Britain does not need an Islamophobia law, existing rules work
I am speaking as someone who has many years of practical experience of combatting anti-Muslim hate. This is something that cannot be said of all the members of the Labour-appointed Working Group on Islamophobia.
How the group defines anti-Muslim hate will have profound ramifications. Its recommendations risk strengthening bad actors within Muslim communities who want to create a chilling effect on free speech.
I know full well that existing laws are robust enough to prosecute genuine Islamophobes. They are used effectively by police forces up and down this country. What is needed is better enforcement of existing laws, not new speech codes.
The Working Group on Islamophobia will have you believe that its work is similar to that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism produced by academics, legal scholars and representatives of Jewish organisations.
But it is not. The IHRA definition was not handed down by a government, but was a grassroots initiative developed by non-governmental organisations.
The reason for the current Islamophobia drive is simple. Labour is trying to provide a symbolic sop to British Muslim communities after suffering significant electoral losses in some strongly Muslim seats at the last election.
Members of the Working Group have suggested that anti-Muslim hate is racialised. This is only part of the picture. Tell MAMA data, covering the last 13 years, demonstrate that this is not true in the majority of cases, although it certainly is in some.
I know that campaigning groups have been calling for Islamophobia to be recognised and recorded as being both racially and religiously aggravated, thereby melding the two separate aggravating factors.
But the law is clear – Sikhs and Jews can be regarded as both a racial and religious group. This is simply not the case with Muslims since they do not constitute a single racial group and come from across the world.
When we drill down into the laws on incitement to racial hatred, it is clear that racially aggravated offences are deemed different from religiously aggravated ones.
The CPS guidance is unambiguous on this. If there are no racially aggravating comments, materials or actions, then the case should not be classed as such.
Whatever definition Dominic Grieve and his group come up with will be caveated in a long report that will more than likely make the argument that many cases of Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hate have a racial hatred component to them. But since Muslims are not a race this, by definition, cannot be the case.
With a sleight of the hand, they will seek to confuse and project the view that race and religion both automatically play a part in the targeting of Muslims.
We must call them out on this, and the CPS must push back on the claim with some vigour.
If we, as the public, do not wake up, we may be looking at more people being cancelled or even criminalised in the future. We cannot allow that to happen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
37 minutes ago
- The Sun
Britain on verge of signing returns deal with Iraq to thwart small boats crisis
BRITAIN is on the verge of signing a returns deal with Iraq to thwart the small boats crisis. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is understood to be in the final stages of negotiations to help break up people smuggling gangs. 1 Iraqi Kurds have been one of the biggest obstacles to tackling the problem which has seen numbers continuously ramp up since 2018. The proposed deal comes after Sir Keir Starmer struck a ' one in, one out ' deal with France last week to help reduce numbers. But more than 22,000 migrants have already made the perilous journey this year. The deal will help return the number of migrants making the C hannel crossings and failed asylum seekers back to Baghdad. It had been hoped that the deal could have been signed off this month but an Iraqi delegation has delayed their visit, the Sunday Times said. The agreement, expected to be finalised at the end of the summer, would allow UK authorities to detain and then send migrants back to Iraq more easily. The National Crime Agency has been drafted in to try and stop the bosses of the smuggling gangs from bringing migrants to Britain. Bosses from Britain's so-called FBI are understood to have established a presence with the Kurdish authorities. Boats and engines are also been closely monitored with sniffer dogs from the UK being deployed between Turkey and Bulgaria to find rubber dinghies being used in the crossings. Rob Jones, the NCA boss head of operations, said he was targeting areas where kingpins thought they were 'untouchable'. But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told Sky News that it was 'absolutely ludicrous' to think the deal with France would have any impact. He said: "This deal will only see about 6% of illegal immigrants who arrive in the UK getting returned to France, and the idea that therefore 94% can stay here is going to have any effect is absolutely ludicrous.' "Of course, if 94% of illegal immigrants who cross can stay in the UK, that is no deterrent whatsoever.' The Prime Minister will hold talks this week with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz as he called illegal migration "a global problem".
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
An institutional intifada is coming to crush a Reform government
In England's fractured five-party system – featuring Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Reform and the Green/Islamist/far-Left movement – a hung Parliament is certain sooner or later, in any event. Especially once Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are factored in, with their nationalists and unionists. This explains why Labour is likely to form a new government after the next election – even if it exhausts its stupendous parliamentary majority, the second largest since World War Two, in much the same way that it is exhausting the nation's finances. For in a hung Parliament, one must have allies. And Labour has more potential partners than anyone else: the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, Northern Ireland nationalists, Greens and Islamists. None of these may want to join a coalition government with Labour if one is offered. But they will surely be even more unwilling to form one with parties of the Right. Meanwhile, the Conservatives and Reform would have only – a few Ulster unionists apart – each other as potential partners, if one assumes that the Liberal Democrats won't work with either. Which would be bigger? Perhaps by the next election the party of which I'm a member, the Conservatives, will once again be the main party of the Right – especially in the event of a crash in the markets that leaves other parties, with their promises of higher spending and lower taxes, over-promised and under-prepared. But as I write, it looks unlikely. It is no longer absurd to imagine Reform as the larger of the two Right-wing parties in parliament. What would happen next? Perhaps Nigel Farage would offer the disorientated Tories a coalition, and so swallow up whatever was left of them. For what it's worth, I would prefer a confidence and supply arrangement – partly because I'm a convinced Conservative, even in these unpromising circumstances, and partly because I'm not convinced by Reform. But regardless of our party political preferences, we should want a future Reform administration to succeed: all of us, because it is in our interest for government to work, and Conservatives in particular, because – as conservatives with a small C as well as a large one – a legitimate Right-wing party should be preferable to a legitimate Left-wing one. But if parties with experience, like the Conservatives and Labour, find it hard to govern, one without it, like Reform, would find it next to impossible. Here are three illustrations. On day one, the new Reform administration instructs the Royal Navy to return small boats containing illegal migrants to France as they cross the Channel. Naval officers refuse, asserting that the French will refuse to accept the returns, that there is a risk that migrants will scupper their boats, and that in these circumstances refusing to take them to Britain would breach international law. On day five, Reform's new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a businessman with no political experience, is accused of bullying civil servants. Downing Street's Propriety and Ethics unit steps in. Staffed by civil servants and based in the Cabinet Office, the unit has a formidable reputation. It helped to investigate Nadhim Zahawi, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab and Chris Pincher under the last government. All were forced out, rightly or wrongly. On day 10, the new Reform home secretary, like Suella Braverman, demands that the Progress flag, which represents the LGBTQ+ cause, no longer be flown above the Home Office. He has no more luck than Braverman, who said later: 'I couldn't even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.' There is a fashion on the Right for blaming a 'blob' of unaccountable quangocrats, activist judges, politicised civil servants and outdated international agreements for intensifying Britain's problems. Some Labour MPs, since their party took office, have overlapping complaints. Both underplay the main source of the problem: a House of Commons that is no longer providing enough effective, coherent legislation and efficient, commanding ministers. But regardless of one's view of the matter, there can be no doubt that a Reform government would be seen, in some corners of Westminster and Whitehall, as illegitimate. And would be met from day one by an institutional intifada. My impression is that those at the top of Reform think of themselves as Big Men with Strong Views. They certainly have the latter – hence the falling out of Farage and Rupert Lowe. And maybe, in government, they would prove themselves the former. Perhaps a Reform government would beat establishment resistance to a pulp (metaphorically, not literally). But as matters stand, it looks like Reform that's cruising for a bruising – if it ever makes government at all. Getting the system to work takes time even if it likes the look of you. Tony Blair complained of 'scars on my back' after trying to reform the public sector. The Civil Service came to terms with Margaret Thatcher only in her second term. Before she won her first election, John Hoskyns, a businessman, devised a plan for government to tackle the problems of the day: inflation, trade union militancy, decline. It was called Stepping Stones. If Farage is to follow in her footsteps, he needs a modern equivalent: a strategic plan for getting his most radical measures – leaving the ECHR, abandoning the net zero targets, scrapping the Equality Act – through Parliament (where they would meet particular resistance in the Lords) in order to ensure that they gain the democratic legitimacy to which the courts would bow. During the 1980s, the key question was what a new Right-wing government should do. Today, it's how to do it. Are the Big Men thinking big enough?
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
German comedian to go on trial for Trump assassination joke
A German comedian will appear in court after he was charged for making a joke about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump last year. Sebastian Hotz could face up to three years in prison for comparing the shooting of the US president at an election campaign rally in 2024 to catching the last bus. 'You sadly just missed it,' he wrote shortly after the shooting on July 13. Hotz, also known as El Hotzo, doubled down on the joke shortly after, adding: 'I find it fantastic when fascists die. 'Absolutely no one forces you to feel sorry for fascists; you can just not do it without the slightest consequence.' Hotz was fired from his job with RBB, the public broadcaster, and charged with condoning and rewarding criminal offences. His trial, which is scheduled to begin on July 23 at the Tiergarten district court in Berlin, has inflamed critics on the Left and Right, who are divided on whether his comments should be protected by free speech. Gerd Buurmann, the Right-leaning comedian, said: 'It is not okay that a satirist is brought to court just because he said something... Everything he said is disgusting, but he must be allowed to say it.' But others in the public eye praised the decision for showing that the 'internet is not a legal free-for-all'. One of the most prominent critics of the comedian's comments has been Elon Musk. The Tesla owner tweeted angrily at Olaf Scholz, the then-German chancellor, noting: 'Someone wishing death on the leading US presidential candidate and myself is paid to do so by the German government.' Mr Musk then tagged Mr Scholz on X and asked: 'Was ist das? [What is that?]' Comedy vs free speech The incident is not the first to cause a free-speech stir in the world of comedy. Jan Böhmermann, a TV host, was charged in 2016 with breaking an obscure German law against insulting authority figures after a satirical poem about Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish president, after he said Mr Erdoğan's 'stiff neck stinks of doner' kebab and he 'loves to have sex with goats while oppressing minorities'. Angela Merkel, the then-chancellor, personally approved the prosecution of the comedian, after speaking with Turkish officials. Böhmermann accused Ms Merkel of 'serving me to a neurotic despot for tea and made me become a German Ai Weiwei', with the case eventually dropped by prosecutors and the lese-majestylaw abolished.
