(New York, N.Y.) – Last week, British Labour MP Tahir Ali asked Prime Minister Keir Starmer if the government would “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions.” Starmer did not immediately dismiss the idea of adopting such legislation, sparking fears about “blasphemy laws” and fears that would be fundamentally at odds with Britain’s long-established laissez-faire approach to blasphemy, while resurrecting long-dormant debates settled more than a century ago (the last occurrence of imprisonment for blasphemy in Britain took place in 1921).

The initial question was phrased with reference to Islamophobia Awareness Month, leading critics to accuse the MP of using legitimate concerns about anti-Muslim bigotry to protect beliefs—particularly those of Western Islamists—rather than to protect individuals facing discrimination.

Expert Analysis:

CEP Advisor Liam Duffy:

 “In the wake of Denmark’s 2023 law, Western democracies will increasingly come under pressure to adopt laws which enshrine the concept of ‘Islamophobia,’ and those which resemble blasphemy laws in all but name. The adoption of such laws would represent a serious threat to freedom of expression and would harm the vulnerable communities it purports to protect. In the face of such pressure, democratic leaders like the British Prime Minister must offer a stronger defense of our most fundamental freedoms and not be taken in by an illiberal agenda camouflaged by liberal arguments. Social cohesion and our democratic rights depend on it.”

CEP Senior Advisor and former UK Ambassador to Yemen, Edmund Fitton-Brown:

“Wholesale definitions of ‘Islamophobia’—those that would be used to justify a blasphemy law—are ripe to be weaponized by both Islamists and the far-right: two groups who would love to see the distinction between Muslims and Islamists disappear. Take, for example, the case of Lord Ian Austin, who was the target of ‘Islamophobia’ allegations for describing Hamas as “rapists and murderers” in a tweet. This is a clear example of the term being weaponized to protect extremists from criticism or scrutiny.

 Beyond its too-loose application, the notion of ‘Islamophobia’ itself is problematic. Britain is the country that produced Monty Python’s Life of Brian. We protect individuals, not ideas or religions. ‘Islamophobia,’ as a term, conflates the two.”

In December 2023, Denmark passed a law criminalizing the “inappropriate” treatment of religious texts. The legislation followed several high-profile public stunts in which copies of the Quran were intentionally destroyed, leading to unrest and numerous terror plots.

Denmark’s new “blasphemy law” was widely criticized, including by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), whose commissioner denounced the move as counterproductive and potentially harming the very minorities it purports to protect. No doubt, the Danish government’s decision was influenced by painful memories of the 2005/6 Jyllands-Posten affair, when the Scandinavian country of just 5.5 million people found itself at the center of an international storm over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed - a storm which impacted both Danish security and international trade for many years to come.

In fact, CEP research detailing plots and attacks since the 1989 fatwa against Salman Rushie demonstrates that Denmark and other Scandinavian countries were the targets of more jihadist violence in the years following the Jyllands-Posten controversy than even al-Qaeda’s more traditional enemy, the United States.

Consequently, the Danish government openly cited the security environment as a factor in the adoption of the new legislation, leading Danish human rights think tank Justitia to describe the move as “in essence giving in to the Assassin’s veto.”

Because the intentional destruction of religious texts is an ugly, provocative form of protest, the prospect of its banning tends to raise few eyebrows. But blasphemy allegations have been brought against people over personal squabbles and innocuous or accidental actions from Nigeria and Pakistan to Wakefield and Paris, often resulting in extreme and ferocious violence (even in jurisdictions where such laws already exist).

CEP Resources: 

To watch the CEP Online Roundtable ‘Responding to Blasphemy,’ featuring Justitia founder Jacob Mchangama and Professor Jytte Klausen, author of The Cartoons that Shook the World, please click here. 

To  watch a broader discussion on protecting freedom of speech while countering extremism with Jacob Mchangama and CEP experts Liam Duffy and Ian Acheson, please click here.