Thread: The British elites have capitulated to Islamo-censorship

Does freedom of speech include the right to blaspheme? In 21st-century Britain, you’d have thought the answer would be ‘yes, obviously’. Our last blasphemy conviction was in 1977. England’s blasphemy law was abolished in 2008, having been a dead letter for decades. The centuries-long struggle for free speech in this country, as in so many others, was built on defaming gods, kings, clerics, prophets. Without the right to blaspheme, there is no right to speak freely. But in this identitarian age, what was once taken for granted is fast melting into air.

In Britain, in 2025, whether or not you should be able to criticise a religion, mock its practices, burn its texts, is an alarmingly live issue. And when I say ‘a religion’, you know which one I’m talking about. This debate has lit up again this week, following the charges brought against Hamit Coskun for burning a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London in February. His one-man protest against the Islamist turn of Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been chalked up as a religiously motivated public-order offence, drawing the condemnation of shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick and causing an X feud between two MPs. Rupert Lowe – the member for the Very Online right – condemned our backdoor blasphemy laws, while Adnan Hussain – one of the so-called Gaza independents who rode a wave of sectarian, anti-Israel bile into parliament at the last General Election – accused Lowe of singling out Muslims under the guise of freedom of speech.

Hussain’s arguments are as banal as they are illiberal. Free speech isn’t absolute, ackshually. Those who claim to care about Koran-burners are really just racists. Do you know who also burned books? Hitler! What most sticks in the craw is how depressingly pedestrian they are – not simply among the ‘Gaza independents’, but also the liberal elites, who long ago sacrificed genuine liberalism on the altar of multiculturalism. It is their cowardice and relativism that has brought us to this point: where the old Christian blasphemy laws may be long gone, but informal Islamic blasphemy laws are fast taking shape, with hate-speech laws refashioned to forcefield a faith from criticism.

Those shocked to see a case like Coskun’s haven’t been paying attention. Ever since the Rushdie affair, we have witnessed an unholy alliance between Islamist censors, a cowardly political establishment and an increasingly identitarian left. The first protest against The Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie’s ‘blasphemous’ novel which earned him the Ayatollah’s fatwa and almost cost him his life, was not on the subcontinent or in the Middle East, but in Bolton on 2 December 1988. While this movement never succeeded in getting Rushdie’s novel banned in Britain, or extending Britain’s blasphemy laws to cover Islam, it put the fear of Allah into anyone who dared publish a book, display a cartoon or make a statement that some perma-outraged prick, claiming to speak on behalf of Muslims, might deem to be offensive or heretical. This haunts us to this day, as the still-disappeared Batley school teacher or the recent – mercifully foiled – attempts to murder ex-Muslim Hatun Tash show.

Worse still, the government became the Islamo-censors’ useful idiots – with New Labour ushering in laws against ‘incitement to religious hatred’ in 2006 and getting into bed with reactionaries posing as community leaders. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) was one of many groups, presenting itself as the authentic voice of Muslim outrage, that emerged from the anti-Rushie movement. Iqbal Sacranie – who once said ‘death, perhaps, [was] a bit too easy’ an end for Rushdie – was among its founders. He was knighted in 2005, with a BBC profile boasting of his sway in Downing Street and the Home Office. The Labour government briefly broke ties with the MCB in 2009, after its deputy signed a declaration supporting Hamas attacks on Israel and allied troops. Starmer’s Labour claims not to do business with the MCB, even though its ministers and MPs popped up at an MCB do in January. Labour, you might recall, is currently drawing up a definition of ‘Islamophobia’ to impose on government bodies.

The dimwitted line that everyone who rages against blasphemy laws is really raging against Muslims – subjecting them to some kind of bigoted double standard – gets things entirely the wrong way round, laughably so. Firstly, because the debate around blasphemy in 21st-century Britain is not centred on whether it should be illegal to burn the Bible or draw crude cartoons of Ganesh.

Secondly, because if there is any anti-Muslim prejudice at play here it is surely in the notion that Muslims, unlike any other faith or group, are constitutionally incapable of freedom of speech. That they are simply too intolerant or volatile to have their beliefs subjected to debate, ridicule and criticism. That they cannot be full citizens in a liberal, democratic society, essentially. That sounds awfully bigoted to me.

There’s another, darker irony. Those claiming the right to blaspheme is somehow a threat to Muslims should Google the names Asad Shah and Jalal Uddin. To my knowledge, these are the only two men to be murdered in Britain over the past decade for blaspheming against Islam. And both of them were Muslim. Shah, a member of the tiny Ahmadi sect, was stabbed and stomped to death by a Sunni who took offence to his YouTube videos. Uddin was bludgeoned to death by two ISIS fanboys who accused the 71-year-old imam of practising black magic. The world over, ex-Muslims, liberal Muslims and members of minority Muslim sects bear the brunt of this anti-blasphemy hysteria. Those who claim blasphemy laws would tamp down on such violence should take a look at what’s happening in Pakistan, where heretics are punished both by law and by lynchmob – the former only feeding, and justifying, the latter’s murderous intolerance.

Britain’s backdoor blasphemy laws have been decades in the making, inked in blood and cowardice. For the sake of heretics of all faiths and none, it’s time more people plucked up the courage to say ‘No’ to the Islamic hardliners, and the illiberal idiots who enable them.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/0...mo-censorship/

Honestly snubby, do you think anyone here will ever be able to take you seriously?

They certainly won't ever do so thanks to lengthy copy pastes.

But you worship $.

Jews have $.

Therefore...

Should there be a law about islamaphobia Sympl?

Not that anyone cares what I think, I firmly believe that no one has any right not to be offended. People take offense because of their personal choices, it is their choice. If I call a fat person person fat, he/she/they will probably feel offended. Despite it being a matter of fact that they are clinically obese. They could choose to accept it as fact, more likely they'll choose to take offense.

However, I generally don't call obese people fat, because I don't go about looking to cause offense.

If I called a black person black, maybe that is okay or maybe they'll take offense because their preference, their conscious choice, is to be called 'a person of colour'. It's all too hard, I really don't care what offends you. I have lived half my life as an expat and I have been called a few choice names, I don't enjoy it and I don't want to start a war over it, my choice.

There is a responsibility that goes along with freedom of speech. This is where it gets difficult. The final, intractable problem is religion. If your god is a rabbit and mine is a rock we have an intractable problem. It is not, in my mind, a 'hate crime' to suggest that your rabbit is nonsense and I shouldn't be surprised if you denegrate my rock. So I am happy to let you have your rabbit and I'll be happy with my rock. Sorted. That was Lebanon, fifty years ago, rabbits and rocks and all sorts living happily side by side.

Times have changed and governments have struggled to keep up. People easily become polarised, just look at India/Pakistan today. How do governments manage the balance between free speech and common sense? Not easy. In the UK, crack down on muslim extremism and it could become a battlefield. Fail to act and it could become a battlefield.

Originally Posted by Shutree

Not that anyone cares what I think,

Shutree, when I see your name on 'Last Post' I always take a look.

But that was as far as I got.

As for the posts above, only the first few words.

Shutree, has Nong Pu Lua got so bad? To respond to this?

Please come down to spend some time with meself and Yogi, get yersef back on track!

Originally Posted by Mendip

spend some time with meself and Yog

A threesome and half a rat for brekkie irresistabubble!!

^^Looks like a good offer, well timed.

Spiked is very good, I listen to their podcast

Snubby conveniently forgets that his 1st Amendment rights do not cover hate speech.

The fucking simpleton.

It's an invasion!

Daniel Holder, at R Scott & Co, a menswear shop in Cirencester, said most Americans investigating the area wanted to stay in the UK as long as possible as they do not want to go back to the States.

“They spend a lot of money,” he said. “It’s mainly tweed sports jackets, flat caps and knitwear. They watch Peaky Blinders then come in and ask for a cap.”

‘We’re in the Hamptons of England’: Trump sends wealthy Americans fleeing to the Cotswolds | Real estate | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Mendip

Shutree, has Nong Pu Lua got so bad? To respond to this?

Fair comment. As you know, I seldom post late in the day. Too much gin last night and CWMS had something particularly tedious on Netflix. I was struggling to read the clues on the crossword, never mind find answers, and for some reason thought it would be okay to post here. Plus I have a small eye problem that is uncomfortable and making me even more grumpy than usual. The quacks in Udon Thani haven't figured it out so I think a week in Bangkok for a fourth opinion might be in order. I might even see a doctor too. Sadly CWMS got promoted and is busy at a new office so I'll have to travel alone. Needs must.

^ I'll leave a half bottle of Ya Dong with your name on in Bangkok, depending on how today pans out.

That'll cheer you up!

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Snubby conveniently forgets that his 1st Amendment rights do not cover hate speech.

I think you missed the point of the article nitwit.

People easily become polarised, just look at India/Pakistan today

Have they not always been at odds?

Well, I wouldn't say the polarisation came 'easily'.

Originally Posted by bsnub

I think you missed the point of the article nitwit.

The point being...?

'Standard issue' dumb racism, which as you say ignores the limits of the first amendment.

But it looks like your comment sailed way over his head.


Oh well.

The birds have adapted well to British culture and are not afraid to get a round in.
Trouble is they only shag family in the front garden, Snubbles would be ok as they love it in trap 2....

Originally Posted by Shutree

crack down on muslim extremism and it could become a battlefield. Fail to act and it could become a battlefield

There's only one ending and it ain't gonna be happy.

Originally Posted by cyrille

But you worship $.

Jews have $.

Therefore...

Left wing anti semitic lunacy at its finest, congratulations Ciz.

- YouTube

Enjoy the video Ciz

Originally Posted by cyrille

'Standard issue' dumb racism

Islam is not a "race" you nitwit.

AI - the only type of intelligence ever involved in a joe90 post.

And yeah sure - I waste my time watching all of your moronic videos.

............ and this little gem from our pusillanimous mean spirited little tefler up there in the north.

cyrille

But you worship $.
Jews have $.
Therefore...

and then in response to a comment about islam

cyrille

standard issue dumb racism.

every time you post you reinforce your blinkered ignorance, your stupidity and your hypocrisy.