By The BlackBeltBarrister
(Based on my YouTube video – watch here for full coverage and legal commentary.)
It appears we may be edging dangerously close to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws — not through direct legislation, but by the back door, through the courts and Crown Prosecution Service.
The recent case of a man being charged under aggravated public order laws for burning a religious book — specifically the Quran — has reignited concerns about whether religious protections are beginning to supersede freedom of expression in the UK. While I cannot comment directly on this ongoing case for legal reasons, I can examine the broader implications, the legal framework, and the precedent it could set.
A Charge That Raises Questions
At the heart of the controversy is a charge brought under Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which enhances penalties for offences aggravated by religious or racial hostility. The underlying offence is Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 — namely, the intentional use of “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
On the surface, this may appear to be a straightforward matter of public order. However, the charge sheet, made public by Robert Jenrick MP, reveals troubling legal vagueness. The alleged offence reads:
“…with intent to cause against the religious institute of Islam, harassment, alarm or distress…”
This is where legal issues begin to surface. Islam is not a legal or natural person. As such, it cannot be “alarmed” or “harassed” in the legal sense. Public order offences are designed to protect people, not ideologies or belief systems. If the charge does not name a specific individual or group as victims, it raises questions about the legal validity of the prosecution.
Parliament Already Repealed Blasphemy Laws
Let us not forget that the UK formally abolished its common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel under Section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
The rationale at the time was clear:
“The law has fallen into disuse and runs the risk of bringing the legal system into disrepute… Individuals are already protected on grounds of religion and belief by other legislation.”
The government acknowledged that criminalising insult or offence against religion as a concept was both outdated and legally problematic. Which begs the question — why are we now prosecuting individuals for actions that offend religion, rather than specific people?
The Tahir Ali Factor
This incident cannot be viewed in isolation. MP Tahir Ali, in a recent address to Parliament, cited Islamophobia Awareness Month and called on the government to criminalise the desecration of religious texts, including the Quran. He did not call it a blasphemy law — but functionally, that’s precisely what it would amount to.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in his reply, condemned religious desecration but did not rule out legislation that could prohibit such acts — a potentially significant omission.
If Parliament begins to legislate against the desecration of religious texts — in effect, insulating religion itself from criticism or protest — it would contradict centuries of legal evolution towards freedom of speech and secular governance.
My Legal Viewpoint
I do not condone the public burning of religious books. I would not personally do it. Nor do I support any act that is intentionally inflammatory. But from a legal standpoint, that is not the test.
The criminal threshold must remain high, and must be based on real harm to individuals, not emotional offence to institutions or belief systems.
As a barrister, I will defend the right to offend, to protest, and to express controversial views. This includes speech and actions that many find disagreeable or distasteful. Because once we begin criminalising offence, we no longer have free speech — we have speech permissioned by the state.
Legal Incoherence or Political Caution?
Robert Jenrick’s letter was blunt. He criticised the Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police for bringing a charge against someone for offending Islam, when Islam is not a person.
“This wording is legally incoherent and contrary to the express will of Parliament…”
If such a prosecution proceeds and results in conviction, it will almost certainly be appealed, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court. At stake is not just one man’s record — but the balance between public order and freedom of expression in a modern, pluralistic society.
Why Ground News Matters
As with many controversial stories, media coverage varies wildly. Some outlets will present this issue as a necessary step to curb hate; others frame it as an attack on free speech. That’s why I use Ground News, which visually shows how left-leaning or right-leaning sources report the same story.
It’s useful to see where blind spots exist — when one side of the political spectrum simply doesn’t cover an issue, it creates narrative imbalance. If you want balanced, factual news, I recommend you try Ground News. I’ve partnered with them to offer 40% off using ground.news/bbb.
Are We Reversing Hard-Fought Freedoms?
We cannot ignore the uncomfortable possibility that the UK may be quietly returning to blasphemy-style enforcement, simply using different terminology. Instead of “blasphemy,” it’s now “hate crime” or “aggravated offence.” But the outcome is the same: religious criticism is punished, even if no person is directly harmed.
This is legally and philosophically troubling.
BONUS: Sadiq Khan’s Greenbelt U-Turn
While we’re on the topic of political about-faces, another major development is Sadiq Khan’s decision to build affordable housing on London’s Greenbelt — a drastic policy reversal.
The Greenbelt exists to prevent urban sprawl and protect air quality. Yet despite ongoing campaigns for clean air zones, the same authorities are now bulldozing trees to build housing — housing, it must be said, partly necessitated by a massive influx of migrants.
Recent estimates put the cost of housing illegal migrants and asylum seekers at £15 billion over the next few years. That’s a big part of the housing crisis — and now, we’re proposing to solve it by eroding the very land protected to ensure sustainable urban planning.
You can’t claim to fight for green policies while building on the few green areas left. If protecting the environment matters, the Greenbelt should be untouchable.
Conclusion: Slippery Slopes
Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of British democracy. Eroding it, even subtly, sets a dangerous precedent.
Legal clarity matters. Vague or politically motivated prosecutions risk undermining public trust in the justice system.
Policy reversals, whether about blasphemy laws or environmental protections, deserve critical legal scrutiny.
Let me know what you think in the comments. Are these examples of practical governance — or signs of quiet, creeping reversals of long-standing principles?
📺 Watch the Full Video
