We do have laws about freedom of expression and our laws generally do accommodate:
For example, our Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 states:
Protection of freedom of expression
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
In essence, we're allowed to freely express ourselves on the topic of religion, according to THIS law.
Then there's Blasphemy and Blasphemous Libel Law, which is specific to the Church of England, which is a much older law. From what I understand it has been a long time since anybody's actually been charged with an offense with this. To my mind, they should get rid of it as it's an archaic law and contradicts the above Act. People did try to get the BBC charged with it a few years back for showing Jerry Springer: The Opera because to their mind his mockery of Jesus falls under Blasphemous Libel, but they were unsuccessful.
Allowing Islam to restrict our laws to do with freedom of expression would be in contradiction to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. Unfortunately, anomalies do happen in law, I am not sure exactly how a court deals with it, I suspect it might come down to the latest passed law, but I am not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it.
As far as constitutions go, they only work so long as people are willing to stick to them and I don't think the US government abides as closely to the consitition as people like to think, but if they use the right language they can surpass it. But our consititution is much, much older, the Magna Carta, which really does not apply to modern society, for example I believe it has us ruled by a monarch and that to be King or Queen is a God-given right. Whilst we do still have a monarch, it makes no account for Parliament, because that came at a later date. Oliver Cromwell, who won the civil war against the monarchy hated the Magna Carta (apparently he referred to it as the Magna Farta) and well, as you can tell he didn't like the monarchy either. You can suggest he's the reason we live by a democratic rule now. We certainly don't listen to the Magna Carta as much as we used to as much of the power goes to our democratic leaders and not queeny. Whilst queeny does have power, she tends not to exercise it either.
But what'll happen is somebody will get in trouble for making a joke about Mohammad and people will kick up a shitstorm about freedom of expression pushing the government to change their stance
. There was one when the original Racial and Religious Hatred Bill was proposed and it added a clause for 'freedom of expression'
. There was another when the Digital Economy Bill came out and it pushed the politicians to make revisions. I don't know what the final ones were, but funnily enough I did ask Baroness Warsi about it and made specific concerns about internet privacy, but she didn't know a lot about it and put it to her assistant to send me info on what their party was doing about it via email. The response sounded kind of positive on that front, but that's a different topic.