Last week, British Labour MP Tahir Ali asked Prime Minister Keir Starmer if the
government would “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of
all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions.” Starmer did
not immediately dismiss the idea of adopting such legislation, sparking fears
about “blasphemy laws” and fears that would be fundamentally at odds with
Britain’s long-established laissez-faire approach to blasphemy, while
resurrecting long-dormant debates settled more than a century ago (the last
occurrence of imprisonment for blasphemy in Britain took place in 1921).





<[link removed]>
<[link removed]>
<[link removed]>
<[link removed]>



Counterpoint Brief: The Fear of Blasphemy Laws in Britain


(New York, N.Y.) – Last week, British Labour MP Tahir Ali asked
<[link removed]>
Prime Minister Keir Starmer if the government would “commit to introducing
measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of
the Abrahamic religions.” Starmer did not immediately dismiss the idea of
adopting such legislation, sparking fears about “blasphemy laws” and fears that
would be fundamentally at odds with Britain’s long-established laissez-faire
approach to blasphemy, while resurrecting long-dormant debates settled more
than a century ago (the last occurrence of imprisonment for blasphemy in
Britain took place in 1921).



The initial question was phrased with reference to Islamophobia Awareness
Month, leading critics to accuse the MP of using legitimate concerns about
anti-Muslim bigotry to protect beliefs—particularly those of Western
Islamists—rather than to protect individuals facing discrimination.



Expert Analysis:



CEP Advisor Liam Duffy:



“In the wake of Denmark’s 2023 law, Western democracies will increasingly come
under pressure to adopt laws which enshrine the concept of ‘Islamophobia,’ and
those which resemble blasphemy laws in all but name. The adoption of such laws
would represent a serious threat to freedom of expression and would harm the
vulnerable communities it purports to protect. In the face of such pressure,
democratic leaders like the British Prime Minister must offer a stronger
defense of our most fundamental freedoms and not be taken in by an illiberal
agenda camouflaged by liberal arguments. Social cohesion and our democratic
rights depend on it.”



CEP Senior Advisor and former UK Ambassador to Yemen, Edmund Fitton-Brown:



“Wholesale definitions of ‘Islamophobia’—those that would be used to justify a
blasphemy law—are ripe to be weaponized by both Islamists and the far-right:
two groups who would love to see the distinction between Muslims and Islamists
disappear. Take, for example, the case of Lord Ian Austin, who was the target
of ‘Islamophobia’ allegations for describing Hamas as “rapists and murderers”
in a tweet. This is a clear example of the term being weaponized to protect
extremists from criticism or scrutiny.



Beyond its too-loose application, the notion of ‘Islamophobia’ itself is
problematic. Britain is the country that produced Monty Python’s Life of Brian.
We protect individuals, not ideas or religions. ‘Islamophobia,’ as a term,
conflates the two.”



In December 2023, Denmark passed a law criminalizing the “inappropriate”
treatment of religious texts. The legislation followed several high-profile
public stunts in which copies of the Quran were intentionally destroyed,
leading to unrest and numerous terror plots.



Denmark’s new “blasphemy law” was widely criticized, including by the United
States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), whose
commissionerdenounced
<[link removed]>
the move as counterproductive and potentially harming the very minorities it
purports to protect. No doubt, the Danish government’s decision was influenced
by painful memories of the 2005/6 Jyllands-Posten affair, when the Scandinavian
country of just 5.5 million people found itself at the center of an
international storm over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed - a storm which
impacted both Danish security and international trade for many years to come.



In fact, CEP research detailing plots and attacks
<[link removed]>
since the 1989 fatwa against Salman Rushie demonstrates that Denmark and other
Scandinavian countries were the targets of more jihadist violence in the years
following the Jyllands-Posten controversy than even al-Qaeda’s more traditional
enemy, the United States.



Consequently, the Danish government openly cited the security environment as a
factor in the adoption of the new legislation, leading Danish human rights
think tank Justitia todescribe
<[link removed]> the
move as “in essence giving in to the Assassin’s veto.”



Because the intentional destruction of religious texts is an ugly, provocative
form of protest, the prospect of its banning tends to raise few eyebrows. But
blasphemy allegations have been brought against people over personal squabbles
and innocuous or accidental actions from Nigeria and Pakistan to Wakefield and
Paris, often resulting in extreme and ferocious violence (even in jurisdictions
where such laws already exist).



CEP Resources:



To watch the CEP Online Roundtable ‘Responding to Blasphemy,’ featuring
Justitia founder Jacob Mchangama and Professor Jytte Klausen, author ofThe
Cartoons that Shook the World, please click here
<[link removed]>
.



To watch a broader discussion on protecting freedom of speech while countering
extremism with Jacob Mchangama and CEP experts Liam Duffy and Ian Acheson,
please clickhere
<[link removed]>
.



###







Unsubscribe
<[link removed]>
|Donate <[link removed]> | Contact Us
<[link removed]>


Were you forwarded this email? Subscribe for yourself here
<[link removed]>
.