‘Blasphemy’ in Schools

Self-Censorship and Security Fears Amongst British Teachers

November 20, 2023

Exclusive polling published by Policy Exchange – conducted by YouGov – exposes that a de facto blasphemy code is being introduced to our schools.

In Britain, no one has the right not to be offended. Words or actions that are taken by some as offensive – whether they relate to one’s religion, sexuality or race – are not criminal as long as they are not intentionally hostile and meant, or likely, to incite hatred. Yet, this does not seem to be fully acknowledged in Britain’s schools – as our polling shows.

Key findings include:

A worrying proportion of teachers believe that – regardless of a teacher’s intentions – images of the prophet Muhammad should never be used in classrooms, even in the teaching of Islamic art or ethics. As many as 55% of teachers said they would not use an image of Muhammad anyway – higher for teachers of art (64%) and citizenship (60%) – and a further 9% would not do so as a result of the Batley Grammar School protests. The case of the teacher at Batley Grammar who went into hiding after death threats thus appears to have had a significant impact on teachers’ confidence and willingness to use materials that fall within the scope of the law.
Alarmingly, half of British teachers believe that if blasphemy-related protests led by activist and advocacy groups occur outside their schools, there would be a risk to their physical safety. The vast majority of teachers – three quarters (75%) – thought that if protests break out, they would be “damaging” to the teacher involved, with around four in ten (39%) indicating that they would be “very damaging”.
Significantly, more teachers expressed the view that images of Muhammad were generally unacceptable in formal displays in classrooms or assembly halls (51%) than other settings, such as in lessons in religious studies (35%), art history (32%), and ethics and freedom of speech (31%).
Only 36% of teachers said that their schools have guidance to avoid causing offence from teaching materials or lesson content. As many as four in ten teachers (40%) indicated that their schools do not have any such guidance.

Related Publications

The Global Peace and Unity Festival

October 19, 2024

A definition of Islamophobia?

April 22, 2024

Tehran Calling

April 15, 2024

Authors

Dr Damon Perry

Senior Research Fellow (2021-2023)

Content

Foreword
Introduction
Key Findings & Recommendations
+
- Key findings
- Recommendations
Background
+
Timeline of ‘Blasphemy’-Related Incidents in Britain
Blasphemy and Laws Against Incitement to Religious Hatred
Teachers’ Views on Batley, Protests and Self-Censorship
+
Conclusion

Foreword

Nadhim Zahawi MP

Member of Parliament for Stratford-on-Avon

Former Secretary of State for Education

Throughout my tenure as Education Secretary, I put forward my vision for an education system that gives every child, regardless of their background, the best possible start in life. Such a system has to encourage schoolchildren to develop inquisitiveness and critical thinking skills. For this to be achieved, teachers need to embrace curiosity and criticism.

In order for this to be the case, there must be a culture free of fear and intimidation to explore and scrutinise ideas and beliefs. That is why I am greatly concerned that a new YouGov poll – commissioned by Policy Exchange – has revealed that a small but significant proportion of teachers in Britain are self-censoring to avoid causing offence on the grounds of religion, race, and gender or sexuality.

I was born in Baghdad, in Saddam’s Iraq, and grew up there until my parents fled when I was 11. At the age of 11, I sat at the back of my classroom in London, unable to utter a word of English. Thanks to my teachers, I began to understand, speak, read and write the language. I also began to think for myself. Unlike my schooling in Iraq, no topic was off limits.

As I have written before when arguing for blasphemy laws to be repealed, freedom of speech is not just a Western value – it is our common birth right as human beings.¹

One factor in the self-censoring of teachers is undeniably a fear of losing one’s job – and even one’s life. Teachers in Britain remember the terrible fate of Samuel Paty in France, who was beheaded for showing a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad in a lesson highlighting the importance of freedom of speech. They also recall an incident closer to home: the teacher from Batley Grammar School who was forced into anonymity after showing a similar image in a lesson on blasphemy. The fact that he is still in hiding over two years later is a national disgrace.

The polling for Policy Exchange shows that around one in ten teachers are less likely to show an image of the Prophet Muhammad in lessons as a result of the Batley Grammar School protests. This is in addition to those – 55% overall, but rising to 64% of all art teachers – who would not use such an image anyway. These are not teachers who would show an image deliberately to offend anyone. The Batley Grammar School teacher had no intention of causing offence or distress – the image was shown as a visual aid to prompt an honest and necessary discussion about the acceptable limits of free expression. The teacher acted within the law.

It is, however, a sad and ironic consequence of activist bullying that in precisely the place where schoolchildren should be exposed to different and even potentially offensive ideas and images, the debate has closed down before it has even begun.

Of course, there is no need to expose pupils to offensive, satirical images gratuitously. But to display an image is not necessarily to endorse it; it is to reveal something about the world we live in. Context matters. We have laws against incitement to hatred; we do not need mobs outside school gates pressuring head teachers to fire teachers who are acting within the law and imposing de facto blasphemy laws in our country.

Thankfully, there are no blasphemy laws any more in Britain and we do not need them introduced by extremist mobs.

The negative influence of activist groups has been shown quite starkly by this poll: over half of all teachers think that there would be a risk to their physical safety if there were protests outside their schools led by activist groups. In the West Midlands, the proportion of teachers fearing this risk was around six in ten. These activists have somehow managed to persuade teachers and headteachers that all Muslims are offended by all images of the Prophet Muhammad. We actually have diverse traditions regarding the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, but once again these activist groups – loud in their protests and easily offended – pretend to speak for all Muslims.

Teachers must not feel the need to self-censor out of fear. Headteachers, who set school policy, should not be bullied by de facto blasphemy codes.

But the evidence put forward in this report indicates that they would benefit from greater support from the Government. Proper national statuary guidance on the use of potentially offensive images and the freedom of expression would be a welcome thing – as recommended by this important and insightful report by Policy Exchange and as promised by the then Home Secretary back in March.

Our teachers – and their pupils – deserve better than this. We owe it to them to support them to provide a secure environment where open, honest and free discussion is not only permitted, but actively encouraged.

Next chapter

Introduction

In Britain, no one has the right not to be offended. Words or actions that are taken by some as offensive – whether they relate to religion, sexuality or race – are not criminal as long as they are not intentionally hostile and meant, or likely, to incite hatred. The statutory guidance on Non-Crime Hate Incidents, revised in March 2023, is consistent with the law in this regard. It states: “Fundamentally, offending someone is not, in and of itself, a criminal offence. To constitute an offence under hate crime legislation, the speech or behaviour in question must be threatening, abusive or insulting and be intended to, or likely to, stir up hatred”.²

Yet, this does not seem to be fully acknowledged in Britain’s schools. As this revealing survey of over a thousand teachers from YouGov and Policy Exchange demonstrates, since the Batley Grammar School protests, a small but significant proportion of British teachers have self-censored to avoid offence on religious grounds – 16%. (That proportion is slightly higher for teachers of certain subjects, including almost a fifth of all English teachers and art teachers – 19%). In areas with the largest Muslim populations, around 10% fewer teachers do not self-censor than those in areas with the smallest Muslim populations. A worrying proportion believe that – regardless of a teacher’s intentions – images of the prophet Muhammad should never be used in classrooms, even in the teaching of Islamic art or ethics: In addition to the 55% of teachers that would not personally use an image of Muhammad independently from the Batley Grammar School protests, an additional 9% said they personally were less likely to use it as a result of the events in Batley. The case of the teacher at Batley Grammar who went into hiding after death threats thus appears to have had a significant impact on teachers’ confidence and willingness to use materials that fall within the scope of the law.

Alarmingly, half of British teachers believe that if blasphemy-related protests led by activist and advocacy groups occur outside their schools, there would be a risk to their physical safety. Despite most teachers thinking that headteachers get the balance right – between supporting them to use materials that are on the right side of the law but which might offend, and ensuring no offence is caused – they are clearly in need of greater confidence in the support they can expect from their headteachers and, in the case of activist-led protests outside their school gates, the police.

Recent events have given further impetus to concerns regarding the physical safety of teachers and the security at schools. On 13 October, 2023, in Arras, France, a literature teacher, Dominque Bernard, was killed in a knife attack; the suspect, an Islamist extremist, was looking for teachers of history or geography.³ The case has been compared to that of Samuel Paty, the teacher who was killed three years ago by an Islamist extremist for showing cartoons of Muhammad to a class on freedom of expression.⁴ Both teachers have been described by President Macron as champions of the values of the French republic. Although this tragic incident took place across the Channel, France’s battle with Islamist extremism is one shared with the UK.

Closer to home, in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks on hundreds of civilians in Israel on 7 October, protests on the streets of the UK against Israeli reprisals in the name of the Palestinian “resistance” have demonstrated alarming levels of hateful extremism and antisemitism.⁵ Some Jewish schools were forced to close on 13 October, when Hamas called for a “Global Day of Jihad”, and several Jewish schools were vandalised with red paint.⁶ The atmosphere has been fraught. The Department for Education wrote to school leaders “to ensure that any political activity from pupils in response to the crisis does not create an ‘atmosphere of intimidation’”.⁷

As this report argues, support for schools – whether in the context of these broader political currents or not – should include clearer and firmer guidance in the event of blasphemy-related incidents. This guidance was promised by the then Home Secretary in the wake of the Kettlethorpe School “Quran incident” in February this year, when a 14-year old autistic student was suspended from school and sent death threats from other students for scuffing a copy of the Quran, which he had brought into school as a forfeit for losing a video game amongst friends. But the Department for Education has said existing guidance is adequate,⁸ and in a written statement the Home Office has suggested such guidance is not being developed.⁹ According to this poll, 40% of teachers say that their schools do not have any guidance for teachers on avoiding offence to religious or community groups from teaching materials or lesson content. This means that many schools lack a code of practice for dealing with blasphemy-related incidents and similar situations where unintentional offence caused by teachers or the use of certain teaching materials may lead to protests and even violence. Schools should not be left to their own devices; there should be national statutory guidance on these matters, since they potentially involve security risks to individuals that we should not take lightly.

In April 2023, Lord Sharpe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Office, said that “the Government has been repeatedly clear that there is no blasphemy law in Great Britain” and, as such, there are no plans to produce guidance for blasphemy-related incidents.¹⁰ The then Schools Minister Nick Gibb said the same thing after the events at Kettlethorpe School. Indeed, blasphemy is no longer a crime in England, Scotland and Wales. And that is a good thing. But the kind of blasphemy that is a concern today is not some outdated transgression against Christianity – as blasphemy was defined in English law until 2008. It is, rather, a perceived act of symbolic violence against Islam, which, in the eyes of those claiming blasphemy, may justify threats, and even violent acts of retribution.

It is not good enough to dismiss blasphemy as a crime of the past, when incidents such as those at Batley and Wakefield have over the last decade become increasingly frequent. Last year, in 2022, the Shia-produced film, ‘Lady of Heaven’, caused protests around the country from Sunni Muslims unhappy with the film’s portrayal of the prophet Muhammad. Several cinema chains cancelled their planned screenings of the film. In the same year, a teacher was suspended after photos of him holding a ‘Jesus and Mo’ mug appeared online. In 2021, in addition to the Batley protests, the Christian convert Hatun Tash was stabbed at Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park for wearing a Charlie Hebdo T-shirt. In 2016, Ahmadi shopkeeper Asad Shah was murdered by Tanveer Ahmed for Shah’s alleged disrespect of Muhammad by claiming to be a prophet himself. In 2012, the producer of a Channel 4 documentary that questioned the orthodox Islamic account of the religion’s origins received threats. The programme has not been re-aired.

It is important that the British Government recognises that blasphemy does not need to be defined in the country’s current lawbooks or by any specific school of Islamic jurisprudence for some to resort to violence or issue death threats after taking offence to what they see as blasphemy against their religion or founding prophet. There has clearly been an increasing number of blasphemy-related incidents in Britain in recent years – including violence, threats or intimidation – as the timeline in this report demonstrates. Several of the most concerning of these incidents have taken place outside schools, where additional protests have occurred regarding the teaching of LGBT-inclusive education.

The polling in this report demonstrates that a significant number of teachers – who are self-censoring regarding the use of images of the prophet Muhammad – have been affected by the Batley Grammar School protests. It also suggests that teachers would benefit from firm statutory national guidance from the Government that makes clear that no one has the right not to be offended, and that schools have both a moral and legal obligation to protect teachers’ freedom of expression, as long as it is lawful, as well as their physical safety.

Next chapter

Key Findings & Recommendations

Key findings

In March, 2023, YouGov conducted an online survey of 1,132 teachers from around the country. The key findings of the survey include a widely shared view amongst teachers that protests outside schools, particularly involving activist groups, present a risk to teachers’ physical safety; an admission from a significant minority of teachers that they self-censor to avoid causing offence (held most commonly by English and art teachers); a view held by over half of all teachers that they would not use an image of Muhammad even if it did not break any laws (e.g., incitement to hatred); and that around four out of ten schools have no guidance for teachers relating to situations in which what they teach or the materials they use may cause offence.

Protests and physical safety

The vast majority of teachers – three quarters (75%) – thought that if protests break out, they would be “damaging” to the teacher involved, with around four in ten (39%) indicating that they would be “very damaging”. More teachers in regions with the highest proportion of Muslims (45%) thought that the protests would be “very damaging” to the teacher than in regions with the lowest proportion of Muslims (34%). In Yorkshire and the Humber, where Batley is located, 60% of teachers said protests would be “very damaging” (in addition to 25% that said protests would be “fairly damaging”).

Alarmingly, half (50%) of all teachers thought that there would be a risk to the physical safety of a teacher accused of showing an offensive image if the protests were led by external advocacy groups or activists. In areas with the largest Muslim populations, 55% expressed such a view, and in areas with the smallest Muslim populations, that figure dropped to 40%. In the East Midlands, as many as six out of ten (60%) teachers indicated that there would be a risk to their physical safety in the event of activist-led protests. This view was shared by 59% of teachers in Yorkshire and the Humber, and 58% of teachers in the West Midlands.

Nationally, one in five (20%) indicated that there would be “a very big risk” to a teacher’s physical safety in such an event. In areas with the highest percentage of Muslims, one in four (25%) expressed such a view; in areas with the lowest percentage of Muslims, however, around one in eight teachers (13%) indicated as such. The region with the highest percentage of teachers indicating a “very big risk” was Yorkshire and the Humber, at 33%.

Thus, it is fair to say that a significant proportion of teachers believe that the participation of external groups in protests – rather than parents, governors, or students – pose the greatest risk to their physical safety. This concern is compounded by the view shared by a third of all teachers (33%) that external activists and advocacy groups would be the most likely source of protests.

Self-censorship

Only around 60% of teachers reported that since the Batley Grammar School protests, they have not self-censored with regards to materials that whilst not breaking any law might cause offence to religious groups. Significantly fewer teachers from parts of the country with the highest proportion of Muslims said they had not self-censored (57%) compared with teachers from parts of the country with the lowest proportion of Muslims (67%). These are both lower than we would expect in a society that values open and honest inquiry.

This does not mean that around 40% of teachers have self-censored. Nationwide, just 16% of teachers affirmed that they had self-censored – i.e., self-consciously refrained from teaching content or using materials that they otherwise would have taught or used – since the Batley Grammar School protests. But this is still a notable proportion of teachers, demonstrating the nationwide impact of the Batley protests and, it should be added, of the threats against the teacher involved. The number of self-censoring teachers could be even higher, since a further 24% – almost a quarter of all teachers surveyed – either could not remember or preferred not to answer.

When the figures are broken down by subjects taught, it is notable that almost a fifth of all teachers of English, art, and modern languages (19%) admitted to self-censor to avoid offence on religious grounds. Self-censorship was reported by similar proportions of teachers of history (18%), science (18%), citizenship (17%), geography (17%), and maths (17%).

It is worth noting that across all subjects, a similar proportion of teachers – around a fifth – reported that they had self-censored in relation to issues either of gender and sexuality (20%) or race (21%). This suggests that teachers’ fear of causing offence is not limited to matters of religion. Any future guidance to support schools on dealing with blasphemy-related incidents would thus best address all kinds of possible offence.

Use of images of Muhammad

Over half (55%) of all teachers said they would not use an image of Muhammad in the classroom, independently from the Batley Grammar School protests. For teachers of certain subjects, the figure was significantly higher: 64% of art teachers and 60% of citizenship teachers, for example, said they would not use an image of Muhammad. Such a significantly large proportion of teachers unwilling to use an image of a major religious figure – not just caricatures that are clearly mocking – surely demands an explanation. Is this out of fear or respect? If respect, how have so many teachers – including art teachers – arrived at the view that images of Muhammad are simply taboo in Islam, when there have been Islamic artistic traditions that both revere and depict Muhammad?¹¹ Where are these teachers learning about Islam and why are they not respecting the diversity of Muslim views on aniconism in Islam? Are they learning about Islam, directly or indirectly, through Islamist organisations? In addition to these teachers, an additional one in ten teachers (9%) said they were personally less likely to use an image of Muhammad as a result of the Batley protests. (The same proportion of art and citizenship teachers – 9% – said as much). This clearly shows a negative impact that the protests have had. For these teachers, at least, fear seems to be the motivating factor for self-censorship.

Teachers were also asked about the general acceptability of using an image of Muhammad in different educational settings. Significantly, more teachers expressed the view that images of Muhammad were generally unacceptable in formal displays in classrooms or assembly halls (51%) than other settings, such as in lessons in religious studies (35%), art history (32%), and ethics and freedom of speech (31%). Overall, this perhaps suggests an appreciation of a difference between using such images gratuitously and purposively. But that around a third of all teachers think it is generally unacceptable to use images of Muhammad for educational purposes in relevant subjects is a cause for concern.

Significantly, in areas of the country with the largest proportion of Muslims, 40% of teachers said it was generally unacceptable to use an image of Muhammad when teaching religious studies, but in areas of the country with the lowest proportion of Muslims, those sharing that view comprised just 28%. Furthermore, around four in ten (38%) art teachers stated that using an image of Muhammad is generally unacceptable when teaching topics such as Islamic art or art history, and 36% of citizenship teachers indicated that it is generally unacceptable to use such an image in lessons on ethics, political expression and freedom of speech.

School guidance

Only 36% of teachers said that their schools have issued guidance to avoid causing offence from teaching materials or lesson content. As many as four in ten teachers (40%) indicated that their schools do not have any such guidance. There is thus a significant lack of consistency amongst schools regarding whether or not they have guidance on managing possible offence. But the lack of national guidance from the DfE that specifically relates to managing blasphemy-related incidents suggests that even those schools that have guidance to avoid offence may lack consistency in approach and in the extent to which they prioritise freedom of expression.

The then Home Secretary’s promise in March of this year to work with the DfE to produce guidance “prioritis[ing] the physical safety of children over the hurt feelings of adults”¹² was a welcome response to what has been recognised as a growing issue. But on 3 April, responding on behalf of the Home Office to a Parliamentary question regarding the matter, Lord Sharpe stated that there are “no plans to develop new blasphemy guidance for schools”.¹³

Headteacher support

Encouragingly, most teachers – 52% – thought that headteachers strike the right balance between supporting teachers who wish to use materials of their choice and preventing offence. Teachers in high Muslim population areas were only slightly more inclined than those in low Muslim population areas to indicate that headteachers could be more supportive of teachers who wish to use materials that (whilst legal) might cause offence (19% and 16% respectively). The greatest indication for headteachers to be more supportive of teachers to use such materials was in the East Midlands, at 27%.

The vast majority of teachers (86%) indicated support for headteachers’ commitment to protect a teacher’s identity in the event of protests about the use of materials deemed offensive by some groups. The majority of teachers (77%) also indicated that they support headteachers’ commitment not to automatically suspend teachers on the basis of their use of materials which some communities find offensive. Similarly, the majority (73%) supported headteachers’ commitment to uphold their freedom of expression, as long as it lies within the scope of the law, even if it unintentionally causes offence

Reporting possible extremism

Encouragingly, the Batley protests do not appear to had a negative impact on teachers’ willingness to report suspected cases of Islamist extremism to the police or safeguarding officers. Only 4% of teachers indicated that they were less likely to report suspected cases of Islamist extremism, whilst 8% indicated that they were more likely to report them. The majority of teachers (67%) indicated that they would report suspected cases of Islamist extremism regardless of the events at Batley Grammar School. Even more teachers (82%) indicated that they were equally likely to report potential cases of Islamist and Far-Right extremism.

Recommendations

The Government should issue statutory guidance committing headteachers and schools to:
- uphold teachers’ freedom of expression, as long as it lies within the scope of the law, even if it unintentionally causes offence;
- do not automatically suspend teachers who have been accused of using materials which some religious groups or communities may find offensive, as long as they have been using this for a legitimate teaching objective;
- do not automatically suspend students who have been accused of causing offence or “desecrating” religious books; and
- protect a teacher’s identity in the event of protests about the use of materials deemed offensive by some groups.
The statutory guidance should make clear that a school’s duty to teach fundamental British values does not in any way imply that teachers should be restricted from using materials that some people may find offensive. Contrary to what Batley Grammar School implied after its inquiry into the events of 2021, the promotion of “respect and tolerance between people of different faiths, beliefs and values”¹⁴ is perfectly compatible with supporting teachers using images of religious figures, whether satirical or historical, where there is educational value in the use of such images and where there are no threats or intentions to stir up hatred.
Organisations that publicly name accused teachers on social media or through traditional media channels – thus potentially putting the physical safety of these teachers at risk – should be held accountable. The Government should consider what kind of action can and should be taken through the Charity Commission, or through criminal or civil court procedures, including prohibitory injunctions.

Next chapter

Background

Batley and Wakefield

In March 2021, a teacher was suspended from Batley Grammar School after showing a caricature of the prophet Muhammad in a religious studies class.¹⁵ The image was taken from the satirical French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, whose offices were attacked in January 2015 by jihadist militants linked to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; 12 people, including journalists and security staff, were killed in the attack prompted by the magazine’s publication of “blasphemous” cartoons of Muhammad. The teacher at Batley Grammar School, who ironically wished to educate his students about blasphemy, was suspended by the headteacher after a crowd of angry Muslim parents and external activists gathered outside the school.

The protestors, including people who did not have children at the school, saw the use of the image as blasphemous and called for the firing of the teacher. One protestor claimed the image offended “the whole Muslim community”.¹⁶ Rather than stand up for the right of the teacher to use materials with which he intended to generate a classroom discussion, the headteacher issued an “unequivocal” apology to the protestors and said that the use of the image was “totally inappropriate”.¹⁷ An independent inquiry was commissioned by Batley Multi Academy Trust, which runs the school. The Department for Education did not commission its own inquiry. Some critics argued that by not intervening and by leaving the problem to be resolved at the local level – where the school’s own handling of the matter was not part of any investigation – the Government had ceded too much power to “outraged Muslim ‘community leaders’”.¹⁸ In May 2021, the Trust published the executive summary of its investigation, which concluded that the topics of the lesson “could have been effectively addressed in other ways and without using the image”, but affirmed that the teacher did not use the image with the intention of causing offence.¹⁹ The Trust said it “will not avoid addressing challenging subject matter in its classrooms”, but – appearing to undermine this pledge – it also said “it is committed to ensuring that offence is not caused”.²⁰ The Trust justified its commitment to ensure no offence is caused – criticised by some as a “a route to censorship”²¹ – in the language of “fundamental British values”. It stated:

Clearly, where subject content is sensitive or controversial, great care must be taken to ensure that lessons are planned and delivered in a way that promotes respect and tolerance between people of different faiths, beliefs and values.²²

The school then lifted the suspension of the teacher.²³ However, the teacher had been named on social media by a local charity, Purpose of Life, and had received death threats.²⁴ In October 2021, the Charity Commission formally rebuked Purpose of Life for “inflaming tensions” and outing the teacher,²⁵ who fled his home under police protection and was given a new identity. The teacher’s father said that his son fears he will be murdered: “My son keeps breaking down crying and says that it’s all over for him. He is worried that he and his family are all going to be killed”.²⁶ He also expressed anger at the way the school had treated his son:

The school has thrown my son under a bus. The lesson that he delivered in which the picture of the Prophet Muhammad was shown was part of the curriculum, it had been approved by the school …So why is my son being victimised like this? The school should have come out fighting for him and made it clear to the protestors that if offence was caused, then it was not my son’s fault.²⁷

Over two years later, the teacher remains in hiding after relocating with his family far from Batley.²⁸

The danger to teachers accused of showing religiously offensive materials in the classroom from social media campaigns stoking a sense of grievance amongst Muslims became all too apparent in October 2020 in France. Samuel Paty, a secondary school history and geography teacher, was killed and decapitated by Chechen refugee, Abdullakh Anzorov, in a Paris suburb after showing an image of the prophet Muhammad – also from Charlie Hebdo – during a moral and civic education class discussion about freedom of speech.²⁹ There is no doubt that the Batley Grammar School teacher had Paty’s fate in mind when he went into hiding.³⁰ Anzorov had sought out Paty, paying some students to identify him outside the school, after the father of a girl in Paty’s class launched a social media campaign naming Paty, as well as the school in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, and demanding his sacking.

Following the gruesome murder, President Macron visited the scene of the attack, and on the first anniversary of the event, in October 2021, he delivered a speech paying national tribute to Paty. He said Paty was murdered precisely because he embodied the values of the Republic, such as the freedom of expression: “Samuel Paty was killed,” he said, “because Islamists want our future and because they know that with quiet heroes like him, they will never have it.”³¹ The case of Paty was described by Gilles Kepel, Macron’s special envoy, as an example of the new threat of “atmospheric jihadism”.³²

Have the Batley Grammar School protests and the killing of Samuel Paty affected the way in which teachers in Britain teach? Are they less likely, as a result, to use certain teaching materials in classrooms out of fear of offending not just Muslim students but Muslim parents and external activists? How do teachers feel about the prospect of protests outside their schools in the event that a teacher is accused of offending Muslim sensibilities in the classroom? These are relevant questions two years after the Batley affair, and three years after Paty’s assassination, since these are not the only examples of unrest, intimidation or violence triggered by religious offence taken by some Muslims in Britain in relation to teaching in schools.

Most recently, in February 2023, in the West Yorkshire town of Wakefield, just ten miles from Batley, four boys were suspended from school following an incident involving a Quran. At Kettlethorpe High School, a 14-year-old boy ordered a copy of the Quran on Amazon and brought it into school as a forfeit for losing a video game, Call of Duty. The book was reportedly bandied about and slightly damaged when it was dropped in a corridor. It had a slight tear and some pages were lightly marked. Remarkably, the school called West Yorkshire Police to intervene. The police found that there had been only “minor damage” to the Quran and concluded that no crime had been committed. Nonetheless, they recorded the incident as a “non-crime hate incident”.³³ And although the headteacher of the school said there was no “malicious intent”, the boy and three others were suspended from school. It is unclear what offence according to the school’s rules, if any, the children had committed.

As with the Batley protests, social media played a role in agitating a sense of grievance amongst local activists. A Labour councillor, Usman Ali, in a now-deleted tweet, claimed the Quran had been “desecrated” – a point of view echoed by the media outlet 5Pillars³⁴ – and described the incident as a “serious provocative action” that “needs to be dealt with urgently by all the authorities, namely the police, the school and the local authority”.³⁵ And once again, there were death threats. Other students reportedly threatened the boy with arson and beatings. There is no record of other students being disciplined, or of the police taking action against those issuing death threats. West Yorkshire Police merely spoke to a student making such threats. A police spokesperson said that a report was made “of a malicious communications offence in relation to threats being made to a child in connection with this incident. A suspect was identified, who was also a child, and they were given words of advice by an officer”.³⁶

A meeting was held in the Jamia Masjid Swafia mosque, chaired by the mosque’s imam, Hafiz Muhammad Mateen Anwar,³⁷ and attended by the boy’s mother, police officers and headteacher of the school. The non-Muslim mother, wearing a hijab, nervously told the attendees that her boy is autistic, does not always realise what is socially appropriate or inappropriate, and did not intend to cause any offence.³⁸ However, she also repeatedly acknowledged how “disrespectful” his actions had been and apologised on his behalf. Police Chief Inspector Andy Thornton nodded in agreement when Anwar told the attendees that Muslims will never tolerate disrespect of the Quran and will give their lives in its honour.³⁹ At the meeting, independent councillor for Wakefield East, Akef Akbar, acknowledged the numerous death threats sent to the 14-year-old boy – who was so petrified that he had not eaten for days – but appeared to undermine the seriousness of such threats, describing them simply as a flaring of passions.⁴⁰ He added that the boy’s mother had to report the threats to the police, but “to her credit” did not seek further action. “She only asks,” he added, “that her son is not harmed.”⁴¹

The Home Office’s response

Writing in The Times on March 4, 2023, the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, expressed her “deep concern” about events in Wakefield and the broader issues it raised. She said:

The education sector and police have a duty to prioritise the physical safety of children over the hurt feelings of adults. Schools answer to pupils and parents. They do not have to answer to self-appointed community activists.⁴²

She said she would work with the Department for Education to issue new guidance to ensure that schools understand this. She also stated that she would announce new guidance for police regarding the recording of ‘non-crime hate incidents’, to ensure they only record such incidents where it is “proportionate and absolutely necessary”.⁴³ Taking a firm stance against political and cultural “timidity” in the face of de facto blasphemy codes and their supporters, she asserted:

We do not have blasphemy laws in Great Britain, and must not be complicit in the attempts to impose them on this country. There is no right not to be offended. There is no legal obligation to be reverent towards any religion. The lodestar of our democracy is freedom of speech. Nobody can demand respect for their belief system, even if it is a religion.⁴⁴

Less than two weeks later, on March 13, Braverman announced new statutory guidance for the police on the recording of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ to ensure police officers prioritise freedom of expression.⁴⁵ Under the new draft code of practice, personal data may only be included in a non-crime hate incident record if the incident is clearly motivated by intentional hostility and where there is a real risk of significant harm or a criminal offence.⁴⁶

After Braverman’s announcement that the Government would work with the Department for Education (DfE) to produce new guidance for schools to deal with blasphemy-related incidents, the DfE said it “do[es] not plan to issue additional guidance on managing blasphemy related incidents”, and instead referred to a range of existing guidance – on behaviour, exclusions and political impartiality – which help schools meet “the needs of their pupils and to manage and resolve concerns and complaints”.⁴⁷

On March 20, 2023, Lord Godson, the director of Policy Exchange, sought clarity on this matter and raised a question in the House of Lords. He asked “whether the new blasphemy guidance being developed by the Home Office will be legally binding upon schools”; he also asked how the Home Office is “planning to make schools aware of their new responsibilities under this guidance; and how it will be enforced”.⁴⁸ On April 3, Lord Sharpe, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Office, responded. He said:

In response to recent incidents, the Government has been repeatedly clear that there is no blasphemy law in Great Britain. There are currently no plans to develop new blasphemy guidance for schools.⁴⁹

On April 17, Lord Godson posed the same question but to the DfE. Eleven days afterwards, answering on behalf of the DfE, Baroness Barran reiterated Lord Sharpe’s words with some additional comments:

In response to recent incidents, the Government has been clear that there is no blasphemy law in the UK. The Department [for Education] has no plans to produce specific guidance on blasphemy for schools.

Head teachers are best placed to make the decisions on how to meet the needs of their pupils. In doing so, there are a range of considerations, supported by existing departmental guidance. This includes ensuring political impartiality and promoting respect and tolerance between people of different faiths and beliefs.⁵⁰

This chimes with what the then Schools’ Minister Nick Gibb said after the Kettlethorpe School incident. He stated that there is no blasphemy law and that “schools should be promoting fundamental British values of the respect for rule of law, individual liberty and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.⁵¹

However, in her response to the Independent Review of Prevent published on 8 February 2023 – just prior to the Wakefield Quran incident – the Home Office indicated that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) “will lead on tackling blasphemy-related incidents”. If neither the Home Office nor the DfE will take a lead with the development of the guidance for schools, perhaps the DLUHC will do so.

The Prevent Review

Just two weeks prior to the Kettlethorpe School incident,⁵² blasphemy-related intimidation and violence was highlighted as a growing concern in the Independent Review of Prevent, authored by William Shawcross. The Review stated:

An area of particular importance requiring more attention is that of violence associated with accusations of blasphemy and apostasy. It is vital that Prevent proactively seeks to address this ideological threat, given the serious challenge it poses to our national culture of free speech – which must be fiercely protected – as well as to the safety of individuals and the public.⁵³

The Review noted the significance of the Batley Grammar School protests, stating that it is “precisely the type of challenge where Prevent should institute urgent additional resources”,⁵⁴ as well the murder of Asad Shah, an Ahmadi Muslim shopkeeper, by a Sunni Muslim admirer of a Pakistani cleric who founded an organisation defending Pakistan’s strict blasphemy laws. The Review also expressed concern about the connection between “narratives around blasphemy in the UK … to hard-line Pakistani clerics and/or the Khatme Nubuwwat movement”.⁵⁵ There are other examples of blasphemy-related intimidation and violence in Britain, including the protests against and cancellations of the 2022 Shia-produced film, ‘Lady of Heaven’, and the firebombing in 2008 of the home of the publisher of a novel, ‘The Jewel of Medina’, about one of Muhammad’s wives, (see timeline of ‘blasphemy’-related incidents below).

Notably, one of the Review’s 34 recommendations accepted by the Home Secretary was to:

Improve understanding of ‘blasphemy’ as part of the wider Islamist threat. The Homeland Security Group should conduct research into understanding and countering Islamist violence, incitement and intimidation linked to ‘blasphemy’. It should feed a strong pro-free speech narrative into counter-narrative and community project work.⁵⁶

The Home Office responded to the Independent Review of Prevent, stating:

We accept this recommendation and agree that with the worrying number of incidents such as the killing of Asad Shah, the attack on Sir Salman Rushdie, and the incident at a Batley school, there is more to be done to counter blasphemy-related violence. As the overall lead for religious hatred, DLUHC will lead on tackling blasphemy-related incidents and Prevent will focus on where this contributes to radicalisation or terrorism. We have requested that the CCE conduct research on violence associated with blasphemy. Once they complete this research, we will consider with DLUHC, the CCE and wider Prevent partners, how Prevent should adapt to address the challenge of blasphemy violence.⁵⁷

The Home Office-funded Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) is leading a research project on blasphemy incidents in Britain. For the Government to tackle blasphemy-related intimidation and violence in the country, it will certainly be useful to map out the key actors disseminating blasphemy narratives, the methods they use, their sources of funding, their target audiences, and the environments in which they operate. Policy recommendations relating to combating blasphemy-related violence and intimidation are expected to follow from the CCE’s research in this area. Hopefully, DLUHC, as the governmental agency taking the lead on blasphemy-related incidents, will produce guidance that is relevant for schools as well as local authorities.

The Bloom Report

On April 26, 2023, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities published the Bloom Report, an independent review into “faith engagement”. Led by Colin Bloom, the review sought to understand “how best the government should engage with faith groups in England”. One of Bloom’s tasks was to look “at some aspects where harm might be caused through religious or faith-based practices and a review of the government’s role in tackling them”. Encouragingly, amongst its recommendations, Bloom’s report urged the Government to “investigate where existing legislation and policy are failing to prevent the crime of forced and coercive marriage”⁵⁸ and to regulate “‘out-of-school settings’ which include faith-based settings operating below the current minimum threshold for registration”.⁵⁹ However, disappointingly, the report failed to mention blasphemy-related incidents whatsoever. It is curious that a major review into the state’s relationship with religion failed to acknowledge the increasing frequency of events in which religious offence has given rise to murder, violence, threats of murder or violence, intimidation, and censorship.

The Bloom Report was a missed opportunity to understand the extent to which blasphemy-related intimidation and violence is a cultural phenomenon within certain communities: is it more prevalent in some rather than others? To what extent is it driven by overseas actors, such as groups Iran or Pakistan? How important are domestic Islamists, whose interests potentially transcend particular ethnic, sectarian and linguistic Muslim communities? Which activist groups have played the most significant role in organising protests against schools and other public institutions in the blasphemy-related incidents in recent years? These are all important questions. Perhaps the CCE’s research into blasphemy will help answer them.

Next chapter

Timeline of ‘Blasphemy’-Related Incidents in Britain

The Batley Grammar School protests are one of a number of ‘blasphemy’-related incidents that have occurred in Britain since the Rushdie Affair in 1989, which “marked the start of a new kind of blasphemy code, imposed not by law but by intimidation and the threat of violence”.⁶⁰ Such incidents, as outlined below, have increased in frequency in recent years, particularly over the last decade or so. They are not characterised by a legal definition of blasphemy – there has not been a blasphemy law in England and Wales since 2008 and, even then, it was limited to Christianity. Neither are they characterised by a theological definition. Several of these incidents occurred abroad but had significant repercussions in Britain.

*2023*	Kettlethorpe Quran incident In February 2023, a 14-year-old boy brought a copy of the Quran into Kettlethorpe School in Wakefield. The book was slightly damaged after being mistreated by a group of pupils. The 14-year-old was temporarily suspended in the midst of a furore agitated by false claims on social media that the book had been “desecrated”, burned and spat on. The school reported the matter to the police, who recorded it as a “non-crime hate incident”. The boy, who is autistic, received death threats from other students. His mother attended a public meeting in a mosque, apologising on his behalf. The meeting was chaired by an imam who said Muslims will die for the honour of the Quran.
*2022*	‘Lady of Heaven’ protests and cancellations In June 2022, the Shia-produced film, ‘Lady of Heaven’, was the subject of protests outside cinemas in Sheffield, Bolton, Birmingham and Bradford. The protestors, comprised of hundreds of Sunni Muslims, insisted that the film was “blasphemous” for its depiction of Muhammad and its negative portrayal of certain Muslim figures. The Muslim Council of Britain described the film as “divisive and sectarian”, adding, “There are some – including many of this film’s supporters or those engaging in sectarianism in their response – whose primary goal is to fuel hatred.”⁶¹ The film’s executive producer, Malik Shlibak said he had received death threats.⁶² Cineworld pulled the film nationwide, to “ensure the safety” of its staff and patrons.⁶³ A smaller chain, Showcase, followed suit, and Vue Cinemas showed the film in selected branches.⁶⁴ One of the protestors in Birmingham threatened “repercussions” to those who disrespected Muhammad, stating he and his fellow protestors would “lay our life on the line”.⁶⁵
	Teacher suspended for using a ‘Jesus and Mo’ mug In March 2022, a teacher from Colchester Grammar School was suspended after images appeared online of the teacher holding a mug with an image from the cartoon series Jesus and Mo. A spokesman for the school said: “We have been notified that an image has been shared online of an individual appearing to use a cup that has an offensive image on it.”⁶⁶ On the mug, in speech bubbles, a figure resembling Jesus with a crown of thorns says “Hey”, whilst another figure with a beard and a turban – Mo – replies: “How ya doin?”⁶⁷ The cartoon’s website states that Mo is not really the prophet Muhammad, “it’s a body double”. Muhammad “couldn’t make it,” it says, “as he has been dead for centuries”.⁶⁸ The Freethinker, a magazine established in 1881, said it will no longer publish Jesus and Mo cartoons because “in the current climate” and “being a small operation”, it had “no faith in the ability or willingness of the UK authorities to ensure that our right to freedom of speech is defended against extremists”.⁶⁹
*2021*	Batley Grammar School affair In March 2021, a teacher was suspended after showing a cartoon of Muhammad in a religious studies class on free speech. Protests by parents and activists outside the school, supported by a social media campaign, claimed he had insulted the founder of Islam and demanded his firing. The headteacher apologised “unequivocally”, saying that the use of the image was “totally inappropriate”.⁷⁰ An independent inquiry stated that the teacher did not intentionally use the image to cause offence. The school re-instated the teacher. But after being named by a Muslim-run charity, Purpose of Life, and receiving death threats, the teacher was relocated with his family, placed under police protection and given a new identity. Notably, the Muslim Council of Britain called for disciplinary action against the teacher if any further investigation found them “causing distress” to Muslims in the Batley Grammar School community whether intentionally or not.⁷¹
	Speakers’ Corner attack In July 2021, a former Muslim and a convert to Christianity, Hatun Tash, was attacked with a knife at Speakers Corner in London. She was wearing a T-shirt in support of Charlie Hebdo magazine. The assailant escaped the scene, despite police officers being in pursuit, and has not since been caught. Media reports at the time suggested Counter Terrorism Command was leading the investigation.⁷² Tash had been arrested by the police at Speakers’ Corner earlier, in December 2020 and May 2021, for “breaching the peace”. On the latter occasion, she was confronted by a large group of Muslim men calling for her arrest for wearing a t-shirt with an image of Muhammad.⁷³ The Metropolitan Police later sent a written apology⁷⁴ to Tash for the wrongful arrests and paid her £10,000 compensation.⁷⁵ In May 2023, Edward Little pleaded guilty to planning to kill Tash with a gun.⁷⁶ According to an encrypted chat on one of the phones he was arrested with, he had adopted the name “Abdullah” and had exchanged messages about religion and Iraq, whilst referring disparagingly to non-Muslims as “kuffar”.⁷⁷
*2020*	Killing of Samuel Paty In October 2020, French schoolteacher Samuel Paty was murdered and decapitated outside the school in which he worked, the Collège du Bois d’Aulne, in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, France, by Abdullakh Anzorov, a Chechen immigrant. Paty had showed an image of the prophet Muhammad from Charlie Hebdo magazine in a moral and civic education lesson on freedom of speech. Anzorov had been alerted to Paty’s alleged transgression by a social media campaign against the teacher instigated by a parent of a student of the school. The student, whose complaints triggered the online campaign, later admitted that she lied about being in Paty’s class.⁷⁸ In Britain, in May 2023, Ajmal Shahpal of Nottingham – who had posted an image of Paty’s severed head and praised Paty’s killer for being “as brave as a lion” – was found guilty of using social media to encourage people “to commit, prepare, or instigate acts of terrorism”.⁷⁹ Shahpal had also posted messages saying that anyone who insulted Islam should be killed. Other messages threatened the French government. He was jailed for five-and-a-half years.
*2019*	‘No Outsiders’ and anti-RSE protests In February 2019, protests occurred outside Parkfield Community School in Birmingham over the No Outsiders programme, which teaches LGBT tolerance and equality. The protestors, predominantly Muslims, included parents but also external activists. Although not strictly blasphemy-related, the protests, which spread to other cities, were driven by the sentiment that the Relationships and Sex Education conflicts with orthodox Islamic values. The assistant head teacher of Parkfield who created No Outsiders⁸⁰ and the head teacher of another school teaching LGBT equality both received threats.⁸¹
*2016*	Gymnast Louis Smith’s mocking of Islam and death threats In October 2016, Olympic gymnast Louis Smith and another gymnast, Luke Carson, appeared in a video online in which they made fun of Islam, pretending to pray whilst calling out “Allahu Akbar” (meaning God is the greatest).⁸² Smith received death threats and issued an apology, recognising the “severity” of his mistake.⁸³
	Asad Shah murder In March 2016, shopkeeper Asad Shah, an Ahmadi Muslim, was stabbed and killed by Tanveer Ahmed in a premeditated attack. Ahmed, who drove from Bradford to Glasgow to carry out the attack, was incensed by Shah’s claim of being a prophet, and stated that Shah disrespected the prophet Muhammad by claiming so.⁸⁴ Ahmed, who admitted to killing Shah, was jailed for life and will serve a minimum of 27 years in prison.⁸⁵ After Shah’s murder, the anti-Ahmadi group Khatm-e-Nubuwwat, which has an office in London, “congratulated all Muslims”.⁸⁶
*2015*	*Charlie Hebdo* jihadist massacre In January 2015, 12 people were killed in a jihadist terror attack on the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris. The perpetrators, Said and Cherif Kouachi, claimed they were acting on behalf of Al-Qaeda to avenge the magazine’s publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. Although this did not take place in Britain, a mentor of the Kouachi brothers, Djamel Beghal, was a “regular worshipper at London’s Finsbury Park mosque and a disciple of the radical preachers Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada”.⁸⁷ Beghal’s attendance of the mosque was when it was under the control of Abu Hamza.⁸⁸ In a BBC/ComRes poll of British Muslims just after the massacre, 27% said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks; 24% disagreed with the statement that acts of violence against those who publish images of Muhammad can “never be justified”; and 11% agreed that organisations that publish images of Muhammad deserve to be attacked.⁸⁹ On the first anniversary of the massacre, a motion was tabled in the House of Commons that recognised “the tragedy as an attack on the right of free speech”.⁹⁰
*2014*	Maajid Nawaz death threats In January 2014, Maajid Nawaz, the co-founder of the Quilliam Foundation and a Liberal Democrat candidate for parliament, received abuse and death threats for tweeting a ‘Jesus and Mo’ cartoon. Nawaz wrote that his intention “was to defend my religion from those who have hijacked it just because they shout the loudest”; to “carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge, on pain of death; and to “highlight that Muslims can engage in politics without insisting that our own religious values must trump all others’ concerns”.⁹¹ Mohammed Shafiq, a member of the Liberal Democrats Ethnic Minority group, called for Nawaz’s deselection from contesting the 2015 general election. Shafiq, also the CEO of the Ramadhan Foundation and then a presenter on Ummah Channel, tweeted about Nawaz: “We will notify all muslim [sic] organisations in the UK of his despicable behaviour and also notify Islamic countries.”⁹² For this, journalist Andrew Neil asked Shafiq in a television interview whether he was “organising a lynch mob”.⁹³
*2012*	‘Innocence of Muslims’ protests In September 2012, some 7,000 Muslims demonstrated outside the U.S. embassy in London over a short film uploaded onto YouTube called ‘Innocence of Muslims’, which they argued Muslims saw as blasphemous.⁹⁴ The protests, which also took place outside Google’s office in London, were organised by the Muslim Action Forum.⁹⁵ Similar protests took place in other countries, the most notable in Pakistan, where tens of thousands of people turned out onto the streets, leading to deaths and injuries.⁹⁶
	Islam Channel 4 documentary cancelled after threats In August 2012, Channel 4 broadcast ‘Islam: The Untold Story’, a documentary by historian Tom Holland, which questioned the orthodox Islamic account of the origins of the religion. The programme claimed there was little written evidence of Muhammad and doubted the authenticity of some of the stories in the Quran. Ofcom received over 1,200 complaints about the programme,⁹⁷ and after Holland received threats, Channel 4 decided to cancel a repeat broadcast of the documentary.⁹⁸
	Asia Bibi blasphemy case supported by UK-based group Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, accused of blasphemy in Pakistan in June 2009, became the first woman to be sentenced to death under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. In January 2012, the Pakistani Express Tribune reported that the complainant in Bibi’s trial, Qari Salam, was considering dropping the case, but was “convinced” not to change his mind by the son of the leader of Khatm-e-Nabuwwat’s “London chapter”.⁹⁹ According to The Independent, the Khatm-e-Nubuwwat group – which has chapters in multiple countries – has close connections to the Pakistani establishment and met Pakistan’s high commissioner in the UK in the summer of 2010.¹⁰⁰ The Express Tribune also reported that, according to Salam, Khatm-e-Nubuwwat’s London chapter had hired Mustafa Chaudhry as counsel to fight the case in Lahore High Court, in order to secure the death sentence for Bibi.¹⁰¹ Chaudhry is the leader of the Khatm-e-Nubuwwat Lawyers’ Forum – an alliance of 700 lawyers based in Lahore – whose stated mission is “to use its expertise and influence to ensure that anyone insulting Islam or Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is charged, tried and executed”.¹⁰² Salam reportedly told The Express Tribune that the son of the leader of Khatm-e-Nabuwwat’s London chapter said: “We will chase her through hell … don’t worry about the money, [we are] hiring [the] best lawyers.”¹⁰³ Bibi was eventually acquitted and her death sentence quashed by the Supreme Court in October 2018, triggering violent protests in Pakistan.¹⁰⁴ The court reaffirmed her acquittal in January 2019.¹⁰⁵
*2008*	‘The Jewel of Medina’ cancellation and firebombing In August 2008, Random House cancelled its publication of The Jewel of Medina, a novel by Sherry Jones that told the story of Muhammad’s relationship with his child bride, Aisha. The American publisher stated that it feared publication “might be offensive to some in the Muslim community” and incite “acts of violence by a small, radical segment”.¹⁰⁶ Jones planned to publish the book in the UK with Gibson Square, but a few days before the book’s planned publication, the home of the imprint’s founder, Martin Rynja, was firebombed.¹⁰⁷ Gibson Square subsequently cancelled publication of the book.¹⁰⁸
*2005*	Danish Cartoon crisis In September 2005, the Danish magazine Jyllands-Posten published cartoons of Muhammad to contribute to a debate on self-censorship and Islam in Europe. A group of Danish imams toured the Middle East with a dossier including the cartoons plus some fake cartoons to agitate a robust diplomatic response. Several European embassies in the region were physically attacked.¹⁰⁹ Some countries boycotted Danish goods. Protests were held internationally, including in Britain, where placards called for the death of those who insult Islam or Muhammad.¹¹⁰ Responding to the Danish cartoon controversy, members of a group called the Muslim Action Committee met in Birmingham and called for both changes to the Race Relations Act “to give Muslims the same protections as Sikhs or Jews”, and also changes to the Press Complaints Commission code, to “prevent publication of any images of Muhammad” in Britain.¹¹¹
*1989*	Rushdie Affair Following the publication in Britain in September 1988 of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, Muslims in Bolton staged a public demonstration and in Bradford a public book-burning protest was held. The book was deemed to be blasphemous for its portrayal of the prophet Muhammad. The protests spread internationally. Violent demonstrations followed in Pakistan. Threats were issued to bookshops in Britain and the United States, resulting in violence and bombings in London, High Wycombe and York, and in California.¹¹² The novel was banned in numerous countries. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a religious edict calling for the killing of Rushdie as well as his editors and publishers. Several of the book’s translators were attacked; the Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was killed.¹¹³ Rushdie went into hiding under police protection for nine years. In August 22, 2022, Rushdie survived an assassination attempt in New York. The suspect, Hadi Matar, was reportedly “sympathetic to Shia extremism and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps causes”.¹¹⁴

Next chapter

Blasphemy and Laws Against Incitement to Religious Hatred

Since the Rushdie Affair in 1989, in addition to activist-led protests against allegedly blasphemous books, films or incidents, there have been politically organised efforts to criminalise the criticism or satire of Islam in Britain on the basis of combatting ‘Islamophobia’. The Rushdie Affair was thus not only significant for being the first Muslim-led national outcry in Britain against perceived blasphemy; it was also significant for being the catalysing event for the creation of the first national interlocutor for Muslim interests in the country, which has played a key role in countering perceived blasphemy and Islamophobia in law as well as in the media.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), founded in November 1997, was established from plans drawn up in 1994 by an organisation called the National Interim Committee on Muslim Unity (NICMU). The leading figures of NICMU – including Manazir Ahsan and Hashir Faruqi – were also the driving force behind the United Kingdom Action Committee on Islamic Affairs (UKACIA), a group that they hastily set up to express Muslim discontent regarding – and protest the Government to ban – The Satanic Verses. The UKACIA also aimed to persuade the Government to extend the then-existing blasphemy laws to include Islam.¹¹⁵ The MCB has continued this lobbying work, alongside other organisations, including the Association of Muslim Lawyers (AML), which was established in 1993 to “promote the legal rights of Muslims and the availability of advice in accordance with the Shari’ah of Islam”.¹¹⁶ The MCB and the AML campaigned for an extension of England’s blasphemy law to apply to Islam and a redefinition of the crime of incitement to hatred to protect Muslims.

In 2002, the co-founder of the AML, Ahmad Thomson, made written and oral representations to the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences. Anti-blasphemy legislation, he urged, ought to be updated to criminalise behaviour that is “likely to shock and outrage the feelings of the general body of believers”.¹¹⁷ He stated that it is not just the people who follow the religion, but “the religion itself” which has to be protected.¹¹⁸ This prioritisation of group rights – and proposed protection against collective sentiments of being offended – clearly conflicted with individual rights, a fundamental tenet of liberal democratic law and culture. In seeking to protect “the religion itself” it potentially restricted non-Muslims – whether non-religious or followers of other faiths – from critiquing Islam. These lobbying efforts were in vain, however, since the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in England and Wales in May 2008.

After 9/11, partly as a result of lobbying from the MCB, the Labour Government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, tried to introduce a clause on incitement to religious hatred in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001-02; this was rejected, however, in the House of Lords. ¹¹⁹ The Government then tried to introduce such a clause in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2004-05, but dropped it in the run up to the May 2005 General Election after opposition in the House of Lords on the basis that it would make illegal any criticism of, or jokes about, Islam.¹²⁰ After a manifesto commitment, the Government re-introduced the clause in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2005-06 (more on this below). Just prior to the Act’s discussion in the House of Lords at the committee stage, an alliance of writers, comedians, bishops and peers proposed three amendments to the bill, to ensure it would protect people, rather than beliefs. These amendments were:

Nobody can be found guilty of new religious hate crimes unless it is proved they intended to stir up hatred.
Only threatening words should be banned by the bill, not those which are only abusive or insulting.
There should be a specific part of the bill saying the law should not restrict discussion, criticism of expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or beliefs.¹²¹

The Act incorporated these considerations. It created new offences of stirring up hatred on racial or religious grounds, incurring a prison sentence of up to seven years. But, in the interests of free expression, the clauses criminalising “insult” and “abuse” of religion were removed from the final draft of the Act in the House of Lords.¹²²

There have been no blasphemy laws in England and Wales since 2008 and in Scotland since 2021. On 23 April 2021, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 – which reformed hate crime legislation to provide better protection against race, sex, age and religious discrimination in Scotland – received royal assent. It also abolished the common law offence of blasphemy, leaving Northern Ireland as the only British country with blasphemy laws on its books.

There is no need for such laws. In a liberal and democratic society, no ideas or beliefs should be beyond the scope of rational inquiry, criticism, satire, or even insult. However, where insults become threatening or turn into incitement to hatred or violence, then there is a clear need for legal protection. And there are numerous legal provisions in place in Britain that prohibit incitement to hatred and violence on the basis of religion. These include:

The Public Order Act 1986¹²³

This Act makes it an offence to use threatening words or behaviour – or to display, publish or distribute any written material or imagery which is threatening – if there is an intention thereby to stir up hatred on the basis of religion, race, or sexual orientation. This means that it is illegal to use any graphic content that is both threatening and intended to incite hatred against a person or group of people based on their religion.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998¹²⁴

Under this Act, specific offences of “racially aggravated” crime were created, based on offences of wounding, assault, criminal damage, harassment, provocation of violence, and threatening behaviour.¹²⁵ The term “racial group” is defined under the Act as a group of individuals distinguished by their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins. In December 2001, an amendment extended the Act’s scope, creating new specific offences that are “religiously aggravated”. Under the Act, racially and religiously aggravated crimes are defined by hostility shown by the offender towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group. The term “religious group” is defined under the Act as a group of individuals defined by their religious belief or lack thereof.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006¹²⁶

This Act amended the Public Order Act 1986 by creating new offences of stirring up hatred against persons on religious grounds. It defines religious hatred as “hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief”. The new offences apply to the use of words or behaviour or display, publication or distribution of written material (including images); the public performance of a play; the distribution, showing or playing of a recording; and the broadcasting or inclusion of a programme in a programme service.¹²⁷ They also apply to the possession of written materials or recordings with a view to display, publish, distribute or include in a programme service. The words, behaviour, written material, recordings or programmes must be both threatening and intended to stir up religious hatred in order for an offence to have been committed under this Act. As the Crown Prosecution Service website states, “Threatening is the operative word, not abusive or insulting.”¹²⁸ Section 29J of the Act contains a defence of freedom of expression, which states:

Nothing in this Part 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 the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

As mentioned above, this clause was included as a result of a protracted public debate regarding incitement to hatred and the freedom of expression. The law is clear that unless there are threats and the intention to stir up hatred, the critique, ridicule, and even abuse of religious ideas, beliefs or figures are perfectly legitimate.

Blasphemy in English law

Halsbury’s Laws Direct, which provides a complete narrative statement of law in England and Wales, defined the two blasphemy-related offences that existed until May 2008 – blasphemy and blasphemous libel – in the following terms:

Blasphemy is an indictable offence at common law consisting in a publication of contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible or the formularies of the Church of England. The publisher must intend to publish, but he need not intend that the words amount to blasphemy. It is immaterial whether the words are spoken or written; but, if written, they constitute blasphemous libel. The offence is punishable by fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.¹²⁹

Thus, blasphemy only related to Christianity, and the intention to publish – not to blaspheme – was a crucial element of the legal definition of blasphemy. But what constituted “contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous” intentionally published material was a matter for court judges to decide.

Earlier, in the Select Committee on Religious Offences 1993 report, the Committee explained that they had asked their advisor, Professor David Feldman, to construct “as best as he could a modern definition of the elements of common law offence [of blasphemy] as it stands”. He devised the following formulation:

Blasphemy is committed “by anyone who makes public words, pictures, or conduct whereby the doctrines, beliefs, institutions, or sacred objects and rituals of the Church of England by law established are denied or scurrilously vilified or there is objectively contentious, violent or ribald conduct or abuse directed towards the sacred subject in question, likely to shock and outrage the feelings of the general body of Church of England believers in the community.¹³⁰

These words – particularly “shock and outrage” to the “general body of … believers” – were to form the basis of the Association of Muslim Lawyers’ unsuccessful appeal to the Government to expand the then-existing blasphemy laws to Islam, as cited above.

Next chapter

Teachers’ Views on Batley, Protests and Self-Censorship

The teachers’ survey

To understand teachers’ views on religious offence in schools, the freedom of expression, and the possible effects of public protests outside school gates, Policy Exchange commissioned YouGov to conduct a survey of teachers across the country. The survey was conducted between 6-16 March, 2023, using an online interview administered to YouGov’s pool of 2.5 million people who have agreed to take part in its surveys. A total of 1,132 respondents participated in the survey, almost three quarters female (71%) and a quarter male (29%). Almost half the respondents were over the age of 55 (46%), with around a fifth aged 45-54 (22%) and another fifth aged 35-44 (20%); a smaller number of respondents were aged under 35 (12%). These were teachers of all grades from reception to year 13, approximately half teaching in primary schools (47%) and half teaching in secondary schools (53%). Most of the respondents teach in England (90%), whereas a minority teach in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (10% combined). Around a quarter teach in the London area (26%); and the second region with the most respondents was the Midlands (16%). The subjects taught by the teachers encompass all areas of the National Curriculum, including English, maths, science, history, art and design, and citizenship. The majority of the respondents teach in state schools (59%), around a quarter in academy schools (27%), and a small minority in private or independent schools (10%), with a smaller number teaching in faith schools (6%).

Impact of Batley protests and self-censorship

Very few schools issued new or amended guidelines or rules about avoiding causing offence to religious or community groups as a result of the Batley Grammar School protests. Just over one in ten teachers indicated that existing guidance was recirculated (13%). Even fewer indicated that existing guidance was updated (8%) or that new guidance was introduced (3%). Just over a third (36%) of the teachers indicated that their schools have issued guidance on avoiding offence to religious or community groups from teaching materials or lesson content. Of these, the vast majority (81%) said the guidance was issued in general terms without reference to any specific religious groups. Four in ten teachers (40%), however, said that their schools have not issued such guidance. The lack of consistency with which schools approach the issue of offence and the freedom of expression suggests an opportunity for national guidance on these matters.

Since the Batley Grammar School protests, most teachers have not self-censored either what they teach or the materials they use in classrooms.¹³¹ Around 60% of teachers indicated that they have not self-censored since the Batley protests with regards to materials that might cause religious offence (see figure 1 below). This is approximately the same when broken down by subject taught. But there were some regional differences: Significantly fewer teachers from the parts of the country with the highest proportion of Muslims (Group 1)¹³² said they had not self-censored compared to teachers from the parts of the country with the lowest proportion of Muslims (Group 2)¹³³ – the figures were 57% and 67%, respectively.

Figure 1: Self-censorship of either what is taught or the materials used in classrooms

Since the Batley Grammar School protests, have you self-censored either what you teach or the materials you use in classrooms for any of the following reasons? (Please select one option on each row)

16% of all teachers admitted to self-censoring to avoid possible religious offence. Of some interest is the proportion of self-censoring teachers broken down by the subject they teach.

The proportion of teachers who admitted to self-censor to avoid religious offence amongst those who teach subjects where an image of the prophet Muhammad might be relevant to their teaching was only slightly higher than the proportion of all teachers (see figure 2 below). But these approach a fifth of all English teachers (19%) and the same proportion of art teachers (19%). Furthermore, 18% of history teachers; 17% of those teaching citizenship; and 17% of geography teachers admitted to have self-censored since the Batley protests. Notably, a similar proportion of teachers of other subjects – where we would not expect self-censorship to avoid religious offence – also admitted they had censored what they teach or the materials they use. These include 19% of modern languages teachers; 18% of science teachers; and 17% of maths teachers. It may be that there are other considerations – in addition to the use of images of Muhammad – that factor into teachers’ perceptions of the risks of religiously offending students. The range of teaching content and materials perceived by teachers to be potentially offensive is clearly an issue deserving further research.

Figure 2: Self-censorship – to avoid religious offence – by subjects taught

Since the Batley Grammar School protests, have you self-censored either what you teach or the materials you use in classrooms, since it might cause offence for religious reasons?

Across all subjects, there was only a slight difference between the regions with the largest and smallest proportion of Muslims: Self-censorship in Group 1 was reported at 17% and in Group 2 at 13%. These figures relating to self-censorship to avoid religious offence may not indicate a large-scale problem of self-censorship in general – and may not indicate a problem specific to areas with large Muslim populations – but it is not an entirely insignificant number either.

A slightly greater proportion of all teachers indicated that they have self-censored to avoid offence relating to gender and/or sexuality (20%), and a similar proportion said they have avoided offence that might be considered racist (21%). This shows that concerns about possible offence are not uniquely related to religion and perceived blasphemy. There are comparable fears of causing offence relating to race, sexuality and gender-related issues that may be influencing teaching in British schools. Are fears of blasphemy part of a more general concern about identity politics and cancel culture? This is a question worthy of further research.

Interestingly, the proportion of teachers who admit to having self-censored to avoid offence relating to race is higher for those teaching certain subjects than the 21% national proportion. Most notably, over a quarter of English teachers (27%) have consciously self-censored to avoid possible offence on the grounds of race. A similar proportion (24%) of teachers of art; design and technology; history; and modern languages have likewise self-censored. Also of interest, there was a small but significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 teachers (across all subjects) regarding self-censorship in relation to possible racial offence. Almost a quarter of teachers in Group 1 (in areas with the largest proportion of Muslims) were more likely to self-censor due to possible offence perceived as racist (23%), compared with 17% of teachers in Group 2 (in areas with the least Muslims).

Asked if the Batley Grammar School protests have influenced whether or not they would personally use an image of the prophet Muhammad in a lesson, just over half of all teachers (55%) responded negatively, indicating that they would not have used such an image anyway (see figure 3 below). Such a large proportion of teachers unwilling to use an image of a religious figure – independently from the Batley protests – demands explanation. But in addition to these, 9% said they were personally less likely to use an image of Muhammad as a result of the Batley protests. This figure was the same in Group 1 and Group 2. Only 12% said the protests had not made a difference, since they would still use one anyway. The teachers were also asked if the protests have influenced whether or not their school – rather than them personally – would use an image of Muhammad in lessons. The teachers’ answers were similar – with 47% of all teachers saying that their schools would not use such an image anyway – although slightly more teachers from Group 1 (49%) than those in Group 2 (44%) responded as such.

Figure 3: Influence of the Batley Grammar School protests on the likelihood of using an image of the prophet Muhammad in a lesson

Have the Batley Grammar School protests influenced whether or not you or your school would use an image of the prophet Muhammad in a lesson? (Please select one option on each row)

It is worth noting that the proportion of teachers unwilling to personally use an image of Muhammad – regardless of the events in Batley – was higher for some subject teachers than the 55% proportion of all teachers. These include 64% of art teachers; 63% of geography teachers; 62% of history teachers; and 60% of English and citizenship teachers. An additional 10% of English and history teachers, and 9% of art, citizenship, and geography teachers said they are less likely to personally use an image of Muhammad as a result of the Batley protests. Thus, around 15% of all the English teachers who are not willing to use an image of Muhammad – i.e., one in seven of them – have become unwilling to do so because of the Batley Grammar School protests.

The teachers were also asked if they thought it is generally acceptable or unacceptable for a teacher to use an image of the prophet Muhammad in a number of educational situations (see figure 4 below). In most situations, neither those who thought the use of such an image was generally acceptable, nor those who thought it was generally unacceptable, comprised a majority. When teaching subjects such as art history, religious studies, ethics or freedom of expression, around four in ten thought the use of an image of Muhammad was generally acceptable. Slightly less thought it was generally not acceptable for teaching those subjects. The educational situation in which the use of an image of Muhammad was most strongly considered as unacceptable was in formal displays in classrooms or assembly halls; just over half of all teachers indicated as such (51%), with less than one in five (17%) indicating it was generally acceptable.

Figure 4: Acceptability for a teacher to use an image of the prophet Muhammad

Do you think it is generally acceptable or unacceptable for a teacher to use an image of the prophet Muhammad in the following situations? (Please select one option on each row)

It is worth noting that there was a marked difference of attitude between teachers regarding the use of an image of Muhammad depending on their location. In the parts of the country with the highest proportion of Muslims, teachers were more opposed to using such an image in all educational situations than teachers in areas with the lowest proportion of Muslims.

In Group 1, the cluster of the local authorities with the highest proportion of Muslims, for example, 40% of teachers said that it was generally unacceptable to use an image of Muhammad when teaching religious studies; in Group 2, the cluster of local authorities with the lowest proportion of Muslims, that figure dropped to 28%. In Group 1, only 33% said it was generally acceptable to use an image of Muhammad in religious studies, but in Group 2, 46% said the same. Regarding the use of an image of Muhammad in Islamic art or art history, 44% of teachers in Group 2 said it was generally acceptable; in Group 1, only 37% agreed. In Islamic art or art history, 37% of teachers in Group 1 indicated it was generally unacceptable; the figure dropped significantly to 27% in Group 2.

There are clearly significant differences between the views of teachers on the appropriateness of using an image of Muhammad regardless of subject or school phase, depending on whether they are teaching in areas with a large or small Muslim population. But it is arguably more significant that even in areas of the country with the smallest Muslim populations, a sizeable minority believes that the use of an image of Muhammad is out of bounds. This is the case even if the use of such an image is not intended to offend and does not break any law, including those protecting against incitement to religious hatred.

When teachers’ views on the general acceptability or unacceptability of using an image of Muhammad in different educational settings are broken down by subjects taught, it is remarkable that around four in ten (38%) art teachers stated that such an image is generally unacceptable when teaching specific topics such as Islamic art or art history. It is also notable that almost the same proportion of citizenship teachers (36%) stated that using an image of Muhammad is generally unacceptable in lessons on ethics, political expression and freedom of speech. The question about the use of an image of Muhammad did not specify whether the image was satirical or, as found in some Islamic traditions, historically depictive or devotional.

Concerns about protests against the use of ‘offensive’ images

Teachers were asked – in the event that they personally or another teacher was accused of using offensive teaching materials – how likely or unlikely they thought it would be for protests to occur at their school. The majority (58%) thought that protests would be unlikely. Only one in five (20%) thought that protests would be likely (14% “fairly likely” and 6% “very likely”).

Teachers’ responses significantly differed in regions of the country with the highest and lowest proportion of Muslims: In Group 1, 28% of teachers said protests would be likely, but in Group 2, only 10% said the same. In Group 1, 46% of teachers said protests would be unlikely, but in Group 2, the figure was much higher, at 70%. This shows there are vastly different perceptions held by teachers in regions of the country with different population profiles.

In Yorkshire and the Humber, where Batley is located, the proportion of teachers who thought protests would be likely if a teacher was accused of using offensive materials was similar to the national figure (22%). Most (54%) thought that protests would be unlikely. Interestingly, however, in the West Midlands, including Birmingham, significantly more teachers said that they would be likely (32%) and significantly less said that protests would be unlikely (48%). And in Birmingham alone, 36% said protests would be likely, and 41% said protests would be unlikely. This is a remarkable difference from the national figures, suggesting that there are much greater concerns and fears about protests in Birmingham and the West Midlands than elsewhere in the country.

In the case of protests breaking out, three quarters of all teachers (75%) thought that they would be damaging to the teacher involved, with around four in ten (39%) indicating that protests would be “very damaging” to the teacher.

Notably, more teachers in Group 1 (45%) thought that the protests would be “very damaging” to the teacher than those in Group 2 (34%). In Yorkshire and the Humber, where Batley is located, 60% of teachers said protests would be “very damaging” (in addition to 25% that said protests would be “fairly damaging”). Almost seven in ten (68%) teachers thought that protests would be damaging to the school’s reputation; and around four in ten (41%) thought they would be damaging for the education of the children attending the school.

The teachers were asked – in the event of protests occurring outside their school over the use of materials considered offensive by some groups – how much of a risk, if any, they thought the protests would pose to the physical safety of the teacher accused. They were asked this question in relation to protests led by different actors: students, parents, governors, and external organisations, such as activist or advocacy groups. Significantly, half (50%) of all teachers surveyed indicated that there would be a risk to the physical safety of a teacher accused of showing an offensive image if the protests were led by external activist or advocacy groups (see figure 5 below).

Figure 5: Risk to physical safety of a teacher accused of causing religious offence in the case of protests outside school

If protests occurred at your school over the use of religious materials considered offensive by some groups, how much of a risk, if any, do you think the following pose to the physical safety of the teacher accused? (Please select one option on each row)

An even larger proportion of teachers in Group 1 indicated that there would be a risk to the physical safety of an accused teacher in the event of protests led by activist groups: 55% of teachers in areas with the highest Muslim populations expressed such a view. This was not only 5% higher than the national average, but 15% higher than the number of teachers in Group 2 sharing the same concerns. The three regions with the highest proportion of teachers expressing this view were the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the West Midlands, where approximately six out of ten teachers indicated that there would be a risk to their physical safety in the event of activist-led protests (60%, 59% and 58% respectively). The proportion of teachers agreeing that protests from activist groups present a risk to their physical safety was similar between teachers of different subjects – around half – but the greatest proportion seeing such a risk was amongst science teachers, at 56%.

Across all subjects, one in five (20%) indicated that there would be “a very big risk” to a teacher’s physical safety in the event of activist-led protests. In Group 1, one in four (25%) expressed such a view; in Group 2, however, around one in eight teachers (13%) indicated as such. This is a significant discrepancy in attitudes between teachers in different regions towards their physical security. Such a discrepancy was also marked by the responses of teachers in Yorkshire and the Humber, and Scotland: In the former, a third of teachers (33%) said activist-led protests would incur a “very big risk” to their physical safety, but in the latter only 8% shared that view.

Overall, only one in twenty teachers (5%) indicated that protests led by activist groups would present no risk to an accused teacher’s physical safety. The involvement of activist or advocacy groups – compared with parents, students, or governors – inspires the least confidence in teachers’ physical security in the event of blasphemy protests at schools. Still a significant concern, however, almost four in ten (37%) teachers indicated belief in a physical safety risk if the protests were led by parents. The figure was slightly higher for Group 1 teachers (42%) and significantly lower for Group 2 teachers (25%). Protests led by students and governors were viewed as presenting less of a risk to teachers’ physical safety – fewer indicated a “big risk”, and more indicated “no risk” in such cases.

Teachers were asked for their views on the most likely source of protests over the use of allegedly offensive materials. More teachers agreed that parents would be the most likely source of such protests over any other source (see figure 6 below). Around 4 in ten teachers (41%) identified parents to be the most likely source of protests. External activist or advocacy groups were identified as the second most likely source of protests, with 33% of teachers indicating as such. Significantly fewer teachers identified students or governors as the most likely source of protests.

Figure 6: Most likely source of protests about the use of materials considered religiously offensive

In the event of protests at your school over the use of religious materials considered offensive, which one, if any, of the following do you think would be the most likely source of any protest?

It is worth mentioning, however, that in both Yorkshire and the Humber, and the East Midlands, external activist or advocacy groups were identified as the most likely source of protest (45% and 44% respectively), with parents identified as the second mostly likely source (42% and 40% respectively).

Thus, a significant proportion of teachers – around one in five - believe that protests would be likely at their school if a teacher was accused of showing offensive images. Three quarters of all teachers think that in the event of a protest, it would be damaging to the teacher accused. The two groups that teachers believe are most likely to lead such protests are parents and external activist organisations – the two very groups whose involvement in protests teachers consider as presenting the largest risk to an accused teachers’ physical safety. That around half of all teachers believe that protests led by activists would present a risk to an accused teacher’s physical safety is an alarming indication of the extent to which teachers view activist-led protests as a security threat.

Perceptions of headteacher/school support

Teachers were asked about the level of support, instruction or guidance they get from headteachers about using material in their classrooms that is not illegal but might be offensive to some groups. Around half (52%) indicated that headteachers get the balance between supporting teachers and preventing offense about right. Roughly equal proportions of teachers indicated that headteachers should be more supportive of teachers who wish to use materials that may be offensive (17%) or that headteachers should do more to prevent teachers using materials that may be offensive (15%). Notably fewer teachers in Group 2 (11%) indicated that headteachers should do more to support teachers than those in Group 1 (16%). Although the difference was not hugely significant, this may suggest a greater need for teacher support in regions of the country where blasphemy is more of a concern.

It is noteworthy that teachers’ desire for greater headteacher support for them to use materials that may be offensive (but do not fall foul of any law) was expressed most strongly in the East Midlands: Over a quarter (27%) of teachers in that region said headteachers should be more supportive; that is 10% greater than the national proportion. Suggesting a rather polarised picture in the East Midlands, the proportion of teachers who thought headteachers should do more to prevent teachers from using potentially offensive materials was also high – at 21% – compared to the national proportion of 15% (only the North West was higher at 22%).

Although nationally and in most regions the majority of teachers think that headteachers adequately balance supporting teachers and preventing offense, an even larger proportion of them (86%) indicated that they would support headteachers’ commitment to protect a teacher’s identity in the event of protests about the use of materials deemed offensive by some groups (see figure 7 below). Almost six out of ten of all teachers (58%) indicated that they strongly supported such a commitment, indicating the extent to which teachers value their personal safety in such a context. This figure was the same, give or take one percentile, in Groups 1 and 2, but, notably, in Yorkshire and the Humber, 73% of teachers strongly supported headteachers protecting a teacher’s identity.

Figure 7: Support or opposition to headteachers committing to protect an accused teacher’s identity, not to automatically suspend an accused teacher, and to uphold an accused teacher’s freedom of expression

In general, would you support or oppose school headteachers introducing the following?

The majority of teachers (77%) also indicated that they support headteachers’ commitment not to automatically suspend teachers on the basis of their use of materials which some communities find offensive; almost half (47%) said they strongly support such a commitment. Similarly, most teachers (73%) supported headteachers’ commitment to uphold their freedom of expression, as long as it lies within the scope of the law, even if it unintentionally causes offence; around four in ten (38%) expressed strong support for this commitment. This level of strong support was almost the same in Group 1 (38%) and Group 2 (41%).

Attitudes to reporting Islamist and Far-Right extremism

The Batley protests do not seem to have negatively affected teachers’ willingness to report suspected cases of Islamist extremism to the police. Only 4% of teachers indicated that they were less likely to report such cases (5% for Group 1 teachers and 3% for Group 2 teachers), whilst 8% indicated that they were more likely to report them (10% for Group 1 teachers and 8% for Group 2 teachers). Encouragingly, the majority of teachers (67%) indicated that they would report suspected cases of Islamist extremism anyway. In some regions this figure was higher, including Yorkshire and the Humber (76%), the South East (74%) and the West Midlands (72%). A very small proportion of teachers – just 4% – indicated that they would not report suspected cases of Islamist extremism. Whilst this appears insignificant, 4% of the total number of teachers in the UK – 468,400¹³⁴ – would potentially indicate that over 18,700 teachers in the country would not report possible cases of Islamist extremism.

Asked a similar question about their likelihood to report suspected cases of Islamist and Far-Right extremism relative to each other, the vast majority of teachers (82%) indicated that they were equally likely to report both kinds of extremism to the police or safeguarding officers. In the South East, and Yorkshire and the Humber, that figure was as high as 89% and 88% respectively. Only a very small proportion (3%) indicated that they were more likely to report cases of Far-Right extremism, and a similar proportion (5%) indicated that they were more likely to report extremism relating to Islamism.

Next chapter

Conclusion

Self-censorship amongst teachers in Britain is a problem for free rational inquiry in schools and for conceding ground to ideological groups and perspectives that undermine freedom of expression, individualism, and viewpoint diversity. Although over half (60%) of the teachers in this survey said that they have not self-censored since the Batley Grammar School protests in 2021, a small but significant minority – 16% – admitted they have self-censored to avoid causing religious offence. This figure is slightly higher for English and art teachers, rising to almost one in five (19%). A similar proportion of teachers also admitted self-censoring to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race (21%) or gender and sexuality (20%).

Thus, whilst the Batley protests – and the accused teacher’s disappearance after receiving death threats – have no doubt had a negative impact on teachers’ confidence to teach freely per the requirements of the national curriculum, there appears to be a more general reluctance to include certain topics, use certain materials, or discuss certain viewpoints that cut against the grain of an increasingly woke ideological influence in education.

Such influence was confirmed by another YouGov survey of over 1,500 18-20 year-olds commissioned in April 2022 for Professor Eric Kaufmann’s report, ‘The Political Culture of Young Britain’, published by Policy Exchange. Kaufmann noted that Critical Social Justice concepts – including critical race and gender theory – had been taught to 73% of the young people in his survey.¹³⁵ He also noted that these contestable concepts “are being taught largely as fact, rather than as one perspective among others”:¹³⁶ 68% “were either not taught about counterarguments or were told that alternatives were not respectable”.¹³⁷

In modern Britain, no teacher ought to be self-censoring. Schoolchildren ought to be exposed to – and be able to discuss – subject-relevant and age-appropriate facts, opinions, and perspectives. So, these figures for self-censorship, even without reaching a majority, are cause for concern.

The number of times teachers have self-censored, and the content that they have consciously decided not to discuss or share verbally, textually or visually – despite being on the right side of the law – are unclear. These are issues worthy of additional research. It is clear from this survey, however, that images of Muhammad are self-consciously off-limits to the majority of teachers of all subjects in Britain.

Over half (55%) of teachers said they would personally not use an image of Muhammad independently from Batley, and an additional 9% would not use one due to Batley. From this we can deduce that the freedom of expression of almost one in ten teachers across all subjects has been negatively impacted by the plight of the accused teacher from Batley Grammar School who remains in hiding for fear of his life. The proportion of teachers unwilling to show an image of Muhammad independently from events in Batley – and regardless of the image’s satirical, historical or devotional purposes – was significantly higher for certain subjects, including two of the most relevant subjects for schoolchildren to learn about artistic expression and freedom of expression – art and citizenship. As many as 64% of art teachers and 60% of citizenship teachers said they would not use an image of Muhammad. Furthermore, 38% of art teachers said that using an image of Muhammad is “generally unacceptable” when teaching Islamic art or art history, and 36% of citizenship teachers said that it is “generally unacceptable” in lessons on ethics, political expression and freedom of speech.

How many of these teachers (wrongly) believe that there is only one Islamic viewpoint on the visual representation of Muhammad? How many believe that all depictions of Muhammad are offensive to all Muslims, regardless of the purpose of the image and intent of the creator of the image? How are teachers arriving at such beliefs? Are activist organisations playing an influential role to this end? To what extent are teachers self-censoring out of respect or fear?

Fear seems to be a factor, given the views of teachers on the potential impact of protests outside schools. Three quarters (75%) of teachers said that protests would be “damaging” to a teacher accused of causing offence. In Yorkshire and the Humber, where Batley is located, that rose to 85%, with 60% believing protests would be “very damaging”. More alarmingly, half of all teachers said protests led by activist or advocacy groups would incur a risk to an accused teacher’s physical safety. In three regions in the north of England, this rose to around six out of ten teachers (the East Midlands (60%), Yorkshire and the Humber (59%), and the West Midlands (58%).

Half of all teachers (52%) think headteachers get the balance right between supporting teachers to use materials that are lawful but might offend, and preventing offence. However, the vast majority, 86%, indicate support for headteachers’ commitment to protect a teacher’s identity in the event of protests about the use of materials deemed offensive by some groups; in Yorkshire and the Humber, 73% of teachers strongly supported headteachers protecting a teacher’s identity. Similarly, most teachers (77%) indicate they support headteachers’ commitment not to automatically suspend teachers on the basis of their use of materials which some communities find offensive. And the majority (73%) support headteachers’ commitment to uphold their freedom of expression, as long as it lies within the scope of the law.

It therefore seems uncontroversial to suggest that most teachers would welcome better safeguards for teachers in situations where they might be accused of offending a group or community regardless of their intentions. Such safeguards could be provided in the form of statutory guidance committing headteachers to:

uphold teachers’ freedom of expression, as long as it lies within the scope of the law, even if it unintentionally causes offence;
not automatically suspend teachers who have been accused of using materials which some religious groups or communities may find offensive, as long as they have been using this for a legitimate teaching objective;
not automatically suspend students who have been accused of causing offence or “desecrating” religious books; and
protect a teacher’s identity in the event of protests about the use of materials deemed offensive by some groups.

In February this year, after the ‘Quran incident’ at Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield, the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, said that the Government would produce guidance for schools to manage blasphemy-related incidents. The importance of that work – whether led by the Home Office, the DfE or DLUHC – is demonstrated by this poll of teachers’ attitudes. Only 40% of schools, according to the teachers in this poll, have any guidance relating to causing offence and the freedom of expression. The Batley and Wakefield cases may not be the last.

Statutory guidance for schools on blasphemy-related incidents would ensure there is consistency across the country in how schools provide teachers with greater confidence to teach without fear of damaging consequences. But the guidance should not only ensure headteachers support teachers’ freedom of expression in the classroom and protect accused teachers’ identities. It should also assert that a school’s duty to teach fundamental British values does not in any way imply that teachers should be restricted from using materials that some people may find offensive.

The executive summary of the “independent investigation” into the events at Batley Grammar School in 2021, commissioned by the Batley Multi Academy Trust, cited the DfE as stating that “schools are free to include a full range of issues, ideas and materials” that are “challenging or controversial”. However, it added that:

where subject content is sensitive or controversial, great care must be taken to ensure that lessons are planned and delivered in a way that promotes respect and tolerance between people of different faiths, beliefs and values.¹³⁸

The implication was that promoting fundamental British values requires respecting religious groups’ desire for what is effectively the censorship of lesson materials, even when such materials do not fall foul of any law – even where there is educational value in the use of such materials and where there are no threats or intentions to stir up hatred. The implication is that the “respect and tolerance” of “beliefs and values” that are at odds with freedom of expression, critical thinking and political literacy ought to take priority. Of course, this is not to say that schools should gratuitously cause offence to minority communities. But schools cannot ensure that “offence is not caused”¹³⁹ by lesson materials or content. The then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, was right to state:

There is no right not to be offended. There is no legal obligation to be reverent towards any religion. The lodestar of our democracy is freedom of speech. Nobody can demand respect for their belief system, even if it is a religion.¹⁴⁰

The Government ought to make it clear to schools that the promotion of the fundamental British values of respect and tolerance does not mean respect or toleration of demands to censor certain ideas or materials on the grounds of offence. Teachers should be free to use such materials where they have educational value. The Teachers’ Standards – used to assess trainee teachers in Britain¹⁴¹ – states that teachers should not undermine fundamental British values, such as “mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.¹⁴² It does not elaborate or provide examples. But respect and tolerance refer to individuals – not ideas or beliefs. More specifically, they refer to “the rights of others”.¹⁴³ The DfE’s advice to maintained schools states: “Pupils must be encouraged to regard people of all faiths, races and cultures with respect and tolerance.”¹⁴⁴ It does not define or discuss “respect” and “tolerance”, but appears to frame them within the parameters of the law, by adding, in the next sentence: “It is expected that pupils should understand that while different people may hold different views about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, all people living in England are subject to its law.”¹⁴⁵ Tolerance is not open-ended, as Theresa May stated, when, as Home Secretary in 2015, she gave a key speech on British values and extremism.¹⁴⁶ But the Government should make clearer what it means by “respect” and “tolerance” in all of its guidance relating to fundamental British values. It should make it clear that these terms do not give a carte blanche to religious beliefs and values that stymie teachers’ freedom of expression (as long as it lies within the law) and the teaching of critical thinking, citizenship and political literacy.

Just as it is important that headteachers commit to protect the identity of any teacher accused of causing religious or other kinds of identity-based offence, it is equally important to ensure that external individuals or groups do not leak this information. Organisations that publicly name accused teachers on social media or through traditional media channels potentially put the physical safety of these teachers at risk – the case of Samuel Paty in France is a tragic reminder of the dangers of leaking accused teachers’ identities. As such, organisations that do so should be held fully accountable. The Government should consider what kind of action can and should be taken through the Charity Commission, or through criminal or civil court procedures, including prohibitory injunctions. It may be that such organisations can be held liable for incitement. The Government needs to be clear about what action it can and should take in situations where an organisation – whether a registered company or charity – puts a teacher’s life and livelihood at risk.

Signup here

Policy Projects

Policy Areas

.

.

‘Blasphemy’ in Schools

Self-Censorship and Security Fears Amongst British Teachers

Related Publications

The Global Peace and Unity Festival

A definition of Islamophobia?

Tehran Calling

Authors

Dr Damon Perry

Content

Foreword

Introduction

Key Findings & Recommendations

Key findings

Protests and physical safety

Self-censorship

Use of images of Muhammad

School guidance

Headteacher support

Reporting possible extremism

Recommendations

Background

Batley and Wakefield

The Home Office’s response

The Prevent Review

The Bloom Report

Timeline of ‘Blasphemy’-Related Incidents in Britain

Blasphemy and Laws Against Incitement to Religious Hatred

Teachers’ Views on Batley, Protests and Self-Censorship

The teachers’ survey

Impact of Batley protests and self-censorship

Figure 1: Self-censorship of either what is taught or the materials used in classrooms

Figure 2: Self-censorship – to avoid religious offence – by subjects taught

Figure 3: Influence of the Batley Grammar School protests on the likelihood of using an image of the prophet Muhammad in a lesson

Figure 4: Acceptability for a teacher to use an image of the prophet Muhammad

Concerns about protests against the use of ‘offensive’ images

Figure 5: Risk to physical safety of a teacher accused of causing religious offence in the case of protests outside school

Figure 6: Most likely source of protests about the use of materials considered religiously offensive

Perceptions of headteacher/school support

Figure 7: Support or opposition to headteachers committing to protect an accused teacher’s identity, not to automatically suspend an accused teacher, and to uphold an accused teacher’s freedom of expression

Attitudes to reporting Islamist and Far-Right extremism

Conclusion

Signup here

Join our mailing list