Evelyn Beatrice Hall - commonly but incorrectly attributed to Voltaire.
"Free speech not only means the right to say what you believe; it also means the right not to be forced to say what you don't."
Lord Toby Young, Director of the Free Speech Union.
The right of free speech is the most fundamental cornerstone of democracy, for which hundreds of thousands of men have fought and died. Yet in recent years, I'm ashamed to say that in my country, that right has been steadily eroded. Successive governments appear to have been ever more determined to suppress it, except for speech which agrees with their views. And none more so than the present Labour Government, which was elected in July 2024. ( It's probably fair to say that Labour didn't so much win the election, as the Conservatives, after 14 years in power, lost it, following their disastrous handling of the Covid-19 pandemic and other displays of incompetence and hypocrisy! And a significant proportion of those who voted for them already regret it! )
In particular, we are all constantly being told what we are no longer allowed to say, and which words we are no longer allowed to use, in a manner disturbingly reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984. In some ways, it seems that Orwell only got the date wrong!
2.1. The Free Speech Union
The most important personal decision I have made in the last few years was to join the Free Speech Union ( FSU ). As its name suggests, this is an organisation which campaigns to preserve the right of free speech; most importantly, it fights legal cases on behalf of people who have been denied that right - especially those who have been sacked or otherwise disciplined simply for saying something "wrong" in the workplace. In its six years of existence, at the time of writing, it has fought over 6000 such cases, and has won 84% of them.
I have recently corresponded extensively with my local MP, who is a member of the currently governing Labour Party, about various matters which I'm going to write about here. He has repeatedly claimed that "the Government is committed to upholding the right of free speech".
Really? I'm honestly amazed that he can say that with a straight face! If that was actually true, then there would be no need for such an organisation as the FSU to exist, would there? And it's no coincidence that the FSU's membership has tripled in the two years since his party was elected to power!
2.2. Silenced in the workplace
My initial reason for joining the FSU was that I believed, in all seriousness, that I would probably need their support, sooner rather than later. In my last job, particularly when dealing with young people of so-called "Gen Z" ( or as I prefer to call them, "Generation Offended" ), I frequently felt as if I was walking on thin ice - always having to think carefully before opening my mouth, in case I "offended" someone by saying something which anyone of my generation would consider normal or reasonable. Or as I like to say, with only slight exaggeration, because I hadn't caught up with that week's update of what they had suddenly decided was offensive!
As it turned out, I didn't need the FSU's support; when I was forced out of that job in 2024, it was for idiotic reasons which I'm not allowed to talk about, but not for offending anyone. But I'm sure that if that hadn't happened, then being sacked for the aforementioned reasons would have been only a matter of time.
Since then, things have got considerably worse. Recently, two of my friends, working at two different major companies, have each told me that they know someone who was sacked - on the spot, with zero notice and no normal disciplinary process - for telling a joke! ( In my own last workplace, jokes were as good as banned. The company code of conduct said that it was a disciplinary offence to tell any joke which could conceivably cause offence to any minority or any definable group of people. That doesn't leave much, does it? )
Of course, if someone was to tell, say, a blatantly racist joke, which the majority of people find offensive, then that would be unacceptable - but surely that should merit a normal disciplinary process of verbal and written warnings, resulting in dismissal only after three warnings - not summary dismissal! But in one of those cases, it resulted in the latter, because one person was offended!
So offending one person is now classed as "gross misconduct", and an instant sacking offence!!! Think about that; if you tell a joke to 20 people, and one of them is offended, then the opinion of the one takes precedence over that of the 19!
All of this directly contradicts Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - to which the UK is a signatory - which explicitly states that the right of free speech includes "the right to offend", i.e. the right to state an opinion which others may find offensive, as long as it's lawful. Freedom of speech should and does exclude hate speech - where hate speech is defined as speech which is either intended or likely to incite hatred and/or violence. It does not mean daring to have an opinion which someone doesn t like!
A few years ago, when working as a freelance contractor, I had a contract prematurely terminated not for anything I had done, but simply because the work had run short. On my last Monday in that job, after I had been given notice, a lady who sat just behind me had clearly been to the hairdresser at the weekend. At about midday, a male colleague came to talk to her, and commented on her hair.
"Oh, thanks!" she said, "I'm glad somebody has noticed!"
I said, "Ah, but it's a sacking offence these days, for a man to compliment a woman! But I've already been sacked, so your hair is very nice!"
Obviously, I said that in jest, and it got a laugh. Now, however, it has ceased to be a joke!
One of the aforementioned friends tells me that at his workplace, someone has now decided that it literally is an instant sacking offence for a man to compliment a woman in any way whatsoever - including commenting on her hair! Oh, come on!!! Is there a woman on the face of the Earth who is actually offended by being told her hair looks nice, after she has been to the hairdresser? As in the story above, they are far more likely to be upset if no-one notices!
Consequently, people at that company now sit in silence as if in a library, literally afraid to speak, for fear of offending someone without even knowing how. And friends who sit a few metres apart send each other jokes by WhatsApp; no-one dares tell their mate a joke verbally, in case someone overhears it and is offended.
How have we come to this???
As if all that isn t bad enough, some employers have now taken it on themselves to dictate what employees are allowed to say outside work! That same aforementioned company has now decided that it s a sacking offence to offend a work colleague outside the workplace! ( Such as in a pub at a social event. )
For a good few years now, it has been common practice for employers to spy - and I don't use that word lightly - on employees' personal web sites or social media. A decade ago, shortly after I began a new work contract, my line manager, just making conversation one day, asked me when I planned to go on my next eclipse trip. While that question was innocent and harmless, about one of my great passions, I had never, up to that point, mentioned the subject to him or anyone else in that workplace. He freely acknowledged that he had done an internet search on me, and looked at my personal web site, before confirming the job offer. Obviously, he had not found anything "problematic".
But why? What valid reason did he have to do so? A person s personal opinions, expressed on their personal web site or social media, should be exactly that, and should be no business whatsoever of their employer! ( With the single obvious exception of saying anything derogatory about the employer! )
Yet there have been many cases in recent years of people being sacked, for stating personal opinions on their personal social media, which their employer didn't like! Consequently, increasing numbers of people are now forced to "self-censor" their own speech, outside work as well as in it. How is this in any remotest way acceptable?
This is why I wasn't able to write this material before I retired - because it could have cost me my job, or prevented me getting another.
There is one subject, regarding which the stifling of free speech is staggeringly one-sided namely religion. We are all now required to "respect" people's religious beliefs, or else - but there is no reciprocal requirement for them to respect anyone else's right to disagree with them!
One of the most absurd cases of workplace censorship I've ever heard of occurred at that same company again, but about a decade ago now. It concerned another friend and former colleague, Simon. Like me, he's an atheist and proud of it, and his views are well known among his colleagues.
Simon was called into his manager's office, and told that a chap was about to join the project from elsewhere in the company, who was well known to be a devout Christian, and that Simon had "better not" say anything to offend him!
Er - wait a minute So if it was common knowledge that the other chap was a Christian, then he obviously talked freely about it. So it was perfectly acceptable for him to talk about his beliefs in the workplace to anyone who wanted to listen - and probably to those who didn't - but Simon wasn't allowed to disagree with him! Go figure!
2.3. ...and in public places
Refer again to what I said above about free speech excluding hate speech. If someone is preaching in a public place about his religious beliefs, and says something to the effect that his religion is right and every other is wrong, then that doesn't constitute hate speech. However, if he says something to the effect of "Anyone who dares to worship any version of God other than mine will burn in Hell!", then I would argue that it does, as he is then deliberately offending those who are as sincere in their own beliefs as he is. Even more so, if he singles out followers of one particular religion to "burn in Hell".
A couple of years ago, a Christian chap was preaching in the street in my home city, and was doing exactly that - claiming that followers of any other religion in general, and Muslims in particular, would "burn in Hell". Moreover, he was bellowing his opinions through a loudhailer at everyone passing by, whether they wanted to listen or not. This also begs a question as to the boundaries of free speech; there must surely be a balance between one person's right of free speech and everyone else's right to go about their business in peace! When does free speech become a breach of the peace?
A group of four police officers ( or rather PCSOs ) were standing nearby, well within earshot. Out of curiosity, I asked them why he was being allowed to get away with that.
"Because we have the right of free speech," one of them replied.
"Yes, but free speech excludes hate speech, and some of what he's saying amounts to hate speech." They had no answer to that.
Again out of curiosity, I then asked, "So what if I was to do the opposite, and stand there in a public place, shouting at people through a loudhailer that God doesn't exist. Then what would you do?"
"We would move you on!"
Er what??? Why, exactly, would they "move me on"? Of course, saying that would offend the religious - but as previously stated, the right of free speech specifically includes the right to offend, and it was OK for the preacher to offend the followers of every religion other than his own!
If I was to stand in a public place, telling people that God doesn't exist, what offence would I be committing? What law would I be breaking? And if the answer is "breach of the peace" or some such thing, then why would that apply to me, but not to the other guy?
Effectively, these officers were telling me that the preacher had the right of free speech, but I didn t! Again, go figure.
2.4. Forced to say what you don t believe
Look again at the second quote at the top of this section, from Lord Toby Young. I absolutely agree; no-one should ever be forced to comply with any ideology with which they disagree. Especially so when those who disagree are the very large majority! But that's exactly what is now happening in the UK on almost a daily basis!
I'm talking about so-called "gender ideology" - the absurd belief that a man can choose to "identify as" a woman or vice versa, and must be regarded as their "chosen gender". Not to mention those who claim to "identify as non-binary", whatever that means - that is, they somehow claim to be neither male nor female, and want to be referred to by "gender neutral" pronouns.
I'll say plenty more about this madness in Part 2, but here, I'm concerned with its effect on free speech. Nowhere is the concept of "free speech, as long as you agree with us" more prevalent! While the very large majority of people disagree with this ideology, many are forced to comply with it in the workplace, or else!
In the last few years, there have been numerous cases of people being disciplined at work, or even sacked, for "misgendering" a "transgender" or "non-binary" person that is, for refusing to recognise their imaginary "gender identity", or use their "preferred pronouns". ( There are some in the current Government who are campaigning to make "misgendering" a "hate crime". Yes, really; they actually want to make it a crime to refer to a person by the "wrong" pronouns! ) In fact, of all the legal cases which the Free Speech Union has fought, about 40% have concerned "offences" in this category.
One prominent case involved a 64-year-old woman who was sacked from her job of 15 years at a supermarket. A male colleague, whom she had known as a man for several years, suddenly announced that he had decided to "identify as a woman", and asked the lady "how she felt" about his "new identity".
Assuming that to be a genuine question, she gave an honest answer: "I'll only have a problem if you use the women's toilets and changing room." The "transgender" person stormed off and made a formal complaint to HR; the woman was hauled in front of them and instantly sacked!
So the "question" had in fact been a deliberate provocation; asking "how she felt" about it translated as "You had better not have a problem with it, or else!" And HR disgracefully agreed.
Thankfully, the lady is a member of the FSU, which advised her what to say in her appeal; she won the case and was awarded compensation. There is in fact a tried and tested legal defence, which has been used in a number of unfair dismissal cases, including this one; in such cases, the employer doesn't have a legal leg to stand on! And any HR manager with any semblance of a brain must be perfectly aware of that - but they try it on anyway, on the assumption that the employee doesn't know the law. In fact, there have been cases where simply being told that the employee is a member of the FSU was enough to make the HR Manager back down!
The Equality Act 2010 defines a number of "protected characteristics", including gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., and says that it's an offence to discriminate against a person on the grounds of any such characteristic. ( It includes just about every definable characteristic of a human being, other than being white, male and heterosexual! ) These also include "gender identity". Crucially, the Government insists that there is no "hierarchy", and no characteristic is to be considered more "protected" than any other.
However, the same Act also defines "philosophical belief" as a protected characteristic - that's philosophical belief, not only the religious kind. And it has been firmly established in law ( Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe ), that "gender critical" belief - that is, the "belief" in biological reality, that there are two genders, and one can't "become" the other - falls into that category. ( Does anyone need to "believe in" reality? )
So if an employer sacks an employee for refusing to respect someone's protected characteristic of "gender identity", then they are in turn refusing to respect the employee's protected characteristic of philosophical belief, and we have a circular argument. To put it another way, the "Equality Act" contradicts itself, goes around in circles and disappears up its own posterior!
The lady was also advised to say that her dismissal was a form of age discrimination, since to anyone of her ( and my ) generation, the whole concept of "gender identity" is utterly alien and incomprehensible, and we can't be expected to accept it and adapt to it as readily as young people do. That argument was also accepted.
Then there is the case of Jennifer Melle, a nurse who was suspended for "misgendering" a "transgender" patient - that is, a man pretending to be a woman. Ms. Melle happens to be black, and a Christian - both of which are relevant.
In any normal circumstances, using racist language to a member of hospital staff, let alone physically threatening her, would result in a patient immediately being refused treatment and thrown out. But not, it seems, for certain people...
This patient had been brought to the hospital in handcuffs from a male prison - he is a convicted paedophile - but claimed to "identify as a woman", despite having a beard! Ms. Melle referred to him as "he" and as "Mister"; he angrily demanded that she refer to him by female pronouns.
She replied, politely, "I'm sorry, I'm afraid I can't do that, because it goes against my religious beliefs." The patient "lunged at her", and said, "So how about if I call you ( N-word )?", then repeatedly shouted the word. He was not refused treatment, and no action was taken against him, apart from a verbal warning.
Ms. Melle, however, was subsequently suspended, and was in serious danger of losing her job, for refusing to use the patient s "preferred pronouns". She remained suspended for a year, before finally being reinstated; at the time of writing, she is still awaiting possible disciplinary action by her union, the Nursing and Midwifery Council. ( Isn't a union supposed to protect workers' rights? )
So let's see this lady has been persecuted for refusing to violate her own religious beliefs, while a convicted criminal was allowed to get away with screaming racial abuse at her! His "protected characteristic" of imaginary "gender identity" was allowed to take precedence over her very real ones of both ethnicity and religion. On what planet does this make any sense?
Another similar case, but with far less serious consequences, concerned a 17-year-old female footballer, who was hauled before a disciplinary panel and given a six match suspension. Her "offence" was to ask a so-called "transgender" player on an opposing team - who again had a beard - the rather obvious question, "Are you a man?" She later won an appeal, supported by the FSU.
An important factor here is that the girl was, at the time, in the process of being assessed for an autism spectrum disorder. A common and well-known symptom of many people with ASDs is that they tend to speak in a very direct and literal manner, which can often be wrongly perceived as being "rude" or "aggressive", while that is not their intention at all. It's simply a consequence of their condition, over which they have no control.
So it would appear that while the "woke" brigade constantly demand "tolerance" and "respect" for the "LGBTQ+ whatever daft letter they add next week community", they are conspicuously lacking in any for people with a recognised neurological condition!
2.5. Police our streets, not our tweets!
This has long been a slogan of the Free Speech Union - meaning that the British police should not be wasting time and public money investigating "offensive" messages posted on "social media". In some cases, this means messages which are genuinely offensive; in others, it simply means that a single person has made a complaint.
The most infamous case is that of Lucy Connolly. In July 2024, the nation was shocked and outraged by the Southport murders, where a deranged lunatic armed with a knife killed three little girls in a dance class. In the days following, when the killer was arrested, it was rumoured that he was an asylum seeker and a Muslim, which led to violent protests against immigration and against Muslims.
In the immediate aftermath, Mrs. Connolly, who is a mother, and also has to care for her disabled husband, posted an angry "tweet" on social media, suggesting that people might "set fire to all the ( expletive ) hotels" housing asylum seekers. Within a few hours, when it was revealed that the murderer is neither an asylum seeker nor a Muslim - he was born in the UK, and his parents come from a mainly Christian country - she very quickly deleted the post and issued a public apology.
Nevertheless, she was arrested and charged with "inciting racial hatred". She pleaded guilty ( on the advice of a solicitor, who wrongly assumed that she would receive a mild sentence ), and in her defence, said she was especially distressed by the news of the murders, having lost a child herself. It's also worth noting that the offensive phrase was followed with "for all I care"; i.e. she did not specifically urge people to set fire to the hotels. She was sentenced to 31 months in prison.
Of course, the message was offensive, and deserved to be punished in some way - perhaps by a fine or community service. But two and a half years in prison, for a "tweet"??? Does anyone not consider that excessive?
To put this into perspective, Mrs. Connolly was given a harsher sentence, for posting an offensive message - for which she publicly apologised, remember - than some of those who actually participated in the violent rioting, and among other things, threw bricks at police officers! And even - get this - a harsher sentence than a paedophile was given for raping a child!!!
At a time when the British judicial system has huge backlogs, with offenders typically waiting months or even years for their cases to go to court, many of the rioters were fast-tracked through the system, and tried and sentenced within a matter of days or weeks. This was demanded by the Prime Minister himself, to "make an example of them", to deter others. So does anyone believe for a millisecond that the judge who imposed that excessive sentence on Mrs. Connolly was not similarly instructed to make an example of her? She described herself as "Starmer's political prisoner"; she may well have a point!
Mrs. Connolly served just over one year, and in accordance with current rules, was released after serving 40% of her sentence - but she remains on licence for the remainder. At about the same time, one Ricky Jones posted a tweet, in which he stated his opinion that anti-immigration protesters "should have their throats cut". Does anyone doubt that that was equally as offensive as Mrs. Connolly's post, or that it constituted "inciting violence"?
But what punishment did he get none whatsoever! So it appears that the punishment for an offensive message depends very much on which side of the argument the author is on! Or perhaps which side of the political spectrum; of course, the fact that Mrs. Connolly's husband is a Conservative councillor, and Mr. Jones is a Labour one, had nothing to do with it... and there goes a flying pig.
Then there was the case of Jamie Michael, a former Royal Marine who served in Iraq - that is, a man who has served, and risked his life for, his country. Also following the Southport murders, he posted a video on social media, urging people to protest against illegal immigration. He was subsequently arrested and charged with "inciting racial hatred".
While Mr. Michael admitted using some "clumsy" language, he had specifically referred to illegal immigrants, not all immigrants. More importantly, he explicitly urged people to protest peacefully, and not to resort to violence. So by what bizarre stretch did that amount to "inciting racial hatred"?
He pleaded not guilty, and went to trial - defended by a solicitor provided by the FSU. The jury took all of seventeen minutes to find him not guilty - the fastest returned verdict in British legal history - clearly indicating that the jurors considered that the charge was ridiculous, and should never have gone to court!
But that was not the end of it After being acquitted, Mr. Michael was banned from coaching his daughter's football team, supposedly due to "safeguarding" concerns. So he was somehow declared to be "a danger to children", as a result of the "crime" which he was judged by a jury not to have committed!!!
The reason given for this was that he "used dehumanising language", because he "referred to a non-white individual as a 'creature'" the inference being that he did so because the individual is non-white. He did no such thing! He did not refer to "a non-white individual" as a creature; he referred to a deranged lunatic who murdered three little girls as a creature!
In my opinion, any individual who murders children, irrespective of his ethnicity, forfeits any right to be regarded as human! I don't recall any such outrage when the former girlfriend of the late, utterly unlamented Ian Huntley referred to him in court as "that thing"!
At the time of writing, Mr. Michael is still fighting his case on the latter issue.
Then, of course, there was the absurd case of Graham Linehan, the Irish comedy writer, who now lives in the US. In the UK, an arrest warrant had been issued for him, for a series of humorous social media comments which criticised "transgender" people - with which the very large majority of people would undoubtedly agree. He was arrested at Heathrow Airport, as soon as he set foot in the country, by five police officers! Much outrage has been expressed about the fact that he was arrested by armed police officers; that is in fact irrelevant, as it happened in the airport, where for obvious reasons, the police simply are routinely armed. But for what idiotic reason did it take five of them to arrest one middle-aged man? A middle-aged man, moreover, with a serious medical condition, which resulted in him collapsing in custody and having to be rushed to hospital.
Linehan was actually accused of "inciting violence", but his alleged "crime" was later downgraded to a so-called "non-crime hate incident" - which is the topic of the next page.
It's no coincidence that 300 people joined the FSU in one day, following this incident!
I can do no better than to quote Nigel Farage: "People often ask, at what point do we become North Korea? Well, Mr. Linehan has just found that out!"
2.6. Newspeak
George Orwell, in 1984, imagined the concept of "Newspeak", whereby the totalitarian Government deliberately engineers the language, to control how people speak, and therefore control how they think. As a character in the book says, "Eventually there will be no more thoughtcrime, as there will be no words with which to express it."
Is this not exactly what is now happening in real life? 14 years ago, I wrote an essay elsewhere on this site, titled "Please can we have our language back?", about the mutilation of the English language in the name of "political correctness". This began forty years ago, with certain left wing London councils insisting on finding racism where it didn't exist, and banning the use of innocent words and phrases, which a handful of white people unilaterally decided were offensive to ethnic minorities, without having the sense to ask any for their opinion! It continued with attacks on equally non-existent sexism, such as replacing male and female forms of job titles with "gender-neutral" ones.
In recent years, this has been taken to ever more ridiculous extremes. Using gender-neutral job titles, particularly in place of traditionally male ones, is one thing, and is perhaps fair enough. But many companies and organisations - and again, some councils are the worst for it - insist on using "gender-neutral" language, not to acknowledge the equality of men and women, but to pander to the tiny proportion of people who somehow claim to be neither! They have issued lengthy "guidelines" - to which employees are required to adhere, or else - with ever-increasing lists of words which are no longer allowed, and their "approved" alternatives.
In today's bizarre so-called "gender ideology" - which claims that people can somehow "choose" their gender, and "identify as" the opposite gender to their biological sex - there are a tiny handful of deluded individuals - a small fraction of one percent of the population - who "identify as non-binary", whatever that means. That is, they somehow claim to be neither male nor female - I don't pretend to have any comprehension of what that actually means - and insist on being referred to as "they" and "them", instead of by male or female pronouns. And the rest of us are expected to bend over backwards to conform to their delusions!
For example, some airlines have stopped saying "ladies and gentlemen" in their announcements, in order not to offend that tiny proportion who claim to be "non-binary". In some schools, the teachers have stopped saying "boys and girls" for the same reason.
At least one British council has even banned the use of traditional forms of address - Mr., Mrs., Miss and Ms. ( The latter has been used for many years by some women, who prefer not to indicate their marital status. ) All its letters are now addressed using a made-up "gender-neutral" title of "Mx." ( I have no idea how that's supposed to be pronounced! )
If I received a letter addressed like that, I would send it back, and say, "I know what gender I am, thanks very much. My form of address is 'Mr.' - use it!"
Why should the more than 99% of normal people be expected to speak and write gibberish, to pander to the fantasies of a handful of deluded nutcases?
2.7. "Blasphemy" by the back door
"Blasphemy" has effectively not been a crime in the UK for the last fifty years. The archaic law defining it as such was formally abolished as recently as 2008, but no-one had actually been prosecuted for it since 1976. ( Someone tried unsuccessfully to do so in 2006, which prompted the Government to finally abolish the law. )
Nor should it be! There is no place for such a concept in a democracy, and certainly not in today's "multi-faith" society, where everyone has the right to follow whichever religion they choose, or not to follow any. Obviously, to the followers of any given religion, "blasphemy" means offending their religion, while it's OK for them to offend anyone else's - and to an atheist, it means nothing at all. ( And it's worth noting that the ancient law applied only to "blasphemy" against Christianity. )
Today, however, there are some - including some in Government - who seem determined to bring back this archaic concept in all but name - but only to protect a single religion, and not the majority one!
In March 2026, following a very lengthy process, the Government has adopted an official definition of so-called "Islamophobia" - or as it has now been renamed, "anti-Muslim hostility". This is defined as "intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts that are directed at Muslims because of their religion, including where that perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance." It also covers "unlawful discrimination intended to disadvantage Muslims", and such vague concepts as "prejudicial stereotyping".
While the definition is "non-statutory", i.e. not legally binding, both public and private bodies are being urged to adopt it, such as local government, schools, universities and the NHS. The Government even plans to appoint an official to "advise on how it should be applied".
But why is such a thing necessary? Discrimination on the grounds of any religion is already an offence under the Equality Act - so why does one particular religion need or deserve special treatment? This is one of several reasons why the Free Speech Union is legally challenging this definition - that it overlaps areas already covered by existing legislation. Another is that it uses vague and legally undefined terms such as "prejudicial stereotyping", which, according to the accompanying guidance, "is intended to encompass behaviour that is not necessarily unlawful, but which is reprehensible".
Yes, you did read that correctly; the Government is actually trying to prohibit "behaviour that is not necessarily unlawful"!
The existence of this definition and guidance poses an extremely serious threat to free speech! Since it has long been demanded by Muslims of the more extremist variety, it goes without saying that they will try to weaponise it to silence any legitimate criticism of their religion and its beliefs, and to impose their own "blasphemy" laws on everyone else.
A former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - who is herself a Muslim - says the definition "restricts what you can do and say about Muslims in ways that do not apply to speech or actions about people of any other faith". In other words, it's a clear case of "one law for them…", and a "blasphemy" law in all but name.
It's a fundamental part of democracy that we should all have the right to criticise any religion and its beliefs - which is a completely different thing from personally attacking or insulting individuals who follow it. And does anyone doubt that Islam is especially deserving of criticism?
We are talking about a religion which, in the 21st Century, still regards women as men's property and denies them any rights. In some versions of it, women are forced to cover their faces in public, and 12-year-old girls are forced into marriage. Not to mention a religion which drives people to murder their own daughters, for supposedly "shaming the family". ( In one such infamous case here in the UK, the daughter's terrible "crime" was to wear a T-shirt! )
So if the rest of us are prevented from criticising that, then something is very seriously wrong!
For a real example of "blasphemy by the back door", consider the well-publicised case of Hamit Coskun. Mr. Coskun is a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity, who fled his country and was granted asylum in the UK. He is an atheist, despite having been brought up as a Muslim.
In February 2025, Coskun set fire to a copy of the Qu'ran ( his own ) outside the Turkish Embassy in London, while shouting some rude comments about Islam. He did so as a political protest against the Islamist policies of Turkey's current president, which contradict the country's secular constitution.
He was then attacked by an enraged Muslim, one Moussa Kadri, who chased him brandishing a knife, screaming "I'm going to kill you!" Kadri spat on him, kicked him and slashed at him with the knife, resulting in Coskun being taken to hospital.
As you would hope, Kadri was arrested, as was another man who also kicked Coskun - but so was Coskun! Kadri was convicted of assault and possession of a knife, but got away with a suspended sentence. Meanwhile, Coskun was convicted of a "religiously aggravated public order offence", and fined.
While burning a religious "holy" book is obviously offensive to followers of that religion, it is not a crime! But it was ruled that Coskun’s conduct was "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". Incredibly, the judge even claimed that the fact that Kadri attacked him with a knife demonstrated how offensive his conduct was to Muslims. Yes, really – the judge actually blamed the victim for the action of the violent knife attacker!
Supported by both the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society, Coskun won an appeal, and his conviction was overturned. The appeal court ruled that his action did not meet the legal test of "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". After all, he didn’t burn the Qu'ran outside a Muslim place of worship, but outside the Turkish Embassy - which is a perfectly legitimate place for a political protest!
The appeal judge stated that "There is no offence of blasphemy in our law", and that "The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb." He could not have been any clearer!
Yet for some bizarre reason, the Crown Prosecution Service then challenged the appeal in the High Court, and tried to get Coskun's conviction reinstated! The United States government, despite its current draconian policies on immigration, said that it would consider granting Coskun asylum if he lost the case again; Coskun himself said he would accept it, since "If the High Court decides I am guilty after all, Britain will have failed me."
Lord Young, Director of the FSU, said that if the CPS won its case, it would be "a gold-embossed invitation to religious fanatics" to impose their blasphemy codes on the rest of us.
Thankfully, the CPS lost again, and Coskun's acquittal stands. But some of its "reasoning" was truly disturbing. It argued that burning a book in a public place "is in itself disorderly", and "all the more so when the book is a holy text".
Er – what? If burning any book is considered "disorderly", then why should it be considered worse if the book is a "holy text"? "Holy" is another word which has no meaning outside the context of religion; naturally, to the followers of any given religion, it only means whatever they consider "holy", and to an atheist, it means nothing at all. So if that statement doesn’t constitute a "blasphemy" law in all but name, then what does?
Does anyone actually believe that anyone who burned any book other than a religious one would be arrested and prosecuted as Mr. Coskun was? For example, if a Chinese pro-democracy campaigner burned a copy of Chairman Mao’s "Little Red Book" outside the Chinese Embassy, or if a "trans rights" activist burned a Harry Potter book, because they don't like the personal views of J. K. Rowling? I very much doubt it.
As a real example, when Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion, a number of aggrieved Christians made public displays of burning it - but I don’t recall any of them being arrested! Dawkins himself presumably laughed all the way to the bank, as in order to burn copies of the book, the protestors first had to buy them!
Let's be clear about this; had Hamit Coskun been found guilty again, then Britain would not only have failed him; it would have failed us all!
2.8. The Banter Ban
Recently, at the time of writing, the UK Government has passed into law one of the most absurd pieces of legislation imaginable, which goes perhaps further than any other to kill the right of free speech. Lord Toby Young has summed it up perfectly, saying, "It's as bonkers as it sounds!" This is a clause added to employment rights law, which the FSU has christened the "Banter Ban".
This says that employers must "take reasonable measures to protect their employees from harassment or offence by third parties". So what does that mean, exactly? In the case of businesses which deal with the public, such as pubs and restaurants, "third parties" means the customers. So a pub landlord, for example, is now required to "take reasonable measures" to protect his staff from "harassment or offence" by the customers. More specifically, it refers to "harassment or offence" on the grounds of a person's "protected characteristics", as defined by the Equality Act 2010.
What does that mean in practice? In the case of harassment, it's fair enough. If a customer says something directly to a member of staff, which is personally insulting or offensive to that individual on the grounds of their "protected characteristics", then that is of course unacceptable, and the landlord would be well within his rights to ask the customer to leave, and perhaps ban him from the establishment. That has already been an offence for the last 16 years, under the Equality Act - so why do we need another law to say the same thing?
Similarly, if an intoxicated customer was to shout offensive language in a loud voice for all to hear, then the landlord would also throw him out, which has always been the case.
But look at the other part; a landlord is required to "protect" his staff from harassment or offence. This means, in effect, that if a member of staff simply happens to overhear a comment or joke in someone's private conversation, which he or she personally considers offensive - even if no-one else does - then he or she can complain to the landlord, and the latter will be obliged to throw the customer out - or perhaps even an entire group!
Furthermore, at least in theory, the employee could even sue the landlord, for not having "taken reasonable measures" to protect him or her against being offended! Therefore, a landlord is not only required to take action if an employee overhears an offensive remark, but also to somehow ensure that it never happens in the first place!
Firstly, this is a direct contradiction of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which as previously mentioned, explicitly states that the right of free speech includes "the right to offend", i.e. the right to state an opinion which others may find offensive, as long as it's lawful. To put it another way, no-one has the right not to be offended!
Secondly, how can this possibly be implemented? How is it possible for a landlord to ensure that none of his employees ever overhear any private comment between customers, which they consider offensive? The only way would be to ask every individual employee for a list of subjects which they personally consider offensive - particularly with regard to their own "protected characteristics" - and collate all those personal lists into a master list - presumably prominently displayed - of subjects which customers are not allowed to talk about! Hence the term "Banter Ban"!
And even if a landlord does impose such rules on his customers, how can he actually enforce it? If this requirement is interpreted to the letter, then landlords will have to employ "banter bouncers", to eavesdrop on customers' conversations, and take pre-emptive action if anyone dares to talk about any forbidden topic!
Of course this sounds ridiculous, and it is - deliberately so! But it's a prediction of what could - indeed must - happen in future, if this barmy law is followed to its logical conclusion!
Lord Young proposed an entirely reasonable and sensible amendment to this clause, to say that it should only apply to remarks made directly to employees, rather than simply overheard - but this was rejected.
I've discussed this matter with my Labour MP, who apparently supports the clause. He said he has a "fundamental belief" that "everyone should have the right to feel safe in their place of work". Yes, of course they should; no reasonable person would dispute that! But how exactly does overhearing a joke, in someone else's private conversation, cause anyone not to "feel safe"? I’m baffled as to how anyone can think it does, unless they are pathetic beyond belief!
It's impossible to overstate the utter absurdity of this clause! If we can't speak freely with our mates in a pub, then where can we???