Keir Starmer fails in response to a call for Islamic blasphemy law in Parliament
The Prime Minister gave an awful response to a call for blasphemy laws at PMQs
The new Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer has gotten off to a bumpy start to put it charitably. Recent polling data suggests that half of Britons (including 1 in 4 Labour voters) are disappointed with what they have seen so far.
Starmer will be faced with many tests of his character over the course of his tenure, but one of note came his way at today's Prime Minister's Questions.
Tahir Ali, an MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, decided to make what should have been an eyebrow-raising request. After some throat clearing about “Islamophobia awareness month” and the “division and hatred” caused by desecrating the Qur'an, Ali proceeded to ask “Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?”.
Now, there are a number of ways one could respond to a request for the UK government to impose blasphemy laws. Some are more kind than others. But I would like to suggest it's fairly easy to be diplomatic and morally clear in response. For instance, were I Keir Starmer I may have said “While I understand that some may be offended when their holy texts and prophets are disrespected, in a liberal society people must be allowed to express disrespect, and religion should be no exception. We do not have blasphemy laws in the UK”.
But I'm not Keir Starmer and he missed this open goal by a considerable distance. First, he refused to address or acknowledge the sinister request to impose blasphemy laws on the British people but said “Can I agree with him [Tahir Ali] that desecration is awful and I think [it] should be condemned across the house”.
Starmer then went on to reiterate a commitment to tackling the problem of “Islamophobia” in “all its forms”.
You can watch a clip of the exchange below:
I'm not a fan of ‘desecration’ as a general rule. But, assuming the target of this desecration is your own property, ‘desecration’ can be a legitimate act of free expression, protest and defiance. And ‘desecration’ of this sort becomes especially necessary the more Islamofascists try to have you arrested or murdered for it.
I suppose the inconvenient truth here is that it's rather difficult for Keir Starmer to stand on principle where blasphemy laws are concerned when the UK already enforces blasphemy laws under the guise of ‘hate speech’.
Consider the fact that record numbers of arrests are being made in the UK for comments that are posted online. Recently a man was jailed for the crime of sharing three images via his Facebook page. The images in question?:
The first one showed a group of men, Asian in appearance, at Egremont crab fair 2025, with the caption: “Coming to a town near you.”
The second also showed a group of men, Asian in appearance leaving a boat on to Whitehaven beach. This had the caption: “When it’s on your turf, then what?”
A final image showed a group of men, again Asian in appearance, wielding knives in front of the Palace of Westminster. There was also a crying white child in a Union flag T-shirt. This was also captioned with the wording: “Coming to a town near you.”
Now, you may not like the sentiment expressed here, but any disgust you can conjure in response to these images should surely be outweighed by the horror produced from witnessing a country lock people up for them.
Furthermore, any politician who plays lip service to the awful idea of “Islamophobia” has not been paying attention. They have failed to notice that the word is simply an attempt to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws disguised in the language of tolerance. This is precisely why someone like Tahir Ali can start a sentence with concerns about “hatred and division” and finish it with suggesting that the solution is to criminalise those who insult his religion or prophet.
French school teacher Samuel Paty found out first hand the devastating consequences that can be visited on those that are simply accused of “Islamophobia”. You may recall that Paty was beheaded on the streets of France. In court this week, it was revealed that false allegations of “Islamophobia” were levelled at him by Muslim students, which ultimately led to his murder.
Islamic extremism remains the number one terror threat in the UK, Europe and globally. The problem with the UK is not that it has been too “mean” about Islam. It's that it hasn't dared to be honest and critical enough. A problem only worsened by our ridiculous ‘hate speech’ laws and an impotent leadership that cannot find the right words in response to calls for Islamic blasphemy laws in the Houses of Parliament.
The only sensible and responsible response to Islam for non Muslim countries is what is called Islamophobia. Why would you not fear Islam? Every terrorist attack carried out in England has been carried out by Islamists. The same is true of every country in Western Europe. The European countries which have not suffered Islamist terrorist attacks are those from Eastern Europe such as Hungary, Poland and Slovakia which do not allow Muslims to enter their countries. Keep you eyes on Ireland, people there have had enough of cultural enrichment and are on the verge of making their, and I emphasise their, country ungovernable. We should follow. Better that we accept the inevitable casualties now than we wait for civil war.
Starmer had an ideal opportunity to put all this nonsense to bed. This was not the time for ambivalence. He wouldn’t have been ambushed by the question because they generally have notice beforehand to give them time to prepare, and the question also came from his own side. He did not seem prepared. It’s not just the Jewish MPs he has to placate now, it’s also the Muslims. But he didn’t have to take sides; he just needed to reiterate what the current approach is (free speech, tolerate all religions blah blah). But he didn’t - and this is important. Why not? As you say, how can he promote the free speech the UK enjoys when he has already stamped it out? In addition, he doesn’t want clarity (which is odd for a lawyer). It suits him to have division. Knowing Kier, leaving it open like he did also gives him room to flip flop. He’s going to keep this one in his back pocket because he might just need it later.