Daniel ShenSmith (BlackBeltBarrister)

The Free Speech Union is deeply troubled by what is happening in the Welsh Parliament. The freedom of elected representatives to speak is at the heart of our democracy. Those we elect to represent us should be able to voice their constituents’ concerns, however uncomfortable they may be for some to hear. We stand with @joemartin1066 and every elected representative’s right to speak freely in their Parliament.

The Labour Government’s decision to introduce an “anti-Muslim hostility” definition has helped embed a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in British society. Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 because they are fundamentally opposed to liberal democratic principles. Labour has brought them back through the back door for Islam alone. Criticism of Islam can now carry serious consequences, including prosecution, ostracism and cancellation. This blasphemy law has been introduced without Parliament’s approval, yet it is being enforced by the police and courts. At the Free Speech Union, we are uniquely placed to see the scale of the problem facing the country. Stephen Gray, an FSU member and former police officer of 27 years, was charged with being “grossly offensive” — an offence under the Communications Act 2003 — for sharing a joke on Facebook mocking the Prophet Muhammad. The image showed a rasher of bacon and a man wearing a turban, alongside the text: “Fun facts about bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a nine-year-old”. Mr Gray was fined more than £1,000 in fines and costs and now has a criminal record. The Free Speech Union is supporting Stephen in his appeal, which is due to be heard on 13 November. Another case is that of Kellie-Jay Keen, the women’s rights campaigner, who was charged under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 over posts on X criticising Islam, Muslim cultural practices and Islamism. @SpeechUnion is also supporting @ThePosieParker. It is not a crime to criticise a religion. No religion should be shielded from legitimate challenge, debate or criticism in a free society. Speaking to Hardeep Singh, the Free Speech Union’s Director of Case Management, Dr Ben Jones said that, in the eyes of the state, it is clear that we cannot criticise Islam. Since Labour came to power in 2024, the number of people seeking help from the Free Speech Union after getting into trouble over comments relating to Islam has risen fourfold. @BenBarryJones said: “We’ve had the state, in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service, attempt to charge a man for causing ‘harassment, alarm or distress’ to what it called ‘the religious institution of Islam’”. As a result of the “anti-Muslim hostility” definition, the number of cases will inevitably grow. But the risks facing those who criticise Islam are not limited to prosecution and cancellation. For many, it can be a matter of life and death. Consider the religious studies teacher at Batley Grammar School, who was forced into hiding after showing his class a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad while discussing the massacre of journalists at Charlie Hebdo in Paris. A false accusation of blasphemy also cost Samuel Paty, a French schoolteacher, his life. We must not let an Islamic blasphemy law take root. Read more below in @TheCriticMag 👇

In the House of Lords this afternoon, our General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, proposed an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that would mean the right to choose a trial by jury is retained for people accused of speech offences. These cases often hinge on the interpretation of words like like "insulting", "threatening", "abusive", "harassment", "alarm", "distress", "grossly offensive" and whether something has a tendency to "deprave and corrupt", and the meaning of those words is properly a matter for a jury — of 12 ordinary people — not an 'expert' in the law. In addition, Lord Young drew their Lordships attention to some FSU research which showed that juries are twice as likely to find defendants accused of speech crimes not guilty as magistrates. Watch Lord Young below 👇

Former chief prosecutor Lord Macdonald KC has warned that the Conversion Practices Bill violates the rule of law. He says the draft bill is so vague that parents may not know whether an honest conversation with their child could amount to a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison. One principle of the rule of law, he argues, is that people should be able to tell whether their actions are criminal. Lord Macdonald led the Crown Prosecution Service from 2003 to 2008 and now sits as a crossbench peer. He is the latest senior figure to criticise the bill, echoing the Free Speech Union’s argument that abusive conversion practices are already illegal. He believes the bill is an attempt by the trans lobby to secure legislative change through the back door. He told The Telegraph: “I don’t think it criminalises anything that isn’t already criminal. The minister in the House of Lords was asked to explain what it was that was presently not criminal, that would be criminalised by the legislation. “And he said that will come out in pre-legislative scrutiny, which is unprecedented. If the minister can’t explain what it is that’s presently lawful that the bill is going to make unlawful, that means there’s a serious problem with the bill, frankly.” Read more below in @Telegraph 👇