CPS in fresh attempts to criminalise ‘blasphemy’ 17 years after abolition

Humanists UK has warned that if a man is successfully prosecuted after burning a Quran, it would effectively subvert the will of Parliament and re-establish blasphemy laws in England and Wales by the back door.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) originally charged the man with harassing the ‘religious institution of Islam’. But after Humanists UK pointed out that the law doesn’t protect religious institutions from harassment, the CPS has now substituted the charge for one of likely causing harassment, alarm, or distress to individuals. Humanists UK believes that in doing so, prosecutors have sought to take a creative approach to the law that seeks to avoid explicit protections for free speech around religion written into the Public Order Act since 2006. Instead the whole case should be dropped.

Background

In February the man burned a Quran outside the Turkish Embassy as a protest against the President. The CPS then charged him with ‘intent to cause against religious institution [sic] of Islam, harassment, alarm or distress’, despite the fact that laws protecting religions from harassment, alarm, or distress do not exist in this country. Instead laws protect people.

Humanists UK wrote to the Government and the CPS to point this out and challenge the wider decision to charge the man for his actions which should not be criminal under any other law. The case followed on from another in Manchester where a man similarly burned a Quran. He then pleaded guilty to a charge of racially or religiously aggravated intentional harassment or alarm against another named individual.

Following on from this, the CPS has now told the Telegraph:

‘We charged [the man] on the basis that his actions caused harassment, alarm or distress – which is a criminal offence – and that this was motivated by hostility towards a religious or racial group.

‘As part of our continuous review of ongoing cases, we concluded the wording of the charge was incorrectly applied and we have substituted a new charge to more accurately reflect the alleged offence.’

Implications

But rather than charge the man under the section of the Public Order Act which relates to claims of religious and racial hatred, which was carefully designed to avoid the law being used for claims of blasphemy, it appears prosecutors have instead done something unprecedented. He appears to have been charged with ‘using threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displaying any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby,’ under a different section of the Act. This has the effect of circumventing free speech protections for criticism of religion.

Before the Manchester case, the law had never before been used to criminalise damage to a religious text. Humanists UK does not believe that the law should be used in this way. It is not clear that this was ever the intention, and indeed Parliament amended the Public Order Act in 2006 to introduce a strong free speech clause concerning religion before repealing England and Wales’ blasphemy laws in 2008.

The separate section of the Public Order Act which deals with religious hatred – under which the man does not appear to have been charged – is unequivocal:

‘Nothing in this Part [the religious hatred part of the Act] shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents…’

A Humanists UK spokesperson said:

‘The fact that the original charges in this case were for offending a religious institution is very telling: this case is about blasphemy.

‘Burning a religious text is offensive to many but it should not be a crime. By design, the law already protects political protest – as in this case – and free speech about religion.  Prosecutors should not be innovating new ways to charge people for “blasphemy” after blasphemy laws were deliberately abolished. We are following this case closely and if the man is convicted, then the law needs to change.’

In a statement to the UN last year, Humanists UK reminded states that blasphemy laws (such as those against damaging religious books) are not compatible with freedom of speech nor the UN Rabat Plan on hate crime. Countries with blasphemy laws typically see much more religious violence of this kind than countries without. Instead, the state has a duty to treat violence and violent threats with the utmost seriousness. Following Denmark’s decision to introduce a Quran-burning blasphemy law and similar calls made in the UK in 2024, Humanists UK received reassurances from Downing Street that no such laws would be introduced here.