It’s not necessarily that I wish to distinguish between those two things - but that the law must. We cannot punish for thoughts, simply for actions. That’s a legal necessity and doing otherwise leads to a terrorist state. I cannot be liberal and insist upon ‘a lack of harm’ as the sufficient and necessary position for a liberal state but make an exception on a personal belief, then I’m only giving the illusion of liberalism.

However, the second someone steps from thoughts to behaviour and causes any harm, particularly to children, then society should have no hesitation and no shortage of response. There must be no middle ground and no ‘cultural’ exceptions, either religious or sociological.

I maintain a strong dividing line between moral and legal in arguments - and think we should always be updating laws rather than applying arbitrary arguments no matter how morally compelling they are.