UK: The Soft Return of Islamic Blasphemy Laws

[duluxe]

In modern Britain, even the mildest statement of reality can be enough to trigger a punitive pile-on. The Telegraph reported yesterday that a teacher was sacked, and very nearly banned from working with children, because he told his primary-school pupils that the UK was a Christian country.


The anonymous teacher found himself being referred to his local child-protection board and even at the centre of a police investigation after he told Muslim children off for washing their feet in the sinks of school bathrooms. According to one child who made a complaint against the teacher, he reminded the children that this was not a religious school, and that they were free to attend an Islamic school a mile away if they wanted to. He apparently also told them that Britain is still a Christian state and pointed out that the King was head of the Church of England. This was followed up in the classroom by a lesson about the importance of British values and tolerance.


In response, the teacher was suspended by the school and ultimately sacked in March last year. A month later, he was referred to both the safeguarding board and the Metropolitan Police, for them to investigate an alleged hate crime. The police investigation was fortunately dropped, but the safeguarding board still decided to ban him from working with children in future. The safeguarding officer involved in the case managed to reach the conclusion that, by informing children that Islam was a minority religion in the UK, he had inflicted emotional harm. Thankfully, he was able to appeal the ban and won, and is now suing the local authority with the help of the Free Speech Union (FSU).


It’s hard to imagine a similar situation occurring with children from any other religion. As it was, the school had informally banned prayers in the playground and, as such, by refusing to allow children to perform their ablutions in the loos, the teacher was merely enforcing existing rules. And yet, the disgruntled Muslim pupils and their parents were treated as a priority. In the words of FSU director Toby Young: “If [the teacher] claimed that Islam is the official religion of England, even though that’s not true, I doubt he would have got into any trouble.”


Indeed, the fact that Muslims are regarded as a kind of privileged class in the UK is impossible to ignore. While Christians and Christianity (and to a large extent, Jews and Judaism) are seen as fair game to be the butt of jokes, the object of serious criticism, and even victims of hate, the same cannot be said for Muslims and Islam. Jokes about Jesus are routine and socially acceptable in media, stand-up comedy, and Christmas cards. Meanwhile, poking fun at the Islamic prophet Muhammad can prove career-ruining at best and criminal at worst.


Small wonder, then, that the Labour government is currently working hard to make this official and change the official definition of Islamophobia to one that is more all-encompassing. When Labour was still in opposition in 2019, it adopted the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) definition, which described Islamophobia as being “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” A new working group was set up by Labour in February to draft a new definition, though many cynically expected it to be similar to the last. This October, the group chose to drop references to “Muslimness” and “perceived Muslimness,” likely in response to free-speech concerns—the vagueness of definition would have meant that virtually any criticism of Muslims or Islam would be treated like a form of racism.


The rolling back of this expansive definition was a small victory. But the Telegraph reported last week that critics and those worried about the effects on freedom are being shut out of the consultation process. Although proposals are currently being considered by Communities Secretary Steve Reed, officials at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCL) are refusing to share these with the FSU, which has been campaigning hard against an overly broad definition. The MHCL claims that ministers need “a safe space” to “consider policy options in private,” presumably away from the prying eyes of those who might tell them that the new definition is idiotic and wrong. As Toby Young points out, “the FSU is Britain’s leading free speech advocacy group, so if ministers want some informed feedback on whether the definition will have a chilling effect on free speech, they really should share it with us.”


This certainly seems like a bad omen. If the new Islamophobia definition ends up being anywhere near as nebulous as the PPG one, the UK risks ushering in de facto blasphemy laws. While changing the definition does not automatically change the law, it would likely be adopted by public bodies, local councils, and businesses. It would also be used by police when recording and categorising hate incidents. A broader definition of Islamophobia would almost inevitably generate an apparent ‘increase’ in recorded anti-Muslim hatred, regardless of whether underlying behaviour had actually changed.


As it is, it is already possible for a teacher to lose his job and almost be banned from working with children because of bogus claims of Islamophobia. Imagine how much worse the situation will be if Labour gets its way and manages to foist an even more sensitive definition upon us. Islam, like any other religion, should be open season for mocking and criticism. Teachers should be allowed to show their classrooms cartoons of Muhammad without worrying that they might be hounded out of their community by death threats. Journalists should be able to point out that the mass sexual exploitation of British girls happened almost exclusively at the hands of Pakistani Muslims without being smeared as ‘racist’. Protestors should be free to burn their own copies of the Quran without fear of being assaulted and arrested.


No idea, religion, or belief should be immune from critique or ridicule. No matter how hurtful, we cannot protect any worldview from scrutiny—especially not when some are treated as far more fragile than others. The price of that kind of special pleading is paid by everyone else, when we become too afraid to speak the truth in case it offends.