The OIC’s Global Free Speech Agenda and Its Cost to UK Integration
The OIC’s Global Free Speech Agenda and Its Cost to UK Integration Unpacking the Contradiction: The OIC, Diplomatic Clout, and the Human Rights Reality The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) acts as a powerful diplomatic group. It includes 57 nations across Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas. This scale gives it huge influence in global forums like the UN. This collective strength is dedicated to promoting Muslim interests on the world stage. A fundamental tension exists at its core. The OIC is often led by states whose domestic human rights practices directly contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This clash is most visible in the OIC’s consistent efforts to restrict freedom of speech globally. They do this under the guise of protecting religion. 1. The Campaign to Censor: The “Defamation of Religions” Push For many years, the OIC led one of the most controversial diplomatic campaigns at the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC). This was the push for resolutions titled “Combating Defamation of Religions.” The objective was clear. They wanted to establish international legal norms. These would make criticising or insulting religion—especially Islam—an internationally recognised offence. Western states widely viewed this as an attempt to introduce a global “blasphemy law.” This directly conflicts with the right to free expression. The Strategic Pivot and Resolution 16/18 The OIC faced persistent international resistance. They then strategically pivoted. They moved away from targeting the speech itself (“defamation”). Instead, they focused on protecting individuals from incitement to hostility. This led to the passage of HRC Resolution 16/18 (2011). Resolution 16/18 technically focuses on promoting tolerance. However, critics argue that Western states adopting the resolution lent key diplomatic legitimacy to the OIC’s core concern. This concern is the need for states to actively address religiously offensive speech. This pivot secured a crucial platform for the OIC’s agenda in international policy discussions. 2. The Contradiction in Practice: Diplomacy vs. Domestic Reality The OIC’s diplomatic leverage comes from the sheer number of its 57 member states. Yet, many of the bloc’s most influential leaders have severe domestic governance issues. Their records are frequently cited by international human rights watchdogs for severe violations. This creates a profound hypocrisy at the heart of the OIC’s advocacy: This reality highlights the core contradiction. A diplomatic body campaigning for international speech restrictions is primarily composed of states that already deny fundamental civil and political rights to their own citizens. Conclusion: The Setup for Domestic Failure The OIC’s success has shifted the international narrative toward religious “offense.” This has significant downstream consequences. It is especially true for host countries attempting to accommodate Muslim communities. This diplomatic pressure encourages host governments to prioritise feelings of comfort over fundamental rights. This policy choice does not foster successful accommodation. Instead, it leads to problems of censorship and the perception of persecution for free expression. To understand how this international pressure translated into domestic policy failure—specifically how the UK’s repeal of blasphemy laws led to a de facto replacement that harms both free speech advocates and the goal of religious accommodation—read our full opinion piece: The Stealth Blasphemy Law: How UK Policies Fail Religious Accommodation. SEO Items Tags: OIC, Blasphemy Law, Free Speech, Human Rights, Diplomacy, UN, Religious Freedom, Censorship, UK Politics Categories: Geopolitics, Civil Liberties, Rights & Freedoms, Religion and Society, Editorial Focus Word Count: 322 Time to Read: 1 minute 37 seconds
The OIC’s Stealth Strategy:
The UK’s legal shifts were either assisted or enacted in complicity with the OIC’s international agenda to limit speech critical of religion.
Cost of Integration into Islam
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.
The UK Aspirational Failure of Multiculturalism
Why a Shift to Multi-Ethnic Policy is Essential When policies are aspirational, they often fail to align with the practical realities of a civic society’s legal framework. Critique of Multiculturalism: A Call for Multi-Ethnic Cohesion Multiculturalism, as implemented in the UK, began as a noble aspiration, seeking a society where cultural heritage could coexist harmoniously. However, this vision prioritised group identities over the supremacy of shared civic law and individual accountability. The result has been a system vulnerable to hypocrisy and social fragmentation. To address the challenges of modern UK society, we must transition from multiculturalism to a multi-ethnic policy — one that recognises individual origins while ensuring that the rule of law and civic responsibility remain paramount. Citizens Bound by Law, Not Culture A healthy multi-ethnic society defines citizenship through individual accountability and civic contribution. Citizens are bound by shared legal standards and responsibilities, not by institutional support for group distinctions. Personal effort and adherence to the law determine social acceptance and integration. The Flaw in Aspiration: When Idealism Meets Legal Reality Multiculturalism’s aspirational core is its weakness. Policies designed to eliminate all perceived disadvantages based on group identity create conflicts with the realities of a liberal-democratic state. A free society must judge practices — cultural or otherwise — against civic norms such as freedom, equality, and dignity. By applying non-discrimination principles to entire cultures rather than individuals, multiculturalism fosters cultural relativism, allowing practices contrary to UK law or civic values to persist. In contrast, a multi-ethnic model observes diversity but enforces a single, shared civic culture, avoiding aspirational contradictions. The Core Distinction: Merit and Accountability Historically, the UK functioned as a civic melting pot. Migrants integrated through practical contribution — working in construction, public services, transport, and factories — and by participating in shared civic life. Acceptance was earned through merit, personal accountability, and adherence to civic standards, rather than state-mandated recognition of group identity. This approach fostered a multi-ethnic but cohesive society, where civic allegiance and legal compliance took precedence over cultural segregation. The Political Shield of Group Identity Multicultural policy often places groups above the individual, allowing collective identity to shield behaviour from scrutiny. This undermines accountability, creating “sanctuary cultures” where individuals are not responsible for their actions. The Legal Blind Spot: Religious Marriages and Polygamy UK law prohibits bigamy (Offences Against the Person Act 1861 / Marriage Act 1949 & 1973 amendments). However, multicultural sensitivities have sometimes created policy ambivalence towards religious marriages with no legal standing. While such unions are not recognised legally, social services or community support accommodate individuals within these arrangements. A multi-ethnic civic model would enforce the law while providing humanitarian support without legitimising illegal practices. The Silencing Effect: Accusations and the Death of Debate Modern multiculturalism typically weaponises accusations of racism or phobia to suppress civic critique. Concerns about incompatible practices — whether low intergroup marriage rates, religious teachings, or opposition to secular values — are frequently dismissed as prejudice. A multi-ethnic approach shifts the focus to individual accountability: citizens can criticise actions that violate civic standards without fear of accusations targeting their personal identity. Historical Civic Integration Historically, Britain’s civic melting pot relied on integration through contribution and shared responsibility. Migrants and citizens alike engaged in work, community, and education, earning acceptance through effort and merit. This model emphasised individual accountability, ensuring that cohesion arose from civic participation rather than state-mandated cultural recognition. The Path Forward: Embracing Multi-Ethnic Civic Nationalism Multiculturalism fails because it institutionalises group difference over individual responsibility. A modern UK multi-ethnic civic policy should rest on three pillars: Shared Commitment to a Civic Nation A truly multi-ethnic society is built on shared allegiance to a civic culture and the rule of law. Origins are acknowledged and celebrated, but the primary political identity is British, and inclusion is determined by individual merit and adherence to civic responsibilities. A truly multi-ethnic society is built on shared allegiance to a civic culture and the rule of law. Origins are acknowledged and celebrated, but the primary political identity is British, and inclusion is determined by individual merit and adherence to civic responsibilities. Fact-Checking and Sources
Advance UK Manifesto: British Sovereignty
Advance UK. Constitutional renewal, national restoration: attracting disenfranchised voters seeking foundational civic values & equality. An “exploding asset”
The Challenge to Core Western Values
Part Two: The Challenge to Core Western Values and the Path to Reversal The Challenge to Core Western Values and Free Speech This effectively pressures citizens into self-censorship, making them reluctant to discuss controversial, but important topics like migration rates, integration failures, or the impact of certain cultures, for fear of being flagged by the state. The Censorship Industrial Complex and Islamophobia Definition Dr. Goodwin draws attention to what he calls a “Censorship Industrial Complex,” which involves state bodies, activist groups, and NGOs working together to restrict public debate. He specifically criticises the adoption of a formal definition of “Islamophobia” by many British institutions. In his view, this is not a genuine tool for combating anti-Muslim hatred, but rather a political instrument designed to silence legitimate, necessary criticism of Islamist ideology and the cultural problems imported through mass migration. Goodwin argues that by treating criticism of an ideology as akin to racism against a people, the political class has deliberately narrowed the boundaries of permissible public speech, limiting a core Western value: free expression. The Implementation of “Non-Crime Hate Incidents” in the UK A further example of the state curtailing free speech, according to Dr. Goodwin, is the implementation of “Non-Crime Hate Incidents” (NCHIs) by UK police forces. This policy allows the police to record an event as a “hate incident” simply because the victim perceives it as hateful, even if no crime has been committed and no law broken. Dr. Goodwin argues that this bureaucratic practice acts as a form of state-sanctioned surveillance, placing a marker against an individual’s name for expressing politically incorrect views. This effectively pressures citizens into self-censorship, making them reluctant to discuss controversial but important topics like migration rates, integration failures, or the impact of certain cultures, for fear of being flagged by the state. The Two-Tier Multiculturalism that Repudiates National Identity (The Union Jack Dress Example) The political correctness surrounding national symbols, such as the famous example of a school girl wearing a dress featuring the Union Jack flag being controversial. The girl was participating in a school sponsored cultural day. Goodwin critiques the form of multiculturalism practised in the UK, asserting it operates on a “two-tier” system. This system aggressively celebrates and protects the identities of minority groups while simultaneously showing suspicion towards or actively discouraging the affirmation of native English or British identity. The political correctness surrounding national symbols, such as the famous example of a school girl wearing a dress featuring the Union Jack flag being controversial. The girl was participating in a school sponsored cultural day. The girl only has an English heritage and culture, but this was not acceptable. And serves as his key illustration. He argues this repudiation of the majority culture creates a fundamental imbalance, undermining the shared values and sense of belonging that are necessary to maintain a cohesive national unit in a period of rapid demographic change. The Path to Reversal: Policy Solutions and Cultural Affirmation The Path to Reversal and Sovereignty. The Immediate Need to End Mass Uncontrolled Immigration For Dr. Goodwin, the first and most critical step in reversing the current national crisis is an immediate cessation of mass, uncontrolled immigration—both legal and illegal. He views the current immigration system as a runaway train that must be halted completely to give the United Kingdom a chance to “catch its breath.” He stresses that until the inflow is drastically reduced, efforts to integrate existing communities, repair strained infrastructure, and address the resulting cultural friction will be futile. According to this view, all other policy solutions are merely symbolic gestures that treat the symptoms, not the root cause. Legislative Reform: Leaving the ECHR and Repealing the Human Rights Act Dr. Goodwin argues that true sovereignty and control over borders cannot be restored while the UK remains subject to international legal frameworks, principally the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and its domestic application through the Human Rights Act. He contends these legal instruments are constantly exploited by activist lawyers to block the deportation of foreign criminals and illegal migrants, effectively frustrating the will of Parliament. He posits that leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act are legislative imperatives necessary to re-establish the primacy of British common law and allow the state to enforce its own democratically decided immigration policies. Reshaping Legal Migration with Five-Year Renewable Visas and Strict Criteria To replace the existing system of mass legal migration, Dr. Goodwin proposes a radical overhaul based on strict, temporary criteria. He suggests replacing permanent residency with five-year renewable visas that are explicitly tied to economic need and contribution. Under this proposed model, migrants would only have their visas renewed if they meet strict criteria, such as proving they have paid taxes, have not relied on public funds, and have not committed crimes. This system, he recommends, would allow the UK to import necessary skills without incurring the permanent fiscal and cultural costs associated with mass settlement. A Cultural Shift: Reinvesting in Pro-Family Policy and Combating Cultural Malaise Dr. Goodwin highlights that the UK’s reliance on mass immigration is, in part, a failure to address its domestic cultural and demographic crises, such as declining native birth rates and a rising cultural malaise. He argues that a genuine long-term solution must involve a fundamental cultural shift in state priorities. This requires actively reinvesting in pro-family policies that support indigenous populations, strengthen family units, and foster a sense of community cohesion, rather than depending on imported labour to continuously mask domestic demographic failings. The Need for ‘Affirmation’ Over ‘Repudiation’ (Roger Scruton) Drawing on the philosophy of Sir Roger Scruton, Dr. Goodwin advocates for a major psychological and political shift: moving the state away from the ‘repudiation’ of national identity towards its ‘affirmation.’ He contends that for decades, the establishment has treated British identity, history, and civic institutions with suspicion and shame. To unify the nation. The government must instead actively affirm and celebrate British culture, history, and civic values, thereby building a necessary sense of shared
Opposing Hate Speech, defamation of religions and Islamophobia at the United Nations
The UN Battle: Why Human Rights and Religious Law Are at War The global debate over free speech, religious protection, and what constitutes “hate” is once again heating up at the United Nations. At the heart of this long-standing tension lies the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), a document that has historically pitted Western nations against the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) over the fundamental definition of human rights. The Cairo Declaration: Human Rights Subordinate to Sharia The story began between 31 July and 5 August 1990, when the Nineteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers agreed to issue the CDHRI. The document was intended to serve as a guide for OIC Member States, recognising that humans are “vicegerent of Allah on Earth.” However, when presented to the UN, the Declaration was met with immediate and firm rejection from many Member States. The central reason for this opposition is that while the CDHRI purports to unite Islamic principles with human rights, it actually subordinates universal human rights protections to Islamic Sharia law. This subordination is explicit throughout the document, notably in Article 24, which states: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.” The most frequently cited example of this limitation is Article 22, which guarantees the right to free expression, but immediately qualifies it: “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.” This transforms an absolute right into a conditional one. The False Solution: A Western Stance on Defamation In the years following the Declaration, the OIC successfully championed UN resolutions condemning the ‘defamation of religions,’ primarily Islamophobia. This campaign sought to criminalise speech that criticises or offends religion, a move staunchly opposed by the United States and most European states. In 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton articulated the US position, calling the effort to criminalise religious defamation “a false solution that exchanges one wrong for another.” She argued that the best way to tackle intolerance is not through banning offensive speech, but through: “The protection of speech about religion is particularly important,” Clinton stated, “since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.” The Direct Conflict with UN Charter Articles The Cairo Declaration directly conflicts with the foundational Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), particularly two critical articles: UDHR Article Key Right CDHRI Conflict Article 18 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This includes the explicit freedom to change one’s religion or belief. The CDHRI’s principles, particularly when subject to Sharia, are incompatible with the guaranteed freedom to renounce or convert away from Islam. Article 19 Freedom of opinion and expression. This right is absolute: to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart ideas regardless of frontiers. As seen in Article 22, the CDHRI severely limits this right by making all expression conditional upon Sharia principles. For opponents of the Cairo Declaration, these limitations—the loss of the right to change one’s faith and the constraint on critical speech—are non-negotiable breaches of universally accepted principles. Hate Speech, Islamophobia, and the Threat to Open Debate The debate is now returning to the UN agenda, driven by the Secretary General’s concern that hate speech and Islamophobia are on the rise and need to be urgently stopped. Ironically, the US and European states initially shared the view that human rights should protect, rather than limit, expression. However, their laws have evolved differently: Critics worry that the current international focus on opposing “Islamophobia” (often defined as negative criticism of Islam or Muslims) is a continuation of the OIC’s earlier push to prohibit the ‘defamation of religions.’ The fear is that the language of hate speech is being used to justify new proposals that will globally threaten the ability to openly debate and criticise religion. The philosophical underpinning of freedom of expression demands that no one has the right not to be offended. If religion or ideas are shielded from robust discussion, and if new, ambiguous hate laws are used to control the narrative, critics argue that true debate will cease. When public discourse is suppressed, only obedience and disobedience remain. The 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (Full Text) Here is the complete text of the Cairo Declaration, adopted in 1990, which remains the central point of this ongoing conflict: ARTICLE 1: (a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. The true religion is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity. (b) All human beings are Allah’s subjects, and the most loved by Him are those who are most beneficial to His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds. ARTICLE 2: (a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a shari’ah prescribed reason. (b) It is forbidden to resort to any means which could result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind. (c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by Allah is a duty prescribed by Shari’ah. (d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason. ARTICLE 3: (a) In the event of the use of force and in case of armed conflict, it is not permissible to kill non-belligerents such as
Defending the Host Population
No Editorial Paralysis: Defending the Host Population In every nation, there exists an unspoken contract between the governed and those who govern. It is not merely a legal arrangement—it is reputational, cultural, and existential. The host population, the people who built the institutions, paid the taxes, fought the wars, and buried the dead, expect a baseline of loyalty from their governments. Not blind allegiance, but recognition. Respect. Protection. And above all, truth. But across Europe—and increasingly in the Anglosphere—that contract is being shredded. Not by revolution, but by quiet betrayal. Not by foreign invasion, but by domestic abdication. The host population is being asked to surrender its cultural inheritance, its historical memory, and its editorial voice in exchange for a vague promise of ‘inclusion’. And the governments that once stood as stewards of national identity now act as brokers of ideological appeasement. This is not a critique of immigration. It is a critique of inversion—where the host population is treated as the problem, and the imported ideology as the solution. The UK: A Case Study in Reputational Abdication Nowhere is this more visible than in the United Kingdom, where multicultural policy has metastasised into reputational paralysis. The British government, once a global symbol of liberal democracy, now routinely silences its citizens in the name of ‘community cohesion’. Consider the grooming gang scandals in Rotherham, Rochdale, and Telford—where thousands of British girls were systematically abused over decades. Local authorities, police, and social workers admitted they failed to act for fear of being labelled racist. The host population—working-class families, often voiceless in elite circles—was sacrificed on the altar of reputational optics. This is not multiculturalism. It is reputational cowardice. The British state has also criminalised speech that critiques Islamic doctrine, even when such speech is factual, historically grounded, or editorially provocative. Citizens have been arrested for quoting Winston Churchill, for posting Bible verses, or for criticising religious practices. Meanwhile, religious leaders who preach intolerance are shielded by the very laws that silence dissent. The message is clear: the host population must self-censor, while imported ideologies are protected under the banner of diversity. France: The Republic Under Siege France, with its proud tradition of laïcité (secularism), has faced a different kind of betrayal. The Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015 was not just an attack on cartoonists—it was an attack on the French Republic’s editorial soul. And yet, even in the aftermath, French elites hesitated to defend the victims without cautions. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) condemned the attack, yes—but also warned against ‘irresponsible use of freedom of expression’. This rhetorical sleight of hand reframed the victims as provocateurs, subtly shifting blame from the killers to the cartoonists. French politicians echoed this tone. Some called for ‘balance’, others for ‘respect’. But where was the respect for the dead? Where was the defence of satire, the lifeblood of French editorial tradition? Instead of rallying around its secular principles, the French state began to retreat. Schools were told to avoid controversial topics. Teachers were threatened. And in 2020, Samuel Paty was beheaded for showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons in a civics class. The government mourned—but the cultural retreat continued. Spain: A Case of Reputational Clarity While the UK and France have often retreated into rhetorical hedging and reputational appeasement, Spain stands apart. In the face of horrific jihadist attacks—including the 2004 Madrid train bombings and more recent machete assaults—Spain has not abandoned its host population in the name of ‘community cohesion’. It has defended them. Spain’s posture is not perfect—but it is clear. It defends its citizens. It names the threat. And it refuses to outsource moral authority to ideological arbiters. Germany: No Editorial Paralysis, No Reputational Retreat Germany, too, has resisted the reputational collapse seen elsewhere. In the face of Islamist terrorism—including nine executed attacks and over 20 thwarted plots since 2020—Germany has chosen defence over deflection. Germany’s approach reflects reputational clarity. It defends its citizens. It names the threat. And it refuses to sacrifice editorial freedom for ideological appeasement. The Editorial Cost of Fear What we are witnessing is not just political betrayal—it is editorial collapse. Governments are no longer defending the reputational integrity of their populations. They are outsourcing moral authority to supranational bodies, religious councils, and ideological arbiters. This collapse manifests in three ways: Who Speaks for the Host Population? In this climate, editorial courage becomes reputational heresy. Those who speak for the host population are labelled reactionary, xenophobic, or worse. But the question remains: who defends the people that built the house? The host population is not a monolith. It includes liberals, conservatives, atheists, believers, sceptics, and satirists. What unites them is not ideology, but inheritance—a shared cultural memory, a common editorial rhythm, a reputational stake in the nation’s future. To betray that population is to betray the very idea of nationhood. The Reputational Cost of Silence Governments may believe that appeasement buys peace. But silence has a cost. When citizens feel unheard, they retreat into cynicism, conspiracy, or radicalism. When satire is punished, inquiry dies, when history is erased, identity collapses. The host population does not seek supremacy. It seeks recognition. It asks that its voice be heard, its memory respected, its editorial space preserved. Likewise, it demands that governments stop outsourcing moral authority and start defending the reputational integrity of their citizens. Editorial Provocation as Civic Duty At staging.free2speak.org/, we believe that discomfort is not a threat—it is a tool. Editorial provocation is not hate—it is inquiry. And reputational clarity is not exclusion—it is survival. Governments must relearn the art of editorial courage. They must defend satire, protect dissent, and honour the host population not as a relic, but as a living editorial force. This means: Repealing laws that criminalise speech based on ideological sensitivity. Restoring national curricula that teach history without apology. Protecting journalists, teachers, and artists who challenge orthodoxy. Rejecting supranational pressure to dilute national identity. Conclusion: Reclaiming the Editorial Contract The betrayal of the host population is not inevitable. It is a choice. And it
USA Leading the Anglosphere: The Internal Rift
The American Paradox: How the US Shapes the Anglosphere The concept of the “Anglosphere”—a close-knit collection of English-speaking nations (the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand)—is often framed by a shared history, language, and legal tradition. Yet, the story of the United States within this group is one of constant contradiction: the rebel colony that broke away only to return as the undisputed global leader. This journey from rivalry to “Special Relationship” defines modern world politics. 1. From Rebel Colony to Rival Power (1776–1900) The foundation of the U.S. identity began with a complete rejection of British rule in 1776. The American Revolution, and the later War of 1812, were less about maintaining an Anglosphere connection and more about severing ties entirely. For nearly a century afterwards, the U.S. and the UK operated as economic and, at times, political rivals. Whilst there was a shared foundation in Common Law and English parliamentary principles, America’s rapid westward expansion and industrial boom created genuine tension. By the 1880s, the U.S. economy had surpassed Britain’s, and New York was set to dethrone London as the world’s financial capital. The transition from hostility to friendship—the “Great Reconciliation“—was driven by Britain’s need for allies as other European powers gained strength, culminating around the Spanish-American War in 1898. This was the first true acknowledgment that shared heritage outweighed rivalry. The Treaty of Ghent was the peace treaty that officially ended the War of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain. It was signed on December 24, 1814, in Ghent (modern-day Belgium). 2. The Great Reconciliation and Global Leadership (1900–1945) Editorial illustration showing Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt shaking hands, backed by the American and British flags. Set against a vintage world map, the image captures the symbolic reconciliation and joint leadership of the United States and Great Britain during the first half of the 20th century.. The two World Wars cemented the reconciliation and dramatically re-calibrated the Anglosphere’s internal power structure. In World War I, American involvement was decisive, but World War II truly forged the modern “Special Relationship,” a term later coined by Winston Churchill. Iconic photo of Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt conferring during World War II, symbolising the wartime alliance. The partnership between Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt went beyond politics, involving deep technological and military integration (like the Tizard Mission for sharing radar technology). By 1945, the U.S. stood as the economic and military global powerhouse. Britain, exhausted by war and facing the dismantling of its Empire, effectively passed the torch of global leadership to its former colony. The relationship became one where the U.S. was the senior partner, a fact that would soon be tested. 3. A Special Relationship Under Strain (1945–1989) Alt Text Uncle Sam and John Bull stand back-to-back with crossed arms and tense expressions, separated by a cracked background and flanked by US and UK flags, symbolising diplomatic strain. The Cold War established the practical definition of the Anglosphere—primarily a security and intelligence apparatus designed to counter the Soviet threat. However, this period was not without friction. The most significant divergence came during the 1956 Suez Crisis, where U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower used financial leverage to force the UK and France to withdraw from Egypt. This event flat out demonstrated that British imperial interests were secondary to American global strategy. This strategy was founded on two principles: prioritising Cold War stability—specifically the fear that the Anglo-French invasion would radicalise Arab states and push them towards the Soviet Union—and actively opposing colonial overreach, which the U.S. feared would undermine the liberal democratic values the West promoted globally. Despite this test, cooperation deepened across intelligence (leading to the formalisation of the Five Eyes alliance with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) and collective defence, including the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement, which allowed for the sharing of nuclear weapons technology. The Anglosphere evolved from a cultural idea into a concrete, security-focused political bloc, firmly led by Washington. The Five Eyes alliance with the flags of the core member nations (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). Alt Text (SEO): Five Eyes intelligence alliance members, Cold War Anglo-American intelligence sharing. 4. The Digital Age and Contemporary Challenges (1990–Present) Five Eyes alliance flags over a global map with ghosted satellites and modern leaders shaking hands, symbolising digital-era intelligence cooperation. Today, the Anglosphere is perhaps most visible in its deepest form: the Five Eyes (FVEY) security and intelligence partnership. Whilst its origins lie in signals intelligence, this alliance has evolved into far more than just a security apparatus; it acts as a shared geopolitical “lens.” This collaboration creates a deep alignment on issues from cybersecurity standards and technological regulation to counter-terrorism strategy and diplomatic coordination at the UN. This shared worldview remained paramount during the War on Terror, where the UK, U.S., and Australia acted as the primary coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Culturally, American media and technology—from Silicon Valley to Hollywood—dominates global popular culture, cementing the Anglosphere’s soft power influence and further strengthening the US as the gravitational centre of the network. The ANZUS and AUKUS Cornerstones Australia’s emergence as a rising middle power in the Indo-Pacific. Alongside FVEY, the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) forms the bedrock of Washington’s long-term Pacific strategy. Signed in 1951, ANZUS commits its members to “act to meet the common danger” in the event of an armed attack. Though originally a tripartite agreement, it now functions primarily as a bilateral pact between the U.S. and Australia, particularly since the U.S. suspended its treaty obligations to New Zealand in 1986 over Wellington’s anti-nuclear policy. This long-standing alliance is increasingly bolstered by Australia’s emergence as a rising middle power in the Indo-Pacific. This shift was starkly demonstrated in 2021 with the formation of AUKUS (Australia, UK, US), a highly significant trilateral security pact focused on developing nuclear-powered submarine technology for Australia. AUKUS is not merely an extension of the Anglosphere’s intelligence history; it signals a new era of deep technological
The UK’s Free Speech Paradox
The UK’s Free Speech Paradox: Why Domestic Law Undermines Global Principle The ongoing debate within the United Nations on hate speech, religious defamation, and Islamophobia reveals a profound conflict between two fundamentally different approaches to human rights: the universal, individualistic standards championed by the West and the conditional rights proposed by the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). 1. The Core Conflict: Universal vs. Conditional Rights The central point of contention in this debate is the question of legal supremacy. Universal Freedoms (UDHR) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) treats rights as inherent, non-derogable, and unconditional. Specifically: These articles establish that religious beliefs and ideas, like political ideologies, must be subject to public criticism and robust discussion. Conditional Freedoms (CDHRI) The Cairo Declaration, supported by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), makes all stated rights subservient to a specific religious legal code: The Result: This conditionality effectively allows religious law to supersede established international civil liberties. This subordination is the primary reason the Declaration has been consistently rejected by the United States and most European nations, as it violates the universality principle of human rights. 2. The UK’s Defence of Universal Freedoms at the UN The United Kingdom has consistently acted as a key proponent of the Western position, using its diplomatic influence to ensure UN resolutions target individuals engaging in incitement rather than ideas subject to criticism. The UK’s Consistent Position The UK’s approach is founded on the principle that the international human rights framework exists primarily to protect individuals from the State, not to protect belief systems from public scrutiny or offence. This commitment translates into two key tenets: The UK’s Stance Against the OIC (The 2023 Vote) Following high-profile instances of Quran burning in Europe, the OIC tabled a resolution in the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in July 2023 condemning the “desecration of sacred books.” The UK government joined the US, Germany, and others in voting against this resolution. Their explanation of the vote focused on the danger of its broad language, arguing that it strongly implied that attacks on religious texts, by definition, constitute advocacy of hatred. The UK stated that accepting this premise would: The UK stated “introduce processes for blasphemy laws by the back door,” thereby restricting freedom of expression beyond the narrowly defined parameters of international law. 3. The Core Conflict: Defining the Threshold of Harm The central, irreconcilable difference between the UK/Western human rights tradition and the approach championed by the OIC and the Cairo Declaration (CDHRI) lies in the fundamental definition of the threshold of harm required to legally restrict speech. This is the linchpin of the entire UN debate. Feature UK/Western Position (ICCPR Art. 19 & 20) OIC/CDHRI Position (Conditional Rights) Primary Protected Entity Individuals (People) from harm and discrimination. Religious Concepts/Institutions (Ideas) from criticism and disrespect. Threshold for Restriction High Threshold: Speech must constitute direct incitement to imminent discrimination, hostility, or violence. Low Threshold: Speech that causes offence, defamation, insult, or desecration of sacred values. View on Offence The right to offend, shock, or disturb is a necessary component of free speech in a democracy. Offence is protected. Offence against religious sensibilities is viewed as a form of harm or violation, justifying legal prohibition. 4. The Domestic-International Dissonance: The UK’s Internal Conflict While the UK champions the high-threshold, pro-speech position at the UN, its domestic legal application demonstrates a significant tension, often blurring the line between protecting people from hatred and protecting religious sensibilities from offence. While the UK champions the high-threshold, pro-speech position at the UN, its domestic legal application demonstrates a significant tension, often blurring the line between protecting people from hatred and protecting religious sensibilities from offence. 4.1. The Electoral Calculus and Political Motivation The primary driver for this domestic dissonance is rooted in the electoral calculus of the UK’s two main political parties. The Muslim population is heavily concentrated in key marginal and contested urban constituencies across the Midlands and the North. 4.2. The Mechanisms of Dissonance The UK’s core legislation aligns with its international commitment: the common law offence of blasphemy was abolished in England and Wales in 2008, and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 requires the high threshold of intent to incite hatred. The conflict arises when police and prosecutors use general public order offences to penalise acts of desecration or extreme offence: This enforcement pathway—using general public order law to shield religious texts from highly offensive treatment—is precisely the kind of low-threshold restriction. The UK pushes back against when it is proposed by the OIC at the Human Rights Council, leading critics to argue that the Crown Prosecution Service is attempting to criminalise ‘blasphemy’ by the back door.