The UK just swerved away from a dangerous path. After months of pressure, ministers have finally moved to ditch plans around an official “Islamophobia” definition that would criminalise criticism of religion (well, Islam) and smuggle in a de-facto blasphemy law through the back door.  

A fresh court ruling also overturned a Quran-burning conviction and expressly reaffirmed that blasphemy has no place in UK law. Now, it seems, free expression is back. But what changed, and where should the boundaries be drawn? 

The U-Turn in Favour of Free Speech

Reporting indicates that the UK government is set to drop plans for an Islamophobia law and step back from adopting an official definition at national level. The decision is based on the realisation that any such implementation removes any possibility for legitimate criticism of belief systems – a slippery slope towards total censorship. 

The UK Human Rights Blog summarised a key ruling that overturned a Quran-burning conviction, reaffirming the basic democratic principle that there is no blasphemy offence in English law. Offensive or upsetting speech about religion remains protected, subject to existing laws against harassment, threats, or inciting real violence. 

Coverage of the revised approach notes that any definition that may be considered in future must explicitly protect the right to criticise religion, with a shift in language away from broad catch-all formulations that previously promised to put debate and satire at risk. 

In short, the overall idea has been recalibrated: protect people from hatred and violence, but do not grant anybody immunity from authentic criticism.

Why It Was Such a Slippery Slope

Commentary warning of blasphemy laws in disguise focuses on two risks. Firstly, we were heading towards a world in which robust criticism of religious practices would be treated as “racism” by authorities, HR departments and local councils nationwide. And secondly, public-order powers could’ve led to police and prosecutors punishing general offence rather than actual harm, inviting viewpoint discrimination. 

Anti-Muslim threats and hatred are not being minimised here, but rather an important line is being drawn between protecting people and protecting a belief.  

How It Will Work

People should be allowed to criticise religion. Laws against it change police guidance, university policy, social-media moderation and corporate HR codes who all take their cues from official language. Offence and harm are two very different matters, and now they will rightly be treated as such. 

The decision to U-turn on the controversial law captures the core settlement of a free-thinking society: you are free to attack ideas, scriptures, symbols and ceremonies, while others can answer, protest and boycott. Criminal sanctions belong to true incitement, violence, targeted harassment, or credible threats. Perhaps this time, the crucial line will stay drawn. 

Three Simple Questions

What about genuinely hateful rhetoric cloaked as “critique”? 

Existing civil and criminal provisions already catch threatening, abusive or harassing behaviour. The court ruling did not license intimidation; it simply restated that offence itself is not a crime. 

Does narrowing the definition ignore real spikes in anti-Muslim incidents? 

No – it aims to pursue serious offences with the right tools while keeping debate about religion lawful. The revised approach is in fact to safeguard legitimate criticism. 

Was there really a risk of a de-facto blasphemy regime? 

A broad, ambiguous formula along with a sprawling definition of Islamophobia would have quickly cascaded through guidance, HR handbooks and campus speech codes. It would not have taken long for the general population to fear criticising religion – at least Islam – in the real world. We already see it with self-censorship on the rise. So, even a gentle way of introducing such a definition would’ve quietly led to back-door blasphemy rules. 

In the Real World

Policing and prosecutions must only apply existing laws on conduct rather than belief. Insulting religion is not prosecutable. Codes of conduct in universities may now remove wording on protecting people from “offence” to their faith. Sanctions for bullying or targeted hate will be retained, but robust debate and academic freedoms can now return. In civil society and the media, criticism of doctrine should no longer be criminalised, but focusing on defending people’s safety and dignity remains unchanged.  

Final Thought

There’s a long list of free speech issues remaining in the UK and worldwide, but for once we see a course correction. Ministers are stepping back from expansive definitions that blur people and their beliefs, and judges have reiterated that blasphemy is not returning to courtroom decisions. Even mainstream media is changing its stance, echoing healthier sentiment: protect citizens from violence and abuse, but also protect open criticism and simple “offence”.  

Join the Conversation

Is this a meaningful reversal that may lead to U-turns on other topics, such as the boundaries of the Online Safety Act? Do you count it as a small victory for free speech in the West? Add your thoughts below.