Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland in 2021. But under new proposals from the UK government, they are about to make a not so surprising comeback. In this new Britain you can blaspheme all you want about Jesus and feel free to burn the Bible, but dare to critique Muhammad or burn a Quran as Hamit Coskun did and things could end very differently for you.
When I wrote about Islamophobia seven years ago there was the usual reaction from those who see a conspiracy theory or a ‘right wing’ exaggeration in everything. Sadly, even in the church, this is seen as an effective way to shut down any discussion. But this subject keeps coming up. And as The Telegraph recently reported, this is not a fantasy threat, but a clear and present danger.
Sir John Jenkins, the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria, has suggested that any criticism of Iran for example could be perceived as hostility towards Islam and invoking hatred against Muslims.
“If you make a point of criticising the way the Islamic Republic seeks to oppress women by mandatory veiling you will be criticised for expressing hostility to a particular facet of being Muslim,” he said.
Let’s take a step back and ask: what is Islamophobia? How did we end up with this word and concept? The term was first coined by the Runnymede Trust in 1997 to describe an ‘unfounded hostility towards Islam’. But what is unfounded? And what is hostility? In 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims defined ‘Islamophobia’ as a ‘type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’. This is such a broad definition that it could be used to silence any criticism of Islam – especially when combined with the British political and police systems' penchant for hate crimes and hate speech, being effectively determined by how the ‘victims’ perceive it.
As a result, we have now got to a stage where, as Niyak Ghorbani, an Iranian dissident and activist, told The Telegraph: “As an Iranian living in England, I can see that a word that is meant to prevent hatred has become a tool to silence criticism of ideology.
“In practice, Islamophobia has become a word that disarms free societies – protecting Islamists who have not yet reached power.”
The government argues that its legislation will not restrict the right to criticise a particular religion, but it is difficult to see how that view can be compatible with the Islamic view that any criticism of Islam, Muhammad or the Quran is hateful. If you doubt this, ask any newspaper or magazine editor if they would ever publish a cartoon of Muhammad! Indeed, would the BBC ever let any of its Sunday preachers, or thought for the day contributors, say anything even remotely critical of Islam?
If you want to know how far our society has regressed from the freedom of speech, press and religion that was so inherent in our Christian foundations, ask yourself: can you imagine Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses being published today?
The government has sought to rebrand Islamophobia as "anti-Muslim hostility" but whatever the case, the effect of an official definition will be to silence critics from all sides. Think of the Iranian feminist and dissenter Maryam Namazie who was ‘no platformed’ for daring to challenge Islamic fundamentalism. Or Nick Lowles, the director of the impeccably progressive Hope Not Hate organisation, who was disinvited from a National Union of Students event for criticising Islamist extremism.
If you want to know where this is leading, look across the English Channel to France where the journalist Yona Faedda has been arrested under France’s hate speech laws and also chillingly been ‘de-banked’, cutting off access to basic financial services.
The problem with the Islamophobia blasphemy law is not that it will lead to a few public prosecutions, but the way that it will be used by the press, universities, corporations and government departments to silence any criticism of Islam. It’s not just that Muslims will be saying ‘you can’t say that’, it will be the institutions of the state enforcing that particular Islamic doctrine.
When you combine this with the ‘cultural’ pressure already being put on police and other civic authorities you can see how this will work out. When police ban a march in London because they are scared of Islamist violence, or they cancel Israeli/Jewish football supporters from Birmingham because of ‘community concerns’ (i.e. Muslim community concerns), then we are in danger of seeing not only the ghettoisation of British cities, but the sectarianisation of British politics. Take for example the alliance between the Greens in Manchester and the Muslim Vote organisation endorsing them in the upcoming Gorton and Denton parliamentary by-election. Given that 30 per cent of the area is now Muslim, this could be a troubling sign of the future for UK politics.
The proposed Islamophobia laws show the growing political power of the Muslim vote. Why else do you think that the government is doing this? They are not planning legislation to deal with Christophobia, or the great hatred of our times – antisemitism. Christians don’t riot when Islamists march through the streets or perform the Islamist version of ‘name and claim it’ prayer. And despite the ever present ‘blood libels’ against Jews there is no danger of Judaism dominating UK society.
There is one other concern - and it is a big one, one which affects Christian magazines like Christian Today and writers like yours truly. At the moment we can publish articles like this, but I can see a day coming in the not-too-distant future when lawyers will suggest that we don’t, and when writers like me will be prosecuted under the Islamophobia blasphemy law for spreading hate against Muslims.
But preaching Christ and his word is not hatred, nor is it any kind of phobia. It is Christian love. As a Christian I am compelled to love my neighbours, including my Muslim ones. And if I believe what Jesus says, it is hardly loving to encourage them to continue on in a religion that takes them away from Christ and the hope found in Him.
In a truly pluralistic society Muslims would be free to declare their faith in Muhammad and say what they like about other contrary beliefs - as would Christians. The fact that we are moving towards government protection of one religion only shows just how far we have moved away from principled pluralism and gone down the rabbit hole of singling out a religion that cannot be blasphemed against.
David Robertson is the former minister of St Peters Free Church in Dundee and a former Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland. He is currently the minister of Scots Kirk Presbyterian Church in Newcastle, New South Wales, and blogs at The Wee Flea.
