The OIC’s Global Free Speech Agenda
The goal is to welcome diverse religious communities. This includes accommodating Islam. However, attempts to achieve this through restricting controversial speech have backfired. The outcome is not harmonious integration. Instead, it leads to a perception of legal persecution. This situation is the consequence of aligning domestic policy with global diplomatic pressure. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has long pushed this agenda.
1. The Blasphemy Law Swap: A Shift in Legal Control
The UK repealed its specific common law offences of Blasphemy in 2008. Many saw this as a necessary, modernising step. The old laws were archaic. They only protected Christianity. Removing them should have meant greater freedom for everyone.
However, critics argue that the law was simply swapped for something broader. This new, vague legislation is often used to achieve the same result. It is a subtle form of control. This legal shift aligns neatly with the OIC’s diplomatic goals. The OIC seeks global limits on speech critical of religion.
The UK repealed its specific common law offences of Blasphemy in 2008. Many saw this as a necessary, modernising step. The old laws were archaic. They only protected Christianity. Removing them should have meant greater freedom for everyone.
However, critics argue that the law was simply swapped for something broader. This new, vague legislation is typically used to achieve the same result. It is a subtle form of control. This legal shift aligns neatly with the OIC’s diplomatic goals. The OIC seeks global limits on speech critical of religion.
2. The Lived Experience: Persecution for Speaking Out
For many citizens, this legal environment feels like persecution. Freedom of speech becomes a dangerous risk. The law used most often is the Public Order Act 1986. This act penalises “threatening or abusive words” likely to cause “distress.”
This vagueness is the problem. It allows authorities to prosecute speech that is merely offensive, not violent. People face investigation for satire or criticism. They are charged for expressing strong, controversial opinions. This creates a powerful chilling effect on public debate. Citizens self-censor to avoid arrest or job loss. They feel specific religious sensitivities are given unique protection by the state. This asymmetry undermines the very principle of legal equality.
3. The Unintended Consequence: Bad for the Host Country
This policy of accommodation through censorship is ultimately a failure for the host country. It creates division, not cohesion.
First, the prosecution of controversial speech damages the state’s legitimacy. It turns the country into an enforcer of religious sensitivities. This is a role democracies should avoid. It alienates citizens who value robust free expression.
Second, it hinders genuine integration. Integration requires open, frank discussion. Difficult topics must be debated freely. When debate is suppressed, resentment builds up. Communities grow suspicious of one another.
Third, it makes the law seem uneven. When certain groups appear protected while others are penalised, trust in the justice system erodes. A host country cannot successfully accommodate diversity by sacrificing a core constitutional right like free speech. True accommodation requires mutual tolerance, not legal compulsion enforced by police.