An urgent look at how Islamist influence and political cowardice are eroding free speech in Britain, and the voices rising to resist.
William Dick
Aug 3, 2025 - 9:09 PM
Share
Free speech in Britain is under quiet but relentless attack from both the hard edge of religious radicalism and the soft pressure of political cowardice. While terror plots and grooming gangs have rightly made headlines, the deeper threat lies in the cultural and institutional capture that prevents us from addressing these issues honestly.
A new form of censorship has taken root, less visible than state bans, but more pervasive: a toxic blend of fear, vote-chasing, and ideological submission. Those who speak inconvenient truths are cast out. Those who provoke outrage are punished, not protected. And the victims, far too often, are silenced twice, first by their abusers, and then by the institutions that claim to serve them.
But cracks are starting to appear in the wall of silence.
Westminster’s Contradictions
In January, a parliamentary proposal calling for a national inquiry into Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs operating in over 50 British towns was voted down unanimously by Labour MPs. This crushing of a much-needed investigation came despite decades of victim testimonies and public outcry, underscoring how party loyalty continues to trump justice and transparency.
Now, in a significant U-turn, the government has announced it will promote a National Inquiry after all. The reversal may be due in part to mounting pressure from MPs whose own constituencies are plagued by rape-gang activity. While the precise catalyst remains unclear, the shift marks a rare concession and a sign that public scrutiny is beginning to erode institutional silence.
As I previously illustrated, Muslim political influence has not only secured key positions within the government, but has also established a significant presence within the main opposition party.
Reform UK, surging ahead in the polls revitalised under Nigel Farage, accepted a significant donation from British Muslim businessman Muhammad Zia Yussuf, who was swiftly appointed Party Chairman. Farage himself has cautioned against alienating Muslim voters, signalling what amounts to a de facto pragmatic alliance that transcends traditional party lines, even as serious issues like grooming gangs are sidelined.
In contrast, Tommy Robinson, the Luton-born activist instrumental in exposing grooming gang cover-ups when official institutions remained silent, remained politically ostracised. During his time in prison, he was reportedly subjected to attacks from radicalised Muslim inmates, and he received little support from prominent free speech groups. Only an external voice like Elon Musk, who reaffirmed that Robinson is a political prisoner and offered to fund his legal defence through a “world-class legal team”, drew attention to the injustice on a platform beyond the reach of UK censorship norms.
Robinson has now been released earlier than expected, a development that may or may not be connected to Musk’s intervention. Regardless, it marks another small but significant challenge to the institutional pressure against dissenters.
The Hidden Threat of “Soft Jihad”
While Britain rightly recognises violent jihadist attacks (such as the 7/7 bombings and the Manchester Arena massacre), the ideological campaign of “soft jihad” remains underappreciated and dangerously unchecked.
Unlike violent terror, soft jihad uses censorship, intimidation, and institutional pressure to reshape society. It discourages free speech on Islamic issues by enforcing taboos around blasphemy and branding criticism as “Islamophobia.” Schools, media, and officials are pressured to avoid “offending” Muslim sensibilities, creating a culture of self-censorship.
The case of the Batley schoolteacher, still forced into hiding four years after showing a Muhammad cartoon, highlights the chilling effect of this campaign. What should have been a classroom discussion on free speech became a national scandal, with credible threats driving a citizen underground.
Voices of dissent from within the Muslim community, like those of ex-Muslims warning against Islam’s authoritarian tendencies, especially regarding gender inequality and death for apostasy are routinely dismissed or smeared as “far-right.”
This climate of fear and enforced silence emboldens ideological actors and paralyzes institutions. Media outlets tread carefully, politicians avoid controversy, and victims are left isolated.
The Fight for Free Speech
Despite this bleak picture, signs of pushback are emerging.
Conservative MP Nick Timothy recently introduced a Bill to amend the Public Order Act to protect freedom of speech, explicitly defending harsh or sarcastic criticism of religion from criminal prosecution. This response comes amid absurd legal cases like that of Turkish dissident Mr Coskun, prosecuted after burning a Koran outside the Turkish Consulate in London, an act during which he was physically assaulted, including by a knife-wielding attacker.
As Dr Frederick Attenborough of the Free Speech Union noted:
“Central to Judge McGarva’s ruling was the claim that Coskun’s behaviour was ‘disorderly’ not just because of what he did, but because of the reaction it provoked... The fact that he was assaulted by two different people was used against him.”
Put simply, the victim’s suffering becomes evidence of their guilt, setting a dangerous precedent where violent extremists dictate the limits of free speech.
The Bill has gathered support from ten MPs, mostly Conservatives, and one Reform MP, Rupert Lowe, expelled after clashing with Farage. Farage himself has notably not backed the Bill, likely due to his ties with Muhammad Zia Yussuf.
Among the Bill’s signatories is Robert Jenrick MP, Shadow Lord Chancellor and former Tory leadership contender. Jenrick recently condemned Islamist gang dominance in British prisons, where inmates are reportedly coerced to convert under threat: “Convert, or get hurt.”
As Shadow Lord Chancellor, Jenrick is well-placed to table a Parliamentary Question to the Muslim Lord Chancellor Ms Mahmood, as to the inherent conflict of interest she faces between her religious duty to strive for Sharia "Justice", and her official duty to apply the principles of traditional British Justice. She must do one or the other, she cannot do both.
The Crucial Crossroads for Britain
The future of Britain hinges on critical questions:
- Will Kemi Badenoch and the Tory leadership unite to support Jenrick and Timothy’s Bill?
- Can Nigel Farage break free from the pressures that mute his party’s stance on Islam?
- Will Labour MPs awaken to the dangers posed by institutional accommodation of extremist ideologies, pandering to the 4 million strong Muslim bloc vote?
With Westminster caught between political expediency and moral responsibility, the nation risks sliding further into a swamp of censorship, ideological capture, and social fragmentation.
Yet the rising resistance, manifested in legislative efforts and public activism, offers a ray of hope. Confronting the unholy alliances and ideological threats shaping Britain today is essential not just to protect free speech, but to preserve the country’s democratic foundations.
(For further context, see Part 1, a related article by William Dick, available here)
