Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Britain poised to enact blasphemy laws?
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 18:36:24 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <viad78$leo5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vi7pfq$3m88$3@dont-email.me> <ll0fkjtrcfd7lp6hsb3kiv37jnccjhsu6q@4ax.com> <vi84ji$6boo$1@dont-email.me> <ln6hkj5hefl008f7rsu4q1tgvliuckoj10@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 19:36:25 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ec816359465b93d66ec097b828403e7";
	logging-data="703237"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/T42s4qfV2BAw8L5Nh4T5RrjaRVFUJEPo="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bDYaXoh6/F6JZn4r8KnCEDkNrNk=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 3040

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 27 Nov 2024 21:57:06 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>>The BlackBeltBarrister points out that this proposed law could very well 
>>>>become an anti-blasphemy law, severely limiting the freedom of speech 
>>>>that Britons enjoy.

>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y23o8wsie-c [17 minutes]

>>>I have no problem with that if it's PHYSICAL desecration which has
>>>certainly happened in Canada

>>Oh for gawd's sake H.G., "desecration" isn't a property crime. An act of
>>desecration has been committed if, say, a Koran is placed or thrown on
>>the ground, even if the Koran's owner did it himself. It's any act that
>>might be seen as disrespectful by a follower of the religion.

>I strongly disagree with you since Muslims (far more than adherents of
>other faiths) react violently to any slight on their religion.

You're not hearing me.

Desecration CANNOT be criminalized in a liberal society without
religious establishment. CANNOT

In a liberal society, the aspects of desecration MUST BE ignored because
the state cannot define them without establishing religion. Adherents to
the religion CANNOT define them on behalf of the state.

The criminal code can define crimes against property and crimes against
persons, but only in a religiously neutral manner and without
considering desecration at all.

You're wrong for not objecting to the proposed law if its use is limited
to "physical desecration" because, if the religious item desecrated is
somebody else's property, then it's already defined as a property crime.

You are refusing to understand that there's no property crime if the
property has been destroyed by its owner. But a law criminalizing
desecration would apply to mishandling or destruction of one's own
property if it's done in such a way that it offends religious
sensibilities.

That's illiberal.

With religious establishment, society isn't liberal. Only then can
desecration be defined.

>. . .