‘Let’s be clear, we don’t have blasphemy laws in the UK.’ So said Jonathan Reynolds, the UK’s business secretary and premier solicitor impersonator, to the BBC earlier this week. Reynolds was pushing back against US vice-president JD Vance, who gave European leaders a very public dressing down at the Munich Security Conference last week for censoring their voters, and Britain for criminalising its Christians. Of course, Reynolds’s denial was about as trustworthy as his CV.
You needn’t alight, as Vance did, on the vexed issue of ‘buffer zones’ outside abortion clinics, which have led to Christians being arrested for staging silent protests / prayers, to see that blasphemy laws have made a horrifying comeback in Britain. Easily a more vivid example is that, a day before Vance addressed the global great and good in Munich, a man was arrested for burning a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in central London. Another man, who slashed at the Koran-burner with a knife, was also arrested. Welcome to 21st-century Britain, where we ‘don’t have blasphemy laws’ but you can be arrested – and stabbed – for desecrating a holy book. Maybe Reynolds could finally put that legal training to good use and explain the difference to us.
Except . . . the UK has literal blasphemy laws. They just don’t apply to blaspheming against Christians. But Muslims? Climate Change? Anyone in the government? That’s a paddlin’
Such protectionism has to mean that the government sees the Muslim population as being very close to actual kinetic war against everyone else and they’re desperately trying to avoid a trigger.
All while still bringing more Muslims in.
Perhaps they think that, if Islam hits some critical mass of population before triggering the fight, they can ultimately avoid the fight – presenting a fait accompli that no one dares oppose. Peace through submission?
Scary time to be English.
What are our legal options, if any, in the US to reverse the Muslim influx? Can we deport Obama’s Somalis for example? Or make life so challenging for them that they self-deport?
No, it literally doesn’t, but de facto does.
Perry makes an important point. Laws can be challenged and changed.
Ban halal slaughter and with luck, they’ll self-deport.
Yes if the UK had blasphemy laws then the quoran would be banned for dennying the Trinity and the divinity of Christ and thus the 1st and 2nd articles of religion of the established church of the realm.
Even an American knows that.
If they can arrest you for blasphemy – its a blasphemy law.
Some years ago on Facebook a lawyer told me we had Freedom of Speech in the United Kingdom – I listed the various statutes and some of the court convictions and punishments that showed we do NOT have Freedom of Speech in this country, and his response was to call me a “failed academic” and “far right”. He could not argue his case about there being Freedom of Speech – because he already knew that there was not Freedom of Speech here, he had been lying – just lying. He was used to ordinary people backing down, or facing punishment – so when challenged he had nothing.
But just because things are bad does not mean they can not get worse – and the establishment is fanatically determined to make things worse, to snuff out what freedom we have left. Whilst, at the same time, saying we are a “free country” and must spend what money we have left, and fight and die, for this freedom around the world.
The irony is totally lost on them.
As for the man arrested for damaging a Koran (his own property – he did not steal it) – he was protesting against the murder of a man in Sweden who had also damaged a Koran (also his own property – he did not steal it either) this man’s family had been murdered by Islamic forces in Iraq – but the establishment did not care. The man in Britain once had a daughter – she was murdered by Islamic forces in Israel, and the establishment (including the judge) did not care about that either.
You may not damage a Koran – but the establishment could not care less if you damage a Bible. The two tier “justice” is obvious.
By the way – the establishment is NOT Muslim, if the establishment have any real belief system at all it is some form of confused Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, “Woke” Marxism.
Islam is not compatible with any form of Marxism – so when the forces of Islam are strong enough they will destroy the “Woke” establishment.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
What is my risk of arrest if I visit the UK as an American tourist?
Might they review whatever I’ve said online, anywhere, and arrest me once I’m on UK soil? “They” being any prosecutor in the UK, at any level of government, deciding to look at me for whatever reason.
If this is not a significant (zero?) risk now, how far away is that?
I am not asking for idle reasons: I love the UK. I’ve only visited a handful of times but I’d love to come back…and soon I hope.
Paul,
Of course you are “far right”. As am I, as is J K Rowling as is… take your pick! “Far Right” is a general slur which, if it means anything, means not adhering to Woke standards.
You are slightly inaccurate about the Manchester Qu’ran burner. It has been taken into account that the murder of his daughter might have, “affected his mental health”.
NickM – yes indeed. As for the “mental health” of the judge – I suspect that the judge is quite sane, just evil – like the rest of the establishment. The words “the banality of evil” springs to mind – these people do not have horns and a tail, they do not shout and scream, they look entirely normal (indeed boring) and they speak with fake “compassionate” voices as they give lectures about how “Britain is a tolerant society – BUT…….”
GregWA – David Wood (a well known critic of Islam) recently wasted a lot of money on a proposed trip to Britain – hotel bill, airline tickets, train tickets to France….. but he will not be allowed to visit.
There is a new form that Americans have to fill in – it flags up who you are to the British authorities, and if you are “right wing” you can be turned down without appeal (and without real reason) – and you do not get your money back for hotel bills, airline tickets and so on…
Put it this way – I have never been found guilty of any criminal offence, but if I did not live here and applied to visit the U.K. – I would be turned down flat.
So if you want to see old towns – visit St Augustine in Florida and/or Charleston in South Carolina (both very good places).
If you really want to come to Europe – then visit Italy, Venice, Florence and many other beautiful places (Rome is a bit much – too big).
If someone has a time machine Britain would be a really great place to visit – I would suggest the EARLY 1960s.
Why do we have de facto blasphemy laws for islam, and only for islam? It is because muslims take their religion extremely seriously, and will kill anyone who “disrespects” it. Not all of them, it is true, but enough of them to matter.
Recall the gentleman in London who decided to burn a koran was attcked with a knife by a muslim who was passing by. Which of us, seeing a bible being burnt, would have the instant response of stabbing the person burning it?
So the “authorities”, who are cowards, choose the path of least resistance. If muslims react with violence towards any slight at their “religion”, it is best as a matter of public policy to criminalize any such slights.
Touching on the subject of inconsistent sentencing a former labour MP was today addressed as follows by the presiding magistrate:-
“I note that you Mr Amesbury, continued to punch Mr Fellows when he was on the ground and continued to shout at Mr Fellows. I consider this more culpable,” the magistrate said.
“You continued to attack when he was on the ground and it may have continued further had a bystander not intervened.
He was sentenced to 10 weeks in custody a.k.a. out in just over a month.
The judge has been mentioned on here from time to time.
After Amesbury was removed from the courtroom, Richard Derby, representing him, requested that the judge come back into court as he wished to make an application for bail.
Judge Ikram returned to court, sat down, paused briefly and said: “Application refused”
In fairness that at least was rather good.
Yes – if Judge Ikram is condemned when he does something bad then, in justice, he should be praised when he acts justly.
Mr Amesbury (Member of Parliament) was not acting for the Progressive cause – he is just a drunken thug who, indeed, continues to attack someone even when they are on the ground.
Progressives and Reactionaries (such as myself) can agree that drunken thugs who attack people and continue to attack them when they are on the ground, should be locked up.