MP Shah needs to recognize that there is a difference between destroying someone else’s work and banning someone else from creating new works. Nowhere in the law does it say they can’t erect caricatures of Churchill doing absurd things or even erect a plethora of snickering statues pointing at any historical statue. That aside, 10 years is tremendously harsh.
Surely the statute “criminal damage” was sufficient? No? Well then the law is an ass…(thats another name for mule in case you are american) tho I suppose it works either way..
M27, I agree: Vandalism should be vandalism, and assault should be assault. Special interest extensions have no place in law.
Peter Nason: Shah also needs to look up what ‘begs the question’ means. She (or do I mean ‘they’?) and the entire BBC editorial staff.
I hold out little hope for “begs the question.” As does the dictionary on my computer, based on Oxford, I think. It lists “invite an obvious question” first, and “assume the truth of” second. That second meaning, which understand to be the correct one, will never come back to dominance, and “begs the question” will just mean “we are too stupid to deal with things like this” for the rest of our lives.
In Kungsträdgården in Stockholm stands an equestrian statue of Carolus XII Rex, the teenage warrior king who took on Russia (and lost) with his gloved hand extended commandingly in the general direction of St Petersburg.
Well, the hand happens to be 11 1/2 inches long, we are told. What luck that it isn’t just a trifle longer, or the hand would have been a foot!
On a gentler scale, it has been a subversive movement to knit scarves, wool hats etc for the freezing bronzes. Would the excellent MP Shaw object to such works too? Now, that question will not beg nor bend knees!
Oozoid, I disagree. The same criminal outcome may be punished differently, for example depending on the motivation.
For example, a killing done through negligence may be punished as negligent homicide, while another killing done for a reason and thought through in advance may be punished as first degree murder.
Another example: hate crimes. A hate crime has the extra intent to threaten and intimidate a target group. If I go down the road and start a campfire on a neighbor’s lawn, that may be punished in a number of ways; but it’s a much more serious crime in the United States to burn a cross on the lawn of a Black person. The second fire is a KKK symbol and is meant as a threat, to intimidate Black people as a group.
A third example: violence may not simply be violence. Violence done to make people fear, and thereby cause political change is more serious, and we characterize it as terrorism. We punish it more severely.
The difference in the examples is not the seriousness of the outcome, but the motivation for the crime.
Laripu I agree. But in this case. The charge of “criminal damage” is used for somebody damaging public or private property. Accidental damage can occur obviously but in most cases that can surely be ascertained. Ms Shah is again hoping to get blasphemy laws in through the back door as all religious nutters try…
Considering that Jesus endorsed slavery in the bible, his protest here strikes me as being more than a bit disingenuous. At least Mo plays his cards face-up.
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
December 7, 2022
MP Shah needs to recognize that there is a difference between destroying someone else’s work and banning someone else from creating new works. Nowhere in the law does it say they can’t erect caricatures of Churchill doing absurd things or even erect a plethora of snickering statues pointing at any historical statue. That aside, 10 years is tremendously harsh.
I find the glut of vile statues of the tortured body of our Lord and Savior hanging from a cross too gross to justify such public exposure. Amen.
Surely the statute “criminal damage” was sufficient? No? Well then the law is an ass…(thats another name for mule in case you are american) tho I suppose it works either way..
M27, I agree: Vandalism should be vandalism, and assault should be assault. Special interest extensions have no place in law.
Peter Nason: Shah also needs to look up what ‘begs the question’ means. She (or do I mean ‘they’?) and the entire BBC editorial staff.
I hold out little hope for “begs the question.” As does the dictionary on my computer, based on Oxford, I think. It lists “invite an obvious question” first, and “assume the truth of” second. That second meaning, which understand to be the correct one, will never come back to dominance, and “begs the question” will just mean “we are too stupid to deal with things like this” for the rest of our lives.
I can’t wait until the U.S. enacts laws like this… *sigh*
P.S. Typo in panel 2. “Colonialst”
On statues and their inherent silliness:
In Kungsträdgården in Stockholm stands an equestrian statue of Carolus XII Rex, the teenage warrior king who took on Russia (and lost) with his gloved hand extended commandingly in the general direction of St Petersburg.
Well, the hand happens to be 11 1/2 inches long, we are told. What luck that it isn’t just a trifle longer, or the hand would have been a foot!
On a gentler scale, it has been a subversive movement to knit scarves, wool hats etc for the freezing bronzes. Would the excellent MP Shaw object to such works too? Now, that question will not beg nor bend knees!
Brilliant cartoon, Author.
Oozoid, I disagree. The same criminal outcome may be punished differently, for example depending on the motivation.
For example, a killing done through negligence may be punished as negligent homicide, while another killing done for a reason and thought through in advance may be punished as first degree murder.
Another example: hate crimes. A hate crime has the extra intent to threaten and intimidate a target group. If I go down the road and start a campfire on a neighbor’s lawn, that may be punished in a number of ways; but it’s a much more serious crime in the United States to burn a cross on the lawn of a Black person. The second fire is a KKK symbol and is meant as a threat, to intimidate Black people as a group.
A third example: violence may not simply be violence. Violence done to make people fear, and thereby cause political change is more serious, and we characterize it as terrorism. We punish it more severely.
The difference in the examples is not the seriousness of the outcome, but the motivation for the crime.
I have no opinion yet about the state law.
When is a statue update ‘vandalism’ and when is it an ‘intervention’?
Potayto / Potahto – isn’t it all a matter of taste?
Laripu I agree. But in this case. The charge of “criminal damage” is used for somebody damaging public or private property. Accidental damage can occur obviously but in most cases that can surely be ascertained. Ms Shah is again hoping to get blasphemy laws in through the back door as all religious nutters try…
Hate crime is an obvious example of this when applied as islamaphobia…
Considering that Jesus endorsed slavery in the bible, his protest here strikes me as being more than a bit disingenuous. At least Mo plays his cards face-up.