A disturbing case in the United Kingdom has turned conventional notions of justice on their head. A man attacked a protester with a knife—a clear criminal offence—but walked free without facing any legal consequences.
Meanwhile, the protester, whose act involved burning a Koran, has been found guilty of a criminal offence and received a 20-week prison sentence, suspended for 18 months.
The incident took place in Knightsbridge, London. The inversion is stark: the law excuses violence while punishing lawful, if provocative, expression. In effect, the UK now risks operating under a de facto blasphemy law, akin to those enforced in countries such as Pakistan.
Burning a Koran is deeply offensive to many, yet it remains an act of expression protected under British law, so long as it does not incite violence. Yet the recent verdict treats the symbolic act as criminal, while the knife-wielding attacker is spared. The message is chilling: those who offend religious sensibilities may be punished, while those who respond with violence may go unscathed. It is an inversion that undermines the very principles of free expression and equal justice.
The parallels with Pakistan are clear. In Pakistan, blasphemy laws criminalise any act deemed offensive to Islam, often with severe penalties, including life imprisonment or death. These laws are widely criticized for arbitrary enforcement, disproportionate targeting of minorities, and the lethal consequences of mere accusations. In 2011, Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was assassinated by his bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri, for advocating reform of the blasphemy laws. Taseer’s crime, in Qadri’s eyes, was defending a Christian woman falsely accused of blasphemy.
Similarly, in 2014, the Christian couple Shama and Shahzad Masih were brutally murdered by a mob following false allegations of Koran desecration. These tragic cases illustrate how blasphemy laws can be weaponized to incite violence, settle personal scores, and suppress dissent—a pattern mirrored in principle by the UK case. The protester’s act, offensive but non-violent, triggered an assault, yet the assailant is untouched by the law.
This inversion reflects a broader danger: selective enforcement undermines public trust. Carrying a knife in public is a criminal offence, yet the perpetrator in this case is treated leniently, while the protester faces punishment. The law, meant to protect citizens, appears to prioritize religious sentiment over physical safety. Citizens are left with the perception—if not the reality—of a two-tier justice system, where some individuals enjoy immunity while others are penalized for provocative, symbolic acts.
The implications for civil liberties are severe. If lawful but offensive expression can now be punished, while violent responses are tolerated, citizens are incentivized to self-censor. Public debate and protest—cornerstones of a free society—may be stifled by fear of legal reprisal. Conversely, those intent on suppressing dissent through intimidation or violence are emboldened, knowing the law may not hold them accountable. Over time, this dynamic erodes the rule of law itself.
Historical context underscores the stakes. Britain once enforced blasphemy laws, particularly against satirical or critical speech targeting the Church. These laws gradually fell into disuse as free expression became a legal and social norm. Yet this verdict suggests a dangerous regression: the notion that the state will penalise acts offensive to religious sentiment, even when those acts are non-violent and protected. The parallel with Pakistan’s system of blasphemy enforcement is unmistakable and chilling.
The judiciary and policymakers must confront this inversion. The law exists to protect all citizens, deter violence, and uphold justice. Punishing provocative expression while excusing assault achieves none of these goals. The state must reaffirm that lawful, even provocative, expression is permissible, and that violent acts, regardless of motive, will be prosecuted rigorously. To fail to do so is to allow fear and religious sentiment to dictate legal outcomes.
Free expression is not optional; it is fundamental. Citizens must be able to express opinions, protest, or even offend without fear of punishment, while violent actors must be held accountable. The legitimacy of the legal system depends on consistency, impartiality, and protection for all. When the state punishes offense and excuses aggression, it risks importing the very principles of blasphemy law it has long rejected.
This case is a warning. When offence becomes a crime and violence goes unpunished, the law ceases to be a shield for citizens and becomes a tool of intimidation. If the UK is to maintain its claim to a free and fair society, the legal system must correct this inversion immediately. Otherwise, Britain risks creating, by stealth, a culture in which fear suppresses speech, violence is tolerated, and justice is applied selectively—blasphemy by proxy, under the guise of law.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Read Also: LABOUR MP TAHIR ALI CALLS FOR BLASPHEMY LAWS IN UK PARLIAMENT
Labour MP Tahir Ali stirred debate in the UK Parliament this week when he called for the introduction of blasphemy laws prohibiting the desecration of religious texts and figures revered in Abrahamic religions.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
