Blasphemy’s return: a terrifying prospect for UK ‘apostates’

Author: Andrew Copson

Tomorrow a man stands trial in London, accused of burning a Quran outside the Turkish Embassy. This political act, reportedly a protest against the Turkish President, could, if successfully prosecuted, effectively resurrect the crime of blasphemy in England and Wales — 17 years after its abolition. 

This reintroduction of blasphemy by the back door would have profound consequences, not only for free expression in the UK but for the safety and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of so-called ‘apostates’ in the UK and their right to freedom of thought and conscience.

Having worked on the Racial and Religious Hatred Act in 2006, I can attest to its clear intent: to protect people, not ideas, and certainly not to stifle legitimate criticism or dissent. The Act, which amended the Public Order Act 1986, explicitly stipulated:

‘Nothing in this Part 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, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.’

Prosecuting someone for burning a Quran defies the Act’s purpose and contradicts the will of Parliament in its 2008 legislation that abolished blasphemy laws – a hard-won piece of legislation that did away with an archaic and oppressive notion that religion should not be open to the same criticism we apply to all belief frameworks. We must all cultivate the robustness to accept that others will say or do things that insult the ideas we venerate. Unless such actions incite hatred or violence, we simply have to reconcile ourselves to it. It is the modest price of living in a free society, and a price well worth paying. Blasphemy laws, in every instance, ultimately serve the interests of oppression.

The erosion of free expression has real-life consequences, particularly for those people supported by Humanists UK’s Faith to Faithless service, which assists those leaving high-control religious groups, often given the derogatory term ‘apostates’. For those who remain with their families, there’s a risk of ‘honour-based violence’, which can escalate to murder or ‘honour killings’ in extreme cases of apostasy or blasphemy. 

Last year, when our Prime Minister inadvertently failed to immediately rebuff a suggestion from Tahir Ali MP to criminalise text desecration, our Faith to Faithless helpline heard from service users gripped by genuine fear, believing themselves to be at direct risk. These individuals have sacrificed friends, family, and former lives for the fundamental freedom to determine their own beliefs. The potential reintroduction of laws restricting ‘blasphemous’ expression, including criminal sanctions for burning a Quran, risks emboldening abusers and creating deep concern for apostates, especially ex-Muslims.

These cases reverberate among the non-religious and religious minorities globally too. Blasphemy is a crime in 91 countries around the world, and in 12, it is punishable by death. This is in spite of over two decades of consensus at the UN Human Rights Council that blasphemy laws are an affront to freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. What message does it send to authoritarian theocratic states if the United Kingdom falters in its already dubious commitment to freedom of expression? We have already witnessed other countries pushing these boundaries; Pakistan, for instance, recently attempted to uproot that hard-won consensus at the UN on this very issue.

This is all part of a greater trend. Earlier this year, a comparable trial in Manchester concluded following a separate Quran-burning incident, though the defendant’s guilty plea meant their fundamental rights were not rigorously scrutinised. In another parallel case, a Christian street preacher in Walsall faced similar charges after publicly denouncing the Quran; mercifully, his case was dismissed in March due to insufficient evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service. Notably, both the London and Walsall individuals were victims of blasphemy-motivated violence immediately before their arrests; the London protester was stabbed, and the Walsall preacher suffered a slit throat.

Despite explicit protections in the Religious Hatred Act 2006, the UK has also witnessed a troubling pattern of entertainers, teachers, and protestors facing censorship, harassment, threats, or even arrest over differing opinions on religion. In 2021, a Batley Grammar School teacher was suspended for using an image of the Prophet Muhammad in a Religious Studies lesson, and despite reinstatement, remains in hiding. In 2023, at Kettlethorpe High School, four pupils were suspended after minor scuffing to a Quran; while the school found ‘no ill intent’, police initially recorded it as a ‘non-crime hate incident’. In 2022, Cineworld pulled screenings of The Lady of Heaven after protests by Muslim groups claiming ‘blasphemous’ content. 

This is a pivotal moment. Criminalising the burning of the Quran undermines the repeal of blasphemy laws in England and Wales and contradicts the Government’s assurances that no such laws exist in England and Wales. If the Public Order Act can be interpreted to criminalise blasphemy, it urgently needs amendment to prevent such misapplications. The stakes are immense: we must defend the principle that all ideas are open to criticism, ridicule, and even insult – the hallmark of a truly free society. The police and Crown Prosecution Service also need new guidance, compliant with the UN’s Rabat Plan of Action, to prevent arrests and prosecutions for acts falling short of its six-part threshold for incitement to hatred.

As the law says, nothing should ‘prohibit or restrict discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system’ – and we must defend it. Freedom of expression is one of the great gains of liberal reform over the decades. We must not slide back into a culture of fear and conformity on grounds of ‘offence’ any more than on any other grounds.