Defending Free Speech: The Freedom of Expression Bill Explained

A bold defence of liberty, conscience, and Christian witness in the face of rising legal intimidation and the creeping enforcement of Islamic blasphemy norms.

Nick Timothy MP’s Freedom of Expression Bill confronts the misuse of public order laws to suppress criticism of Islam, effectively reintroducing blasphemy law by stealth. His speech calls for equal legal treatment of all religions, protection for proselytism, and a rejection of intimidation. The Bill seeks to safeguard public discourse, Christian witness, and free speech rooted in conscience, resisting the rise of two-tier justice and affirming Britain’s constitutional liberties.

In one of the most forthright parliamentary interventions in recent history, Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk) introduced the Freedom of Expression (Religion or Belief System) Bill on 17 July 2025 under the Ten-Minute Rule. The speech and the Bill together represent a watershed moment in the defence of liberty, confronting a growing problem in British public life: the de facto reintroduction of blasphemy laws, not through statute but through the misuse of public order and communications legislation.

Rooted in a firm commitment to both liberal legal tradition and Christian moral clarity, the Bill reasserts the principle that religious ideas must be open to scrutiny, criticism, and even ridicule. In a climate of increasing institutional timidity and cultural appeasement, it offers a legislative line in the sand: no belief system—especially Islam—shall be given special treatment in law.

“I do not believe that Mohammed was a Prophet sent by God. I do not accept the instructions he said he received from the Archangel Gabriel. I do not accept that the Sunna, or body of Islamic laws, has any relevance to me.”¹

Timothy went further, affirming that while he respects the beliefs of others, he “does not mind if Mohammed is satirised, criticised or mocked”, and—importantly—“does not think anybody should be prosecuted for satirising, criticising or mocking Jesus either.”

In these remarks, Timothy made clear that the Bill does not seek to privilege Christianity but to re-establish legal neutrality. If Christ may be mocked, then so may Muhammad. The law, he insisted, must not bend to the fear of violence, nor favour those who demand protection for their sensibilities while offering none to others.

Though England and Wales formally abolished the common law offence of blasphemy in 2008—and Scotland followed in 2021²—Timothy pointed to the resurgence of blasphemy logic through the application of sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. These provisions, originally designed to prevent violent disorder and harassment, are now being used to suppress religious criticism, especially of Islam:

“I have been advised not to refer to two high-profile cases of people being arrested, charged and prosecuted for causing harassment, alarm or distress to Muslims—or even, nonsensically, to Islam itself.”³

In one such case, the Crown Prosecution Service charged a man with causing “distress to the religious institution of Islam”—a phrase Timothy rightly described as “pretty much the dictionary definition of blasphemy.”⁴

This creeping development, he warned, has created a two-tier system of justice: rough justice for law-abiding citizens who speak freely, and impunity for those who threaten violence in response to offence:

“This is the very essence of the two-tier policing row we have seen recently: rough justice for those belonging to identity groups that play by the rules, and freedom from justice for those belonging to groups willing to take to the streets and threaten violence.”⁵

Timothy traced the original intent of the Public Order Act 1986, noting its context in football hooliganism and urban rioting—not religious protection:

“Nowhere in the Second Reading debate from 1986 did anybody raise the need to protect religions or followers of religions from offence.”⁶

While Part III of the Act was later amended to include religious hatred (under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006), it was paired with section 29J, a freedom of expression clause ensuring that nothing in Part III “shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse” of religions or beliefs.⁷

However, that safeguard does not apply to sections 4 and 5 of the same Act, nor to communications law. The result is a patchwork of legal vulnerability, allowing authorities to suppress speech on religion without breaching Part III.

The Freedom of Expression (Religion or Belief System) Bill (Bill 257) seeks to close this loophole. It contains two clauses.

Clause 1 replaces section 29J with a revised version extending the freedom of expression protections across:

– The entire Public Order Act 1986, including sections 4 and 5
– Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988
– Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003⁸

The revised text affirms that nothing in these Acts:

“…shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions… or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

This is a remarkably robust defence of religious liberty in both directions: to profess, to reject, and to attempt to persuade others of the truth.

Clause 2 states that the Bill is to come into force immediately upon Royal Assent and applies wherever the amended laws apply, namely England and Wales.

At stake is not merely the right to “cause offence,” but the integrity of public discourse and the principle of equal justice. The law must not favour those willing to resort to threats. As Timothy noted:

“Twisting the law to make a protestor responsible for the violent reaction of those who will not tolerate the opinions of others is wrong; it destroys our freedom of speech.”⁹

To allow such a precedent is to embolden the most aggressive elements of any community while silencing dissenters and truth-tellers. The Batley Grammar School affair, in which a teacher remains in hiding for showing a historical image of Muhammad during a lesson on free speech, stands as a grim example.¹⁰

A still more shocking case emerged in 2025: a man who publicly burned a Qur’an in protest outside the Turkish consulate in London was stabbed during the demonstration—and yet was later convicted of religiously aggravated public order offences and fined £240.¹¹ His assailant is reportedly scheduled to face trial in 2027.¹² The victim’s speech—not the act of physical violence against him—became the basis of legal sanction. Such an inversion of justice confirms that in contemporary Britain, the perception of offence can now outweigh the reality of harm.

From a Christian perspective, the Bill is vital. The freedom to evangelise—explicitly protected in the Bill’s wording—has been under threat for years, with Christian street preachers arrested under claims of harassment for quoting Scripture.¹³

If enacted, this Bill would provide a crucial legal shield for orthodox Christian witness, as well as for atheists, ex-Muslims, and others who face social and legal pressure to remain silent.

The Freedom of Expression (Religion or Belief System) Bill is not a radical departure but a necessary reaffirmation of Britain’s moral and constitutional inheritance. It declares, in law, that no religion is beyond critique, and that no threat of violence may determine the boundaries of public discourse.

Timothy’s closing words were unflinching:

“This country will not tolerate intimidation, violence or censorship, that there will be no special treatment here for Islam, and that there will be no surrender to the thugs who want to impose their beliefs and culture on the rest of us.”¹⁴

This is not hatred. It is the recovery of moral courage—and the defence of that sacred space in which truth may still be spoken.

For those who still believe that reason, persuasion, and conscience should govern our civic life, this Bill is not only necessary but overdue.

Selsey Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

¹ Hansard, HC Deb, 17 July 2025, Vol. 749, col. 271.
² Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s.79; Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, s.1.
³ Hansard, HC Deb, 17 July 2025, col. 272.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid., col. 273.
⁶ Ibid.
⁷ Public Order Act 1986, s.29J, inserted by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, s.6.
⁸ Freedom of Expression (Religion or Belief System) Bill, Bill 257 [as introduced], 10 June 2025, Clause 1.
⁹ Hansard, HC Deb, 17 July 2025, col. 273.
¹⁰ BBC News, “Batley Grammar School: Teacher Still in Hiding,” 25 March 2023.
¹¹ Daily Mail, “Kurdish atheist fined for burning Qur’an,” 17 July 2025.
¹² Daily Record, “CPS confirms 2027 trial date for attacker in Qur’an burning case,” 16 July 2025.
¹³ Christian Concern, “Street Preacher Arrested for Quoting the Bible,” 2022–2024 case archive.
¹⁴ Hansard, HC Deb, 17 July 2025, col. 274.