Rupert Lowe is right: we must be free to offend anyone… including Muslims

Telegraph

10-05-2025

The MP Rupert Lowe, formerly of Reform, wrote this week that in Britain, 'We do not have blasphemy laws, and we must not have blasphemy laws. Burning the Quran is not a crime.' Is he sure?
Put it like this. If Mr Lowe were to set fire to a copy of the Bible, I very much doubt he would be arrested. I do not recommend, however, that he tries the same experiment with the Quran. In all likelihood, being arrested would be the least of his problems.
Still, good to see an MP standing up for free speech. But disturbing to see another MP immediately take him to task for it. On social media, Adnan Hussain – an independent who celebrated his election last July by declaring, 'This is for Gaza' – claimed that Mr Lowe really just wants to protect 'the right to offend Muslims'. He then called Mr Lowe's attitude 'deeply worrying', and told him: 'Free speech comes with limitations and protections.'
Not when it comes to religious beliefs, it shouldn't. If we aren't free to criticise what other people think, we aren't free to criticise anything. Increasingly, though, it feels as if we're living in Mr Hussain's world, rather than Mr Lowe's.
In a successful multi-ethnic society, newcomers integrate with their hosts. In Britain, however, it seems to be the other way around. The hosts are expected to integrate with the newcomers. To revere their holy books, bow to their customs, and at all costs avoid blaspheming against their prophets.
Mr Lowe responded to Mr Hussain by writing: 'Yes, I do believe the right to offend Muslims must be protected. The right to offend anyone must be protected.'
He's right. I just wish that our Government had the guts to agree.
Trump's oddest move yet
As usual, American liberals are getting Donald Trump all wrong. They're constantly wailing that the people he's appointed to high office are nutters and cranks.
Well, yes. But that's the brilliance of his strategy. He's cleverly surrounding himself with shrieking crackpots so that, in comparison, he looks perfectly sane.
At any rate, this theory would surely explain his controversial new pick for the role of Surgeon General. Because she's got to be his most eccentric appointee yet.
Casey Means is a 'wellness influencer' who, in a newsletter to her followers last year, revealed the list of steps she had taken, at the age of 35, to help herself find a romantic partner. She 'set up a small meditation shrine in my house and prayed to photos of my ancestors asking for support in my personal journey'. She 'worked with a spiritual medium who helped me try to connect with my spirit guides for support and guidance'. And she 'did full moon ceremonies with grounded, powerful women' during which they all 'amplified each other's dreams'.
Perhaps her most memorable move, however, was to start talking, 'literally out loud', to trees – 'letting them know I was ready for partnership, and asking them if they could help'.
Frustratingly, she did not disclose what the trees said to her in reply. This is a great pity, as I would have been fascinated to know. I tried asking the oak in my garden whether it could enlighten me, but it maintained a strict silence. Perhaps, like doctors, trees are sworn to patient confidentiality.
Still, whatever advice the trees gave her, it must have been sound, because, shortly afterwards, 'my dream man walked into my life'. This is wonderful to hear. Then again, if trees really do make such excellent advisers, Trump may be tempted to ditch Casey Means, and appoint a tree, instead.
The next big celebrity trend
How many people in Britain are ' neurodivergent '? That is, have a neurological condition such as ADHD? Unfortunately, it's impossible to say. Not least because so many people nowadays simply 'self-identify' as neurodivergent – without seeking a diagnosis. And, according to Francesca Happé – a professor of cognitive neuroscience at King's College London – this has become so common that, in her view, 'We may well already be at a point where there are more neurodivergent self-identified people than neurotypical people.'
Of course, we can't know for sure whether all these self-diagnoses are accurate. If they are, however, this is seismic news. After all, a majority is, by definition, the norm. So if a majority of British people are neurodivergent, that means they're actually neurotypical. Meanwhile, the people hitherto regarded as neurotypical are actually neurodivergent.
I'll be particularly interested to see how this news is received by celebrities. Over the past couple of years, countless TV presenters, pop stars, actors and comedians have announced to the world that they're neurodivergent. But if being neurodivergent is the norm, there's no longer any reason to tell everyone. These celebrities might as well announce that they've got two legs, or come out as heterosexual.
From now on, therefore, all the attention will go to those celebrities who don't have a neurological condition. I for one can't wait to read their exclusive tell-all interviews.
'Yes, it's true: I've just been diagnosed as not having ADHD. I must admit, I was shocked at first. But when I thought about it, it made so much sense. I always knew I was different…'