Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

A retired British police officer has been handed a criminal conviction and more than £1,000 in fines for resharing a satirical Facebook meme poking fun at Islam.

Stephen Gray, 65, a former Police officer who served nearly three decades, was found guilty under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 of making a “grossly offensive” post.

The case has sparked fresh warnings that blasphemy laws, abolished in England in 2008, are being revived by the back door – but only for one religion.

‘It was one joke, not targeted at anybody, pointing out certain parts of Islam.’

Former police officer and foster carer Stephen Gray recounts his experience of being charged for resharing a post criticising Islam, raising questions about a potential backdoor to blasphemy laws. pic.twitter.com/9BMeUigvxC

— GB News (@GBNEWS) August 16, 2026

Gray’s first concern when charged was not himself, but the young Irish girl he and his wife had been fostering for six years. “I was initially quite worried because obviously we have to have enhanced DBS checks to foster children,” he told The Telegraph.

He added, “These kids have enough to put up with without the fear they may be moving again hanging over their heads.” Social services later described the prosecution as “utter rubbish” and reassured the couple it would not affect their fostering.

Gray was reported to Durham Constabulary by a non-Muslim neighbour with whom he had previously had an unrelated disagreement.

He had reshared two images. The first featured a Middle Eastern man alongside the words “time for mass deportation” and “Children in Need,” with a caption reading: “12-year-old Mohammed recently arrived at Dover. Please donate to help him move from a three-star to a five-star hotel which has a better halal menu, free wifi and Sky and is nearer to a girls’ school.”

The district judge ruled this was not grossly offensive because it related to a political issue debated in Parliament.

The second image showed a man in a turban next to a rasher of bacon with the caption: “Fun facts about Bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9-year-old!” That post led to the conviction.

The judge decided it was about religion rather than politics and was therefore “grossly offensive.”

Gray has been clear about his intent. “I made a joke, an ironic joke, about Islam. That is all it was at the end of the day. A joke. I certainly never, not for one second, thought it would be deemed abusive.”

He added: “I guess some of the posts may have been in bad taste. Some of them may upset one or two people, but I didn’t think for one second it would be cast as grossly offensive by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and by the courts. Not for one second.”

Hundreds, if not thousands, of other people had reshared the same material. Gray did not create the images.

The Crown Prosecution Service initially declined to charge him, stating there was no realistic prospect of conviction. The complainant then used the Victims’ Right to Review scheme, and the CPS reversed course.

Gray is appealing with the support of the Free Speech Union. His former boss at Cleveland Police was “absolutely gobsmacked.” Gray recalled: “Back when I was serving, if I had taken this case to my sergeant or inspector, I would have been on foot beat night shift for the next five years for wasting everybody’s time. It wouldn’t have got past the front door of the police station.”

He now sees a clear pattern. “I just think it’s a dangerous road that the Government is going down trying to use the justice system to get us to stop criticising a religion that promotes a lot of things people might not agree with.”

Lord Young of Acton, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, put it bluntly: “Prosecuting people for making jokes about Islam, particularly if they contain a kernel of truth, is a new low. No one making a similar joke about Jesus would face prosecution.”

Young added, “Blasphemy laws were abolished in England 18 years ago and should not be resurrected by the courts and applied to just one religion.”

This is not an isolated incident. It fits a growing pattern of institutional pressure against any criticism of Islam.

Earlier this year, a Christian police community support officer with North Yorkshire Police was driven out of his job after asking basic questions about jihad and Hamas atrocities during a mandatory diversity training session billed as a “safe space.”

Luke Salmons was suspended, faced misconduct proceedings, and ultimately resigned under pressure after colleagues reported a book in his locker. The force’s own “safe space” invitation to discuss the issues proved hollow the moment scrutiny touched Islam.

Police forces have gone further. South Wales Police instructed officers to log conversations and comments about Islam that go beyond what the force deems “legitimate” discussion.

The Free Speech Union has warned this creates a chilling effect, allowing subjective judgments to be recorded and potentially surface in future enhanced DBS checks.

It is part of a wider push under the Labour government’s non-statutory definition of “anti-Muslim hostility,” which critics say is being gold-plated by public bodies to police speech.

Schools have not been spared. Multiple Labour-run councils issued guidance telling teachers that children’s drawings of prophets, including Jesus or Mohammed, could be considered blasphemous under certain Islamic interpretations.

Art, music, dance and PE have all been flagged for sensitivity to Muslim parental concerns about human figures, instruments and mixed-gender contact.

At the same time, the government has urged schools, councils and workplaces to monitor and report “anti-Muslim hostility,” complete with a new tsar-style role to oversee the effort.

The working group that helped shape the government’s definition of anti-Muslim hostility has drawn particular scrutiny. Every member has documented links to Islamist organisations, including groups successive governments have refused to engage with because of their extreme positions.

The Free Speech Union’s investigation laid out the connections in detail, raising obvious questions about bias in a process meant to define acceptable speech about one faith.

The same machinery has already claimed other victims for online jokes. Lucy Connolly was imprisoned for a post on X after the Southport attacks.

After her release on licence, the government threatened to return her to prison for sharing another satirical comment. Her case, like Gray’s, shows how quickly a joke can become a criminal matter when it touches the wrong subjects.

Gray’s conviction is the latest demonstration that Britain’s justice system now treats criticism of Islam as uniquely toxic. A political meme about immigration hotels was waved through. A joke referencing historical facts about the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage was criminalised.

The complainant was not Muslim. The posts were not directed at any individual. Thousands of others shared the same content without consequence. Yet a retired police officer who spent his career upholding the law now has a criminal record for a Facebook reshare.

The Free Speech Union is funding Gray’s appeal, scheduled for November, and has instructed leading counsel.

The outcome will test whether English courts are prepared to enforce a selective blasphemy code that Parliament deliberately abolished.

For now, the message to ordinary citizens is clear: some jokes are more equal than others, and the state is watching.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.