Islamophobia
Policy Exchange Insider Labour MP Who Attacked Islamophobia Definition Privately Told Baroness Warsi Think Tank is ‘Dangerous’
A senior Labour MP and co-author of a new Policy Exchange report attacking attempts to define Islamophobia privately told former Conservative Cabinet Minister Baroness Sayeeda Warsi that the Conservative think tank is a "dangerous" outfit with extremist tendencies that he is trying to "temper" with his presence.
The conversation between Baroness Warsi and Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, came to light in leaked WhatsApp messages seen exclusively by Byline Times.
Mahmood is currently a senior fellow at Policy Exchange. According to the parliamentary register of interests, he received regular payments from the think tank between April 2019 and March 2022, totalling more than £50,000.
His private criticisms of Policy Exchange cohere with previous reports by Byline Times revealing the connections of multiple staffers with far-right anti-Muslim and antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Several Policy Exchange fellows, including the co-authors of the new Islamophobia report, are linked to a supporter of the so-called ‘Great Replacement’ theory which has inspired several far-right terrorist attacks, including in Christchurch and Texas.
The think tank’s current head of security once described “Zionists” as “the enemy” alongside all the mainstream political parties.
Michael Gove, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, gives a speech at a Policy Exchange event. Photo: Tommy London /Alamy
Policy Exchange
The messages seen by Byline Times were sent to a WhatsApp group of senior cross-party Muslim politicians in the UK. They contain a series of heated exchanges between Mahmood and Baroness Warsi, a former Conservative Party chair.
The private messages were prompted by Mahmood’s co-authorship of a new report published by Policy Exchange – 'A definition of Islamophobia? Old Problems Remain, As New Problems Emerge’ – which states that Islamophobia is being weaponised to silence free speech.
In a foreword to the report, former Home Secretary Sajid Javid equates a working definition of Islamophobia created by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims with “blasphemy law by the backdoor” that would also potentially undermine counter-extremism work.
This was denied in 2019 by Labour MP Wes Streeting as Co-Chair of the APPG on British Muslims. At the time, both the then Chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council to Number 10, Martin Hewitt, and then Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, the Metropolitan Police’s Head of Counter-Terrorism Policing, said that they believed basic refinements of the APPG definition would be sufficient.
In the WhatsApp exchanges, Mahmood told Baroness Warsi multiple times that, if he had not joined Policy Exchange – one of the most influential lobbying groups around the UK Government – it would be a far worse organisation.
He claimed that he only joined the right-wing think tank to “keep an eye” on it from within, due to its “dangerous” nature.
Keeping an Eye
In the messages, Mahmood vigorously disputes Baroness Warsi’s criticisms of his role in the Policy Exchange report. Baroness Warsi complains that Mahmood had not raised his concerns directly with the APPG on British Muslims despite several invitations to do so. Mahmood rejects this criticism.
“At least twice I have personally asked you to engage and you did not take up the open invite offered to all parliamentarians to submit evidence,” the peer writes in one message.
“And when I have addressed specific issues you’ve given me some wierd [sic] answer about how you working with PX [Policy Exchange] is in the best interests of the community because they (PX) would be far worse without you tempering/keeping an eye on them.”
In his responses to Baroness Warsi, Mahmood does not deny this conversation.
Instead, he writes: “I respect you have your opinions with PX's report. Although moving forward, I am looking to having a more meaningful conversation with you.”
In a further message, Baroness Warsi writes: “I saw you a few weeks ago at the Big Iftaar and I spoke about this very issue. You didn’t ask for a discussion nor give any indication that you were interested in working collaboratively.”
She also writes that she was told “PX would be far worse without you being there and you needed to be on the inside. You gave the clear impression PX were dangerous and they [sic] you were keeping an eye on them – at no point did you defend PX”.
Neither Baroness Sayeeda Warsi nor Khalid Mahmood responded to Byline Times’ requests for comment.
Although Mahmood's private characterisation of Policy Exchange as “dangerous” is at odds with his public stance, it is an accurate description of the think tank’s affiliations.
'Great Replacement’ Ties
Two of Mahmood’s co-authors of the new Policy Exchange report – Sir John Jenkins and Dr Martyn Frampton – have worked closely with Dr Lorenzo Vidino, a ‘white genocide’ believer who once worked for the same far-right conspiracy theorist whom former Prime Minister David Cameron called an “idiot” for describing Birmingham as a Muslim "no-go zone".
Dr Frampton also collaborated with Dr Vidino on a major anthology about the Muslim Brotherhood published in 2013, to which he was a contributor.
Former UK diplomat Sir John Jenkins spoke alongside Dr Vidino at a 2017 event hosted by him at George Washington University, where he heads up the programme on extremism. Dr Vidino was previously commissioned by Sir John to produce a paper and consultative briefing for the UK Government review of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Dr Frampton was also hosted by Dr Vidino in 2018 at George Washington University to speak about his own book on the Muslim Brotherhood.
As Byline Times has previously revealed, Dr Vidino is on record advocating the far-right Great Replacement theory – an ethno-nationalist theory warning that an indigenous (white) European population is being replaced by non-European immigrants through a programme of reverse-colonisation, according to the Counter Extremism Project.
In 2005, when asked if Europeans were witnessing “the end of Europe” by FrontPage magazine (the far-right publication of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black activist David Horowitz), he said: “Europe as we knew it 30 years ago is long gone. Demography doesn’t lie: in a couple of decades non-ethnic Europeans will represent the majority of the population in many European cities and a large percentage of them will be Muslim.”
According to Georgetown University’s Bridge Initiative, Dr Vidino is well-known for promoting “conspiracy theories about the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe and the United States” and “is connected to numerous anti-Muslim think tanks in the United States and Europe, and has published in various anti-Muslim outlets”.
From 2002 to 2005, Dr Vidino was a senior analyst at Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism, identified by the Centre for American Progress (CAP) as a top player in a global anti-Muslim “misinformation” network “orchestrating the majority of misinformation about Islam and Muslims in America today”.
Emerson played a leading role in establishing the Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theory through cherry-picking and misrepresentations of key documents. According to CAP’s online database of anti-Muslim hate groups, he has a reputation “for fabricating evidence to substantiate his ravings about Muslim extremism”.
In 2015, Emerson was notoriously ridiculed by then Prime Minister David Cameron as “a complete idiot” for calling Birmingham a Muslim-controlled "no-go zone".
Byline Times also previously revealed that in 2010 Policy Exchange’s head of security and extremism, Dr Paul Stott, described “Zionists” as “the enemy” alongside Islamists, “Neo-Conservatives, New Labour [and] the Con-Dems”.
In 2021, Dr Stott was commissioned by the Sweden Democrats, a neo-Nazi political party boycotted by Israeli Government officials due to its antisemitic tendencies, to produce a report claiming the existence of a conspiratorial alliance between the Muslim Brotherhood and European political leaders.
These extremist affiliations fundamentally discredit the integrity of Policy Exchange’s research on Islamophobia and Muslim communities.
Policy Exchange did not respond to requests for comment.
‘Keir Starmer’s Condemnation of “Terror” in Gaza is a Step Forward — But Just the Beginning’
During the past 20 years, I've reported many times on the violence and prejudice Palestinians have faced as a result of Israeli occupation. And in 2014, for revealing the role of Gaza's gas in Israel's military assaults my contract at The Guardian was terminated.
It's in that context that I believe Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer's recent statements calling for an immediate end to Israeli violence that is killing "innocent Palestinians" represent an important shift. Given that he is likely to be the next British prime minister, the imperative is to leverage this development and hold Labour to it.
Starmer told an audience in London last week that he condemned the “fear and terror” experienced by starving Muslims in Gaza in what was his strongest language yet about the conflict.
Speaking at an Iftar last Thursday hosted by the Concordia Forum, a trans-Atlantic network of Muslim leaders, Starmer explicitly criticised Israel’s policy of forced starvation in Gaza, recognising “those around the world whose fast is not through choice, but through force.” He added: “We know there are Muslims in Gaza who will be mourning rather than enjoying this month. Families who will not have food around the table this evening. The sound of fear and terror rather than laughter and singing. Empty spaces around the table where their loved ones once sat.”
Starmer also demanded a total cessation of violence in Gaza, including an immediate ceasefire and a “permanent end to the fighting.” In addition to demanding that Israeli hostages are returned to their families, he also urged “an end to the killing of innocent Palestinians. No equivocation – that must happen now".
Starmer also said that the planned Israeli military incursion into Rafah must be blocked, while international aid going into Gaza is resumed: “It is absolutely imperative now that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza rapidly, without disruption or blockade. And any offensive into Rafah cannot be allowed to happen.”
Starmer emphasised British Muslims’ positive contributions to UK society and the economy, pointing out that “for generations, Muslims have made Britain a better place. A massive contribution to our social fabric: from our NHS to schools, charities to business.”
He also directly addressed the rising trend in anti-Muslim hatred. Paying tribute to the British Muslim community, Starmer articulated the Labour Party’s zero-tolerance commitment: “I know many people will also be concerned about the sickening rise in Islamophobia we have seen in our country. So let me be clear. A Labour government will never turn a blind eye to that prejudice.”
Commenting on the importance of Ramadan, the Labour leader gave thanks for “the solidarity, community and clarity” of this holy month and for the “generosity of Muslims during Ramadan” which “reminds me of the hugely powerful teachings that the Muslim community invites the world to see during this special time.”
‘A Seismic Shift’
Starmer’s language at the Concordia event which I attended as part of the organising team represents a seismic shift in the Labour Party’s approach both to the Middle East conflict and to questions around anti-Muslim prejudice in Britain.
Many will see this shift as too little, too late. They are right. More than 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, while 2.2 million Gazans are facing severe food shortages with over a million experiencing “catastrophic hunger”.
This shift, however, did not come out of the blue - but has been the result of concerted efforts behind the scenes by civil society leaders.
Starmer’s statements demonstrate that Israel has now become increasingly isolated from some of its closest international allies, with the political spectrum across the UK attempting to disassociate from Israel’s current policy.
With a Labour government seen as all but inevitable this year by most political commentators, the challenge for civil society and British Muslim communities is simple. Comprehensive disengagement from Labour, as some activist campaigns within parts of the Muslim communities have demanded, will not help Palestinians but instead guarantee the total retraction of Muslim voters from any semblance of meaningful UK political influence. That would leave a vacuum in government which emboldens potentially dangerous and destructive policies.
The only viable alternative, in my view, is for British Muslim communities to ensure through strategic lines of engagement that the leaders of the incoming government are incentivised to listen to British public opinion, which overwhelmingly is supportive of an end to Israeli’s onslaught in Gaza, as well as the restoration of Palestinian rights and statehood based on international law.
Exclusive: whistleblower accuses Labour W Mids PCC of refusing to act on abuse allegations
No response from Simon Foster’s press office to Elaina Cohen’s allegations – also covered up by Keir Starmer
A former MP’s staffer who blew the whistle on alleged abuse of Muslim domestic violence victims has accused West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Simon Foster of ‘refus[ing] to investigate’ the failure of the force’s then-Chief Constable to act on evidence of the abuse – and that Foster and the current Chief Constable ‘disregarding’ further allegations, from a separate source, about the same alleged perpetrator.
Elaina Cohen, who used to work for Birmingham MP Khalid Mahmood and took him successfully to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal when she lost her job after making protected disclosures about the abuse, first made the allegations against Foster during submissions to the tribunal, which Skwawkbox attended on behalf of its readers. Evidence given under oath to the tribunal by one of the victims of the ‘sadistic’ abuse, threats and blackmail she suffered was not disputed by Mahmood or his legal team.
And in an email today to Wolverhampton South East MP Pat McFadden, a Keir Starmer front-bencher, seen by Skwawkbox, Cohen wrote that:
Evidence already in the public domain shows Simon Foster has steadfastly refused to investigate why former West Midlands Chief Constable Thompson abandoned multiple victims when presented with evidenced abuse perpetrated by a Labour member working in a parliamentary office of a Labour MP.
An email from [Tory West Midlands Mayor] Andy Street states when he has the authority of a PCC he will seek justice for these women…
…an opposition party councillor has made representation to Simon Foster and Chief Constable Guildford with further allegations about the same perpetrator and was also disregarded.
I believe this information questions Simon Foster’s suitability to be a candidate.
Skwawkbox contacted Mr Foster’s press office for contact this morning, but received only an automated acknowledgement in reply.
Labour leader Keir Starmer and his general secretary David Evans also covered up the abuse, taking no action despite repeated warnings and appeals from Ms Cohen. They also did not act on Ms Cohen’s complaints of the antisemitism she suffered – or on complaints from Muslim women councillors in Birmingham about bullying, misogyny and threats at the hands of local party right-wingers.
Despite this appalling record, Starmer has continued to boast that he will be a ‘champion’ for victims of domestic abuse. Simon Foster has also promised to act to protect women:
Foster, who is standing for re-election, has just won a legal battle to prevent his PCC role being absorbed by Tory metro mayor Andy Street, but Elaina Cohen told Skwawkbox of her dissatisfaction with both Foster and his party boss:
I remain disappointed that Sir Keir Starmer refuses to acknowledge or act upon my protected disclosures and whilst I would support an independent office of a PCC I would question political appointments based on my own experience. In my opinion the cover-up of criminal abuse of vulnerable women is just as abhorrent as racism as a candidate issue.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Michael Gove: The Extremist
The UK Government’s new definition of extremism is out. And its purpose, according to Communities Secretary Michael Gove is to “ensure that government does not inadvertently provide a platform to those setting out to subvert democracy and deny other people's fundamental rights.” Unfortunately, he has failed in this endeavour because by the Government’s own new definition, Michael Gove is an extremist.
The new definition, released on Thursday, describes extremism as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance” that aims to “negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”, or “undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”. It also includes those who “intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve” these aims.
Racism is Funny
Gove’s track record of extremism is, in fact, astonishing by any standard and started when he was a young man. As president-elect of the Oxford University debating society in 1987, Gove used the racist term “fuzzy wuzzies” to describe black people, arguing that the British empire was “moral” because the “fuzzy wuzzies couldn’t look after themselves.”
In 1993, while a journalist for BBC television, he used homophobic and sexist language at Cambridge University debates, including describing economist John Maynard Keynes as a “homosexualist” because “homosexuals thrive primarily on short-term relations”, and made a sexist joke about the then head of the Cambridge Union Lucy Frazer for doing “remarkably well coming as she has done from the back streets of the slums of Leeds”’.
We don’t know what Gove’s excuse for all this is because he’s refused to comment, let alone apologise. Instead, the BBC noted that a “source” close to him said that Gove made the statements "in jest" (i.e. he basically thought they were funny), but that they were not his actual views. Oh, that's ok then.
So we know that Michael Gove inhabits an alternative reality in which making jokes about people’s race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality is all fine and dandy. This perhaps explains his defence of Tory donor Frank Hester’s ‘joke’ that Diane Abbott, the longest serving Black MP, “should be shot” and makes him “want to hate all Black women”. Although Downing Street belatedly conceded that Hester’s comments were “racist and wrong”, Gove insisted that he would exercise “Christian forgiveness” over the remarks – and the Conservative Party has no intention of handing back the £10 million.
At least Hester did indeed apologise – which is more than can be said for Gove over his own racist, sexist and homophobic remarks. No wonder, then, that when confronted in Parliament over GB News co-owner and Tory donor Sir Paul Marshall liking and retweeting far-right, racist and homophobic content (including a tweet calling for a race war in Britain between Muslims and non-Muslims), Gove defended him as "a distinguished philanthropist".
Eugenics and Education
But Michael Gove’s fascination with extremist ideologies tied to racism resurfaced in 2013 when he was Education Secretary. A 237-page private thesis drafted up for Gove by his then-special advisor, Dominic Cummings, was leaked to the press. The document claimed that a child’s educational performance has more to do with their genetic make-up rather than educational standards, and called for giving “specialist education as per Eton” to “the top 2% in IQ”.
As author of Human Genetic Engineering Pete Shanks observed, the Gove paper promoted “the blatantly eugenic association of genes with intelligence, intelligence with worth, and worth with the right to rule”.
But the bulk of the ‘science’ cited in the Gove paper came from controversial scientists affiliated with scientific racism and eugenics, some of whose work came from research funded by the Pioneer Fund, a Nazi foundation set-up in 1937 – and classified as a hate group by the civil rights law firm Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
Pro-eugenics scientists cited by the Gove paper include Charles Murray, Stephen Hsu and Robert Plomin. Murray is the author of The Bell Curve, which claims that Black people are intellectually inferior to white people due to genetics and environmental causes. He’s also identified as a “white nationalist” who uses “racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics” by the SPLC. Plomin is an avid defender of Murray’s work, and has spoken and published with the racist American Eugenics Society, and addressed the racist British Eugenics Society. Hsu has promoted eugenic breeding schemes using embryo selection to improve the overall IQ of the population.
The Cummings dossier further revealed that under Gove’s leadership, Plomin was invited into the Department for Education to “explain the science of IQ and genetics to officials and ministers”.
Racist and Anti-Muslim think-tank
Gove was also closely involved since inception with the Henry Jackson Society, as a signatory to its founding statement when launched in 2005. HJS would later be described as a racist, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant organisation by two former directors, Marko Attila Hoare and Matthew Jamison.
In 2017, Gove joined HJS as a director. That was an interesting year for HJS – it was the year two other HJS directors, Douglas Murray and Alan Mendoza, spoke at the annual Restoration Weekend organised by the David Horowitz Freedom Centre.
Held the year after Donald Trump’s election, the 2017 Restoration Weekend was a key celebration of the success of ‘Alt-Right’ nationalists who had risen to power thanks to the election of Donald Trump.
The Restoration Weekend is hosted by David Horowitz, who spent years mentoring President Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller, regarded as the driving force behind his administration’s “racist” policies – including the legal architecture of the ‘Muslim ban’. Horowitz himself has been described as “a driving force” of the “anti-black movement” by the SPLC. Just a week before the event attended by the HJS, Horowitz declared that “the country’s only serious race war” is “against whites”.
The Restoration Weekend was a veritable Who’s Who of US white nationalism, attended by the likes of antisemitic Holocaust denier Gavin McInnes, founder of the violent Proud Boys designated as an extremist group by the FBI; notorious far-right commentator Katie Hopkins; and Sebastian Gorka, who co-founded a far-right Hungarian political party with known antisemites. Other speakers included key figures in US white nationalism such as Ann Coulter, Robert Spencer, Steve Bannon, and Milo Yiannopoulos.
At the event, Douglas Murray delivered an astonishing racist speech characterising Europe’s ethnic minorities as fundamentally “different people” who have simply “walked into that continent”. He singled out Indian and Sudanese immigrants, noting that while an Indian migrant might “vim up the local cuisine”, a wider range of cuisines in Europe would be offset by “more gang-rape and beheading.”
Murray, a longtime associate of Gove and one of his ardent defenders, is a populariser of the far-right Great Replacement conspiracy theory – the idea that Muslim immigration is endangering and replacing white populations in Europe as part of an Islamist plot.
In 2013, he complained about “white Britons” being “abolished” due to too many ethnic minorities in London. He’d previously endorsed a ban on immigration from Muslim countries and, three months before the Trump campaign announced its ‘Muslim ban’, told anti-Muslim extremist Frank Gaffney (the man cited by the Trump team to justify the policy) that such a measure could be the solution to the Muslim “demographic time-bomb”.
Most recently, Murray has suggested “we might need to send in the army” to control pro-Palestinian protestors in London – and if that doesn’t work, that the “British public” might have to take matters into its own hands: a veiled incitement to vigilante violence.
In May 2017, while Gove was a director, the HJS executive director Alan Mendoza invited the host David Horowitz onto his YouTube television show to discuss extremism on college campuses. He claimed that all American Muslim student groups are “terrorist front groups” orchestrated and funded by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Mendoza nodded as he listened to Horowitz’s claims, even though they have been debunked as anti-Muslim conspiracy theory.
An Orwellian Move
This is just the tip of the iceberg but it makes absolutely clear that Gove has built his career by climbing the ladder of escalating extremism. In this context, Gove’s new ‘war’ on extremism is not just absurd: it is dangerously Orwellian.
Gove thinks racist jokes are funny, has elevated scientific racism within the Department for Education, and worked with an organisation – the Henry Jackson Society – which for years has acted as a transmission belt amplifying mainstream far-right white nationalist ideas into the centre-right of UK policymaking.
Who, then, is really using the platform of Government to subvert Britain’s liberal democracy by advancing ideas rooted in ideologies based on hatred, intolerance and indeed violence, with a view to “negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms” of minorities? It’s Michael Gove. If the Government were to actually act meaningfully on its own definition, not only Gove, but numerous organisations he and the Government have worked with and patronised would fall under its hammer.
That Gove will not allow this to happen illustrates what this Government is trying to rush through before elections later this year: the architecture of a new far-right authoritarian politics that will erode democratic accountability, expand the ideological reach of the state, elevate white nationalist and anti-Muslim ideologies, while restricting the scope for reform long after this government collapses.
Politicising Dissent: Michael Gove’s New Extremist Definition is ‘an Attack on Civil Liberties’
The new definition of extremism announced by the Communities Secretary Michael Gove today is a blatant attack on civil liberties and free speech.
We believe this new definition is a highly politicised and undemocratic polemic aimed at trying to exclude and ostracise peaceful and law-abiding Muslim organisations that have been critical of the government from having a voice. Labelling a group that is critical of Government policy as ‘extremist’ is a lazy and convenient way of avoiding dialogue. It is a tactic more suited to authoritarian repressive regimes stifling dissent rather than a pluralistic Western democracy silencing those exposing UK Government complicity in the Gaza ‘plausible genocide’ as designated by the International Court of Justice.
The new definition is ;
Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
Under (1) none of the aforementioned organisations have sought to negate the rights or freedoms of others, and we await to see the evidence upon which any of our organisations would meet this part of the definition. Indeed given the focus in the Government Press Release on “Islamist extremists” in Muslim communities, we expect that this part of the definition will be used to label Muslim groups exercising their democratic right to legitimate criticism and dissent as ‘promoting hatred’ and thus impacting on the freedoms of other groups.
Under (2), again none of the aforementioned organisations are seeking to replace the “UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy”. We note the manner in which the definition has been introduced, deliberately avoiding any parliamentary scrutiny debate or criticism, is itself undermining our Parliamentary democracy.
Under (3) it is clear that the context for this new ‘anti-extremism’ drive emanates from the Government’s perspective from recent rises in antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate.
Moreover, we have to consider whether the Government’s own track record of ‘extremist’ policies has created this ‘permissive environment’ where hate crime is flourishing.
The Government has a long history of racist and Islamophobic policies including the Windrush Scandal, the ‘hostile environment’ and the discredited Prevent Strategy. More recently senior Conservative MPs have made blatantly racist and Islamophobic comments. The former Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson stated that ‘Islamists’ had ‘got control’ of the London Mayor Sadiq Khan. Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman said “the truth is that the Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge now."
The former Prime Minister, Liz Truss spoke at a right-wing conference in the US and said “there’s going to be by-election in the next few weeks, and it could be a radical Islamic party win in that by-election. So that is a possibility.” It thus appears that such comments by senior Conservative MPs are driven by a hatred or intolerance of people from the Muslim community, and thus would fall foul of this definition.
Gove himself has a long track record of Islamophobic views and associations. He is a founding member of the Henry Jackson Society which is neo-Conservative think tank that has promoted an anti-Muslim agenda over many years. Despite having no expertise in Islam, Islamic theology or history he authored a book called Celsius 7/7 published in 2006 in which he highlighted the threat of “Islamism” in Britain.
He led the government’s role in ‘The Trojan Horse’ affair. This falsely accused a number of schools in Birmingham of an ‘Islamist takeover’ on the back of a fake letter , perpetuating Islamophobic tropes of Muslims being a ‘fifth column’ and a threat to British democracy. Subsequent inquiries found no evidence of radicalisation in these schools. Given his own ‘extremist’ credentials, for him to be lecturing others as to who is or is not an extremist is an example of rank hypocrisy, and there would appear to be a persuasive argument that he is also an extremist on his own definition!
The Government’s proposals have been criticised by the Archbishop of Canterbury and remarkably also by three former Conservative Home Secretaries warning him that “no political party uses the issue to seek short term tactical advantage.” This indicates that Michael Gove’s policies appear to be ‘extremist ‘even within his own party.
Gove stated in the commons that “Islamism is a totalitarian ideology which seeks to divide, calls for the establishment of an Islamic state governed by sharia law and seeks the overthrow of liberal democratic principles”, and added “Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, which is the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups such as CAGE and MEND, all give rise to concern for their Islamist orientation and views.”
We challenge him to provide the evidence to back up his view that the organisations above have called for the establishment of an ‘Islamic state governed by sharia law’. Of course, he has made these comments under the cover of parliamentary privilege and we call upon him to repeat these claims outside of that, if that is what he truly believes.
In a General Election year, and noting their dismal opinion poll ratings, it is clear that Gove and the Conservative party want to demonstrate their ‘anti-Muslim’ credentials to head off mass defections to the Reform Party and appeal to a far-right electorate. Defining extremism requires a calm, measured and cross-party approach and should not be used as a political football to target marginalised groups.
Racist Labour uses Tory racism against Abbott (to whom they’re also racist) to raise money
Starmer’s repulsive party has no shame or morals and is taking members for fools
Keir Starmer’s Labour party – that gives impunity to just about every type of racism rampant among the Labour right – is using a Tory donor’s racism against Diane Abbott, Britain’s first Black woman MP, to try to milk cash from gullible members.
In an email to members, Starmer criticises the blue-Tory version of the anti-Abbott racism as an excuse to beg for donations:
Starmer’s letter was dishonest as well as shameless – his party fawns over billionaires for their donations
The email does not mention that Ms Abbott is suspended from the Labour party for fighting anti-Black racism, which Labour disregards under Starmer who, in today’s PMQs, brazenly tried to score political points against the Tories for their racism toward Abbott.
While Starmer and a string of white MPs discussed racism toward Diane Abbott, Starmer’s pet Speaker Lindsay Hoyle prevented Ms Abbott getting a word in, ensuring that she was unable to point out the abuse of Starmer’s front bench toward her or the foul racism exposed by the leaked Labour report and barrister Martin Forde’s inquiry into it, which Starmer continues to ignore despite commissioning it.
The red-Tory version of racism is a non-issue to Keir Starmer, who has presided over wholesale deselection of Black candidates, suspended and sacked Black and Brown MPs like it’s going out of fashion – and has driven yet more to resign in disgust:
Some of the Black and Brown MPs sacked or driven out by the Starmer regime
While Starmer’s party drones protect racist councillors and functionaries, Starmer himself welcomes racist MPs back into the party – including one with an extra side of sexual harassment – with impunity and promoted Wes Streeting, whose ‘disgusting’ and ‘disgraceful’ rant in Ms Abbott’s face left her ‘shell-shocked’.
And he and his Shadow Cabinet did not even bother to contact Abbott when the news of Tory donor Frank Hester’s disgusting racism and threatening words toward her broke – but that did not (of course) prevent him using the situation to try (not very competently) to score points.
Labour is a racist and opportunist cesspit under the rule of its hard-right faction.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Video: Lab women’s spokesperson Dodds admits she/Starmer hadn’t contacted Abbott
Anneliese Dodds stammers when asked whether any Shadow Cabinet members had been in touch with Britain’s first Black woman MP, before admitting nobody had
Anneliese Dodds, Labour’s ‘Women and equalities’ spokeswoman, stammered and dodged her way through an interview on Sky News this morning, ultimately admitting that neither she, Keir Starmer, nor anyone else in Starmer’s shadow cabinet – nor apparently the party’s whips – had bothered to get in touch with Diane Abbott.
Ms Abbott, Britain’s first Black woman MP, has been in the headlines after racist and violent comments from the Tories’ biggest ever donor and has spoken publicly about how vulnerable she has felt as a result.
Dodds tried to excuse the lack of contact by claiming no phones are allowed in shadow cabinet meetings and then she had hurried to the Sky studio – as if mobile phones don’t work on the way to TV interviews. She also said that she wasn’t in charge of Starmer’s diary so couldn’t say when he would be in touch and could only say the party’s ‘whips’, who she said are responsible for MPs’ welfare, had been in contact with Abbott ‘for several months’, not since the news of the donor’s racist comments broke:
The interview sparked disgust among many who saw it:
Diane Abbott suffered racist abuse from Labour MPs regularly.. she gets abuse on here regularly, they are liars, bigotts and Annalieze Dodds should remember the WWW retains the information. she has suffered more racial abuse than anyone else https://t.co/JfuDhg9Oby they forget… https://t.co/ZFEjy5ozn5
— Isobel_Waby we NEED a COALITION (@Isobel_waby) March 12, 2024
I am shocked to learn on Sky News that Anneliese Dodds Shadow Secretary of State for WOMEN & EQUALITY has made no effort to contact her colleague Diane Abbott to enquire as to how she is feeling after her abuse by a Tory donor & should the police not take this up as threat tokill
— The man with no name (@Themanw86823082) March 12, 2024
Starmer and other Labour MPs – including Wes Streeting – have performatively condemned Frank Hester’s comments. However, Starmer has not punished the blatant racism – much of it directed at Diane Abbott – revealed in the leaked 2020 report on the conduct of senior party staff and confirmed by barrister Martin Forde’s investigation.
And Streeting was responsible for a 2018 ‘disgusting’ and ‘disgraceful’ verbal assault in Ms Abbott’s face in a Commons corridor, witnessed by other MPs and staff, for which he has never, at least publicly, apologised and which he threatened to sue Skwawkbox for revealing, a threat he did not carry out after Skwawkbox stood its ground:
Streeting has never been disciplined for his behaviour and was promoted by Starmer to Shadow Health Secretary.
Keir Starmer has presided over the targeting of a series of Black and Brown MPs and other elected figures, while ignoring others who faced foul racism – and his treatment of Diane Abbott, up to and including this latest incident, who has long suffered the most appalling racism of any MP, has been a disgrace that is only compounded by his hypocritical attempts to make political capital out of yet more abuse toward her.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
‘I Attended the Peace Symposium to Learn the Real Message of Islam’
It was a real privilege to have been invited to this year’s National Peace Symposium. This annual event of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is aimed at promoting a deeper understanding of Islam and other faiths and bringing communities together for the cause of peace. The Symposium took place on 9 March, the eve of the start of Ramadan.
My host, the genial Adeel Shah, who is one of Britain’s youngest Imams met me at the entrance of the Baitul Futah Mosque in Morden, London, the largest in Western Europe and the administrative headquarters of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK, where Adeel Shah serves in the Press and Media Office. I was one of more than 1200 guests from 28 countries who gathered for the 18th Peace Symposium.
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community was founded in 1889 to revive the peaceful teachings of Islam. It is dedicated to establishing peace and protecting the basic human rights of all. With nationalism and the relentless desire for power fuelling conflict around the world, as peace-making efforts fall deeper into crisis and situations deteriorate, there could not be a more important time to unite for the cause of peace.
As a white, atheist woman, I know little about the Muslim faith, other than from having worked with Adeel Shah before. Through misleading headlines, harmful stereotypes and inflammatory language, for decades, the UK media has demonised and vilified Muslims.
If I took notice of such incendiary and inaccurate reports, I may be inclined to think those who practice the faith are people to avoid. If I listened to right-wing politicians like Lee Anderson and Suella Braverman, who deliberately whip up anti-Muslim sentiment, again, I might hold unjust views against Islam. Amid this toxic political and media ecosystem, it is hardly surprising that British people are three times more likely to hold prejudiced views against Islam than other religions.
Following Lee Anderson’s accusation that the London Mayor Sadiq Khan is being controlled by ‘Islamists,’ Islamophobia within factions of the Conservative Party, and the wider country, was finally given the attention it merits. Rishi Sunak’s hastily arranged address on extremism outside Number 10 was seen by some as hypocritical, given the party’s – and its media backers’ – connections to Islamophobia. “It was a masterclass in gaslighting and made a new art form of rank hypocrisy,” said Caroline Lucas, Green MP.
But the National Peace Symposium 2024 was a world apart from the bickering and double standards at Westminster. What was especially encouraging was the notable cross-political party attendance.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh, Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden, Jonathan Lord, Conservative MP for Woking and Vice Chair of All Party Parliamentary Group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, and Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, all gave speeches on the urgent need for global cooperation. Dame McDonagh spoke of the suffering and oppression taking place in Gaza. She said the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been at the forefront in calling for peace throughout the conflict, and that the worldwide Head and Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, His Holiness, Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, has reached out to world leaders and presented solutions on how to establish peace. Jonathan Lord shared similar gratitude for the Community’s efforts for establishing peace worldwide. Noting the devastating conflict in Sudan, Yemen, Ukraine and Gaza, Ed Davey said Britain needs to double down its efforts to play its role in bringing an end to the conflicts.
The event’s keynote speech was delivered by His Holiness Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad. Through sermons, lectures, and literary works, His Holiness is a tireless advocate for championing the cause of peace and for religious harmony.
The Caliph called for ceasefires in both Gaza and Ukraine. “Political leaders and those who have access to policymakers must take a long-term view of what is in the best interests of mankind, rather than being blinded by selfish desires to assert their superiority over others,” he said. His Holiness also dismissed the misconception of the conflict in the Middle East being a ‘religious war,’ instead stating that it was a “geopolitical and territorial conflict” with religion providing a solution.
The more I listened to the speeches and spent time with people who worship this inclusive, peace-orientated religion, and those who partner with the Community to promote their work and messages, the sadder I became about the way in which Islamophobia, and conspiracies about Muslims are so well-established within sections of British society.
What was disappointing was the lack of mainstream media presence. Surely, as war devastates communities around the world, national newspapers and news stations have a duty to cover such vital peace-making events? The lack of national mainstream media interest in the Peace Symposium 2024, for me, said a lot about the challenges Muslims face in Britain, and the wider lack of peace-making progress.
Charlene Maines, a Conservative Councillor on the East Hampshire District Council, where Adeel Shah also serves as a Councillor, was attending the event for the first time. Charlene shared my views on the importance of the Peace Symposium at an educational level. “People are afraid of religion. It’s all about education. Once we are informed about a religion, we can come to our own conclusions about it. That’s why this event is so important. You can literally feel the connection in the venue,” Charlene said.
I came away from the National Peace Symposium feeling honoured that I had listened to the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and others, deliver rousing yet logical speeches on achieving global peace. I felt grateful to have spent time with people who practice and support the message of a religion of tolerance, peace, and universalism.
If only others from a broadly ignorant media and certain Parliamentarians would do the same.
Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is a freelance journalist.
‘The Extremist Islamists are Coming! Sunak Cries Wolf to Criminalise Dissent’
Last week saw an extraordinary piece of political theatre. A lectern placed outside Downing Street led to fevered speculation about a General Election announcement. It was no such thing. Instead, we witnessed one of the most extreme speeches a Prime Minister has ever given.
Rishi Sunak talked of “Islamic extremists” who were “hostile to our values” and were threatening and undermining democracy itself, adding that “our streets have been hijacked by small groups” who operated through “threats of violence and intimidation”. An apocalyptic picture no less, and one that demanded tougher action from the police and a ‘redoubling’ of support for the discredited Prevent programme.
Enter Michael Gove, the Communities Secretary, whom we learnt was drawing up proposals for a new definition of extremism. The aim of this definition will be to declare pro-Palestinian and Muslim groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Muslim Council of Britain and MEND (Muslim Engagement & Development) as ‘extremist’, as well as other ‘disruptors’ such as Extinction Rebellion.
The new definition’s purpose will be to ban politicians from engaging with these groups. However such plans have been met with opposition, not only from the ‘usual suspects’ such as Amnesty International UK and Liberty, but from Conservative MPs and Peers also, who are concerned that anti-abortion groups or those opposed to transgender rights will be caught by this definition also.
So what is going on here? It is clear that the Government in recent months has been alarmed by the massive displays of overwhelmingly peaceful support for Palestinians coupled with criticism of the UK Government (and the Opposition) for fully supporting the state of Israel committing genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes against the Palestinians. In fact it doesn’t get more ‘extreme’ than that.
It is important to state that this support has come from all quarters of society, including Jewish groups opposed to the actions of the Israeli state. However, rather than defend their actions, they choose to create a ‘straw man’ argument of a threat to democracy from ‘violent extremist Muslim mobs’ as a pretext to crack down on lawful protest and assembly.
This is an attempt to distract the public from his failing Government and appeal to right-wing voters as the polls show that the Conservatives are heading for political oblivion at the next General Election with 78% of Britons dissatisfied with the way that the Government is running the country.
The current definition of extremism is a ‘vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values’. The new definition proposed is “the promotion of an ideology based on intolerance hatred or violence that aims to that undermines the rights or freedoms of others.”
What does this mean? Should we not be ‘intolerant’ of genocide, or ‘hate’ ethnic cleaning or war crimes? Make no mistake, this definition is simply self-serving and aimed at protecting the Government from any kind of criticism or protest, whilst whipping up hatred towards Muslims who dare to speak out by labelling them as ‘Islamist extremists’. It is worth noting that the Government’s own definition of British values as set out in the Prevent Strategy includes “Mutual respect and tolerance of those of different faiths.” So much for tolerance then.
Indeed we should call out the real extremists here, which are members of the Government and Conservative Party. Recent weeks have shown the Conservative Party has sunk to new depths of racism and Islamophobia.
Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman claimed that “Islamists” were in charge of Britain, and then Lee Anderson, former Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party waded in with a bizarre claim that “Islamists” were controlling Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, which was too much even for Sunak, who suspending him from the party, provoking a backlash in support of Anderson. So who are these ‘Islamists’? This has now simply become a term to describe any Muslim individuals or groups who are critical of the Government.
But what Sunak, Gove and the Conservatives are doing is not a minor political side-show, it threatens the very fabric of our democratic society as it seeks to criminalise lawful dissent and criticism of the Government. We must come together to oppose this new definition.
Photos/video: members protest at Unite HQ over Graham’s betrayal of Gaza
General secretary’s actions and action prompts demo at union’s executive meeting
Unite union members furious at Sharon Graham’s continued silence on Israel’s genocide in Gaza – and her attempts behind the scenes to prevent officials representing the union at rallies and marches, as well as her ban on film showings and book readings on Unite premises and her attempt to cancel a pro-Palestine event, demonstrated outside Unite’s Holborn headquarters yesterday during a meeting of the union’s executive.
Around fifty protesters, including some with experience of the fight against South African apartheid, gathered with banners calling for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide, to hear speakers and chant for freedom.
Anti-apartheid campaigner Dr Jonathan Fluxman, of Doctors in Unite, spoke to the demo about the racist atrocity propaganda that Israel and much of the western media are using to dehumanise the Palestinians:
Another speaker talked of the solidarity of Jews around the world with the oppressed Palestinians:
And the protesters joined in the South African freedom call and response, “Amandla – Awethu”, ‘Power to the people’:
Sharon Graham has been slammed for her actions – and inaction – relating to Palestine and the Israeli regime’s genocide in Gaza. She has been publicly silent about the slaughter, but has been criticised for banning Unite officials and national banners from pro-Gaza protests, banned and smeared films and books exposing the ‘Labour antisemitism’ scam, placed an official under investigation who refused to cancel a Palestine solidarity fringe event at Labour’s 2023 annual conference – and senior Unite sources have alleged that she told her chief of staff to threaten a soon-to-retire official with the loss of a pension bonus if he did not soften his support for Palestinians. An email from her official union address to an angry member dismissed the genocide perpetrated on the people of Gaza.
Ms Graham’s tenure as Unite boss has also been marked by a string of other allegations – which neither she nor the union has denied – including alleged destruction of evidence against her husband in threat, misogyny and bullying complaints brought by union employees. She is also embroiled in both an employment tribunal for discrimination and a defamation lawsuit brought by Irish union legend Brendan Ogle for the union’s treatment of him and comments made about him by Graham and her close ally Tony Woodhouse.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.