Patrick Christys demands apology from Muslim Media Monitoring Centre for misquotes : r/gbnews - "Very telling that they perceive comments about Iranian Terror Cells as critique against Islam...."
Jail for 'bullish' man who chanted 'who the f**k is Allah' during city centre riot - "A 'bullish' man chanted 'who the f**k is Allah' as he played an 'active role' in a city centre riot. Nathan Poole, 32, was one of 300 people involved in a disorder in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, on August 3, 2024. He shouted abuse and argued with police officers tasked with keeping the opposing protesters apart. Following the unrest, Poole has now been jailed for 30 months... "There was no clear evidence that he was physically involved. He did not attack the police. "He could not be seen to throw any missiles. He did not damage any property... Judge Richard McConaghy found Poole had displayed 'hostility towards Islam'... "It is right to say there is no evidence that you threw a missile or that you were an architect of any of the pushing. "But you were seen in different locations. You were being bullish and shouted, 'Who the f*** is Allah' at the other group. "The main location was the mosque and your specific chants in relation to Allah made it quite clear your involvement was hostility towards Islam.""
Even Muslim countries think Britain has a problem with Islamism - "We all know that extremism which starts in the UK, does not stay in the UK. We also know that the UK has exported some of the most violent extremists who have wrought havoc on other Muslims and non-Muslims in the Middle East. The so called “Beatles” who terrorised and killed European citizens under the Islamic State are just one example of the kinds of hyper-violent extremists that have come from our communities. This was stressed in a conference in the United Arab Emirates which I attended. Speaker after speaker made clear that the UK has an Islamic extremism problem. Some even used the term “Islamism”, even as some Muslims in the UK have advised this Government to stop using the term whilst trying to suggest that it promotes “Islamophobia”. If that is the case, then tens of millions of Muslims in the Middle East who use this term to identify political extremists who hijack Islam are also “Islamophobic”. You can therefore start to recognise some of the bizarre and self-defeating notions pushed by characters advising this Government... I also heard Muslim speakers in the conference voice the need to challenge Islamist extremists, actions that I rarely see and hear in the UK, while also speaking about an Islam in-country that is based on co-existence, care for others and mutual understanding. Many pointed out that the financial and activist base of the Muslim Brotherhood has become the United Kingdom. In fact, my experience over the last 20 years has been that fewer and fewer British Muslims have been speaking out against Islamist extremism and those who did so before, have been maliciously targeted by British Islamists online. It is no wonder why so many have stepped back and chosen a quiet life."
Arab countries are the world's biggest Islamophobes, after all
Britain is now the heartland of Islamic extremism - "In recent weeks, something extraordinary has happened in Gaza. Ordinary Palestinians have taken to the streets to protest against Hamas... Now compare that to Britain. Over the past eighteen months, including on October 7 itself, British streets have filled with protesters who celebrate the massacre of Israeli civilians as an act of “resistance”. In London, chants of “Zionists, out, out!” have been shouted in Arabic. These are not cries for justice. They signal allegiance to an ideology of annihilation. The irony of this could not be more stark. As parts of the Muslim world turn away from Islamist extremism, Britain appears to be incubating it. Saudi Arabia is quietly pursuing normalisation with Israel. Egypt, long familiar with the threat posed by Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, has sealed its border with Gaza; the Muslim Brotherhood is banned in both Egypt and the UAE. The UAE has also blacklisted several British-based charities linked to Islamist networks. Jordan has taken a firm stance against Islamist extremism, actively curbed radical preaching and maintained diplomatic ties with Israel, even in the face of domestic pressure. Yet here in Britain, Islamist ideology continues to be indulged. Islamist preachers operate with impunity. Prisons have become recruitment grounds. A sitting MP, Sir David Amess, was murdered by an Islamist terrorist and the political response was subdued. Even a Saudi religious leader has recently warned that Britain’s failure to tackle Islamist radicalism risks becoming a national security threat. This problem has deep roots. In 1989, the Ayatollah of Iran issued a fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie over his novel The Satanic Verses. Rather than a united defence of free expression, many in Britain wavered. Then Labour MP Keith Vaz joined a demonstration calling for the book to be banned. The Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that publishing it had been a mistake. Bookshops were attacked. Protesters burned the novel in Bradford. Some British Muslims marched not in solidarity with Rushdie but in support of the fatwa. It was the moment that exposed how vulnerable our liberal values were when confronted by religious intimidation. More than thirty years later, has anything really changed? In 2022, Rushdie was nearly killed in a knife attack in New York. Too many people still hesitate to say what is obvious: Islamist extremism is not just an alternative viewpoint; it is a threat to the foundations of our free society. What is worse, this ideology is increasingly being enabled by liberal and progressive Britons who mistake moral posturing for solidarity. In their understandable eagerness to support Palestinians, they refuse to condemn the terrorists who oppress them. In doing so, these progressives provide cover for those who hate the very freedoms that they claim to support. The new strongholds of Islamist extremism are not just in faraway training camps, but are to be found in British universities, online influencers, and naive street protesters. Unless we confront this honestly, Britain risks becoming not a bulwark against extremism but its heartland."
What does Labour have to hide about its Islamophobia definition? - "Although the Government may swap the word “Islamophobia” for “anti-Muslim hatred” or “religious prejudice”, the risk is that whatever title it is given, we sleepwalk into a de-facto blasphemy law. If you are a nurse, a teacher, a council officer, an academic, or a member of the public who says the “wrong” thing, there may be serious consequences. That’s what we saw with gender ideology, where women were hounded out of their jobs for believing biological sex is real. This could be just as bad, if not worse... A hierarchy of diversity has been embraced wholeheartedly by the public sector, with institutions seemingly out-competing themselves to trample the rights of one group to seek favour with another. And whilst some are brave enough to speak out, many others suffer in silence. The state has taken away their right to speak for fear it might expose an inconvenient truth. Think of the Darlington nurses who are having to fight for their right to a female-only changing room because their employer prioritised the wishes of a trans-identifying male. Or the thousands of white teenagers being blocked from applying for scholarships and internships simply for the colour of their skin. Even the Equality and Human Rights Commission – our independent statutory watchdog – has said that a new official definition of Islamophobia risks incompatibility with equality law and will not actually increase protections against discrimination and hate."
Labour’s Islamophobia definition redundant, says equalities watchdog - "It follows a similar warning from the Government’s top adviser on terror laws, who said Sir Keir Starmer should not introduce an official definition of Islamophobia. Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said he was against an official definition of Islamophobia because it was “directed” at a religion rather than protecting people from anti-Muslim hatred. He warned that any “spongy or inaccurate” definition would threaten freedom of speech in the face of a likely “overzealous” enforcement of it by police and other authorities. Lord Young, director of the Free Speech Union, urged the Government to abandon its plan or face legal action by his organisation based on the arguments put forward by the EHRC."
Official definition of Islamophobia in UK ‘would help terrorists’ - "An official definition of Islamophobia risks undermining the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy, a report has warned. The Policy Exchange think tank claimed that if the Government adopts a fixed definition, activists will use it to challenge counter-terrorism laws and undermine the Prevent programme, which aims to steer people away from extremism. The result could be “fundamental social and structural change” by the back door, without democratic consent, it said. Policy Exchange based its analysis on public statements by Muslim Engagement and Development (Mend), a not-for-profit organisation that works to empower British Muslims to become more active in politics and the media... Andrew Gilligan and Paul Stott, authors of the Policy Exchange report, said: “There already is a definition of ‘anti-Muslim hate’ – the one provided by the law, which applies equally to hatred against people of all faiths. “Unless the Grieve definition literally no more than copies the exact words of the law (in which case the whole exercise is pointless), any new definition of ‘anti-Muslim hate’ will be two things.”"
Supporters of the Islamophobia definition are shooting themselves in the foot - "Depressingly, what seemingly amount to de facto blasphemy laws have already grown in parts of the Barelvi Muslim communities in the north of England, possibly inspired by groups such Tehreek-e-Labbaik in Pakistan, which calls on Islamists to kill “blasphemers”, including Muslims who dare to question their fundamentalist approach. There are also those within parts of Muslim communities who take the view that because British Jews have the IHRA definition, this means that Muslims must have a corresponding definition. This is both a category error and disingenuous. For starters, Jewishness is what you either are, or aren’t, by birth. Islam on the other hand, is a religion followed by people of many difference races. The conflation of race and religion is both dangerous and exactly what those pushing for a definition want to see. It is worth bearing in mind that the IHRA has not been a panacea to tackling anti-Semitism. Whilst most British Jews support it, how useful it has been remains an open question. Furthermore, the IHRA definition was not developed by one government and a group of activists in secret, but was developed by a collective of civil society organisations and academics over many years. This is how it attained a level of international legitimacy. This is made all the more relevant by the fact that Islamist groups have fuelled mistrust over decades in parts of British Muslim communities by inflating fears around Prevent and other government policy initiatives. Many Muslims simply no longer trust or want to engage with any initiative that a British Government starts."
Scrap Islamophobia definition because of free speech risks, Starmer told - "Sir Keir Starmer should not introduce an official definition of Islamophobia because of the risks to free speech, the Government’s top adviser on terror laws has said. Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said he was against an official definition of Islamophobia because it was “directed” at a religion rather than protecting people from anti-Muslim hatred... Mr Hall, a leading barrister, has been the independent reviewer on terrorism laws since 2019, and his role has since been expanded to advise the Government on legislation to protect the UK against state threats including Russia, Iran and North Korea. He has been called on by ministers to advise on proscribing the Iranian’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, tackling extremism in prisons and legislative measures to combat the threat from loners intent on extreme violence, such as Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer. His comments will intensify criticism of the Government’s plans, which have already proved controversial. Last month, The Telegraph revealed that more than 30 peers had written to the working group responsible for the new definition to warn that the proposals risked a “chilling effect” on free speech. Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of Tell Mama, a body set up to tackle anti-Muslim hatred, said: “The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is absolutely right to oppose the government’s plans to introduce an official definition of Islamophobia. “Former counter-terror police chiefs have warned for years a broad definition could be used by those being investigated by police and the security services to legally challenge those investigations and undermine counter-terrorism powers. “By pursuing this, the Government is putting narrow electoral interests ahead of our national security.” Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said it was a “significant intervention” that should “act as a wake-up call” for the Government. He added: “We already have robust laws against discrimination. As Jonathan Hall says, the proposed Islamophobia definition will censor legitimate criticism of Islam at a time when free speech in this country is already under threat.” Lord Walney, a former government adviser on political violence, said Mr Hall was right to “raise the alarm”. “Defining the problem as Islamophobia implicitly protects a religion not a group of people – it risks heightening the climate of fear that has prevented institutions from tackling difficult issues like grooming gangs for fear of being wrongly labelled as bigots,” he added."
We’ve now seen proof of why an Islamophobia law would be a disaster - "already, one member of the working group of five, Baroness Shaista Gohir, has come under fire for criticising the police for their conduct at Manchester Airport last summer where, having punched Pc Lydia Ward in the face, Mohammed Fahir Amaaz was forced to the ground and footage appears to show Pc Zachary Marsden kicking and stamping on Amaaz during his arrest. Two days after footage of that incident went viral, Gohir spoke of police brutality and compared the incident to the murder of George Floyd in America in 2020. (In 2019, she shared footage of what she said was the Humberside Police detaining a Muslim man. She cited Islamophobia and called the incident a “disgraceful and unnecessary use of excessive violence”. However, it was actually West Midlands Police – which was later cleared of wrongdoing – in the video.) Robert Jenrick has said the baroness should be removed from the group. She responded by saying that she was being smeared by those who want to derail the definition process and those who want to prevent “Muslims in Britain from receiving full protection against rising anti-Muslim hatred”. This is where the whole thing does become unworkable – any critics of those involved in drawing up this new definition of Islamophobia are then in turn accused of stirring up anti-Muslim hate. Any questioning of the very term Islamophobia becomes in itself Islamophobic. Or at least it does in official discourse. The reason for any redefinition is surely to promote social cohesion, yet the ticking of boxes does not seem to help anyone. If I thought for one moment any new rearrangement of words would stop bigotry or hatred, I would sign up to it... Attitudes to women, to gay people, to cousin marriage, to the slaughter of animals – they are all issues that disturb many, however much we say “not all Muslims”. The simmering anger over the grooming gangs remains because it was easier for the lanyard class to ignore what was happening than deal with it. The glorifying of Hamas as resistance fighters is deeply troubling, but it is everywhere. To see women covered completely from head to toe and held responsible for male desire is not something with which I am comfortable... The National Secular Society is right to point out that all of this just serves to fuel sectarian tendencies. Riots in Leicester in 2022 were caused by tension between Hindu and Muslim communities. Are we going to have Hinduphobia? And another definition? What is the point? A central tenet of modern Britain is that we have the right to criticise religion. No faith can be ring-fenced. And, yes, that is uncomfortable and complicated for all kinds of people. Labour, in particular, is often trying to square the circle between its progressive wing and its socially conservative Muslim voters. This can’t be done.We all know it, and we don’t minimise tensions by top-down tinkering, or by pretending that we all have the same values when we don’t. The democratic system in this country means that we have the freedom to criticise each other’s beliefs. Please do not redefine this freedom as a phobia."
Labour’s Islamophobia law could hand Reform 100-seat majority - "The working group – chaired by Dominic Grieve, a former Tory cabinet minister – is meeting in secret and members of the public will not be able to offer their views. Mr Grieve has praised a 2019 report which called the discussion of “grooming gangs” an example of “anti-Muslim racism”. Claire Coutinho, the shadow equalities minister, has said a “culture of secrecy around matters relating to race and religion” was a key factor enabling “gangs of men to groom, rape, and torture young girls with impunity”... The J L Partners poll of 2,035 British adults was conducted between July 16 and 18. It found that 37 per cent of respondents felt that protections against hate speech have gone too far – while 28 per cent believed they have not gone far enough, and 19 per cent said they were at about the right level. Some 30 per cent said protections against Islamophobia had gone too far, compared to 28 per cent who thought they had not gone far enough. When asked to compare the issue of Islamophobia to other issues facing the Government, 54 per cent said it was relatively unimportant, with 30 per cent saying it is relatively important. When Labour voters were asked, 45 per cent said it was relatively unimportant. Across all voters, just 37 per cent said a definition of Islamophobia was necessary in Britain today, and 45 per cent said it was unnecessary."
Nick Timothy MP on X - "Today Shabana Mahmood defended the 2018 APPG definition of “Islamophobia”. This said raising the rape gangs, or entryism by the Muslim Brotherhood, is “Islamophobic”. These are just two vital responsibilities for the new Home Secretary. Her position is extremely worrying."
Sikh group threatens legal action over Islamophobia definition - "A prominent Sikh organisation is preparing legal action against the government over the potential new definition of Islamophobia and the decision to appoint a working group to examine the issue. The Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO), an umbrella body for Sikhs in the UK, is planning a judicial review if Steve Reed, the communities secretary, presses ahead with plans for an official definition. The NSO claims it is discriminatory and puts other faiths at a disadvantage, as it would interfere with the rights of Sikhs and other religious groups to freedom of thought and religion... Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, has also warned that a definition could result in “special treatment” that could “increase hatred rather than deal with it”. The NSO argues that the right protections for hate crimes already exist in law. Its letter to Reed details “serious concerns” that a broad definition of Islamophobia will interfere with the ability of Sikhs to freely manifest their religion and beliefs. It argues that any definition of Islamophobia will place Sikhs, as well as members of other faiths, at a disadvantage and will therefore be discriminatory. Lord Singh of Wimbledon, the NSO’s director, wrote: “There are countless examples of Sikh (and indeed other religious and philosophical) beliefs and practices which would offend people of the Islamic faith, and would fall afoul of any definition of ‘Islamophobia’, but which are important and sometimes even central to the manifestation of the supposedly offending faith.” The NSO warns that a definition could risk censoring Sikh history, given that central points of its historical narrative refer to oppressive Muslim rulers. If a definition described racism as targeting “an expression of Muslimness”, the NSO said, Sikhism’s strict prohibition on consumption of ritually slaughtered meat, like halal, could be viewed as Islamophobic. Singh wrote that “it is not logical or rational to interfere with the religious freedom of one group (Sikhs, as well as many others) to defend the sensibilities of another group (Muslims) from subjective forms of offence”."
Aja ♀️🇬🇧 on X - "We need to have a serious, grown-up conversation about Islam and the very real ways it is impacting our lives in the UK. Every day, more examples pile up, and every day, politicians, journalists, and academics look the other way or, worse, tell us that we’re the problem for noticing. Just last week, a man who tried to murder another man in broad daylight simply because he burned a book with “magic words” in it was allowed to walk free. Imagine that: attempted murder, motivated by pure religious rage, brushed off by the courts. If it had been any other ideology, it would have been headline news for weeks. And then yesterday, a man named Jihad carried out jihad in a synagogue. You couldn’t make it up. The symbolism is chilling, and yet the media frames it as though it’s just another isolated tragedy, detached from the wider pattern. Some tried to move the focus to the “far-right,” some even said the attack was on a mosque. This is not isolated. This is systemic. This is the reality: Islam is a colonial ideology, and it’s colonising us whether you’re brave enough to admit it or not. Look around: halal certification on our food everywhere, even when we don’t ask for it. Cousin marriage not just tolerated but treated as a cultural norm, despite the social and genetic consequences. Blasphemy laws creeping in through the back door, with police knocking on doors over “offensive” posts while turning a blind eye to actual threats. Sex segregation being pushed in universities and public events. Islamic schools teaching children to separate from wider society. Sharia creeping into family law, with women pressured into religious tribunals instead of accessing the justice system. Whole areas of our cities where British culture is a ghost in its own land. And look at what happened to a schoolteacher from Batley: he is still in hiding, years on, because he dared show the wrong cartoon in a lesson. A schoolboy who scuffed a Quran was treated like a criminal, and his mother was dragged out to publicly beg forgiveness. This isn’t just “cultural sensitivity”—it’s enforcement of blasphemy codes, imported straight from the Islamic world and meekly obeyed by our institutions. And then there are the marches. The huge Palestine demonstrations may look like grassroots outrage to some, but they are also being amplified and bankrolled by foreign Islamic interests with political agendas. Money and influence from abroad are pouring into the UK scene, funding rallies, NGOs, and community groups, swelling turnout and shifting the terms of debate. That’s not just protesting; it’s political engineering: draining our public focus and resources, inflaming divisions, and making it harder for mainstream British institutions to respond effectively to the very real problems on our soil. Part of the reason people here don’t grasp that Islamic nations are perfectly capable of colonialism is because they carry a racist, outdated image in their heads. They picture “the Middle East” as dusty villages, little shacks in the desert, camels, and poverty. But that’s not the reality anymore, if it ever was. What you should be picturing are the skyscrapers of Dubai, the mega-projects of Saudi Arabia, the obscene wealth of Qatar, the influence of the Emirates. These are oil-rich states with bottomless pockets and global ambitions. When you understand that, you see just how naïve it is to think they couldn’t colonise, influence, or reshape other nations. With that kind of money, power, and reach, it’s not just possible—it’s easy. Every time someone dares to point this out, the same tired labels get thrown around: racist, bigot, Islamophobe. It’s a tactic of silencing. But the reality is, none of that changes the facts on the ground. I refuse to accept this. I refuse to submit to it. And we must all do the same. Because if we don’t, the UK will be just another Islamic country within a few decades. That’s not hyperbole. That’s what the trajectory shows. Don’t believe me? Ask yourself why so many countries are part of the Islamic world today. Do you think they all chose it freely? No. They were colonised. They were conquered. They were converted by force, by war, by intimidation. Yes, I know we’re taught in school that colonisation was something only white Europeans did. But the Arabs were doing it centuries earlier, and they were very, very good at it. And the truth is, they haven’t stopped. History doesn’t lie. From North Africa to Persia, from the Balkans to India, from Indonesia to Spain, Islam spread through conquest, not through peaceful coexistence. And every time, the story was the same: a thriving culture subdued, its traditions erased or absorbed, its people forced to comply or face violence. That’s not ancient history. It’s a pattern that continues today, in Europe, in the UK, right under our noses. Our politicians can pretend the threat isn’t real, but they know it is—and we know it is too. That’s why several MPs had to take out extra security during the last election, simply for doing their jobs. The choice before us is stark: either we wake up, grow a spine, and defend the culture, values, and freedoms that generations before us built and died for—or we will lose them. Not slowly, not abstractly, but in our own lifetimes. And make no mistake: submission isn’t safety. It’s the first step towards erasure. So go ahead—keep calling me “far right” if it makes you feel clever. Keep pretending that pointing out what’s happening all around us is the real danger, not the ideology driving knife attacks, blasphemy vigilantism, synagogue terror, and imported street politics. I’m sick of it. I’m sick of being smeared for saying what everyone can see with their own eyes. But here’s the truth: your insults don’t change reality. They don’t stop what’s coming. You can call it “far right” all you like—meanwhile, Islam is advancing, colonising, embedding itself deeper into our institutions and public life. And unless we face up to it, we will lose this country. So choose: you can carry on sneering at people like me, or you can finally wake up. Either way, the clock is ticking."
