Rupert Lowe is right: we must be free to offend anyone… including Muslims
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.
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.
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…'
'Way of the World' is a twice-weekly satirical look at the headlines while aiming to mock the absurdities of the modern world. It is published at 6am every Tuesday and Saturday
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Brazil urges United Nations to take lead role in Russia-Ukraine peace efforts
Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Saturday called on the United Nations to assemble a group of countries tasked with seeking a resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Lula reiterated a comment he had made at a news conference with France's President Emmanuel Macron this week, during a state visit. While both Macron and Lula praised the strong ties between France and Brazil, Thursday's press conference highlighted diverging views over Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Macron stressed that Kyiv and Moscow should not be treated as equals, in contrast to Brazil's proclaimed neutral stance on the conflict. "There is an aggressor, which is Russia. There is a victim, which is Ukraine. We all want peace, but we cannot treat the two belligerents equally," said Macron, stressing that Brazil had "a very important role to play" in finding a solution to the conflict. Lula put forward the suggestion that "the UN can become a protagonist in this matter again", calling UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres "a good man". The United Nations chief should "propose a group of friends" to both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who would then "talk with them both, listen to their respective truths and then build an alternative", Lula said. "What I am proposing is the creation of a commission consisting of countries that are not involved in the war to talk with Zelensky and Putin," he said. Russia said it would also hand back 6,000 killed Ukrainian soldiers. Read more on RFI EnglishRead also:Brazil's Lula urges Macron to 'open your heart' to EU-Mercosur trade dealEU and UK reunite in London for talks on diplomacy and defenceEurope tightens sanctions on Russia as pressure builds on Washington
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Spending Review: Massive cheques from the chancellor for some - but what do totals hide?
The next few days are vital – "one of the last moments to weave it all together – to look politically credible to the people Labour has lost", one senior figure reckons. There have been huge fights inside government about the looming Spending Review. As I write, the home secretary and deputy prime minister are both still in dispute with the mighty Treasury over the amount of cash they'll have to spend. But the Treasury's already trying to convince the public the review is about significant investment. On Wednesday Rachel Reeves boasted of funnelling billions more taxpayers' cash to big transport projects outside the wealthier south east of England, having tweaked the Treasury rules to do it. Now, with five days still to go, I've been passed some of the information that'll be in the pages of Wednesday's review. It's one crucial chart that will be in the huge bundle of documents heading to the printing presses on Tuesday night that shows what's called TDEL – the Total Departmental Expenditure Limit. In other words, the total that government spends, including the day-to-day costs of running public services and long-term spending on big projects. But it doesn't include costs that government can't set in advance – like pensions and benefits, or debt interest. The chart spans 2010 to 2030, so takes in the coalition years, where you can see the total sliding down, then the Conservative years when spending starts rising after the Brexit referendum, then leaps up during Covid. And then, when Labour took charge, the red line going up steeply at first, then more slowly towards the end of this parliamentary term. The total real terms spending by 2029-30? More than £650bn – roughly £100bn more than when Labour took office. The pale blue line is what would have happened to spending if the Conservatives had managed to hang on to power last year. The government now is allergic to accusations that any cuts they make will be a return to austerity. And this chart shows that overall spending is going up considerably, compared to those lean years. The political argument around spending will rage but the chancellor did - to use the ghastly technical term – set out the "spending envelope" in her autumn Budget, indicating rises were coming. You can bet they'll want to use every chance they have to say they are spending significantly more than the Tories planned to under Rishi Sunak. The government's political opponents on the other hand, may look at that red line as it climbs steeply upwards and say: "See, public spending is ballooning out of control". This chart does illustrate very significant rises in public spending. But be careful. What this chart doesn't give us is any idea of how those massive totals break down. Massive chunks will go to favoured departments, suggestions of an extra £30bn for the NHS today. And a very significant part of that steep rise will be allocated to long-term projects, not running public services, some of which are struggling. The overall total may be enormous, but a couple of parts of government greedily suck in billions - others will still feel the pain. A case in point – as I write on Saturday morning, the Home Office is still arguing over its settlement, believing there isn't enough cash to provide the number of police the government has promised, while the front pages are full of stories about the NHS receiving another bumper deal. So observe this big health warning. The chart gives us a sense of the political argument the chancellor will make. But it doesn't tell the full story or give the crucial totals, department by department, decision by decision. It's worth saying it's incredibly unusual to see any of this before the day itself, hinting perhaps at jitters in No 11 about how the review will be received. Until we hear the chancellor's speech, and then see all of the documents in full on Wednesday, the story of the Spending Review won't be clear. There will be reams of statistics, produced by government, and the official number crunchers, the OBR, and then days of analysis by think tanks and experts in the aftermath. But bear in mind these three core facts. Rachel Reeves will put a huge amount of cash, tens and tens of billions, towards long term projects. Short-term spending money will be tight, with no spare cash for sweeteners. And the government is not popular, so there's huge pressure to tell a convincing story to try to change that, not least because of what went wrong the last time. "We can't ever do it like this again." After Labour's first Budget, government insiders concluded next time, it had to be different. A source recalls: "It was a very brutal exercise - it was literally just making the sums add up, there was no collective approach to what the priorities were." Alongside a lot of extra cash for the NHS, there was a big tax rise for business that came out of the blue. No one wants a repeat of that experience. The "next time" is now – and a Labour source warns the review might be as "painful as hell" . So the task for a government struggling in the polls is to make this moment more than just a gruesome arithmetic problem, instead, to use the power of the state's cheque book to make, and go on to win an argument. Stick a fiver on Rachel Reeves referring back to that first Budget as "fixing the foundations" of the economy and public services, this week then being the moment to start, "rebuilding Britain". Sources suggest she has three aspects in mind: security for the country (which will explain all those billions for defence), the health of the nation - that does what it says on the tin, and "investing", all that cash for long-term projects. Next week's decisions will be followed soon after by the government's industrial strategy which will promise support for business, possibly including cash to help with sky-high energy costs. And it comes after several big staging posts – the immigration white paper, trade deals, the defence review. In government circles there's hope of denting some of the criticisms that they have been slow to get moving in office, that, frankly, Sir Keir Starmer arrived in government without having worked out what he really wanted to do. One Whitehall insider tells me, "Now the buses are all arriving at once – maybe the idea of this lacklustre government that didn't have a plan will be blown away by July?" Another Labour source suggests the threat from Nigel Farage has actually forced the government to get moving, visibly, and decisively: "Reform gives us the impetus to actually shake this stuff down." That's the rosy view of how the chancellor might be able to play a difficult hand. It might not be reality. It is profoundly uncomfortable for a Labour government to make cuts. There is already a whiff of rebellion in the air over ministers' welfare plans. Expanding free school meals for kids in England seems designed to placate some of those critics in advance, but there could be more to make them mutinous. Don't forget Reeves has several different audiences – not just the public and her party, but the financial bigwigs too. This time last year all Labour's schmoozing was paying off, and she enjoyed good reviews in the City. One year on, that mood has shifted, in part because of the autumn budget. According to one city source, it "damaged her. People saw it as an about turn on her promises. Raising National Insurance, however they want to present it, went against the spirit of the manifesto… confidence in her in the City is diminished and diminishing", not least because there is chatter about more tax hikes in the autumn budget. Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you. You probably don't need me to remind you that the level of taxes collected by government are historically sky high. So too, at the other end, is the amount of government debt. A former Treasury minister told me this morning, "debt is the central issue of our time, nationally and globally". "There is a real risk our debt becomes unsustainable this Parliament, unless we make tough choices about what the state does. We can't keep on muddling through." Add in the twists, tariffs and tantrums of the man in the White House, that make the global economic situation uncertain and the picture's not pretty. But politics hinges on finding advantage in adversity. Polling suggests much of the country reckons Labour inherited a bad hand and has played it badly. This week, the chancellor has a chance to change the game. No 11 is determined to prove that she has made decisions only a Labour chancellor would make. And Reeves is gambling that her decisions to shovel massive amounts of money into long term spending helps the economy turn, and translates into political support well before the next general election. A senior Labour source said, Wednesday will be "the moment, this government clicks into gear, or it won't". There's no guarantee. 'It's going to be ugly': Westminster braces for Spending Review The Conservative Party faces problems - is its leader one of them? The country where the left (not the far right) made hardline immigration laws BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Zelenskyy Rejects Trump's 'Children Fighting' Analogy, Says Putin Is A 'Murderer'
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected President Donald Trump's idea that Russia and Ukraine are like kids at the playground who would be better off fighting for a while before being pulled apart. 'We are not kids with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin at the playground in the park,' Zelenskyy said in an interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz. 'He is a murderer who came to this park to kill the kids.' Trump made the analogy during an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump said. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' He noted that he had relayed the sentiment in a call with Putin earlier in the week. 'I said, 'President, maybe you're going to have to keep fighting and suffering a lot,' because both sides are suffering before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart,' Trump said. 'You see in hockey, you see it in sports. The referees let them go for a couple of seconds, let them go for a little while before you pull them apart.' In an interview slated to air on ABC's 'This Week with George Stephanopoulos' Sunday, Zelenskyy said Trump and others who are 'some thousands of miles away' don't understand the suffering Ukrainians have experienced since Russia invaded the country in February 2022. He relayed comments he heard from a father who lost his family in a missile strike, saying Trump 'could not feel fully and understand this pain.' Trump has openly criticized Zelenskyy a number of times, arguing he has held up a potential peace plan by refusing to cede parts of the country to Russia. Trump notably attacked Zelenskyy in a major clash during an Oval Office meeting, where the U.S. president and Vice President JD Vance berated Zelenskyy and called him 'disrespectful.' Trump Says It May Be Better To Let Ukraine, Russia 'Fight For A While' Trump Attacks Zelenskyy For Resisting Calls To Cede Crimea To Russia Trump Berates Zelenskyy In Oval Office, Makes Putin's Points For Him