British Offer Up Own Citizen to Radical Islamists for Execution After He Burned Quran

At the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 14, the German defense chancellor chided Vice President J.D. Vance for expressing concern regarding the respect for free speech in Europe.

“If I understand him correctly he compares the condition of Europe with what prevails in some authoritarian regimes,” Boris Pistorius said during his remarks after Vance’s address.

“This is not acceptable. This is not the Europe where I live,” he added.

JUST IN: German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius starts whining about JD Vance’s speech, says it was “not acceptable.”

Looks like Vance’s speech was a success.

The whining came after Vance ripped European nations for criminalizing free speech and acting like tyrants.

“If I… pic.twitter.com/zM9DBo7V3M

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 14, 2025

Never mind the fact that Germany not only banned two of its top political parties from the Munich Security Conference and is trying to ban one of them, period. That can always be pinned on Germany’s, ahem, history in regard to certain sociopolitical matters during the last century.

However, if this truly isn’t “the Europe where I live,” Pistorius need only look to one of the countries Vance criticized — the United Kingdom — which recently offered up one of its citizens to the whims of radical Islamists for the grave crime of desecrating a Quran.

Now, before we begin, let’s just get this out front. The man, who we will not name, is not engaging in activity we’d condone. He doesn’t appear to be in compos mentis in the video that was taken of him committing the act, and his record seems to bear that out.

However, consider what happened and the steps Britain took, and ask yourself if this is the kind of society that values freedom of speech or expression — or, rather, whether it is willing to suicidally give its dissenters over to its most violent, extremist element.

So, the facts, such as they are: The Manchester man, 47 years old, has pleaded guilty in court to a charge of “racially or religiously aggravated intentional harassment or alarm,” which is punishable under the Public Order Act of 1986.

The man was recorded holding an Israeli flag before ripping out pages from the Quran and lighting them on fire at a memorial for the victims of the 2017 Manchester terrorist attack, according to the Manchester Evening News. He had previously advertised that he would be committing the demonstration on social media and live-streamed the affair.

A British man burned Quran in Central Manchester in protest against the murder of Salwan Momika, who was killed for burning Quran in Sweden.

A MusIim attempted to stop him! pic.twitter.com/firxazTXTj

— Azat (@AzatAlsalim) February 1, 2025

“The ‘trigger’ for his actions was the death of his daughter in the Israeli conflict, which had affected his mental health, the court heard on [Feb. 3],” the Evening News reported.

A victim impact statement from Fahad Iqbal, who tried to intervene, read before the court, said this: “I was quite shocked, disgusted and offended. I’m a Muslim. I still can’t believe someone would do this. When he began to burn the Quran my heart was about to break out. This is the most emotion I have ever felt.”

Meanwhile, the defender of the man who pleaded guilty pointed out the obvious: “He’s extremely distressed at the distress he’s caused others as a result of this. He needs some further help and support.”

The defender said his daughter was killed during the conflict in Israel, which contributed to his declining mental health in recent months.

The judge wasn’t terribly sympathetic, saying she was sorry the man lost his daughter, but that “the Quran is a sacred book to Muslims and treating it as you did is going to cause extreme distress.”

“This is a tolerant country, but we just do not tolerate this behavior,” she said.

He’ll be sentenced on April 29 and is out on bail with the condition he doesn’t post on social media.

The Greater Manchester Police published the man’s name and street address — as claimed by groups that have come to his defense, like the Free Speech Union. However, the man also has 20 convictions on 47 prior offenses (that don’t include religious incitement), and police often publish that information, so it was likely readily available.

The Manchester Evening News, as if giving a helping hand to anyone who might want to take extrajudicial punishment out upon him, helpfully provided that information themselves.

And, as you might expect, the Greater Manchester Police were more concerned about the effect on Muslims than on someone who might get targeted by extremist Muslims for desecrating the Quran: “We understand the deep concern this will cause within some of our diverse communities and are aware of a live video circulating,” Assistant Chief Constable Stephanie Parker said, according to Free Speech Union.

“We made a swift arrest at the time and recognize the right people have for freedom of expression, but when this crosses into intimidation to cause harm or distress, we will always look to take action when it is reported to us.”

Now, theoretically, one should have the right to all sorts of blasphemy in the United Kingdom, since laws against that kind of speech were scrapped some time ago and rarely enforced even when they were still on the books. However, there’s a carve-out in the Public Order Act of 1986, explained on the official website of the U.K.’s Crown Prosecution Service: “There has to be one of the acts described therein: it has to be ‘threatening, abusive or insulting,’ and it has to be intended to or likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred.”

As for what “racial group” entails, this part is rich, too: “The definition is wide and victims may come within the definition under more than one of the references.”

Islam is not a race, of course, nor does the religion recognize any sort of lineal ethnic element to the faith group. As it turns out, on Feb. 15, a group of pro-Palestinian protesters shouted anti-Semitic slogans at Jewish counterprotesters — Judaism being a faith that definitely does recognize some kind of lineal ethnic element — and strangely enough, the U.K. Telegraph didn’t report any arrests being made, and certainly not names and addresses.

Funny how that works. It’s almost like some “racial groups” that don’t exist are more important to mollify than those which definitely do.

But then again, that’s to point out the obvious: Jewish extremists aren’t known to hunt down and execute those who “insult Judaism.”

Meanwhile, 35 years after the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against author and U.K. citizen Salman Rushdie for “The Satanic Verses” — a book he almost certainly hadn’t read and which only “blasphemed” Islam by depicting the religion in a series of religious hallucinations taking place inside the mind of a severely mentally ill character in the novel — he lost an eye and was almost killed by someone carrying out what he believed to be divine justice, delayed by over three decades.

And there are other examples, certainly. The Charlie Hebdo attack in 2015. The murder of writer and filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 for criticizing Islam. A teacher who was driven into hiding in the U.K. in 2021 for “displaying a cartoon of Muhammad during a religious studies lesson,” according to the Free Speech Union, noting the teacher was inundated by death threats. Or just days after Salwan Momika was murdered in Sweden by Isalmists over, you guessed it, burning a copy of the Quran.

Meanwhile, the U.K. media system has injunctions that are used all the time to protect those who are in danger, often due to entirely factual reporting on things that are wholly trivial. (The most infamous of these was in 2011, when British media outlets were prohibited from naming a soccer star who allegedly had extramarital relations with a reality TV D-lister, or the D-lister, for that matter, who allegedly blackmailed him. Both names eventually came out, and nobody cared except probably the soccer player and his wife.)

So, to sum up: The U.K. doesn’t have blasphemy laws, except when they’re convenient. Or if it’s “racially motivated,” even if it doesn’t involve a race.

The country allows freedom of expression, except when it doesn’t. And it can protect those involved in legal matters if they’re in danger of embarrassment or harm — except if they’re the wrong kind of people, then the media will happily publish where they live.

Remember the words of Boris Pistorius in Munich — of all places to have made those remarks: “This is not acceptable. This is not the Europe where I live.”

Well, I’m happy you live in a different Europe, Mr. Pistorius, but this 47-year-old man doesn’t, and I have the sickening feeling he’s about to feel the brunt of the Europe he does inhabit.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.