By James Anderson
Permit me a confession: I am a full fat Christian. Yes, I believe in the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. I believe in a transcendent God who is a Trinity of Persons and who loves humanity with perfect grace. I believe also that the Bible is His words to us.
Now, you might think that I am therefore the kind of gob-shite fundamentalist who would be in favour of a blasphemy law that punishes those who insult my beliefs. I can reassure you that I am certainly not.
According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, blasphemy is the act of insulting or demonstrating disdain for God or someone or something held sacred. England once had a blasphemy law which protected all Christian beliefs from scorn, but this law was reduced in 1838 to only a prohibition of abuse against the Church of England. Since that time, the blasphemy law was hardly invoked and eventually was removed from the statute books in 2008 as an unnecessary archaism.
A blasphemy law that favours one set of beliefs over the rest is unfair. But a blasphemy law that shields all religious belief from being challenged is unacceptable. All ideologies, and that includes religious ones, ought to be open to question. If one set of beliefs is uncriticisable, its adherents have the potential to impose their beliefs on the rest. Those beliefs in opposition to the favoured belief-system become difficult or impossible to hold. This is not the way of a mature democracy.
I say this as a Christian as well as a person who has been brought up on classical liberal beliefs in freedom of speech and conscience. My religious model for saying this is Jesus whose response to having his beliefs challenged by the religious experts of his day was not to tell them that they could not question him because he was God incarnate and then destroy them with the proverbial thunder bolt, but to debate with them in the hope of persuading them (Mark 12:13–17; Luke 20:19–26).
It is therefore with consternation that I read that two as yet unnamed participants in the Unite the Kingdom march organised by Tommy Robinson back in May of this year have been arrested under the Public Order Act (1986), on suspicion of holding placards with the statement ‘Fuck Islam’ emblazoned on them.
Of course, I don’t like the word “fuck”, although I have been known to use it when driving or watching sport, but my model as to how to respond to hostility to my faith is once again the Galilean carpenter. When Jesus was laughed at by a group of mourners for believing he could raise a girl from the dead, he did not call on his disciples to attack the mockers; instead, he asked the girl’s father to put the mourners outside and then prayed for the girl who came back to life (Matthew 9:18-25). Jesus’ response to ridicule was peaceful.
The good news is that the Free Speech Union and Big Brother Watch are sticking up for these two men. According to The Telegraph’s report linked above, both organisations have sent a joint legal letter to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Metropolitan Police to remind them that it is not an offence to express opposition or hostility to any religion. Of course, if both men had incited violence against Muslim people, that would have clearly been an offence.
Fortunately, they have the precedent of Hamit Coskun who has overturned his conviction for threatening public order by burning a Qur’an in protest at Islam outside the Turkish embassy last February. Mr Justice Bennathan who presided over the appeal at Southwark Crown Court conceded that while burning a Qur’an might be very offensive to Muslims, the right to freedom of expression must include the right to express shocking views. Thank goodness there are still sane judges in this country.
But still there are those in the UK who are explicitly calling for blasphemy laws. Take, for instance, the MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, Tahir Ali. In November 2024, he asked Keir Starmer if he would commit to a blasphemy law to protect the Abrahamic religions, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam. First, I wish to acknowledge Ali’s desire to protect Judaism. This is an important reminder that to equate all Muslims with anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism is just inaccurate. However, as a follower of one of the Abrahamic faiths Ali is referring to, my answer to him is thank you, but no thank you.
It is through open, frank and robust debate between different worldviews that the truth can emerge. And you never know, after debating with me, some of you might end up agreeing that Christianity is true after all.
James Anderson is a freelance writer.
I am sure that a banner invoking f**k Judaism would pass with impunity
Having been christened as a Catholic, thus qualifying as a minority, I find myself increasingly amazed at the undue influence that some muslims aspire to have; such arrogance is intolerable and should be countered by robust denials.
The amusing aspect of this alleged "religion of peace" is that its sanction against apostasy seems to be death, they seem to like death especially when it is inflicted on non muslims.
I am a bit long in the tooth now but I can recall, as a naturally recalcitrant teenager, having disagreements with the local Catholic clergy. The weird thing is that not one of them threatened to kill me.
I maybe still sort of Catholic but I don't practice what with being perfect and all that and how can perfection be improved by superfluous practice. The only thing I would advocate for is a return of the crusader mentality to balance the pernicious influence of the muslim attitude.