South Wales Police has shelved guidance instructing officers to record “anti-Islam” conversations that go beyond “legitimate” discussion of Islam, after legal threats and a complaint to Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
The backlash against the “backdoor blasphemy law,” which follows the government’s recent definition of “anti-Muslim hostility,” comes amid mounting accusations of “two-tier” policing, with officers disciplined for raising questions about Islamism.
A public body which applies different rules to the discussion of different religions is not treating citizens equally under the law.
On June 10, the Free Speech Union (FSU), which had threatened to file a judicial review against the Welsh constabulary, announced that South Wales Police (SWP) had agreed to pause “the aligning” with the government’s definition to consider whether “they should maintain or amend the adoption,” pending guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
The government’s definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” covers the “prejudicial stereotyping” of Muslims, as well as criminal acts including verbal or written harassment or intimidation directed at Muslims.
Individual Officers Given Draconian Powers
However, SWP’s interpretation not only adds additional wording but also gives individual officers the powers to decide what is “legitimate” and thus creates “an unacceptable risk of unlawful interference with protected rights,” the FSU argued.
“This guidance would have had a serious chilling effect on free speech by handing officers the power to decide what constituted acceptable speech relating to Islam and Muslims—in a country that abolished blasphemy laws 18 years ago,” the FSU warned. “Anything logged as beyond ‘legitimate’ discussion of Islam would be recorded as an ‘anti-social behavior incident.’”
On June 8, 2026 Claire Coutinho MP and Shadow Minister for Equalities, wrote to the EHRC explaining that “the guidance means that entirely lawful comments will be recorded by the police, with individual officers deciding what is to be considered ‘legitimate.’”
“This is not without consequence, because that record may appear in an enhanced DBS check and damage an individual’s employment prospects,” Coutinho stressed, warning that the guidance “creates a more restrictive category of speech that applies only in the context of one religion and has no basis in law.” (DBS is an anacronym for the U.K.’s “Disclosure and Barring Service” that employers use to perform background checks on potential employees.
Special Protection for Islam
“No equivalent instruction exists for the discussion of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other faith. It is, in effect, a de facto blasphemy law which only applies to the discussion of Islam,” she observed. “A public body which applies different rules to the discussion of different religions is not treating citizens equally under the law.”
On the same day, Chris Philip MP blasted the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, for refusing to give a “clear answer” to the directive issued to the SWP. “Parliament has rightly repealed blasphemy laws, and criticizing religion is part of free speech, so does the Home Secretary agree that the guidance is wrong and should be scrapped immediately?” he asked.
Earlier on June 6, Coutinho wrote to the Chief Constable of the SWP, complaining that the police were “creating a separate and more restrictive category of speech that applies only in the context of one religion” at “a time of widespread concern about two-tier policing.”
People who have “legally used their right to free speech to criticise Islam” will be punished, “even if no crime has been committed, if no illegal speech has taken place, and if no charges are brought forward,” she emphasized in her letter.
“That police force has paused this guidance but it’s not enough,” Coutinho said. “This is going to happen in police forces and public services across the country, and it’s all happening because of the government’s new Islamophobia definition.” Coutinho said she had spent months arguing that the definition would be “misused” by public services and “weaponized against free speech.”
Other Police Forces Curb Criticism of Islam
“This guidance must be shelved permanently,” Carys Moseley, a Welsh public policy researcher at Christian Concern, told Focus on Western Islamism (FWI). “This is because it would deter people from coming forward as sources or being informants on Islamist activity in the SWP area.”
“As Cardiff is a target for stealth Islamization, preventing the flow of intelligence about Islamists and their helpers is exactly what infiltrators would want,” Moseley warned. “This would benefit hostile states that wish to undermine the rule of law and thereby our fundamental freedoms.”
“Several other forces are understood to have taken a similar approach to South Wales Police,” The Telegraph reported. In May, it revealed that West Yorkshire Police had fired the chair of a Bradford hate crime panel after she accused the force of prioritizing Muslim sensitivities over Jewish safety.
The female academic in her 60s, who asked not to be named, said that her dismissal followed a meeting regarding an antisemitic attack on a Manchester synagogue, during which she stated officers were avoiding the “elephant in the room” of Islamist extremism.
West Yorkshire Police said she was removed for “divisive and inflammatory” comments that breached their Terms of Reference and Code of Conduct. The chair was dismissed following conflicts where police officers accused the adviser of hate speech for defending the public’s right to criticize Mohammed, the prophet of Islam.
Earlier, FWI reported the case of Luke Salmons, a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO), who was sacked for asking a Muslim sergeant questions about “jihad” and Islamist groups like Hamas during mandatory diversity training.
Salmons, who won a legal settlement from the North Yorkshire Police, was dismissed for “gross misconduct” and “discreditable conduct” in July 2025 for expressing religious and political beliefs “not aligned” with police policies and a “targeted intent” to push his views on Islam.
FWI made a Freedom of Information request to SWP asking for a copy of the guidance issued to officers. SWP was also asked if they thought that they felt the government’s definition of anti-Muslim hostility to be inadequate, but did not receive a reply as of presstime.
