Is The Qu’ran Protected By UK Law, But The National Flag Not Protected?
By Jason King for VIDEO PRODUCTION NEWS
The law, we are told, applies equally to all. But does it? When police watch passively as a Union Jack is torn apart, yet swiftly arrest those who burn a Qur’an, it raises a troubling question: is public order law about keeping the peace, or picking sides?
Recent protest actions have thrust us once more unto the breach, dear friends, as another public order case edges towards the courtroom, and with it, the uncomfortable question of whether our justice system is applying the law fairly—or whether we are witnessing the slow creep of politically motivated prosecutions.
At the heart of the matter is an age-old legal principle: precedent. The foundation stone of common law, the guiding hand of judicial consistency, and—if wielded correctly—a rather potent headache for any prosecutor caught trying to enforce one rule for one group and another for the rest.
The Legal Tightrope: Precedent, Consistency, and Public Order
British law prides itself on treating like cases alike. It’s the judicial equivalent of refusing to play favourites. The courts, bound by both centuries of common law and modern legal protections like Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), should never punish someone for an act that was not clearly illegal at the time it was committed. Equally, Article 10 guarantees freedom of expression—even when that expression is controversial, offensive, or downright inflammatory.
Yet, recent events have raised eyebrows among those of us who spend our lives poring over court transcripts and police charging decisions. When one act of public protest—say, tearing up a Union Jack—passes without so much as a caution, but another—such as burning a Qur’an—lands the individual in the dock, it’s impossible not to ask: is the law being applied equally, or is selective prosecution now an unspoken policy?
This is not an abstract debate for legal theorists. This is real, pressing, and likely to be argued in courtrooms up and down the country as new cases come before the judiciary.
The Defence Barrister’s Playbook: Precedent as a Shield
If the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) wants to start distinguishing between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” forms of symbolic protest, they had better come armed with a watertight legal argument. Because any half-competent defence barrister will be ready with a four-pronged counterattack:
1. Inconsistent Enforcement of Public Order Laws – If the police turn a blind eye when one protester torches the Union Jack but swiftly arrest another for burning a religious text, that disparity is not just unfair—it’s legally dubious. A defence lawyer would argue that such selective enforcement undermines public confidence in policing and potentially breaches the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination in the exercise of public functions.
2. Absence of Clear Harm or Disorder – The Public Order Act 1986 requires that an act be “threatening, abusive, or insulting” and likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress. But if no arrests were made when a group of protesters shredded a British flag in front of patriotic demonstrators—who could reasonably have been expected to take offence—then why should another act of symbolic destruction suddenly cross the legal threshold?
3. Violation of Free Speech Rights – Love it or loathe it, freedom of expression under Article 10 extends to offensive speech. And if one group’s offensive protest is tolerated while another’s is criminalised, the judiciary will have to grapple with a fundamental question: does the state have the right to decide which political or ideological views are protected and which are punished?
4. Selective Prosecution as a Violation of Equality Before the Law – Magna Carta 1215, common law, and centuries of legal tradition insist that the law must be applied evenly. If the CPS decides that one form of protest is legally acceptable while another is worthy of prosecution, the defence will argue that this represents an arbitrary—or even unlawful—application of justice. And in a system that prides itself on the principle that all are equal before the law, that’s a dangerous road to travel.
The Legal Domino Effect: What Happens Next?
If the courts start handing down conflicting rulings—convicting some protesters while letting others off the hook—the inevitable legal challenge will follow. Appeals will roll in, senior judges will be forced to clarify the law, and sooner or later, the judiciary will have to make a definitive ruling on whether public order offences can be prosecuted selectively.
In the most extreme cases, if evidence emerges that police or prosecutors acted with a political agenda, we could even see a judicial review of CPS charging decisions. This would be a legal earthquake, exposing the state to allegations of politically biased prosecution strategies.
Justice Must Not Become a Political Football
At its core, this is not just a debate about flags, books, or religious sensitivities. This is about the rule of law itself. If justice becomes selective—if it bends to political pressure rather than legal principles—we risk undermining the very foundation of our legal system.
And once that Pandora’s box is open, it’s a devil of a job to shut it again.
So, as these cases edge towards trial, one thing is certain: precedent matters. And the moment the courts start enforcing one rule for one group and another for the rest, the integrity of the entire system is at stake.
Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.
Jason King
Birmingham City-Desk
VIDEO PRODUCTION NEWS
Comments