Blasphemy Debate: Why UK PM Keir Starmer is under fire

Christopher Hitchens once warned: “Resist it while you still can, and before the right to complain is taken away from you. The next thing you will be told is that you can’t complain because you’re Islamophobic.” His words, delivered with characteristic urgency, resonate eerily today as Labour MP Tahir Ali’s call for laws to protect religious texts and figures sparks fresh debates about freedom of expression in the UK.
Caught in the crossfire is Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, whose cautious response to the controversy has drawn ire from critics on all sides. In a political moment that demands clarity and conviction, Starmer’s apparent hesitancy to defend free speech has left many questioning his leadership—and the Labour Party’s commitment to democratic principles.
Ali has stirred controversy by suggesting the introduction of new laws to prohibit the desecration of religious texts and figures associated with the Abrahamic faiths. During a parliamentary session, Ali posed a question to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, asking if the government would consider such measures. This proposal has ignited a debate about the implications for free speech, religious tolerance, and societal cohesion.

The Call for Blasphemy Protections

Ali’s request reflects concerns from some religious communities about the growing instances of perceived disrespect toward sacred beliefs. However, critics argue that such a proposal resembles the now-defunct blasphemy laws that were abolished in the UK in 2008. These laws historically protected Christian doctrines and criminalised dissenting opinions, often at the expense of free expression.

The MP’s focus on Abrahamic religions—Islam, Christianity, and Judaism—has raised questions about inclusivity. Observers have pointed out that singling out these faiths could marginalise other religious or secular communities, creating a hierarchy of protections. British Hindus and Sikhs, for instance, might feel excluded, while atheists and free thinkers worry about a potential rollback of freedoms hard-won over centuries.

Criticism of Sir Keir Starmer’s Response

Prime Minister Starmer’s response to Ali’s question—acknowledging the seriousness of desecration but framing it as part of broader efforts to combat hatred—has faced criticism for being non-committal. Many expected a stronger defence of free speech from Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, but his cautious remarks have left critics questioning Labour’s stance on protecting democratic values.

Historical Context: The Repeal of Blasphemy Laws

Blasphemy laws in the UK date back to the medieval era and were initially designed to shield the Church of England from criticism. Over time, societal shifts and the growing value placed on free expression led to their repeal in 2008. The move was seen as a step forward in promoting a pluralistic society where individuals could challenge ideas without fear of legal repercussions.
Ali’s proposal has reignited debates about whether revisiting such laws would undermine this progress. Critics emphasise that a revival could embolden extremism and stifle necessary dialogue in an increasingly diverse society.

The Risks of Restricting Free Speech

Across the world, modern blasphemy laws have often been used to suppress dissent. In countries like Pakistan, accusations of blasphemy have led to mob violence, wrongful imprisonments, and even executions. Critics of Ali’s proposal argue that importing similar restrictions into the UK risks enabling sectarian divisions and eroding civil liberties.
Britain has already seen incidents of religious extremism linked to perceived blasphemy. A teacher remains in hiding after showing a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in class, and a 14-year-old autistic boy faced death threats over accidentally dropping a Quran. In both cases, critics assert that the absence of blasphemy laws was vital in preventing further institutional persecution.

Blasphemy Laws Around the World

Blasphemy laws exist in many countries worldwide, often criminalizing speech or actions perceived as disrespectful to religious beliefs. These laws are particularly prevalent in countries across the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa. Nations like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Nigeria enforce strict blasphemy laws, sometimes imposing severe penalties, including imprisonment, fines, or even the death penalty. Critics argue that such laws are frequently misused to suppress dissent and target religious minorities, fostering discrimination and injustice. Meanwhile, several Western countries, including the UK, have abolished such laws, emphasizing freedom of speech and religion as fundamental rights in modern democracies.

A Warning for the Future

Prominent voices like the late Christopher Hitchens warned against the resurgence of blasphemy restrictions, cautioning that they could pave the way for broader curtailments of speech. Hitchens famously urged people to resist such moves, predicting that free expression could soon come under attack under the guise of combating hate.

The Broader Implications

Ali’s proposal highlights broader tensions in modern British society. Balancing respect for religious beliefs with the need to protect freedom of expression is a complex challenge. However, many argue that safeguarding the latter is essential for fostering genuine dialogue and mutual understanding in a diverse democracy. The UK has long prided itself on upholding individual liberties, including the right to criticise or satirise religious and ideological ideas. Introducing laws that curb these freedoms risks setting a precedent that undermines these values and could embolden those seeking to impose more restrictive measures.