on the statute books appears to have been overlooked by this genius of an MP.
Scrap all this nonsense and just treat everyone equally. No special treatment for any pressure group. Think how much we’d save on lawyers. We could get by with a lot fewer MPs if we did that too.
Tahir Ali does not understand British values or their historical development, and his party should endeavour to educate him in them. Perhaps he holds certain cultural values above British ones, in which case perhaps he should reconsider his residency here.
If God isn’t resilient enough to ignore blasphemy from unbelievers then he’s not very strong. My God doesn’t approve or like it, but he doesn’t need man-made laws to protect him.
I’m an atheist, but your position is absolutely correct; intellectually, morally and spiritually.
Any so-called ‘god’ that can’t bear to be criticised wouldn’t be worthy of worship, just as any believer in a god/prophet who can’t bear criticism is a poor example of their faith.
Ali’s request comes from a position of weakness, not strength. We should always bear that in mind.
But the representatives of God (various) have often got very thin skins – because if their God is disrespected then they lose authority.
Exactly what Peter Hitchens warned about. How dare such a demand be made in the British Parliament.
It is time more was written about the heinous blasphemy laws that are routinely abused in Pakistan as a means to persecute religious minorities such as Christians. I’m sick and tired of the cover up that goes on across our media. We have a sizeable and growing population with roots in that country – many occupy positions of great power ( extraordinary isn’t it, given the strident claims made by some of the most successful British Muslims of the rampant islamophobia and racism that stalks this country) Tahir Ali’s parents were from that country and it appears he is intent on bringing that horrific law- that has seen politicians in Pakistan who dared to demand a change or for it to be rescinded assassinated – to further harass the people of this country with.
The world of science and democracy is a de-sacralised world. Is this a mistake that the elected representatives should correct?
It is obviously necessary to hear a debate in the HoC attempting to define how the Popol Vuh or the Papyrus of Hunefer can be desecrated.
If a book which was a ‘religious text’ was remaindered by a bookseller, would that be an act of desecration? Does Butler’s Lives of the Saints count as a religious text?
A document, a shrine, or a grave can be desecrated, but a person can only be disrespected or criticised. Is anyone’s sensibilities likely to be inflamed if the prophet Joel were to be criticised? If anyone in print or in speech does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth as ‘The Lord’ Jesus, is that ‘desecration’?
What penalty should there be for screening the infamous Life of Brian? Would the police have to search for cinematic versions of the speakeasy? “No, officer, the film’s in the can, we aren’t ‘taking it in’.”
Would confining ‘desecrations’ to the prophets of the Abrahamic religions be considered as de-sacralising the founders of the Sikh religion who are regarded as gods?
I was once acquainted with a lady priest of the Church of England who on doing her interfaith outreach visited local places of worship. At the local mosque she was presented with a copy of the Quran. On receiving it she was told she must never place it on the floor, keep it in the ‘smallest room in the house’, and on no account hold it while menstruating.
Who can doubt that the Commons and the Lords possess the wisdom of Solomon sufficient to devise a penalty for just being a woman undergoing a natural bodily process. As well as the capacity to explain to their constituents why this offends the Most High. And the subtlety to ensure that transwomen were not excluded, to avoid adverse implications that would that have on the movement.
These are surely important matters and questions bearing on community relations that Sir Kier ought not to dodge.
Share your thoughts