On 2/24/2026 9:37 AM, Julian wrote:
If the Crown Prosecution Service gets their way, we could very well beArrest that man! He posted a rude comment on X about the Prophet.
living in a country with an Islamic blasphemy law.
"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, rCLIslam is the religion of terrorismrCY, 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 rCo a man
who had fled persecution in Turkey rCo 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 rCo any holy scripture rCo 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 rCo 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 BritainrCOs 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 HamitrCOs conviction, recognising that
while his actions may have been deeply upsetting to Muslims, freedom
of expression rCLmust include the right to express views that offend,
shock or disturb.rCY
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
BritainrCOs 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 StarmerrCOs
Britain for setting a copy of the Bible alight rCo 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 rCo the birthplace of free speechrCo could produce >> its first free speech refugee is a damning indictment of Keir
StarmerrCOs government .
Hamit himself has said that if he loses, he will have no choice but to
flee once again rCo 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 rCo through the
GovernmentrCOs proposed official definition of rCLanti-Muslim hostilityrCY, >> 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 rCo religious or
otherwise rCo are not entitled to protection from insult, however
distasteful.
If the CPS appeal succeeds, we will have taken a decisive step backwards.
Max Thompson
If the Crown Prosecution Service gets their way, we could very well be living in a country with an Islamic blasphemy law.
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, rCLIslam is the religion of terrorismrCY, 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 rCo a man who had
fled persecution in Turkey rCo 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 rCo any holy scripture rCo 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 rCo 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 BritainrCOs 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 HamitrCOs conviction, recognising that while his actions may have been deeply upsetting to Muslims, freedom of
expression rCLmust include the right to express views that offend, shock
or disturb.rCY
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
BritainrCOs 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 StarmerrCOs
Britain for setting a copy of the Bible alight rCo 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 rCo the birthplace of free speechrCo could produce its first free speech refugee is a damning indictment of Keir StarmerrCOs government .
Hamit himself has said that if he loses, he will have no choice but to
flee once again rCo 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 rCo through the GovernmentrCOs proposed official definition of rCLanti-Muslim hostilityrCY, 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 rCo religious or otherwise rCo are not entitled to protection from insult, however distasteful.
If the CPS appeal succeeds, we will have taken a decisive step backwards.
Max Thompson--
If the Crown Prosecution Service gets their way, we could very well be living in a country with an Islamic blasphemy law.
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, rCLIslam is the religion of terrorismrCY, 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 rCo a man who had
fled persecution in Turkey rCo 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 rCo any holy scripture rCo 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 rCo 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 BritainrCOs 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 HamitrCOs conviction, recognising that while his actions may have been deeply upsetting to Muslims, freedom of
expression rCLmust include the right to express views that offend, shock
or disturb.rCY
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
BritainrCOs 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 StarmerrCOs
Britain for setting a copy of the Bible alight rCo 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 rCo the birthplace of free speechrCo could produce its first free speech refugee is a damning indictment of Keir StarmerrCOs government .
Hamit himself has said that if he loses, he will have no choice but to
flee once again rCo 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 rCo through the GovernmentrCOs proposed official definition of rCLanti-Muslim hostilityrCY, 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 rCo religious or otherwise rCo are not entitled to protection from insult, however distasteful.
If the CPS appeal succeeds, we will have taken a decisive step backwards.
Max Thompsonhttps://order-order.com/2026/02/27/judges-slap-down-cps-attempt-to-prosecute-acquitted-quran-burner/
On 24/02/2026 17:37, Julian wrote:
If the Crown Prosecution Service gets their way, we could very well behttps://order-order.com/2026/02/27/judges-slap-down-cps-attempt-to-prosecute-acquitted-quran-burner/
living in a country with an Islamic blasphemy law.
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, rCLIslam is the >> religion of terrorismrCY, 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 rCo a man who had
fled persecution in Turkey rCo 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 rCo any holy scripture rCo 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 rCo 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 BritainrCOs 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 HamitrCOs conviction, recognising that while
his actions may have been deeply upsetting to Muslims, freedom of
expression rCLmust include the right to express views that offend, shock
or disturb.rCY
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
BritainrCOs 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 StarmerrCOs
Britain for setting a copy of the Bible alight rCo 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 rCo the birthplace of free speechrCo could produce its >> first free speech refugee is a damning indictment of Keir StarmerrCOs
government .
Hamit himself has said that if he loses, he will have no choice but to
flee once again rCo 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 rCo through the
GovernmentrCOs proposed official definition of rCLanti-Muslim hostilityrCY, >> 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 rCo religious or otherwise rCo
are not entitled to protection from insult, however distasteful.
If the CPS appeal succeeds, we will have taken a decisive step backwards.
Max Thompson
so when are you foul mouthed bri'ish cucks gunna get on board with free speech eh???
On 2/24/26 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.
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, rCLIslam is the religion of terrorismrCY, 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 rCo a man
who had fled persecution in Turkey rCo 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 rCo any holy scripture rCo 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 rCo 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 BritainrCOs 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 HamitrCOs conviction, recognising that
while his actions may have been deeply upsetting to Muslims, freedom
of expression rCLmust include the right to express views that offend,
shock or disturb.rCY
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
BritainrCOs 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 StarmerrCOs
Britain for setting a copy of the Bible alight rCo 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 rCo the birthplace of free speechrCo could produce >> its first free speech refugee is a damning indictment of Keir
StarmerrCOs government .
Hamit himself has said that if he loses, he will have no choice but to
flee once again rCo 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 rCo through the
GovernmentrCOs proposed official definition of rCLanti-Muslim hostilityrCY, >> 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 rCo religious or
otherwise rCo are not entitled to protection from insult, however
distasteful.
If the CPS appeal succeeds, we will have taken a decisive step backwards.
Max Thompson
On 2/26/2026 3:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
so when are you foul mouthed bri'ish cucks gunna get on board withThere's no free speech in Islam, Nick.
free speech eh???
On 2/24/26 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.
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, rCLIslam is the religion of terrorismrCY, 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 rCo a
man who had fled persecution in Turkey rCo 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 rCo any holy scripture rCo 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 rCo 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 BritainrCOs 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 HamitrCOs conviction, recognising that
while his actions may have been deeply upsetting to Muslims, freedom
of expression rCLmust include the right to express views that offend,
shock or disturb.rCY
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 BritainrCOs 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 StarmerrCOs
Britain for setting a copy of the Bible alight rCo 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 rCo the birthplace of free speechrCo could
produce its first free speech refugee is a damning indictment of Keir
StarmerrCOs government .
Hamit himself has said that if he loses, he will have no choice but
to flee once again rCo 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 rCo through the
GovernmentrCOs proposed official definition of rCLanti-Muslim hostilityrCY,
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 rCo religious or
otherwise rCo are not entitled to protection from insult, however
distasteful.
If the CPS appeal succeeds, we will have taken a decisive step
backwards.
Max Thompson
On 2/27/26 1:32 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
so when are you foul mouthed bri'ish cucks gunna get on board withThere's no free speech in Islam, Nick.
free speech eh???
-a > then islam needs to level up or be eradicated
-a >
-a > #god
On 2/24/26 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.
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, rCLIslam is the religion of terrorismrCY, 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 rCo a >>>> man who had fled persecution in Turkey rCo 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 rCo any holy scripture rCo 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 rCo 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 BritainrCOs 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 HamitrCOs conviction, recognising that >>>> while his actions may have been deeply upsetting to Muslims, freedom
of expression rCLmust include the right to express views that offend, >>>> shock or disturb.rCY
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 BritainrCOs 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 StarmerrCOs
Britain for setting a copy of the Bible alight rCo 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 rCo the birthplace of free speechrCo
could produce its first free speech refugee is a damning indictment
of Keir StarmerrCOs government .
Hamit himself has said that if he loses, he will have no choice but
to flee once again rCo 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 rCo through the
GovernmentrCOs proposed official definition of rCLanti-Muslim
hostilityrCY, 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 rCo religious or
otherwise rCo are not entitled to protection from insult, however
distasteful.
If the CPS appeal succeeds, we will have taken a decisive step
backwards.
Max Thompson
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:02:58 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 196,153 |