Hat tip to British MP Naz Shah for the inspiration.

Discussion (13)¬

  1. Peter Nason says:

    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.

  2. Jesus F Iscariot says:

    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.

  3. M27Holts says:

    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..

  4. Oozoid says:

    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.

  5. Donn says:

    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.

  6. Sheila says:

    I can’t wait until the U.S. enacts laws like this… *sigh*

    P.S. Typo in panel 2. “Colonialst”

  7. Rrr says:

    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!

  8. Mockingbird says:

    Brilliant cartoon, Author.

  9. Laripu says:

    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.

  10. David says:

    When is a statue update ‘vandalism’ and when is it an ‘intervention’?
    Potayto / Potahto – isn’t it all a matter of taste?

  11. M27Holts says:

    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…

  12. M27Holts says:

    Hate crime is an obvious example of this when applied as islamaphobia…

  13. Troubleshooter says:

    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.


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.