Max Thompson

Yesterday, the Government effectively reintroduced Britain’s blasphemy laws, 18 years after Parliament abolished them. Today, they push ahead with the biggest assault on English liberty by restricting our right to jury trials. The scary thing is: it’s only Tuesday.

Matthew Wright invited @_ConnieShaw onto his show to discuss @NJ_Timothy’s comments. When she didn’t agree with him, he accused her of “perpetuating racism”. The definition is silencing free speech. Perhaps he fancies his chances as the Government’s Islamophobia Tsar?

That Damehood and ministerial red box is looking further and further away doesn’t it @kimleadbeater

Nick Timothy and Nigel Farage are right, and Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer are wrong. Small groups of people, of whatever religion, praying in public places is fine. And as a Christian country we should allow a special privilege for churches to lead services in our national spaces, like the Palm Sunday celebration that happens in Trafalgar Square. What we don't want is mass ritual observances intended to claim the civic realm for another religion, or assert the domination of another culture over our own Christian traditions. What happens in our national spaces is not neutral. People use Trafalgar Square, for celebrations and demonstrations, to make a point about the kind of country they want us to be. The Palm Sunday pageant reminds us of who we are - not as individuals (many or most of us don't identify as Christians at all) but as a national community, with the roots of our institutions in the ground of the Bible and our most solemn communal moments, from coronations to funerals, mediated through the liturgies of the Church. A mass Adhan held there, or in any town square, is making a different point: that Britain is not a Christian country, and that - inshallah - one day it shall be Muslim. This is unacceptable to the British public and indeed incompatible with our constitution. As ever with these debates, the issue is partly one of kind and partly one of degree. There is an issue with Islam itself as a religion which in most interpretations does not admit of pluralism or freedom of conscience, and therefore is inherently aggrandising, including over territory. But with a bit of confidence and a bit of toleration we could handle that - if it were not for the issue of degree. It is the scale of Islam in Britain, and the ambition of its leaders for greater scale, that makes the problem. The numbers of people who assembled for the adhan in Trafalgar Square, clearly and openly claiming the territory for a faith with no connection (indeed, with strong doctrinal disagreement) with the model of Western liberal democracy that Britain has developed and exported to the world - that is the problem. The numbers, whether everyone there understood it this way or not (and I suspect many did), convey an explicit threat to the foundations of our country. Being relaxed about other people's religion is a good thing, a very British thing. I don't mind modern druids dancing around Stonehenge in my constituency (arguably, though the historicity is tenuous, they have a claim to the place). I don't mind small groups of Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims demonstrating the reality of Britain's religious toleration by worshiping in Trafalgar Square. But let's not kid ourselves about this adhan, or pretend that we're just seeing another harmless expression of Britain's religious diversity. We are seeing an abuse of liberalism, led by people who are not themselves liberal; or - let us imagine they are acting in good faith - who are themselves deceived about what they are doing. It should not happen again. And it would be good to hear the Church of England say so.

A week after the Government announced its official definition of Islamophobia, a Labour MP is already trying to silence the Shadow Justice Secretary, @NJ_Timothy. So much for your free speech assurances, @SteveReedMP. This is a blasphemy law via the back door.

Lords must fight back against dangerous changes to abortion law @ArleneFosterUK @politicshome politicshome.com/opinion/articl…

The Scottish Parliament is over 70% left/liberal/progressive It has just conclusively rejected euthanasia It's not a progressive cause

@LucyMPowell is a useful idiot.

The Government is trying to take away our ancient right to trial by jury in the same amount of time it took to debate the Salmon Act 1986 — which made it an offence to handle salmon in suspicious circumstances. It’s as sinister as it is absurd.

The right to trial by jury is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, codified in Magna Carta. This week, a majority of MPs voted to restrict that ancient right. Orwellian doesn’t begin cut it.

The official definition of Islamophobia was drafted by five individuals with links to Islamist organisations — including the Muslim Council of Britain. We should be deeply concerned about who this new Islamophobia tsar will be. This is a blasphemy law via the back door.

Labour hate our history.

📣🚨The Free Speech Union is mounting a legal challenge against the Government over its official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as 'anti-Muslim hatred' — and its appointment of a new 'tsar' to punish people who fall foul of it. This amounts to a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door. The definition is vague and subjective, and will be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism and debate about Islam, Muslims, and Islamic practices and history. The FSU’s General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, said: “This is the most serious threat to free speech the Government has come up with so far — the only area in which it’s achieving any success. “If we don’t win this fight, tens of thousands of people a year could lose their jobs at the say-so of a Labour-appointed ‘tsar’. It’s dystopian.” Public bodies will adopt this definition — despite it being non-statutory — with the same zeal the police have shown in investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). It is predicted by one of the drafters of the definition that it could lead to around 20,000 reports of 'anti-Muslim hostility' a year. At present, the number of recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes is around 4,000. In a free society, no religion should be shielded from legitimate criticism. This proposal places one faith above the rest. The Free Speech Union is bringing a legal challenge on two grounds. First, the definition relies on nebulous, legally undefined terms such as “negative and prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims”, making it incoherent and irrational — and ripe for weaponisation. Second, adopting such a definition cuts across legislation already enacted by Parliament and therefore breaches the public law principle known as “occupying the field”. Under this established public law doctrine, new regulations, put in place by ministers, must not replace existing legislation. It is constitutionally unlawful. In this case, the body responsible for protecting Muslims from discrimination is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not an anti-Muslim hostility 'tsar'. Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws 18 years ago. We can't let this Government resurrect them via the back door. This is one of the biggest battles the Free Speech Union has ever taken on in its six years — and we need your help. Judicial reviews are expensive, but this is a fight we felt we had to take on. Donate to our crowdfunder below👇

‘An attempt to stifle freedom of speech!’ @Jacob_Rees_Mogg criticises the government over reports that an Islamophobia definition may be enforced, in an attempt to tackle anti-Muslim hatred.

Tonight Labour voted to scrap jury trials. They’re trashing ancient rights rather than getting the courts sitting round the clock. It’s shameful.

It is only Tuesday, and this Government has already announced an official definition of Islamophobia, an Islamophobia tsar, and plans to push ahead today with restricting our ancient right to trial by jury — all of which will stifle free speech in this country. This is not governing in the national interest. What we are seeing is an attempt to reintroduce Britain’s blasphemy laws, 18 years after they were abolished by Parliament, and the biggest assault on English liberty — particularly free speech — in over 800 years. This Government is becoming increasingly authoritarian and more bullish in its open disdain for free speech. The fight for free speech has never been more important than it is today.

👇

From @BrexitStewart Falconer's quest to move the Assisted Dying Bill through the Lords begs questions of his wider judgement conservativehome.com/2026/03/06/ste…

We are set to get an Islamophobia tsar and an official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” as part of the Government’s new social cohesion strategy. While the leaked draft shows that “racialisation” will not be included, it will include “pre-judicial stereotyping” as a form of anti-Muslim hate. In reality, the Government is using this definition as a vehicle to introduce a Muslim blasphemy law — 18 years after Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws. The official definition will silence legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. It will deter public officials and news outlets from speaking out about issues such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. The Free Speech Union’s recent investigative briefing exposed that all five members of the working group tasked by Angela Rayner with drafting the definition have troubling links to Islamist organisations. So, with that in mind: who will be the Islamophobia Tsar? The Free Speech Union remains firmly opposed to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws by the back door. Read more below 👇