Comedian John Cleese reported to Prevent

Max Thompson, Campaigns Officer

1 October 2026

Another week, and another attempt has been made by Muslim activists to cancel the comedian and national treasure John Cleese.

Last week, The Spectator revealed that the star, best known for his role as Basil Fawlty in Fawlty Towers, had been subjected to a censorious campaign by a group of Muslim activists who go by the name of Deenified.

One of the young men who appeared in the group's social media video accused the comedian of "spreading dangerous misinformation and creating hostility towards Muslims". The group went on to call him a "hate preacher" and to claim that his comments were not comedy but "hate speech", demanding that John Cleese's show in Birmingham be cancelled.

Fortunately, Mr Cleese's show went ahead without a hitch, but the Islamic website 5Pillars warned that areas with "substantial Muslim populations" could add to demands for his shows in other cities to be cancelled.

This week, the story took an even more sinister turn when 5Pillars reported that Mr Cleese had been referred to Prevent, the Government's counter-terrorism programme, over a series of what it called "incendiary posts about Muslims and Islam" on social media.

Mr Cleese has become increasingly vocal on social media in recent months about his concerns over Islamism — as is his lawful right.

The posts highlighted in the Prevent referral include one in which Mr Cleese referred to a culture "whose holy book advocates the killing of all the people they disagree with", and another in which he said Britain was "under attack from Muslim belief systems, especially the Koranic...".

Another post flagged was: "I personally prefer a culture that does not approve of FGM, Child Marriage and Killing Infidels." The referral also raised concern over Mr Cleese reposting content referring to Islam as "the religion of paedophiles".

The complainant reportedly described the pattern of social media posts as dehumanising and as collectively attributing violence and criminality to Muslims, and assessed the risk as "Moderate to High".

The Government has constantly repeated assurances that the official definition of Islamophobia (now repackaged as "anti-Muslim hostility") would not have a chilling effect on free speech. It is clear that it already has. Countless examples since the definition was published in March show that it has been weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of, challenge to, and debate about Islam.

Mr Cleese is not alone in being targeted by those who wish to silence legitimate criticism of Islam, its history, or its practices. Last week, it was reported that Rupert Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth and leader of Restore Britain, had been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as a result of his "repeated rhetoric about Muslim, Islam and Pakistanis". This could see him — a democratically elected representative — ejected from Parliament for daring to criticise Islam.

As with Mr Cleese, it was 5Pillars that revealed Mr Lowe had been reported to the authorities.

The complaint focused on Mr Lowe's repeated use of the term "Pakistani Muslim rape gangs" and his claim that there was an "undeniable link" between Islam and the rape gangs, as well as his warnings about the "Islamification of Britain". This is despite the fact that Baroness Casey's 2025 review into the sexual exploitation of children found that men of Asian and Pakistani heritage were disproportionately represented among those involved, and that authorities had shied away from addressing this for fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic, and of stirring up community tensions.

The ability to criticise, debate, challenge, and mock a religion is a fundamental right in Britain. It is not extremism. Parliament voted to abolish our blasphemy laws in 2008, eighteen years ago, but we now have one for Islam alone.

Yet activists and extremist ideologues are weaponising the Islamophobia definition to silence criticism of Islam, its history, and its practices. We now appear to have a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in Britain.

We should all be deeply alarmed that Prevent is being used as a tool by activists to stifle free speech. Such misuse can only undermine its mission to tackle genuine extremism.

In a free society, no religion is beyond legitimate criticism, challenge, and debate — and no religion should be granted greater protection than another.