Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “tsar”, came with a clarifying note:
QED. The Free Speech Union has a pretty good write-up on this.
Here’s the gist of that article:
Last week the Government published its long-awaited official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — and announced that it will appoint an “anti-Muslim hostility tsar”.
The proposal forms part of the Government’s new action plan, Protecting What Matters, which ministers say is intended to “strengthen social cohesion” and “tackle division”.
The Free Speech Union — which was not consulted despite raising serious concerns about the impact the definition could have on freedom of speech — is launching a legal challenge against the Government.
The FSU has long warned that the definition would have a chilling effect on free speech and revive Britain’s blasphemy laws.
In practice, the definition amounts to a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door — 18 years after Parliament voted to abolish such laws. Writing recently in The Times, the former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Falkner, described the proposal as “a two-tier policy — the enemy of equality and of community cohesion — in its purest form” and “a key step towards a blasphemy law”.
The definition is vague and subjective, and the Free Speech Union fears that it will be weaponised to silence legitimate debate about Islam, Muslims, and Islamic beliefs, practices and history.
Although the Secretary of State, Steve Reed, has insisted the definition will not have a chilling effect on free speech, early reactions suggest otherwise. Within 45 minutes of the announcement, the pro-Gaza independent MP Iqbal Mohamed asked whether the definition could be incorporated into the Seven Principles of Public Life — the standards that public office holders, including MPs, are expected to follow.
There are in fact no blasphemy laws in most of the UK. As Wikipedia notes,
Blasphemy laws dating back to the medieval times were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2021. Equivalent laws remain in Northern Ireland but have not been used for many years.
And here’s the official UK government definition of “Islamophobia”. Bolding of the problematic parts—parts that could chill anti-Islamic speech—is mine.
Anti-Muslim hostility is intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts – including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated – that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim, including where that perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance. It is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals. It is engaging in unlawful discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.
Of course promoting criminal attacks against any religious groups should be illegal, but that is action, not speech. In the U.S., criticism of Islam, or even of Muslims because of their perceived beliefs, is legal under the First Amendment. In the U.S. you can, for example, say “Gas the Jews,” or “The Jews control the world”. Saying similar things about Muslims or members of other faiths is similarly legal. The only criticism of Jews, Muslims, Christians and the like that is prohibited in America includes words designed to immediately provoke predictable violence (whether that be personal “fighting words” or public proclamations), and defamation,
You can see where the definition shades into prohibiting criticizing the religion itself, and the problematic use of “inferring intent”. It’s a slippery slope, and I suspect that this law will have the opposite effect of strengthening social cohesion and reducing divisiveness in the UK. Importantly, since there are no equivalent laws for any other religious group (as far as I know), Jesus’s criticism is on the mark. This is what happens when a group demands special privileges for itself, and those privileges are granted because of fear of a hostile reaction if they’re not granted. Below, Mo shows precisely the kind of reaction that proponents of the law say will not happen:
We’ll see what Charlie Hebdo makes of this.
The word “Anti-Muslim” fits the form of loaded language, or a thought-terminating cliché, as described in Chapter 22 of :
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism — A Study of “Brainwashing” in China
Robert J. Lifton
W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., New York
1961, 1989 (UNC Press)
(PDF versions exist)
… most language inventions with “Anti-” in them are very effective at shutting down thought (“the language of nonthought” – per Lionel Trilling as quoted in Lifton) and getting the masses to go along with the program. Consider, “anti-littering”, “anti-Cancer”, “anti-bullying”, etc. “You wouldn’t want to be against those projects, would you? Join us – no? Oh look everyone – look who supports littering!” See how that works?
In the present case, it is extremely effective because it antagonizes by playing off a genuine and relevant “anti-” word that is substantially backed up with evidence across the centuries : Antisemitism.
The Gnostic parasitic relationship here is very clear (IMHO) – braiding a new ideology together with a firmly established idea.
Governments historically punish blasphemy in order that God will not visit His wrath upon a realm that disrespects Him. Anti-blasphemy law presupposes a belief in the Deity. This British initiative is something else. Here, the government will punish Islamophobia in order that Muslims will not visit their wrath on a realm that disrespects them. It’s not necessary that Britons (or Muslims for that matter) believe in Allah, or in any Deity at all. It’s only necessary that the British government fears Muslims.
Politics, not religion, is in play here. That’s why the adherents of no other religion, or atheists, are being protected from being disrespected, only Muslims.
I don’t think using this definition is wise. However, I would invite a comparison to the definition of antisemitism discussed a few months ago and our collective reactions to both definitions.
This is not meant as disrespect (Ihave a great deal of respect for our host), but rather as an exercise in examining ones bias.
No umbrage taken, but remember that the Islamophobia definition may well bring back blasphemy laws in the UK, where they were discarded. I don’t see the new definition of antisemitism as bringing back blasphemy laws in the UK (or in the US, where they don’t exist either).
While here in Germany I do not see a return of blasphemy laws, you specifically mentioned the chilling of speech and slippery slope issues.
Given that there is a social stigma attached to being called an antisemite (as it should), a vague and broad definition will either chill speech or weaken the stigma.
In summary:
I am for freedom of speech and support and resilience instead of stricter speech codes and more prosecution.
While here in Germany I do not see a return of blasphemy laws, you specifically mentioned the chilling of speech and slippery slope issues.
Well, it doesn’t need to return because it never really left. Germany still has a blasphemy law on the books, although to be fair, it is more of a “don’t provoke the easily offended, because they may cause a ruckus and riot in the streets and we don’t want that”-law.
According to GoogleAI:
Germany’s “defamation of religions” law (§ 166 of the Criminal Code) prohibits insulting religious or ideological groups, but only if the action is deemed capable of disturbing the public peace. This law protects against inciting hatred, rather than enforcing piety, punishable by up to three years in prison.
Poor Jesus. Only half an hour later he was seen being dragged away by the anti-Muslim hostility tsar’s oprichniki. Since this incident, no one knows his whereabouts or whether he is still alive or dead (or resurrected again).
Schrödinger’s messiah
While I also receive Jesus & Mo directly from Patreon, I get so much more out of it when I read it on WEIT, with your additional background material and insightful comments (and the comments of fellow readers as well) . Thank you!