‘We do not have blasphemy laws in Britain’: Home Secretary Suella Braverman says ‘everyone must ‘accept this country’s freedom of speech’ after four pupils suspended after they caused ‘slight damage’ to a copy of the Quran

34 comments

  1. We don’t have blasphemy laws, no.

    But we don’t really have freedom of speech either, at least not in the generally understood meaning of it.

  3. She’s 100% right and its starting to make me angry that I’m only seeing ghouls like Suella Braverman pointing it out

  5. It’s tricky, because I absolutely don’t want to agree with her as I’m sure she’s not saying it to protect anyone , but to advance her agenda.

    However, can this not be seen as bullying n dealt with as such?

  6. Britain does not really have a Freedom of Speech law, certainly nothing similar to the First Amendment that USA has. British citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law. Even under the Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, which protect freedom of expression, the is a broad sweep of exceptions.

    That being said we also do not have Blasphemy Laws (any more) either, and a 14-year-old boy with autism accidentally dropped a copy of the Quran, causing scuffmarks and getting investigated for a hate crime is insane.

  7. When I’m agreeing with a Suella Braverman quote I know we are in trouble.

    This is common fucking sense – an easy win for opposition like Labour to snap up. But they are paralysed by fear (probably rightly so)

    The right wing bias media would tear a labour mp to shreds with cries of “islamaphobia” with such statements …

    God Im starting to really fucking despise this country.

  8. Absolutely agree, we need to abolish all restrictions on speech. And have an American style freedom of it. To say no calls to actions, no insighting violance, no insighting criminal activities.

    And if someone wants to call me a fag walking down the street with my same sex SO, it shouldn’t be considered hate speech or a hate crime. I’ll just continue my day as normal and let that person live their life.

  9. Weird times we’re living in when Suella Braverman is the voice of fucking reason for the people.

    We are not a Muslim country, and should not hold ourselves hostage to their laws.

  11. The replies. So because she said it and I don’t like her we should be lynching kids in the streets.

    No wonder the right of politics is surging.

  13. Do people actually think this will ever end in the UK now? theres not really a way to go back without massive backlash from certain parts of the community.

  14. As much as I hate that I’m agreeing with her of all people,that is definitely true.

    While what happened may be considered wrong within Islam, muslims can’t expect everyone else to live by their rules, in much the same way we consider it inappropriate for christians too to try to push their rules on everyone else.

  17. I’m deeply worried that I agree with Suella Braverman about something. I sincerely hope for my own sanity that this doesn’t become a habit.

  22. I hate it but Cruella is right on this one. When it comes to foreign affairs we bang on and on about appeasement being wrong, and yet when it comes to domestic issues it appears people are far too keen to not offend those who are opposed to liberal values.

  23. Except we do, as ‘incitement to religious hatred’ includes acts of blasphemy likely to offend. Draw a sacriligious picture of Mohammed, hold it up around Muslims, and see how quickly it takes for plod to arrest you.

    “We don’t have blasphemy laws” is complete disingenous bollocks when the laws we do have are functionally identical to blasphemy laws.

  24. If you destroy your own book, you shouldn’t be prosecuted whether it is Richard Dawkins’s book or the Bible or Torah or Quran. The problem is if you burn the first 3 books I mentioned, most likely nothing big will happen but if you destroy the Quran (which you paid for), you’ll get death threats, the government will condone your bullies’ behavior, and the media will be complicit. Why do a lot of people think that it is not allowed to criticize Islam openly? You can say Fcuk Science or Fcuk the Bible out loud/publicly but can you do the same with regard to the Quran?

  25. I don’t want to agree with Cruella but she has a point. In other news, Hell has reported a drop in temperature.

  26. We _sort of_ do have blasphemy laws though. The [Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/schedule) states __A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.__

    It depends if you want to perceive damaging a sacred text as an attempt to stir up religious hatred. Obviously it was probably an accident, but I think it’s understandable that the Islamic community deemed that an investigation needed to take place and that the appropriate body needed to make a decision on the intent behind the boy’s actions

  27. Accidentally damaging the Quran during a school prank — hate incident

    Children giving death threats to an autistic child – not a hate crime

    Am I reading this right?

  28. Get me into the loop here. Was someone offended because someone else damaged a Quran? Was the Quran owned by the offended party, by the “offender”, or by someone else?

  29. Despite the sheer volume of horrible bigotry and reactionary nonsense that Braverman churns out on a weekly basis, the law of averages suggests that she’s bound to be on the right side of morality once in a blue moon.

    Unless there’s actual evidence these pupils had racist motives, the school should have given them a quick talking to about religious tolerance and left it at that.

  32. The next time someone drops, dirties or even outright destroys a Quran publicly, are they going to get investigated for hate crimes? Because it sounds like if so, we have de facto Blasphemy laws.

  34. would damaging someone’s property constitute free speech in America?

    i have no stake in this, it just seems weird to make that comparison.

    also, aren’t schools allowed to suspend students for any reason they see fit? I mean they’re all academies nowadays so they’re not government owned..

Leave a Reply