Britain’s dangerous blasphemy law push

Imagine, for a moment, a world where disagreeing with theocratic expansionism is a legal offense. Where raising concerns about ideological clashes gets you excommunicated from polite society. Where quoting a renowned political scientist could cost you your career. Welcome to Britain, circa 2022—when Gary Mond was forced to resign as Vice President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and UK Treasurer of the Jewish National Fund for daring to acknowledge the obvious.

Mond’s guilt? Expressing concerns about Islam and referencing U.S. political scientist Samuel Huntington’s widely debated thesis on the “Clash of Civilizations.” Mond’s words—at times forceful, but arguably within his discretion—merely pointed out the reality that radical Islamist movements openly seek conflict with the West. But in the political climate of the time, that was enough for the self-appointed gatekeepers of acceptable discourse to brand him persona non grata. Not content with merely driving him out of the Board of Deputies, his critics went further: the Charity Commission disqualified him from serving in a leadership role in charities, a punishment reserved for the morally bankrupt and the financially corrupt.

Fast forward to 2024, and reason—albeit belatedly—has prevailed. The disqualification was overturned in appeal, exposing what should have been evident all along: the attack on Mond was not about justice but about silencing dissent. The entire episode was a test case in the creeping authoritarianism of Britain’s new speech codes, operating under the ever-expanding and deliberately nebulous concept of “Islamophobia.”

The timing is no coincidence. This affair unfolded against the backdrop of a determined campaign to embed a legal definition of Islamophobia into British law. Initially championed by London Mayor Sadiq Khan and now fully embraced by the Labour government, the initiative is advancing with disturbing momentum. Labour Deputy Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has announced the establishment of a “Council on Islamophobia.” The Muslim Council of Britain is aggressively lobbying for a definition that would outlaw criticism of Islam under the guise of combating bigotry.

The implications of this effort are chilling. For decades, Britain has prided itself on being a bastion of free expression. Yet now, the Left is attempting to equate Islamophobia with antisemitism, a grotesque distortion of history and morality. Let’s be clear: antisemitism is the longest-running, most virulent form of racism in human history. It has resulted in government-sponsored genocides, expulsions, and systematic discrimination against a people who neither proselytise nor seek territorial expansion. Jews have never conquered by the sword. In contrast, Islam spread through conquest, with jihad woven into its doctrinal history.

Moreover, Islam is not an oppressed minority faith but the religion of nearly two billion people, backed by 57 Islamic states (22 of them Arab), many of which deploy the full force of their diplomatic networks. The attempt to frame Islamophobia as a structural oppression on par with antisemitism is a cynical ploy to protect an ideology from scrutiny, rather than to safeguard individuals from discrimination. Indeed, the term “Islamophobia” itself is wielded less as a shield for Muslims and more as a cudgel against critics of Islamist ideology.

The Mond affair is a cautionary tale. It demonstrated how these new taboos stifle debate and curtail the ability to discuss Islam’s role in geopolitics, security, and cultural conflict. Mond did nothing more than articulate widely debated ideas, yet he was made an example of to instil fear in others. His exoneration is a victory, but it is a fragile one. The forces that sought to cancel him remain in power, more emboldened than ever.

If Labour succeeds in enshrining Islamophobia as a criminal or civil offense, Britain will have institutionalised a modern-day blasphemy law. Expressing the most basic truths about religious extremism, historical conquest, or political Islam could land individuals in court. This is not progress—it is regression wrapped in the language of tolerance.

If society values free speech, society must fight back. The antidote to intolerance is not enforced silence but open debate. Britain should not be in the business of sanctifying any ideology, let alone one that—historically—has been enforced at the edge of a sword. If this lunacy continues, all Britons may soon find that the only crime greater than speaking out is remaining silent.