THIS week will forever be remembered as the point at which Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour Government jumped on what they once dismissed as the so-called “bandwagon of the far right”.
For much of the past six months, Labour ministers and MPs have lined up to criticise people calling for a national inquiry into the mostly Pakistani-Muslim rape gangs as “far right” and “extremist”.
EPASir Keir Starmer made concerted efforts to brand anybody who opposes mass immigration and wanted an inquiry into the rape gangs as ‘far right’[/caption] PA:Press AssociationJailed members of the Rotherham gang in the abuse scandal[/caption]Or, in the words of Labour MP Lucy Powell, blowing a “little trumpet” and a “dog-whistle”.
But now, after months of relentless pressure, the Government has finally been forced to recognise what was always obvious to everybody else in this country — that we need a national inquiry to explore how on Earth the mass rape of our children was ever allowed to happen, and to get those girls, and their families, the truth, justice and answers they deserve.
But if you think that’s where the story ends and Labour has now come to its senses then you’d be very much mistaken.
Because on the same day Labour committed to a major inquiry into the rape gangs, something else deeply sinister took place.
No doubt hoping few people would notice, Starmer and the Labour Party pushed forward with their plans to impose a dogmatic and dangerous new definition of “Islamophobia” on the country.
This move could stifle free speech and debate about not just the rape gangs but a whole array of closely related issues, including the growing role and impact of Islam on our national life and politics.
Authoritarian society
Labour’s new working group on Islamophobia has launched a “call for evidence”, asking people to help it develop a definition that they say “will help ministers and other relevant bodies understand what constitutes unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities”.
But what this will create, mark my words, is the very opposite of the kind, tolerant and pluralistic society that its supporters talk about.
On the contrary, it will usher us into an authoritarian society where our language and views about Islam will be heavily policed and curtailed.
What am I talking about, exactly?
Well, to make sense of this new dark turn in British politics, you need to go back to the original definition of “Islamophobia” that was put forward, and which the Labour Party supported, by an All Party Parliamentary Group of MPs in 2018.
Involving the likes of Tory grandee Dominic Grieve — a man who was so committed to free speech in this country that he relentlessly demanded a second referendum on Brexit — the report defined “Islamophobia” as being “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’.
But what on Earth does this mean, you might ask? What counts as targeting “expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”?
Anything that will be perceived as “Islamophobic” by pro-Muslim campaigners and their allies on the radical woke Left, that’s what.
In fact, astonishingly, that earlier definition endorsed by Labour specifically mentioned discussing the rape gangs and the grooming gang scandal as an example of so-called “Islamophobia”.
It actually described the grooming gangs, which we now know are disproportionately more likely to involve men of Pakistani-Muslim origin, as a “subtle form of anti-Muslim racism”, and “a modern-day iteration” of “age-old stereotypes and tropes about Islam and Muslims”.
Many of these measures, definitions and laws look more at home in North Korea than Britain.
Matt GoodwinIndeed, for much of the past ten years many left-wing activists, journalists and politicians have argued that even discussing the rape gangs was an example of so-called “anti-Muslim hatred” or “Islamophobia”.
This, alongside Starmer’s concerted efforts to brand anybody who opposes mass immigration and wanted an inquiry into the rape gangs as “far right”, is exactly why so many local councils, police officers, social workers and more shied away from investigating the scandal to begin with.
They feared being tainted with the “Islamophobic” or “racist” brush.
And it’s not just about the rape gangs.
That same dodgy definition of “Islamophobia”, in 2018, also suggested that talking about the alleged demographic threat that some people feel is posed to Western nations by the rise of Islam could also be considered “Islamophobic”.
Here in the UK, my own research suggests that because of mass immigration and different birth rates among different groups, by the year 2100 roughly one in five of all people in the UK will be following Islam, while potentially close to one in three young people, under the age of 40, will be Muslim by the end of this century.
If the original definition of “Islamophobia”, which Labour MPs backed, is to be believed then merely even debating these profound and unprecedented demographic shifts could be considered “Islamophobic”.
Sharia law
And what about pointing to some of the negative effects of these changes that we can already see emerging in our politics today, such as the rise of sectarian Muslim MPs in the House of Commons spending more time focusing on what is happening in Gaza, or campaigning for a new airport in Pakistan, than wanting to fix problems in their own constituency?
The original definition, overseen by Wes Streeting and another diehard anti-Brexit activist, Anna Soubry, specifically said that discussing “conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions” could be considered “Islamophobic”.
So would we not be allowed to express our opposition to this kind of divisive, sectarian politics or voice concern about the fact, as a survey has shown, that 40 per cent of British Muslims would support a “Muslim-only” political party, while roughly one third would back the imposition of a parallel Sharia law system in Britain?
What all this is pushing us into, I believe, is a chilling Orwellian world where we will become unable to criticise Islam or point to negative changes that are happening within our society because of these demographic shifts.
Look, too, at how the freedom to criticise Islam has been restricted through the case of Hamit Coskun, a man who burned a Koran and was found guilty of committing a “racially aggravated public order offence” during what was a peaceful protest.
In this case, the Public Order Act was essentially used to crack down on legitimate public protest and criticism of Islam, effectively reviving long-abolished blasphemy laws and undermining the notion — long central to British life — that no religion is above the law.
These islands, once upon a time, were the home of free speech, free expression and individual liberty.
Matt GoodwinYou might remember, too, even if Starmer never talks about it while telling Vice President JD Vance we have no free speech crisis in Britain, that we still have a school teacher from Batley, West Yorks, in hiding in Britain who happened to upset local Muslims by showing a picture they happened to find “offensive”.
And make no mistake: this war on free speech is not just about the dogmatic definition of Islamophobia which Starmer and his Labour Government are trying to smuggle into our laws, institutions and country through the back door.
It is also about the proliferation of hate laws and so-called “non-crime hate incidents” in this country.
These are used to suppress free speech by encouraging people to report their fellow citizens to the police when they merely perceive one of their “protected characteristics”, such as religion, race or sexual orientation, to have been offended in some way.
Think I’m exaggerating?
Since 2014, police authorities have recorded more than 133,000 of these dystopian measures, which in turn chill free speech across British society by warning others not to say anything that might be considered “offensive”.
Vigorous debate
And it is also about how terms such as “far right” and “Islamo- phobia” are today being inflated and expanded to such an extent by the likes of Starmer and Yvette Cooper that they have not only become utterly meaningless but are routinely used to try to shut down debate and discredit anybody who challenges the policies of the ruling class, such as mass uncontrolled immigration, our broken borders, or, as we saw earlier this year, the Pakistani-Muslim rape gangs.
These islands, once upon a time, were the home of free speech, free expression and individual liberty.
They were a place where people could join together and have a vigorous debate about what was happening in their country, even if this offended others.
I don’t know about you but this is neither the Britain I recognise nor the kind of country I particularly want to live in
Matt GoodwinBut increasingly, today, we are ruled by people who can sense their grip on power is now under threat and are using whatever is at their disposal to try to control and curtail the national conversation, to narrow the parameters of what is considered acceptable to discuss.
I don’t know about you but this is neither the Britain I recognise nor the kind of country I particularly want to live in.
Many of these measures, definitions and laws look more at home in North Korea than Britain.
If the rape gang scandal has taught us anything then it is that we must reject all these speech codes and the policing of everyday language.
We must return to the traditions of free speech, free expression, individual liberty and debate that have long defined these islands — irrespective of who they might offend.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Don’t assume Labour has learnt from rape gangs scandal – now it’s targeting criticism of Islam in free speech crackdown )
Also on site :