
Badenoch: I fear Labour will erode free speech with blasphemy laws
Kemi Badenoch has warned that Labour is a threat to free speech in Britain after some of the party's MPs backed blasphemy laws.
In an interview with The Telegraph, the Tory leader hit out at an 'authoritarian' streak in the governing party that she said was placing freedom of expression 'under threat'.
It comes as Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, plans to introduce a new definition of Islamophobia, which critics have warned could amount to a de facto blasphemy law.
Last year, a Labour backbencher also used Prime Minister's Questions to propose a law banning the 'desecration' of religious texts and prophets.
Mrs Badenoch told The Telegraph's Planet Normal podcast: 'I don't think Labour understands the importance of free speech, how it is a core British value.
'When you look at some of the rhetoric that we hear from Labour MPs, a lot of authoritarian stuff. We have Labour MPs talking about blasphemy laws.
'That's not free speech. They haven't brought it in yet, but we need to be very vigilant that we do not allow the erosion of core principles like freedom of speech in the UK.'
Mrs Badenoch said she disagreed with JD Vance, the US vice-president, who said that free speech was 'disappearing' in the UK, but warned it was 'under threat'.
Ms Rayner is overseeing plans to introduce a formal definition of Islamophobia to combat anti-Muslim hatred.
She has set up a five-person working group, led by Dominic Grieve, the former Tory attorney general, to come up with 'appropriate and sensitive language'.
While in opposition, Labour said it would adopt a controversial definition of Islamophobia that was drawn up in 2018 by an all-party parliamentary group.
Critics warned that definition was open to such wide interpretation that it would act as a de facto blasphemy law and stifle criticism of Islam as a religion.
Last November, Tahir Ali, a Labour MP, urged Sir Keir to act to 'prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions'.
In his response, at Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister did not directly reject the demand, simply replying that 'desecration is awful and should be condemned'.
The exchange prompted accusations that Labour was planning to introduce blasphemy laws, which ministers were subsequently forced to deny.
'Extreme activists took root'
In the interview, Mrs Badenoch also admitted that the Tories 'ended up just allowing extreme activists to take root' by looking the other way on gender ideology.
Asked about last week's Supreme Court ruling, she said that the party had been initially too dismissive of women's concerns as a 'niche issue'.
'One of the lessons that my party has now learnt is that sometimes just because everybody agrees on something doesn't mean it's right, and that sometimes you have to pay attention to things that don't look like big issues,' she said.
'This stuff was allowed to seed for a very long time because many people thought, 'well, you know, we don't talk about this. We talk about the economy. Just ignore it – this is a niche issue'. And also believing that this was how you showed support for people who were LGBT.'
Mrs Badenoch said that approach had led the Tories to forget their principles, including standing up for basic freedoms.
'By not looking at the principles and just going along with what many people have been saying, initially we ended up just allowing extreme activists to take root,' she added.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scottish Sun
25 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
UK's ‘outrageous' migrant hotel bill revealed & it takes every penny in tax from all people in city as big as MANCHESTER
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) BRITAIN'S £4.7billion annual bill to keep migrants in hotels and look after them takes every penny of tax from 582,000 workers. The shocking new statistic is equivalent to every grafter in Manchester stumping up for asylum seekers through their pay packet. 4 Britain's £4.7billion annual bill to keep migrants in hotels and look after them takes every penny of tax from 582,000 workers 4 The shocking new statistic is equivalent to every grafter in Manchester stumping up for asylum seekers through their pay packet Credit: Getty 4 Jamie Jenkins, who did the research, said: 'This isn't just unsustainable. It's outrageous' Credit: PA Jamie Jenkins, who did the research, said: 'This isn't just unsustainable. It's outrageous. "A government that borrows billions each year, can't control borders, and taxes its citizens to pay for hotel rooms and housing for people who've just arrived is not working for the British public. 'It's time for a system that protects the people who pay in. That rewards contribution. That puts citizens first." Latest figures show there were 32,345 asylum seekers staying in up to 220 hotel. It costs £41,000 a year to house each, up from £17,000 in 2020. Ex-Office for National Statistics analyst Mr Jenkins found the average UK salary was £38,224. Each worker pays income tax and National Insurance contributions of £8,081. So 582,000's entire tax bills go on housing migrants — equal to the working population of Manchester. And it is significantly larger than the employed populations of Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds. The total is also higher than the tax contributions of every UK mechanic and HGV driver combined. A total £4.7billion went on asylum support in 2023-24 — £3.1billion on accomodation. 13 migrants jumped from the back of a lorry at a Sainsbury's distribution centre in South East London The rest went on grants to local authorities, running sites like the disused Bibby Stockholm barge in Dorset, plus £49-a-week subsistence allowance. The £4.7billion total was up from 2022-23's £3.6bn. Nearly 15,000 people have crossed to Dover in 2025, up 42 per cent on this time year. French cops, given £480million of UK taxpayer cash, are failing to intercept them.


ITV News
28 minutes ago
- ITV News
Trump's new travel ban set to come in to effect on Monday
President Trump's new travel ban is set to come in to effect on Monday, restricting travel to the US from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries. The move comes amid growing tensions in the US as Donald Trump continues delivering on his election promise to increase immigration enforcement. The order banning travel from certain countries was signed by Trump on Wednesday and applies to citizens from: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also increases travel restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the US and don't hold a valid visa. Mohammad Sharafoddin, his wife and young son walked at times for 36 hours in a row over mountain passes as they left Afghanistan as refugees. They had hoped to one day bring their niece to the US to join them - from Monday that will no longer be possible as Afghanistan joins a list of 12 countries restricted from travelling to America. 'It's kind of shock for us when we hear about Afghanistan, especially right now for ladies who are affected more than others with the new government,' Mohammad Sharafoddin said, referring to the country's Taliban rulers. 'We didn't think about this travel ban.' The new ban does not revoke visas previously issued to people from countries on the list, according to guidance issued Friday to all US diplomatic missions. Travelers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the U.S. even after the ban takes effect. Many immigration experts say the new ban is designed to beat any court challenge by focusing on the visa application process and appears more carefully crafted than a hastily written executive order during Trump's first term that denied entry to citizens of mainly Muslim countries. "We don't want them," says Donald Trump as he signs the travel restrictions executive order. In a video posted Wednesday on social media, Trump said nationals of countries included in the ban pose 'terrorism-related' and 'public-safety' risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. He also said some of these countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their citizens. Trump also tied the new ban to a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The man charged in the attack is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. US officials say he overstayed a tourist visa. The ban was quickly denounced by groups that provide aid and resettlement help to refugees. 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, a nonprofit international relief organisation. Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro's government condemned the travel ban, characterizing it in a statement as a 'stigmatization and criminalization campaign' against Venezuelans.

The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email