Discussion on Islamophobia held in Welsh Parliament
Organised by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association UK, the event took place on Thursday, May 15, and was titled Islam & The West: Clash of Civilisations?
With more than 80 guests in attendance, the event began with a welcome message from the host, Member of the Welsh Parliament Altaf Hussain, followed by a social experiment video that sparked conversation about misconceptions of Islam.
The Islam & The West: Clash of Civilisations? discussion held in the Welsh Parliament (Image: AMYA) The Islam & The West: Clash of Civilisations? discussion held in the Welsh Parliament (Image: AMYA) The dialogue covered topics such as Sharia Law, the relationship between Muslim and British values, and women's rights in Islam.
Stephen Hiles, one of the attendees, said: "The event was very informative and far too short as we couldn't go through too much."
Another guest, Zac, added: "I would like to see more of such events as they are really important, especially in the current political climate."
The Islam & The West: Clash of Civilisations? discussion held in the Welsh Parliament (Image: AMYA) The Islam & The West: Clash of Civilisations? discussion held in the Welsh Parliament (Image: AMYA) The discussion built on the success of a previous Islam & The West: Clash of Civilisations? event held in the House of Commons on March 12.
Through events like these, AMYA UK says it aims to bridge communities, tackle prejudice, and promote the true, peaceful teachings of Islam.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
5 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Video of Labour's broken promises to nuke veterans gets 3 million views
Labour is under pressure to act on the Nuked Blood scandal after a video of ministers' broken promises was seen by 3 million people The 3 Cabinet ministers who made promises to nuke veterans A video detailing Labour's broken promises to nuclear veterans has been seen by more people than the 10 o'clock news. Growing awareness of the goverment's failure to resolve the £5bn Nuked Blood scandal is now putting ministers under pressure to come up with answers. A defence minister is expected to make a written statement to the House of Commons tomorrow to reveal interim findings of a review into allegations of human radiation experiments carried out on troops in the Cold War. And it comes as more evidence emerges of veterans' medical records being tampered with to remove evidence of monitoring them before, during and after they served at nuclear weapons tests. Peter Stefanovic, lawyer and founder of the Campaign for Social Justice, has compiled clips of Defence Secretary John Healey, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard while in Opposition, all calling for the Tories to set up compensation schemes for the veterans. In just six weeks it has been viewed by 3 million people - more than watch the 10 o'clock news on either BBC or ITN. * You can support the veterans' fight for justice HERE "That doesn't happen unless the public get behind something. It illustrates to the government that public consciousness and outrage continues to grow," said Mr Stefanovic. "We are hitting the public and the government in the face with this every day. Something has to give." Lawyers acting for the veterans have threatened to launch a £5bn lawsuit for the missing medical records, unless the government accepts a cheaper offer of a one-year special tribunal, with capped costs, to investigate the cover-up. And police are assessing a criminal complaint of misconduct in public office, linked to a secret database with information about blood and urine testing of troops, unlawfully locked behind national security at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. After the Mirror forced some of the files open, the entire archive is due to be declassified. Now veteran Dave Whyte - who has been ruled "vexatious"| by the Ministry of Defence over a long Freedom of Information battle aimed at discovering his radiation dose after he was sent into Ground Zero at Operation Grapple in 1958 - has discovered a huge bundle of his personal medical records have gone missing. After more than a decade and campaign group LABRATS raising his case with the Veterans Minister Al Carns, Dave, 88, of Kirkcaldy, Fife, has been sent his medical notes from his 10 years in service. It contains just 13 sheets of paper, some of them duplicates. His 10 years of annual medical examinations are missing, along with 12 sets of clinical notes and 8 records of visiting the medic. The papers show two blood tests and a chest x-ray were administered for no clinical reason, but only one set of test results is in his file. And the results of a gland biopsy, conducted two years after the nuclear tests when his lymph nodes swelled up and doctors decided he had a blood disorder, are also missing. Dave said: "I've asked again about my records from the decontamination centre I was sent to, and have been informed that I am still barred from asking FOIs. It is 14 years since I have been banned, convicted murderers serve less time." The Mirror's evidence of the Nuked Blood scandal featured in a BBC documentary last year, called Britain's Nuclear Bomb Scandal: Our Story, and in a Newsnight special report last week.
BBC News
8 hours ago
- BBC News
Welfare reforms U-turn means we're in 'better position'
Major concessions have put the government in a "better position" to pass welfare reforms, the health secretary said, as he admitted Labour's leadership mishandled the rollout of its flagship Streeting said Labour MPs had raised "substantial" concerns about planned welfare cuts, and the government strengthen its plans as a week, the prime minister was forced into a dramatic U-turn to avoid a House of Commons defeat after more than 120 Labour backbenchers threatened to vote down his plans."We are in a much better position this week than last week," Streeting told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, and promised that the government would "learn" from the narrowly avoided rebellion. Streeting said the government had shifted "not just the package but also the approach" following criticism that the original proposals risked undermining support for disabled week, the government faced a growing rebellion from Labour MPs who warned the planned welfare cuts, aimed at saving £5bn annually, were rushed and would hurt vulnerable government's initial plans, aimed at bringing down the welfare bill, would have made it harder for people to claim personal independence payment (Pip), a benefit paid to 3.7 million people with long-term physical or mental health backlash culminated in a late-night announcement of major concessions to the rebel MPs - including limiting Pip cuts to only new reversed its plans to freeze the health-related component of universal credit, and the payment will now rise in line with inflation for existing government also announced plans for a review of the Pip assessment to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms and "co-produced" with disabled Haigh, one of the leading rebel MPs, told the BBC she now planned to support the bill following the government's changes. Speaking on the same programme, Haigh, the Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley, said her fellow rebel MPs are "really pleased that the government has now listened to those concerns and they've made a significant number of concessions".Subject to seeing the final detail of the changes, she said: "I will be supporting the government on Tuesday in recognition that they have made significant progress and that they have protected the incomes of nearly 400,000 disabled people across the country."Rebels have told the BBC their colleagues are happy with the concessions - meaning the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill will not be blocked in a vote on Tuesday, although some Labour MPs have said they will still vote against the episode has raised questions about the prime minister's political strategy and ability to manage internal the weekend, Sir Keir Starmer gave an interview with the Sunday Times to defend his handling of the row, pointing out he was abroad attending a Nato conference during the height of the Sunday, Streeting defended the government's intentions, saying the reforms were necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the welfare system. "No one will thank us if we carry on with the status quo," he said. "Unless you reform this system, I genuinely fear it will not be there for anyone in the future."Streeting did not rule out future changes to welfare following the Timms review. Asked if there could be further concessions on personal independence payments, he said "we have got to listen".His comments came after Sir Keir claimed "fixing" the welfare system is a "moral imperative".The prime minister told the Welsh Labour Party conference in Llandudno on Saturday that the government would not take away the welfare "safety net that vulnerable people rely on".But he said he could not let benefits "become a snare for those who can and want to work". Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
The Guardian
14 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘They didn't think we'd have the guts': How Labour rebels forced the government's welfare U-turn
The Conservative shadow cabinet minister looked more cheerful than at any point in the 12 months since the general election. 'How did they get into such a mess?', they asked. 'What are they going to do?' The answer was revealed a couple of days laterwhen Keir Starmer and his ministers made a series of emergency concessions on their flagship welfare reform programme, to prevent the otherwise far-greater ignominy of the programme being voted down in the House of Commons. U-turns of various sorts are an inevitability in government; the skill lies in how elegantly you can perform them. And this week's eventual cave-in to backbench Labour pressure – formally announced by a Downing Street statement after midnight on Thursday – was very, very messy indeed. To return to the shadow minister's gleeful query, how did it end up like this? The narrative will depend on who you ask. But a common thread, even among some in No 10, is the idea of a government worryingly disconnected from its own MPs. From the moment in March that Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, first set out consultative proposals to overhaul welfare payments, it was evident that a large number of backbenchers had worries about elements of the plan. Notably, the green paper set out a significant tightening of the eligibility for personal independence payments (Pips), which help those with long-term illness or disability, causing concern not only among MPs but also numerous charities. But armed with a 150-plus Commons majority – and what felt to some MPs like an almost messianic insistence on turning around an increasingly unaffordable social security system – Downing Street ploughed on. 'This has happened because of an arrogance from the top,' one veteran Labour MP said. 'On the day of the green paper, the whips were saying they thought a maximum of 10 people would actually rebel. They were laughing at us. 'They didn't think anyone would have the guts from the new intake. But they [new Labour MPs] have been doing their own organising.' As it turned out, there was a lot of organising, from all sides of the parliamentary party. With Starmer largely preoccupied with other subjects – including the G7 summit in Canada and a change of course over a national inquiry into grooming gangs – MPs were taking action. The crunch point arrived on Monday with the publication of an amendment intended to kill off the welfare bill at its second reading in the Commons on 1 July. Initially signed by 108 Labour MPs, it soon had the backing of more than 120. These were not the perennial malcontents primarily from the Labour left – the 'maximum of 10' so dismissively summed up by the party whip. Signatories included a string of senior backbenchers who chair select committees, and numerous 2024-intake MPs. How did dozens of hand-picked, newly arrived backbenchers, once thought so loyal they were dubbed 'Starmtroopers', find themselves within a year on the brink of a rebellion that could have defeated the government? For many, the problem dates back to the very early days of the parliament and a kind of vicious discipline that resulted in seven MPs being suspended from the Labour party over a vote on the two-child benefit cap. Three of those MPs remain exiled today. Even loyal MPs were under orders never to submit amendments – or to make their views known publicly on any subject. 'It was like student politics,' said one. 'Keep your mouth shut and maybe we'll let you on the entertainment committee.' 'Arrogant' is the word MPs are using most of all. It was the blithe assumption by whips and No 10 that any rebellion would fold that sent many over the edge. 'They tried to treat the PLP [parliamentary Labour party] like naughty children,' one MP said. 'They all did what they were meant to do and raised the issue privately, and then got totally ignored.' Another repeated charge within the party is that even when its hierarchy did recognise the disquiet, the response tended to be either complacency or high-handed, bungling menaces. MPs described outreach to them as having been limited to presentations and charts showing the growing size of the welfare budget and increases in numbers going on Pip. 'We asked to see the prime minister or the chancellor and we got a presentation from officials,' one said. 'They were very, very dismissive.' MPs say they received a litany of threats, including the possibility of a general election. Those on the right of the party were warned their actions could bring about a leadership challenge that would be won by Angela Rayner. The same threat was made to those on the left, but with Wes Streeting as the looming spectre. Others say they have received veiled threats of deselection, or that their funding for the next general election would be decided on the basis of whether or not they toed the line. One party official allegedly rang a rebellious MP's husband in order to get her to back down. 'I don't even think some of this is sanctioned by No 10,' one MP said. 'Until Wednesday they had their fingers in their ears. But those who are responsible for party management have been absolutely losing it.' After the implications of Monday's amendment became clear, outreach efforts finally began. Even Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, made a rare appearance on the Commons terrace on Wednesday evening to try to persuade MPs over a glass of rosé. 'She doesn't want to be £5bn out of pocket,' one MP said. Yet the number of rebels continued to grow, and No 10 finally bowed to the inevitable. On Thursday morning, the prime minister used a Commons statement ostensibly about international affairs to promise a welfare rethink. Until that point, Starmer had seemed oddly detached from the issue, surfacing intermittently at summits to bat away questions about the revolt – or 'noises off' as he termed it – as a distraction from the vital task of transforming welfare. Some MPs view this as indicative of a prime minister more than usually disconnected from the everyday grid of parliamentary business, as illustrated by the statistic that since winning the election he has voted in the Commons just seven times. A few have begun to openly speculate about what the situation means for Starmer's leadership. 'It is very bad for Keir. It is one in four of his MPs [that intended to rebel]. He is toast,' one MP said. A lot of the ire, however, has been directed at Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff, and what one rebel called the 'overexcitable boys' in the PM's team. Inside No 10, there had been a determination to force through the reforms in part because of internal polling and focus groups that suggest the public backs the reforms when the context is explained – even wanting them to go further. One adviser, a close ally of the prime minister, said they had been so determined the vote had to go ahead – concessions or not – because the symbolism of being able to get the government's agenda through the Commons was so important. 'This is a fairly moderate reform,' the adviser said. 'If the government cannot make this modest saving – in a change that will not affect nine out of 10 people already on the benefit – then how can we pursue the political programme we need, to make the tough decisions the country needs us to take? It's impossible.' Other advisers are furious about the situation they have found themselves in. 'It's absolutely outrageous these people are prepared to throw away a historic majority because people were a bit mean to them on Twitter,' said one. Another said: 'Just wait and see what happens if they depose Morgan. It is over, then. Finito. Then we might as well hand the keys to Farage.' But other advisers in government say they can see how No 10 has played it wrong. One called it 'a staggering failure of political management from the people who supposedly had an iron grip on the PLP'. For many Labour MPs, however, it is about nothing more complicated than a government machine that forgot how to listen. 'Everything the government is now realising is something MPs have been saying for months,' one MP said. 'The fact that you cannot defend these cuts on the basis they will get people into work. The fact that you cannot guarantee the most disabled people won't be worse off. 'MPs are not idiots. We deserve to be listened to. We anticipated this failure. They are in this mess now because they were too arrogant to listen.'
