Mockery of Christianity in Huntingdon: A Catalyst for Discussing Fairness and Free Speech
- Dr Chan Abraham
- 4 days ago
- 8 min read
In a local Facebook group dedicated to the Huntingdon community, a seemingly light-hearted meme posted by Labour Councillor David Landon-Cole, attributed to a fellow Labour activist Saul Jeavons, sparked a conversation that quickly degenerated into personal attacks rather than substantive debate. My original post highlighted the meme’s parody of a core Christian scripture and questioned why such mockery is acceptable for Christianity but might not be for Islam, particularly in light of Labour’s push for special protections against so-called “anti-Muslim hostility”.
Regrettably, the responses focused on dismissing my post or insulting me, without addressing the central issues of equal treatment, fairness, and the avoidance of privileged status for Islam and Muslims in our historically, constitutionally and culturally Christian nation.
This article responds to each comment in turn, quoting the commentators directly, while underscoring how their reactions inadvertently reinforce the need for open discussion on these matters. It is written with the utmost respect for differing views, aiming to foster understanding rather than division. As we examine the comments, it becomes evident that none engaged with the post’s substance—yet their very nature highlights the double standards at play.
Admin Statements on Reports: A Question of Rationale
David Landon Cole, wearing his “admin hat”, noted: “Admin hat on - a couple of people have reported this post. It doesn’t break any of the group rules, and it can stay up. Thanks for flagging your concerns - it does make it much easier to admin the group when people report posts that might be problematic. Admin hat off.”
Jo Harvey echoed this: “Admin hat on: the rules haven’t changed in the last 30 minutes, so please, stop reporting this post! As David Landon Cole has already said, no rules are being broken here!! If however there’s a comment that you think is out of order, please flag the individual comment. There are none at present - I’ve checked them all.”
These statements confirm that my post was reported multiple times, yet deemed compliant with group rules. One must query why it was reported in the first place. No rationale was provided by the reporters or admins, leaving us to wonder if the mere raising of questions about fairness and free speech was seen as objectionable. This absence of explanation is telling, especially in a democratic society where transparency is paramount. If the post broke no rules, what prompted the reports? Could it be discomfort with challenging the status quo on sensitivities about Islam and Muslims in Britain?
Abusive and Offensive Comments: Examining Rule Breaches and Irony
Several comments crossed into personal abuse, using terms that could be viewed as bullying or malicious. For instance, Samson M Feeney wrote: “You don’t represent Christianity any more than I represent dog walkers. I have many Christian friends and they would very much agree that your kind of ‘Christianity’ is an anathema to the path that Jesus walked. As He would be raging at how the MAGA right, and the eejits around Tommy Ten Names abuse His name. He also wouldn’t give one sh1t about that cartoon you clown.”
This includes derogatory language like “clown” and “eejits”, alongside unsubstantiated claims about my “kind of Christianity”. Similarly, Alex Dale called me “Man, what a snowflake.”, Paul Kirkby labelled me “What a melt”, and Gӓreth Cheesmӓn urged “Good grief grow up”.
These remarks appear to breach typical Facebook group rules against personal attacks, harassment, or bullying—rules that admins like David Landon Cole and Jo Harvey enforce. Ironically, while my post was reported (and cleared), these abusive responses were not flagged as “out of order” by Jo Harvey, who stated she had checked all comments. This contradiction is stark: objectors to my reasoned post failed to provide any basis for disagreement, instead resorting to insults. Such behaviour underlines the post’s point—mockery of Christianity is tolerated, but questioning inequalities provokes malice without rationale.
Lack of Engagement with Core Issues
Not a single commentator addressed the post’s content: the call for equal treatment across faiths, the rejection of special privileges for Islam, and the preservation of free speech in our culturally Christian country. For example, Sam Booker said: “Anyone who considers ‘peas on Earth, gouda wheel, two men’ to be genuine malicious mockery of Christianity’s core message is being disingenuous. This post seems to be an attempt to stir up division for self-promotion rather than an attempt at good faith debate and discussion.”
Rather than debating the double standard—would a similar parody of Islamic festivals be posted?—Sam dismissed the premise. Matthew Hope argued: “I doubt that the Christian meme is in any way anti-Christian its just funny word play/Pictionary and is really based on how deeply entrenched that Christianity and it year and teachings have become in western culture (and to an extent world culture due to the cultural impact of empire etc.)”
Again, no engagement with why such “funny word play” might not extend to other religions. Daniel Ackerley-Holmes simply called it “What a truly silly post this is.”, while Nic Pheebs said “Nice try, sunshine.”—both evasive.
Stephanie James queried: “Chan Abraham - Changing Britain For Good As a matter of interest, did you contact David and Saul directly to express your concern? I’m surprised you didn’t ‘tag’ them in your post to spark an open and honest debate. I also note that you’ve posted this in other groups (eg Warboys) where the people you’ve named won’t be able to see or respond if they’re not members of the group. Did you not want them to have an opportunity to comment? It all seems a tad unfair to me. Anyway, if you should happen to be interested in my personal opinion, I’ve seen that money and religion cause more harm than anything else. If you’re trying to encourage people to vote for you in the future, I’d suggest you concentrate on potholes.”
This focuses on process rather than substance, ignoring the broader democratic need to discuss Labour’s policies publicly. Danny Taylor noted: “The fact people are getting upset and reporting it just kinda proves the point no?”—ironically supporting the post’s thesis.
This evasion is precisely why these issues must be restated: Labour’s non-statutory definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” risks creating unequal protections, potentially suppressing criticism of Islam while Christianity faces open mockery. In a democratic society, such matters demand transparent debate, especially as the “anti-Muslimness/Islamophobia” advocates seek to impose restrictions unlawfully and undemocratically. Why this determination? It raises questions about motives in privileging Islam and Muslims over others.
Personal Views Irrelevant to the Content
Stephen Ferguson stated: “I think this post is one of the silliest things that I have ever read, and that Saul and David are two of the finest gentleman that I have ever had the pleasure of calling my friends.” Darren Moseley agreed: “Stephen Ferguson hear hear”.
While I respect personal friendships, Stephen’s view of David and Saul as “finest gentlemen” has no bearing on the post’s content. The discussion is about the meme’s implications for free speech and fairness, not character assessments. Similarly, Samson M Feeney joked: “And to David Landon Cole and Saul Jeavons both - neither of you are the Messiah, you are both naughty boys lol”, with Darren Moseley adding “Samson M Feeney I’m NOT The Messiah either!”—light-hearted, but sidestepping the issues.
Addressing the "Shalom" Comment
David Landon Cole commented: “Using shalom to gloss ‘true peace’ in Luke is a bit odd, Chan Abraham - Changing Britain For Good. Luke is writing in Greek; the word in the text is eirene. I’m happy to concede that in Luke the overlap between eirene and shalom is relatively close. It’s certainly closer than in (say) Romans. Luke is drawing on Jewish conceptual worlds with eirene, and the echo is real. But that doesn’t make the terms interchangeable. They have different linguistic histories, different semantic ranges, and different theological trajectories. Even within the Hebrew Bible, shalom is not a single, stable concept. Shalom in Genesis is not shalom in Isaiah, still less in later prophetic or post-exilic contexts. The same variation applies to eirene, though obviously the time period is shorter. I think precision is important here.”
While appreciating David’s linguistic analysis—likely drawn from an AI source—this misses key points. Shalom is an overarching biblical theme, encompassing wholeness, reconciliation, and restoration. It is the objective of the entire Scripture narrative: God’s plan to restore humanity and creation from brokenness. Luke’s “eirene” echoes this Hebraic shalom, as the New Testament fulfils Old Testament promises. Precision is vital, but reducing shalom to variability overlooks its holistic role in Christian theology.
The Overlooked Impact of Offence and Double Standards
None of the commentators considered the potential offence caused by mocking a sacred Christian text, yet such sensitivity is selectively applied elsewhere. For instance, during the 2024 General Election, David Landon-Cole emphasised monitoring statements on “What is a woman?” to protect those identifying as trans—a small group—citing sensitivity. Now, with the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling affirming biological sex, why such vigilance for one minority but not for Christians, whose faith is central to Britain’s heritage? This inconsistency exemplifies the hierarchy of sensitivities my post addressed.
Free Speech in Law: The Right to Offend
These responses affirm that mockery and offence are permissible when directed at Christianity—a point enshrined in law. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects freedom of expression, including ideas that “offend, shock or disturb”. In Handyside v United Kingdom (1976), the ECHR ruled that free speech extends to views that challenge the majority, without which society would stagnate. Similarly, in Redmond-Bate v DPP (1999), UK courts upheld that free speech includes the right to provoke. True freedom is not free if it excludes offence; applying this unevenly risks eroding British values.
Reinforcing the Post’s Importance
Far from undermining my post, these comments bolster it. By tolerating satire of Christianity while avoiding similar treatment of Islam, and responding with abuse rather than reason, they highlight the need for equality. David and Saul’s meme, and the amusement it garnered, show offence is acceptable—for Christianity and Christians This double standard must end in our Christian nation. Nothing of this sort would be permitted in nations outside the historic West. Why should it be in the UK?
For deeper insight, see my forthcoming article, “Systemic Christianophobia in a Christian Nation: The Rising Persecution of Christians Amid Labour’s Privileging of Islam”, demonstrating unequivocal bias against Christians in the UK.
Global Persecution of Christians: A Broader Context
The UK’s imbalances pale against global atrocities. In Nigeria, 3,490 Christians were killed for their faith in the 2025-2026 reporting period—over 70% of worldwide totals. Extremist Islamic groups like Boko Haram and Fulani militants target believers, displacing millions. Elsewhere, North Korea tops lists with total suppression; in Muslim Pakistan, blasphemy laws lead to mob violence; Iran imprisons converts; and in India, Hindu religious nationalism fuels attacks.
These facts underscore why privileging Islam and Muslims domestically is unjust amid such global suffering.
Illustrative Examples of UK Bias
Sadiq Khan’s defence of “From the river to the sea” led to a Metropolitan Police hate incident registration (01/82258922/25) against Jews, with ongoing enquiries—suggesting privileged status already operates.
Geeta Guru-Murthy’s reaction to a Christian rapper’s faith declaration sparked viral backlash, yet the BBC closed ranks—would this occur for Islam?
Martine Croxall was censured for correcting “pregnant people” to “women”, breaching impartiality. This erodes Christian (and Judaic) teachings on distinct male-female creation in God’s image.
Conclusion
These Facebook responses, while disappointing in their vitriol and evasion, serve to validate the urgent need for balanced protections and robust free speech. In a democratic, Christian-rooted Britain, Islam and Muslims should not enjoy special status. Let us engage thoughtfully, rejecting abuse and double standards, to ensure fairness for all.
Footnotes
1. Open Doors World Watch List 2026: https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/countries/nigeria
2. Christianity Today: The 50 Countries Where It’s Most Dangerous for Christians in 2026: https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/01/christian-persecution-2026-countries-open-doors-watch-list
3. Global Christian Relief Red List 2026: https://globalchristianrelief.org/resources/red-list
4. Handyside v United Kingdom (1976), ECHR: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57499
5. Guide on Article 10 - Freedom of expression, Council of Europe: https://rm.coe.int/guide-on-article-10-freedom-of-expression-eng/native/1680ad61d6
6. BBC on Martine Croxall: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3epwz08ewzo
7. User’s site on Sadiq Khan: https://www.chanabraham-changingbritainforgood.com/post/when-the-mayor-says-from-the-river-to-the-sea-is-fine-but-the-police-won-t-tell-us-why
Comments