Feminist activist sent to prison for ‘Allah is lesbian’ T-shirt - Morocco

[IwantToRetire]

A feminist activist has been sent to prison for two-and-a-half years because of messages on a T-shirt she wore in a selfie posted online.

The shirt featured the word “Allah” in Arabic, followed by the words “is lesbian” in English.

Ibtissam Lachgar was charged with blasphemy and with disseminating the image online.

She was found guilty of violating part of Morocco’s criminal code that outlaws offending the monarchy or Islam, her lawyer, Naïma El Guellaf, said.

A member of Ms Lachgar’s legal team said they plan to appeal the conviction.

Article continues at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/morocco-islam-prison-ibtissam-lachgar-b2819995.html

If the State dont believe that it has a body how is it right to punish her if she wants to believe im something different.

In the end the State is using its power to enforce a belief onto its population. The majority of the population may agree with the faith but a State needs to be able to allow the minority a space too.

That the State (via a Judge) decided that her statement needed a term of more than a few days is an excessive abuse of power.

Why not 2 days or 2 months if the State wanted to punish her for saying what she did?

What actual crimes get less time, which get the same time, and which get more is the question when looking at the State using its power against a belief.

School not back yet?

I’m enjoying it so far! Not finished it yet though.. so please don’t spoil it for me!

She is absolutely a brilliant writer

If Labour introduces their proposed islamophobia definition she could be imprisoned in the UK too.

I don't get this
Why would someone want to wear such a t shirt ,it's obviously going to cause hurt and upset .
Why would anyone wear a t-shirt being awful about any religion ..unless your trying to offend people
Bizarre

Why should a diety wanting to have sex be being awful? Loads of faiths have them having sex so why should the State deprive a citizen of her freedom just because it may offend people?

But people in this country are deliberately creating situations where they can be arrested for supporting Palestine Action. It's a form of peaceful protest where you disrupt the law deliberately in order to test it/showcase the absurdity. She is doing the same thing to laws she disagreed with in Morocco. I can have sympathy for both groups. The slightly vindictive posts on here along the lines of "serves her right" don't sit quite right with me is all. I agree that "doing a JD" and hysterically decreeing the lack of free speech in other countries while ignoring issues closer to home isn't appropriate. But I think it's fine to sympathise with someone like her even if you are in another country.

Of course women and men must be free to wear t-shirts insulting or mocking Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Gender ideology, communism, trade unions, the SNP, conservative…, so long as they are not inciting harm or sexually exploit/indecent. We should not bow to Islam. But the woman in question should not be (and possibly wasn’t) surprised by the response. Just like the women in Iran uncovering their heads. For those who say we shouldn’t offend Muslims remember many are offended by women simply existing in the public sphere.

Palistinian Action attacked the UK military. Supporting an organisation that attacks your own country’s military could also be called treason. That is very different from protesting against laws you disagree with.

In a case where the UK was at war (eg during WW2) it probably would be considered treason. That's why governments declaring "war" on things (terror, drugs, poverty) is a bit dodgy because it tends to open the door to more restrictions on our freedoms than would/should be tolerated in peacetime. That said, if Russia was invading and someone sabotaged a plane it would be treason but not terrorism. Those are different things. Blurring the boundaries doesn't do anything. As it is, let's say it's criminal damage. So supporting Palestine Action should be considered supporting criminal damage. That would be more sensible because you can arrest the people doing the criminal damage (a crime) but not the people holding a sign saying "yay criminal damage (not a crime). And the UK government could have saved itself the entirely predictable headache of arresting hundreds of pensioners.

Terrorism is a very specific charge and classifying an organisation as terrorist carries with it a host of powers that don't otherwise exist. It should be used more sparingly than just "they did a bad thing".

Just to clarify Hamas for example would be considered a terrorist organisation under UK law and I dont think most people would have a problem with the police arresting people for holding up signs explicitly supporting Hamas. Likewise there are far right terrorist groups you are not legally allowed to support. But extending that definition to include groups like Palestine Action blurs the boundary far too much. In the long run it undermines the governments ability to deal with actual terrorist/dangerous groups- but boy who cried wolf.
When Palestine Action damaged the plane there wasn't much free speech law to test- it's very clearly criminal damage (arguably as a means of peaceful protest but clearly against the law). When people break the law by holding up signs supporting Palestine Action they very clearly are testing the boundaries of laws around free speech.

These comments are scary.

There is no requirement for a country to be at war for something to be treason.

[(Edited) to add quote

Namitynamename · Today 19:06

Just to clarify Hamas for example would be considered a terrorist organisation under UK law and I dont think most people would have a problem with the police arresting people for holding up signs explicitly supporting Hamas. Likewise there are far right terrorist groups you are not legally allowed to support. But extending that definition to include groups like Palestine Action blurs the boundary far too much. In the long run it undermines the governments ability to deal with actual terrorist/dangerous groups- but boy who cried wolf.
When Palestine Action damaged the plane there wasn't much free speech law to test- it's very clearly criminal damage (arguably as a means of peaceful protest but clearly against the law). When people break the law by holding up signs supporting Palestine Action they very clearly are testing the boundaries of laws around free speech. ]

"arguably as a means of peaceful protest but clearly against the law"

No

peaceful is not breaking into a UK military site and damaging UK property.
peaceful is not damaging any public property.
peaceful is not damaging private property.

The organisation may have only reached the bottom rung of what may or may not be a terrorist act. They carried out a political act per 2(b) and the Courts ruled that it met the definition:

Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

That is very different to holding a sign or wearing a T with a message about a faith belief

Who is saying it is?

It comes out of their anti-blasphemy laws. It would be blasphemy to say that Allah has a body.

Some Islamic countries have quite strict rules about what you can say about religion. I used to know a person who taught about religion, among other things, in a university in an Islamic country. He had to be very careful to make sure that teaching about other religions was clearly not proselytising (he was not himself Muslim.)

They aren't western countries and their laws don't work the same way or come from the same way of thinking. It's not just anti-woman or homophobic, and I think people miss the mark when they think that. It's a whole differernt set of ideas about politics, law, and religious belief.

No I understand that is the State adopting a Faith and punishing its citizen for not believing in that Faith and would do the same to a man.

The term is not a slap on the wrist and dont do that again choice its bringing the force of law against its citizen by imposing what many would see as a long prision term.

But people holding signs are being arrested under the legislation.

No... But it changes the limits somewhat wouldn't you agree? I don't think attacking a plane/causing damage should be considered treason in normal circumstances let's put it that way.

Clearly though there is debate within that "Islamic country" as to the extent to which faith based laws should impede on free speech. She is part of that debate. I am not so I wouldn't go to Morocco as a tourist and start shit in order to teach them the value of free speech blah blah. That would be patronising. But I think it's also patronising to see Muslim countries or the citizens of those countries as a monolith and therefore judge citizens of those countries for not being culturally sensitive/respectful. There is more nuance than that.

just as there is internal agreement within the UK about free speech and the limits whereof (we disagree on this thread). It's like an American getting angry at a British person for criticising the royal family because they heard Brits were supposed to respect the king.

Edited to say, I am not saying you were judging her, but some of the replies earlier on the thread definitely were.

Sure, it's an internal discussion within that country.

And clearly that kind of law is not in line with what we have in the liberal democratic west. (Though I will say that increasingly some of the secular ideologies being put in special categories of controlled speech seem to be taking us in a differernt direction not unlike anti-blasphemy laws.)

But I find it a bit strange that people seem to be speaking as if we should expect a western perspective. The perspective on this kind of thing is Islamic societies is just very differernt. Blasphemy isn't a minor crime or seen as a technical boo boo.

I think quite a few people early in the thread thought she was a tourist, or just trying to be rude.

Freedom of expression lives where offence begins: In defence of Ibtissame Betty Lachgar
Maryam Namazie - Ex Mulims international

Freedom of expression lives where offence begins. To offend is to question certainty, to strip the sacred of its privilege, and to laugh in the face of fear and threats. A society that bans offence bans thought itself.

Morocco is the latest case in point. Since 10 August, feminist and human rights activist Ibtissame Betty Lachgar has been in prison because of an ‘Allah is Lesbian’ t-shirt she has worn for years. What changed was not the t-shirt but the cyber-threats she received after she posted another photo of herself wearing it at the end of July.

Anonymous accounts linked to a coordinated campaign by the ‘Moorish identity movement’, a far-right network known for cyber-harassment, issued countless rape and death threats, even tagging Morocco’s National Security. Prosecutors responded not by protecting Betty from the incitement to violence, but by persecuting her.

Article continues at https://freethinker.co.uk/2025/09/freedom-of-expression-lives-where-offence-begins-in-defence-of-ibtissame-betty-lachgar/

I see what you mean, interesting. I hope the laws loosen up, not holding my breath though..

Ofc she wasn't surprised...She's an activist & I'm sure she did this kniwing the consequences. V brave, I suspect Moroccan prisons are unpleasant to alleged blasphemer...