From the BBC News website (assorted excerpts):The government has signalled that it will bring forward plans to repeal the law of blasphemy, in an effort to head off a rebellion by Labour MPs. Labour MP Keith Vaz told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "A lot of MPs, including myself, would have voted for it - because this is a pretty archaic law."
Is it a sign o' the times that Keith Vaz has seemed to have changed his tune? In March 1989, he led a protest in Leicester against Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses. At this event, Vaz addressed 3,000 Muslim demonstrators, stating "today we celebrate one of the great days in the history of Islam and Great Britain" and attacked the Labour Party as a "godless party". In February 1990, he wrote in The Guardian newspaper urging Salman Rushdie not to publish the book in paperback because "there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech". Some British Muslims called for Rushdie to be tried under English law for blasphemy, but no charges were laid, as the English legal system recognises blasphemy only against the Christian faith.
Keith Vaz, a Roman Catholic Labour "Godless Party" MP who campaigned on behalf of Muslim's against Rushdie's apostasy now wants to do away with this type of law. Would it seem that he now wants to encourage a godless society? Does anyone know wether he has had a genuine change of heart?
Say whatever's the trendy thing to say. I'm not out to call the bloke a hypocrite, but it worries me that some politicians seem to think that they can get away with talking bullshit just for the purpose of raising their profile.
I wonder if Keith's on MySpace?
8 comments:
He's not a politician, he's a very naughty boy.
I don't know about Keith Vaz, but I think the government is generally very confused about the role of religion at the moment. I'd agree with Nicholas Hynter that we have ' a secular country based on a common bond of decency which includes free speech...' but then why are they so keen on opening more faith schools?
I'd go with hypocrite. It's the default when judging politicians.
Besides, it's no problem to get rid of the blasphemy law when you've got a far more all-encompassing one for 'incitement to religious hatred'.
Look the wrong way at the wrong religious nutter and it's "You're fucking nicked, me old beauty!" (to continue the Python theme that you've got going here).
I'd trust Keith Chegwin more.
Howesy - I've heard some very dark things about him from reliable sources. But let's focus on the bright side of life, eh?
Annie - Yes, and I'm sure you're more aware of this than most. That confusion trickles down to the voters too. Or does it?
We have, for example, pupils of different faiths whose parents try to enlist them into a different faith school because of the good reputation of it.
Parents who try to enlist their kids into schools of different boroughs and politicians who speak in favour of state schools while their kids attend private schools.
I don't think it's confusion, it's the survival of the fittest at all costs. I'm quite cynical like that.
JPT - Spot on. Incitement to religious hatred, hmmm? How far could the authorities use that one and to what extent? If someone proclaims to be an aetheist and someone else is offended by it, could the aetheist be prosecuted? Remember, being aetheist is deluded, even satanic to some faiths and therefore abhorrent, which can manifest in the most virulent fanatic getting offended.
We've all got free speech - just watch what you say.
Geoff - What? Even when he was on that constant bender whilst married to Philbin?
Bollocks.
I spelt atheist incorrectly.
Muchos apologisimos.
You have made my head spin Istvanski. Well done.
Hello Dick. Are you still motel hopping?
Post a Comment