The Monty Python Terrorist? By Richard Miller (London)

John Cleese, the 86-year-old Monty Python legend, recently sparked discussion by posting on social media (around February 17, 2026) expressing concern over whether his scepticism toward Islam — self-described as "Islamosceptic" — could lead the UK's Labour government to label him a terrorist. He wrote something along the lines of: "As I am a Islamosceptic, I'm now worried that the Labour government may categorise me as a terrorist… To think I once supported them…" He emphasised that criticising Islam isn't racism but "culturalist," and dismissed "phobia" labels for religious critique (comparing phobias to irrational fears like spiders).

This stems from updates to the UK's Prevent counter-terrorism program, which has flagged "cultural nationalism" and worries about Western culture being threatened by mass migration as potential indicators of Right-wing terrorist ideology. Cleese tied this to broader government efforts, including a working group (with members linked to Islamist groups) developing a definition of "Islamophobia," submitted in late 2025 but not yet officially adopted.

The Breitbart article frames this as part of a chilling trend against free speech in Britain, highlighting Cleese's long-standing views on immigration and cultural change.

Will he actually be branded a terrorist, or at least treated as a law breaker?

No, not realistically in any formal sense for simply expressing "Islamosceptic" views or questioning Islam's role in Britain, just yet, but likely if things continue on the road tototal multicult tyranny. Here's why, based on current UK law and recent context:

Terrorism branding requires meeting specific legal thresholds under the Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended). This involves encouraging, preparing, or committing acts of terrorism — violence or threats to advance a political/ideological cause. Pure speech criticising a religion, even sharply, doesn't qualify unless it directly incites violence or supports proscribed groups. Cleese's comments are opinion-based cultural critique, not calls to action. The Prevent program flags indicators for referral and monitoring (e.g., in schools or public sectors), but it doesn't "brand" private citizens as terrorists for opinions alone. High-profile figures like Cleese would face intense scrutiny before any such step.

Hate speech or law-breaking risks are more plausible in edge cases, but still low in the UK. Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008. The Public Order Act 1986 covers stirring up hatred on religious grounds, but it requires intent to stir hatred and is rarely applied to mere criticism of doctrine (vs. targeting individuals/groups). Recent cases, like Quran-burning protests, have tested boundaries — some convictions for religiously aggravated harassment have been overturned on free expression grounds, with ongoing appeals. A proposed "Islamophobia" definition (leaked in 2025) could label certain statements as anti-Muslim hatred if adopted widely (e.g., linking Muslims generally to terrorism), potentially leading to non-crime hate incident recordings, job risks, or civil complaints — but not criminal terrorism charges. It's not law yet, and even if implemented, it wouldn't retroactively criminalise Cleese's type of commentary.

Broader context: The Online Safety Act 2023 (phased in through 2025–2026) focuses on platforms removing illegal/harmful content (including hate speech), but it doesn't criminalise users' offline or basic speech. Free expression remains protected under the Human Rights Act (Article 10 ECHR), though critics argue enforcement chills debate. Cases involving street preachers or protesters show policeoverreach, but courts often push back … sometimes.

In short: Cleese won't be formally branded a terrorist for this, just yet — it's hyperbolic rhetoric highlighting real worries about overbroad "hate" or "extremism" frameworks. He might face social/media backlash, deplatforming risks, or Prevent-style flagging in theory, but as a prominent critic, he's unlikely to become a law breaker over opinions alone. The concern reflects genuine debates about where cultural/religious critique ends and protected speech begins in modern Britain. It indicates the trajectory Britain is on, and may reach in a few years' time. In the future, all whites may be regarded as terrorists in principle for building Western civilisation, the construct the globalists and Leftists dearly want to tear down.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/02/17/john-cleese-questions-if-he-will-be-branded-a-terrorist-for-questioning-islam-in-britain/