How Global Pressure Created a ‘Back Door’ Blasphemy Law in the UK

Global Pressure and the UK’s ‘De Facto’ Blasphemy Law

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the world’s second-largest inter-governmental body. It uses its diplomatic power to shape global law. Its long-term goal has been clear: to establish legal restrictions on “defamation of religions” In clear language, worldwide blasphemy laws.

Critics argue that the UK, through a mix of policy repeal and legislative vagueness, effectively granted the OIC its wish through the back door. This process resulted in a lived experience of persecution for citizens exercising free speech. Paradoxically, it also made the task of successful religious accommodation harder for the host country.

1. The OIC’s Goal and the UK’s Complicity

The OIC’s goal was simple: make insulting religion illegal. After years of failure at the UN, they changed their approach.

The Strategic UN Pivot

Instead of demanding a ban on “defamation,” the OIC pivoted to focus on preventing “incitement to religious hatred.” This led to UN Resolution 16/18 in 2011. The UK and the West signed on to this resolution. This gave the OIC’s agenda crucial legitimacy. By agreeing to tackle “intolerance,” the UK signalled an alignment with the need to police religiously offensive speech.

The Back Door: Vague Domestic Law

The UK assisted this alignment domestically. The specific Christian Blasphemy Laws were repealed in 2008. This was widely hailed as a progressive, secular move.

However, the laws that replaced or supplemented this repeal are far broader:

• The Public Order Act 1986: This is the new enforcement mechanism. It allows for the prosecution of people using “abusive words or behaviour” likely to cause “distress or alarm.” This vague wording is used to punish protests or satirical works that cause “gross offence” to religious groups. This is a functional, de facto blasphemy law covering all faiths.
• Online Safety Act (OSA): This law compels tech companies to remove vaguely defined “harmful” content. This forces platforms to censor “awful but lawful” speech. It ensures that critical religious commentary is suppressed online before it reaches an audience.

This legal environment is the persecution felt by citizens. They are penalised for expressing opinions that would have been protected just a decade ago.

2. The Grand Contradiction: OIC Members vs. Human Rights

The OIC’s campaign is fundamentally undermined by its high-profile members. The diplomatic body is pushing for laws that many of its states already violate.

A. The Average Position of OIC Members

The vast majority of the 57 OIC member states maintain laws that severely restrict human rights guaranteed by the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

• The Problem: Most OIC nations restrict political dissent, maintain systemic gender inequality, and use explicit blasphemy and apostasy laws to enforce religious conformity. The average OIC member state’s legal system is inherently incompatible with the UDHR’s articles on freedom of expression, thought, and conscience.
• High-Profile Hypocrisy: Key OIC leaders, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, are global outliers in human rights. Their active role in leading the campaign for speech restrictions on the world stage creates an undeniable hypocrisy. They seek to use international law to protect their religion while refusing to protect the basic human rights of their citizens.

B. The Rare Exceptions: Adherence to the UN Charter

While the majority of OIC states fall short, a few members have relatively better human rights records and secular constitutions, making their legal systems closer to the spirit of the UN Charter and UDHR. For example, nations like Albania and, to a lesser extent, Turkey (despite recent democratic concerns) often score higher on measures of free speech and secular law than the OIC average. Their presence shows that religious identity and adherence to the UN Charter are not mutually exclusive, highlighting the political choice made by the majority.

3. Why This Failure Harms the Host Country

The UK’s adoption of this “back door” strategy is bad for the goal of accommodation. It creates a profound negative feedback loop.

First, it alienates the non-Muslim majority. When the state is perceived as creating special protective categories, it leads to the belief in two-tier policing. This erodes trust in the fairness of the justice system.

Second, it hinders genuine integration. Healthy, pluralistic societies require robust debate. When discussion is suppressed—even if that discussion is harsh—resentment moves underground. Shutting down legitimate criticism pushes discourse towards extremist, Islamophobic outlets. This exacerbates the very societal divisions the policy was designed to fix.

This trajectory is not sustainable. It ensures that the host country fails in its goal. True accommodation requires defending free speech for all, not creating legal restrictions driven by foreign diplomatic pressure.