From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/24/2026 9:37 AM, Julian wrote:   
   > If the Crown Prosecution Service gets their way, we could very well be   
   > living in a country with an Islamic blasphemy law.   
   >   
   Arrest that man! He posted a rude comment on X about the Prophet.   
      
   "By Allah, I know you are but a stone, but I saw the prophet kiss you."   
   Omar Ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph of Islam   
    >   
    >   
   > 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)