Free speech campaigners say police are effectively bringing back blasphemy laws after two protesters were arrested for holding signs reading “f— Islam”. The Telegraph has the story:
The Free Speech Union (FSU) and Big Brother Watch have united to back a test case involving two people who were arrested for holding the signs at a Unite the Kingdom march, organised by Tommy Robinson… on May 16th in London.
They are being investigated for breaches of the Public Order Act 1986, with potential religious aggravation.
In a legal letter to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Metropolitan Police, the two free speech organisations said it was neither an offence to be opposed to any religion, whether Islam, Christianity or another, nor to express hostility toward a religion.
They cited the case of Hamit Coskun, who was accused of posing a threat to public order after burning a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in what he claimed was a peaceful protest.
They said the judgment in that case made clear that the law distinguished between the legal right to express hostility towards a religion, and hostility – or hatred – towards people because of their religion.
In their defence of the pair, the FSU and Big Brother Watch said there was no law against blasphemy and no right not to be offended by speech.
They are urging the Met Police to drop the case, saying the protesters’ right to free speech and right to criticise a religion should protect them against prosecution.
Lord Young of Acton, the FSU’s director, said: “Criticising a religion, however robustly, is not a criminal offence in this country and nor is breaching a religion’s blasphemy code.
“The Free Speech Union would also come to the defence of anyone being investigated for holding a sign saying f— Christianity or f— Buddhism.”
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
What I repeatedly fail to understand is a police force that insists on arresting folk for things that are not illegal. Do they (and their senior officers) get any training worthy of the name?
There’s a video on YouTube of a female ‘officer’ telling a man she’s arresting him ‘for breach of that’. She also informs him that he’s contravened ‘the Human Acts Right’. With such custodians, what could possibly go right?
Isn’t it a shame the police are forced to police free speech, instead of feral,youth gangs driving the wrong way on roads. I do not know of anyone killed by free speech, do you?
The process is the punishment. It doesn’t matter whether they are found not guilty, being put through the ringer (and doxxed) is enough to put others off saying anything. Those people charged will be looking over their shoulders the rest of their lives in case any adherents of the religion of peace decide to take more than umbrage. All as intended.
Can we hold up signs that say ‘f___ the Met Police’?
Public Order Act 1986 – introduced by a Conservative government. I don’t think Thatcher was a free speech absolutist.
Can someone tell me how ‘Islam’ was offended? Did anyone interview ‘Islam’ or take a statement from it?
Would I be in trouble if called Islam a filthy, violent religion, started by a paedophile and disturbingly followed by millions who seem to enjoy the violence and the inhumane acts it inspires them to commit? Would I be in trouble if I said Islam was a cancer the human race needs to be cured of?
The Lib Dems all wore T-shirts in the European Parliament a few years ago saying “F— Brexit”
Should they be arrested?
No, unfortunately.
Please look at these photos of UK Muslim protesters holding placards for which none of them were ever arrested:
Yes, but surely we can’t respond to these slogans with the opposite slogans because then we lower ourselves to their level.
A slogan like “massacre those who insult Islam” cannot be countered with a slogan saying “massacre those who adhere to Islam”.
Britain and the US didn’t win the war against Nazi Germany by employing gas chambers and mass executions.
Errmm… The point of those photos was to give some ammunition to the valiant DEFENDERS OF FREE SPEECH, who are even now girding their loins to go into battle IN THE COURTS.
You seem to have missed the point, which is TWO-TIER JUSTICE!!!
Thanks for the photo. It saves further comment.
I would point out, though, that the script on all of the visible placards looks like the work of one hand, obviously the one with the best command of English and printing in capital letters, although it took two goes to get ‘butcher’ right, so still room for improvement.
Well-spotted!
Won’t the “F***” element be a problem?
I must admit that whilst my sentiments about Islam are unambiguously negative – a ruthless, totalitarian ideology concocted by an illiterate Arab warlord with a penchant for murder and pedophilia – I find vulgarity grating and unproductive because it conveys the message “we are a bunch of thugs”.
I believe this is known as ‘tone policing’ in progressive circles.
Well, they think we are anyway, so I don’t care.
However vulgar, I think the signage was meant to result in the arrests; perhaps to provide another test case.
“The Free Speech Union would also come to the defence of anyone being investigated for holding a sign saying f— Christianity or f— Buddhism.”
You would not need to, since they would not be investigated.
Indeed
Christians are not a favoured group and of course the excuse that it will inflame community tensions doesn’t apply- of course we know that is code for “the other lot will kick off”,
If it were up to me, I’d say let’em kick off, it’s time they had a good kicking!
The leadership of the Met are thick as pigs**t, so don’t expect them to respect British law anytime in the near future.
On the contrary. They know just what they are doing. Indeed, they likely have at least two Home Office quangos who recommended this course of action.
They may well know what they are doing — I am sure you are correct — but that does not mean they will be respecting British law. The two are not mutually exclusive. So, I still think that they are thick as pigs**t, as they (supposedly) think that what they are deliberately doing complies with British law; and they are wrong !