The Islamist Threat to Free Speech in Sweden and the U.K.

I don’t agree with burning Qur’ans. In fact, I don’t agree with burning any books. Books are meant to be read, debated, and challenged—not destroyed. But whether one approves of such acts or not is irrelevant to a more fundamental issue: the right to free speech.

Swedish Officials Abandon Dissident

Across Europe, that right is under growing threat, as governments increasingly prioritize appeasement over principle. Salwan Momika, an Iraqi refugee in Sweden who sparked violent protests after burning the Qur’an was shot dead in an apartment in Södertälje, Stockholm, in late January.

Momika’s story should have been a testament to Sweden’s role as a safe haven for dissidents. Instead, it has exposed the country’s willingness to sacrifice fundamental freedoms to avoid upsetting religious sensitivities.

After engaging in Qur’an burnings—an act he justified as a protest against Islamism—Momika became the target of death threats and mob violence. Rather than ensuring his safety, Swedish authorities revoked his residency and began deportation proceedings—something they seem far less eager to do when dealing with criminals who commit serious offenses.

Sweden’s actions sent a clear message: if your speech provokes anger, the state will abandon you. This is not the behavior of a country committed to protecting free expression—it is a country surrendering to intimidation.

Sweden’s failure to protect Salwan Momika is just one example of this alarming trend. In England, on February 4, 2025, Greater Manchester police arrested a 47-year-old (whom Focus for Western Islamism (FWI) will not name to protect whatever is left of his safety) for burning a copy of the Qur’an—an act that remains, for now, legal under British law.

Manchester Police, which did not respond to a request for comment, didn’t just arrest him; they recklessly exposed his identity and whereabouts, potentially putting his life in danger. By releasing his personal details to the public, they effectively putt a target on his back.

This was not merely a failure of judgment. It was a deliberate act of intimidation, designed to discourage others from engaging in similar acts of expression. By making his identity public, authorities ensured that he now faces a real risk of violence—an implicit endorsement of mob justice over the rule of law.

The same authorities consistently go out of their way to hide the identities of those who carry out terror attacks against innocent civilians, as in the case of withholding the identity of the Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana.

Thankfully, the Free Speech Union (FSU) has stepped up to defend the U.K. citizen, condemning the police’s actions and offering him support. In a climate where institutions increasingly side with those who wish to silence dissent through fear, organisations like the FSU are critical in pushing back against this creeping authoritarianism.

(Photo by By Raj Curry - Flickr via Wikimedia.)

Free Speech Union (FSU) director Lord Toby Young wrote to Greater Manchester police, warning that the burning “should never have been a police matter,” while naming the man “may well have placed him in great jeopardy.”

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, told The Telegraph: “The conviction of a man for burning a Qur’an brings us perilously close to reinstating blasphemy laws.”

But their intervention should not have been necessary. The role of the police is to uphold the law impartially—not to act as enforcers of blasphemy taboos. If burning a Bible or desecrating national symbols is legal (and it is), then burning a Qur’an must be as well. There cannot be one rule for one religion and another for the rest.

For years, we have seen protesters freely burn the flags of the U.K., Israel, and the United States—symbols that many hold dear. We have seen violent rhetoric against the West openly espoused at demonstrations, often under police protection. Yet, when a Qur’an is burned, the full force of the law—and now public exposure—is brought down upon the individual responsible.

This inconsistency and blatant double standard in how British authorities handle acts of offensive expression suggests that free speech is no longer an equal right in Britain. Instead, the right to offend depends on which group is being offended—and some, it seems, are now above criticism.

If this situation weren’t bad enough, the Labour Party in the U.K. has now proposed the establishment of a 16-person council, with the intention of devising an official government definition of Islamophobia which if implemented into a law would effectively criminalize “insulting” religious beliefs. Though dressed up as protections against “hate crime” and for “social cohesion,” such legislation amounts to a de facto blasphemy law—one that would place criticism of religion (Islam in particular) beyond the reach of free debate.

This is precisely what Islamist hardliners have long demanded: legal mechanisms to silence their critics. And now, it appears, they may get exactly that.

But this is not just about one religion. Once we start policing speech to prevent “offense,” there is no logical stopping point. Today it’s a criticism of Islam. Tomorrow, it could be satire, political dissent, or historical inquiry.
Jawad Iqbal, a Times of London columnist and a Muslim himself, elucidated brilliantly in an article: “Special protection for Islam will only encourage racists.” Other prominent British Muslims have also voiced concern. The former Home Secretary Sajid Javid argued that adopting the definition would “risk creating a blasphemy law via the back door.” The former Labour MP Khalid Mahmood said it could be used as a weapon to silence those accused of offending Islamic sensibilities.

The cases of Salwan Momika in Sweden and the Qur’an burner in Manchester should serve as a wake-up call. Across Europe, governments are backing away from defending free speech, bowing to those who would use threats of violence to dictate what can and cannot be said.

This is a profound betrayal of the values that underpin liberal democracy. If we continue down this road, we will soon find ourselves living under a de facto blasphemy regime—one where certain ideologies are untouchable, and criticism comes with serious personal risk.

We must push back. We must demand that our governments protect free speech unequivocally, without exception and without compromise.

These cases are not isolated incidents. They are part of a larger pattern: Western governments are retreating from defending free speech out of fear of violent backlash. In doing so, they betray the very values that make liberal democracy worth defending.