From: julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   If the Crown Prosecution Service gets their way, we could very well be   
   living in a country with an Islamic blasphemy law.   
      
   Last February, Hamit Coskun burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate   
   in Knightsbridge in a one-man protest against what he perceives as the   
   Islamification of his home country, Turkey. As he shouted, “Islam is the   
   religion of terrorism”, a religious fanatic, Moussa Kadri, violently   
   attacked him. He spat at him, kicked him and slashed at him with a blade.   
      
   Naturally, one would assume that of the two men, the individual wielding   
   a knife on the streets of London would face the full force of the law.   
   Instead, the attacker avoided jail time, while Hamit — a man who had   
   fled persecution in Turkey — was convicted of a religiously aggravated   
   public order offence. Little has been said about the Deliveroo rider who   
   reportedly joined in the assault.   
      
   Burning a holy scripture — any holy scripture — is undoubtedly   
   controversial. But it is not illegal.   
      
   Just because something offends polite society does not make it a crime.   
   This case goes to the heart of freedom of expression and protest — and   
   to the proper limits of the criminal law.   
      
   Parliament abolished blasphemy laws in England and Wales 18 years ago,   
   under the last Labour government. Scotland followed suit in 2021 through   
   the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act. The last execution for   
   blasphemy in Britain took place in 1697. We rightly regarded such laws   
   as relics of a less tolerant age.   
      
   It is also worth remembering that Britain’s historic blasphemy laws   
   protected Christianity alone. Yet we now stand on the cusp of something   
   altogether different: a de facto Islamic blasphemy code that would   
   silence criticism of Islam and its practices. And it is emerging not   
   through Parliament, but through the combined and intentioned actions of   
   the Labour government and the Crown Prosecution Service.   
      
   In October, it appeared that some rare common sense had prevailed. Mr   
   Justice Bennathan overturned Hamit’s conviction, recognising that while   
   his actions may have been deeply upsetting to Muslims, freedom of   
   expression “must include the right to express views that offend, shock   
   or disturb.”   
      
   The Crown Prosecution Service was not prepared to leave it there.   
      
   The CPS has sought to overturn that ruling on appeal. The stakes could   
   not be higher. If the Crown succeeds, it will effectively revive   
   Britain’s blasphemy laws. It will send a message that criticism of   
   Islam, even in the context of political protest, may be treated as   
   criminal if it causes offence. Most concerningly of all, it will signal   
   to religious fanatics that should they wish to violently enforce the   
   Islamic blasphemy code, they can do so with the nod of the CPS.   
      
   It is inconceivable that someone would be prosecuted in Starmer’s   
   Britain for setting a copy of the Bible alight – a point that the then   
   Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick articulated last year when he   
   questioned whether the CPS would even bat an eyelid should someone have   
   burnt a Torah scroll outside the Israeli embassy or a Bible outside the   
   Apostolic Nunciature. The principle must be consistent. The law cannot   
   operate on different standards depending on the religion concerned.   
      
   In what may be the most damning indictment of all, senior figures in the   
   Trump administration have indicated they would consider granting Hamit   
   Coskun political asylum should his conviction ultimately stand. The   
   notion that Britain — the birthplace of free speech— could produce its   
   first free speech refugee is a damning indictment of Keir Starmer’s   
   government .   
      
   Hamit himself has said that if he loses, he will have no choice but to   
   flee once again — this time across the Atlantic. If he wins, it will set   
   an important precedent affirming that freedom of expression in this   
   country still means something.   
      
   But even if the CPS loses, the broader direction of travel remains   
   troubling.   
      
   A blasphemy law may yet arrive in another form — through the   
   Government’s proposed official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”,   
   formerly branded as Islamophobia. This ever-expanding definition is   
   expected to include concepts such as racialisation and prejudicial   
   stereotyping. However well-intentioned, such elastic language risks   
   having a chilling effect on free speech and silencing legitimate debate   
   on issues ranging from Islamist extremism to the grooming gang scandal.   
      
   Perhaps most alarming of all is the composition of the working group   
   tasked by Angela Rayner with drafting this definition. An investigative   
   briefing by the Free Speech Union found that all five members appointed   
   to the group have had connections to Islamist-linked organisations,   
   including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Muslim Engagement and   
   Development (MEND). That alone warrants serious scrutiny.   
      
   Britain abolished its blasphemy laws because they were incompatible with   
   a free society. We understood that beliefs — religious or otherwise —   
   are not entitled to protection from insult, however distasteful.   
      
   If the CPS appeal succeeds, we will have taken a decisive step backwards.   
      
      
   Max Thompson   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)