The Free Speech Union

📣🚨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👇

The reduction of jury trials is a step too far. There is very little evidence to support the government's decision to remove this constitutional safeguard. Speaking on Naga Munchetty's BBC Radio 5 Live show as part of the 'law and justice in depth' series, our Chair Kirsty Brimelow KC discusses the proposed jury trial reforms and what we think will actually reduce the backlog plaguing our criminal justice system. Listen from 1:42:00 - bbc.in/4uQ0pYy #JusticeNeedsJuries

The official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” is a government-sponsored blasphemy law via the back door. In just two weeks, it is already being used to silence those who criticise Islam — its practices and its history. The Shadow Justice Secretary, @NJ_Timothy, was reported by a Labour MP to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, labelled an “Islamophobe,” and faced calls from the Prime Minister to resign — all for criticising mass Muslim prayer in Trafalgar Square. When FSU External Affairs Officer @_ConnieShaw appeared on LBC to discuss his comments, she was accused of perpetuating racism simply for expressing a different view to the presenter Matthew Wright. After the interview, a caller criticised Matthew Wright for “closing her down.” He defended his actions, claiming Connie was “putting out anti-Muslim hatred,” later adding on Bluesky that he “can’t tolerate racism, however it’s dressed up.” A central issue with the definition is the decision to include “prejudicial stereotyping” as a form of “anti-Muslim hostility” because Islam is not a race. This risks making it far more difficult for individuals — including public officials and media outlets — to discuss issues such as the grooming gangs scandal or Islamist extremism. When Communities Secretary Steve Reed introduced the definition, he assured the public that criticism of Islamic practices or Muslims would not be labelled as hostile. Two weeks on, it is already being weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. Watch Connie Shaw on @GBNews 👇

David Lammy wants to take away our right to jury trials. There are two possible explanations: A: He’s an ideological vandal. B: He’s too weak to stand up to the civil service. Either way, he’s taking a sledgehammer to a cornerstone of our criminal justice system.

📣🚨 COMING SOON…

David Lammy claims axing jury trials is the only way to tackle the Crown Court backlog. He is wrong. The Institute for Government shows it would save just 2% of Crown Court time — not the 20% Lammy promised. This is ideological vandalism. If he gets his way, public trust in the justice system will be eroded, and his legacy will be more people punished for exercising their right to free speech. Some reading for you, Deputy Prime Minister @DavidLammy 👇

Five years ago, hundreds of Islamists protested at the gates of Batley Grammar School all because a teacher showed a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad during a Religious Education lesson. Within days, he was forced into hiding. Threatened with death. His family targeted and children forced to miss school. Five years on. He is STILL in hiding. Still living in fear. In Britain. And what’s changed? Instead of defending free speech, Labour are now debating new definitions of “anti-Muslim hostility” and appointing a tsar to police it. This amounts to blasphemy law by the back door and it will have a significant and chilling effect on how people live. Labour councils in the north of England have issued advice to teachers warning that children’s drawings may be deemed “idolatrous” under sharia law. That music and dance lessons might breach religious expectations. Teachers are effectively being told to be careful. Children risk being labelled blasphemous for drawing a nativity scene. 
 No religion should be above the law. No belief should be beyond criticism. The Batley teacher was cleared of any wrongdoing and an independent report said he was badly let down. But it didn’t matter. His life was already torn apart. His children forced out of school. His family still in hiding. So ask yourself, if this happened again today, would anything be different? Or would we fail him all over again? We must stand up for our teachers.
We must defend children. 
We must say no to extremism and no to blasphemy laws in Britain. We MUST fight for free speech.

The official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech. All five members of the Working Group tasked with drafting it have concerning links to Islamist organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Engagement and Development. The UK already has laws in place that protect people from discrimination on the grounds of their religion. If the Government were serious about tackling genuine anti-Muslim hate, it would enforce existing law rather than introduce a de facto blasphemy law. While there is an official definition of antisemitism, no imam has been prosecuted for blatant acts of it. After the 7 October Hamas attacks, the National Secular Society submitted evidence to the Charity Commission of sermons posted online expressing support for Hamas and hatred of Jews. No prosecutions followed. An official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” will not protect Muslims. The Government must enforce the laws we already have. Watch Fiyaz Mughal with FSU Director of Research and Policy @DavidRoseUK on our latest podcast. Full episode on our YouTube channel 👇

Last night, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG), chaired by @RicHolden, hosted a parliamentary roundtable to discuss the Government’s authoritarian plan to restrict our right to trial by jury. The panel included Labour MP and former Shadow Attorney General @KarlTurnerMP, Shadow Justice Secretary @NJ_Timothy, Bar Council Chair @Kirsty_Brimelow, criminal barrister Adam King, and the Free Speech Union’s Chief Legal Counsel @BrynHarris6. Each speaker strongly opposed David Lammy’s reforms and questioned why any government would launch such an attack on this ancient and fundamental right. FSU research shows that those charged with speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be found not guilty in a Crown Court with a jury than in a magistrates’ court without one. If David Lammy gets his way, more people will end up behind bars simply for exercising their right to free speech.

‘I’ve given up writing children’s books after being vilified by trans activists’ telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/1…

“I’ve given up writing children’s books.” That’s what award-winning author Rachel Rooney says after being vilified by trans activists for her gender-critical views. A writer who championed vulnerable children says the backlash became so intense she felt she could no longer continue in children’s publishing. Her “crime”? Holding gender-critical views. Far too often, authors are cancelled for expressing lawful beliefs. Gender-critical views are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year. Read more below 👇

Join the FSU, live in conversation with Kellie-Jay Keen. In 2018, she erected a billboard displaying the dictionary definition of the word “woman” – “adult, human, female”. This simple statement became a global rallying cry but resulted in censorship and deplatforming, social media bans and financial exclusion. On Friday 27th March, ask her anything. 🎟️ TICKETS ON SALE NOW 👇

Fiyaz Mughal: ‘Moderate Muslims like me have been cut off by Labour in favour of extremists’ telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/0…

The Government tasked a Working Group with drafting an official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”. The group operated in secrecy throughout the process. A recent investigative briefing by the FSU’s Director of Research and Policy, @DavidRoseUK, revealed that each of the five members had troubling links to Islamist organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Engagement and Development. Another striking aspect of the Working Group is the exclusion of moderate Muslim voices — not least former Home Office adviser and founder of Tell MAMA, Fiyaz Mughal, whose charity monitors anti-Muslim hate. Fiyaz Mughal joined David Rose for the latest episode of the FSU podcast. Watch the full episode on our YouTube channel 👇

The Online Safety Act has created a minefield for individuals and businesses trying to navigate life online. The consequences of getting any of the Ofcom guidance wrong can be financially ruinous. So, we at @SpeechUnion want to help! Do you run a small to medium website that Ofcom is looking into? Are you likely to fall into the ‘small but risky’ category of providers? Have Ofcom approached you and your business about OSA compliance? If this answer is yes, please contact us at legal@freespeechunion.org

The Government’s official Islamophobia definition — repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — is already being used to silence those who legitimately question or criticise Islam, its practices and its history. It is a Government-sponsored blasphemy law via the back door, with a chilling effect on free speech. Shadow Justice Secretary @NJ_Timothy has been reported by Labour MPs to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, branded an “Islamophobe”, and even faced calls from the Prime Minister to resign — all for criticising mass public prayer in Trafalgar Square. Over the weekend, FSU External Affairs Officer @_ConnieShaw was invited onto LBC to discuss Nick Timothy’s remarks with Matthew Wright. When he didn’t like what she had to say, he accused her of perpetuating racism. In a free society, no religion should be shielded from legitimate criticism or challenge. The decision to include “prejudicial stereotyping” in the definition risks silencing those who wish to speak out about issues such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. Watch Connie Shaw on @GBNews last night 👇

Labour ‘side-lining rebel MPs who want to save jury trials’ telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/…

Ministers have gone back on their promise to allow jury trial rebels to sit on the Bill Committee. In a last-ditch attempt to stave off a major rebellion at the Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, David Lammy offered rebels places on the committee tasked with scrutinising jury reforms. Labour MP and former Shadow Attorney General Karl Turner, who is leading the rebellion, put forward two colleagues, Rachael Maskell and Stella Creasy. In a significant breach of trust, Government Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds has rejected their nominations. The row threatens to further sour relations between the Government and its backbenchers. As many as 80 Labour MPs are believed to be willing to vote against the proposals. @KarlTurnerMP has said it is “clear that the Government is intent on treating the rebellion with utter contempt by ignoring the recommendations that were made.” He added: “We must now hope that the Government proceeds in good faith, but we are sceptical.” Under Lammy’s reforms, defendants facing a maximum sentence of less than three years in prison would no longer have the right to a jury trial. Instead, their cases would be heard in judge-only courts. FSU research shows that those charged with speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be found not guilty in a Crown Court with a jury than in a magistrates’ court without one. Read more below 👇