Muslim police association defended Hamas against ‘unverified’ claims of violence - "The official body representing Muslim police officers in Britain has defended Hamas against “unverified stories about acts of violence”. A policy paper by the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) also describes the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) as a “Zionist terrorist group” and brands Zionism as “one of the manifestations of anti-Muslim hatred”. The disclosure of the paper will raise questions over the political impartiality of police officers, who are required to treat all members of the public equally under the law. The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the document posed “a direct challenge to the integrity of policing”... The policy paper on “confronting anti-Muslim hatred”, first revealed by The Spectator magazine, was published on NAMP’s website last year and written by Khaldoun Kabbani, its then vice-president. NAMP is affiliated to at least 16 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales and has a formal national role within the police... The policy paper defends Hamas against reports on and after the Oct 7 terror attack on Israel that “began circulating alarming and unverified stories about acts of violence by Hamas, including claims of beheadings and assaults. These reports have significantly contributed to increasing hatred towards Islam”. Hamas is a proscribed terror group in Britain. NAMP also claims that “reports from Israeli and Western media initially claimed that Hamas killed 120 children … However, these reports have been challenged by more recent disclosures indicating that not a single Israeli infant was a casualty during the said attacks”. “It was later confirmed that only one child’s death occurred two days following the attack,” it added. NAMP criticised the media for “falsely insinuating that [Palestinians] perpetrate atrocities against innocents”. Independent agencies verified the deaths of children. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported at least 29 children were killed when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct 7 2023, while Amnesty International put the figure at 36. The report lists “Zionist terrorist groups, including the IDF”, and warns that “Zionism represents one of the manifestations of anti-Muslim hatred, stripping Muslims of their humanity”. It repeatedly describes the Israelis’ actions in Gaza as genocide, which is contrary to the UK Government’s position and even compares it to the Holocaust. “In the tragic history of Auschwitz, the process of dehumanisation by the Nazis towards the Jewish people highlights a broader mechanism of oppression, where dominant groups suppress empathy through propaganda and indoctrination to facilitate cruelty,” it said. “This mechanism is not confined to the past but is observed in contemporary conflicts, such as the situation between the Israeli government and military and the Palestinians.”... Stephen Silverman, director of investigations and enforcement for the Campaign Against Antisemitism, said the document was “extremist” in nature and anyone associated with it was “unfit” to be in the police. Polling by the organisation reveals just 14 per cent of British Jews think the police do enough to protect them."
Clearly, if a Muslim group accuses someone of "anti-Muslim hatred", they must be right and doubting them is Islamophobia. So British people who are Zionists need to be jailed
‘I was barred from police for questioning Islam’ - "A Christian police support officer was suspended after he had asked questions about Islam in a diversity training session. Luke Salmons lost his job as a police community support officer (PCSO) with the North Yorkshire force and was barred from policing after a conversation about Gaza with a Muslim officer. He later won an appeal but has never received an apology from the force where he said a “culture of fear” existed among officers who were terrified of being fired for saying the wrong thing. Mr Salmons, 46, told The Telegraph that a training day on race, religion and culture turned into an “indoctrination” session as trainers chanted “Islam is a religion of peace” and discussed white privilege. Having been encouraged to ask questions in what staff were told was a safe space, he asked a Muslim officer about his views on terrorist attacks by Islamist groups including Hamas. The officer happily discussed the issue with him and invited him to chat further over coffee after the session. But within two days he had been suspended for gross misconduct by an inspector who told him: “I don’t like your beliefs.” Mr Salmons told The Telegraph: “I loved my job and I was good at it. I was well respected as a PCSO and my colleagues said they loved working with me and couldn’t understand what was happening. “But an overzealous inspector took against me and that was the end of my career, even though I had done nothing wrong.”... During his eight-year policing career he received a commendation from the chief constable for the way he handled a “horrific” incident involving a person’s safety, and received a rare “outstanding” grade in a professional development review. Then in the spring of 2024 he was asked by a superintendent to write an article about Easter for the internal intranet site “because of my religion”, only for an inspector to intervene and tell him he could not make any reference to the Bible. His personal views were then questioned after an online training session about the growing problem of inappropriate sexual behaviour by minors towards other minors, during which participants were asked to give feedback. Mr Salmons suggested that if children were raised in solid family homes and taught right from wrong the problem would decrease, which resulted in the trainer reporting him to his sergeant who told him he could not talk about his morals in the workplace. Matters came to a head in October 2024 when Mr Salmons attended a race, religion and culture training session at the police headquarters in Northallerton. He said: “The whole day was pretty much about Islam. At one point the trainers walked up and down the room for several minutes saying ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ over and over again. It was bizarre. “Then, a Muslim sergeant spoke about his faith and invited questions. It was made clear that there was no such thing as a bad question and we could speak freely. “Someone asked him about why it was bad to depict images of Mohammed, then I asked him what, as a peaceful Muslim, he thought about the situation in Gaza, with Hamas and other terrorist groups carrying out atrocities in the name of Islam. “We had a really good discussion and I asked him what he understood jihad to mean. There was no problem, I spoke to him privately at lunch and he asked me what books I had read about Islam. He said he would love to speak to me more, so we arranged to meet for a coffee at his police station. “I believed I was on safe ground when the training sessions invited open discussion. I quickly discovered that questioning Islam is now treated as ‘wrongthink’ within North Yorkshire Police.” In anticipation of the meeting, he took a book with him to work called Answering Jihad – A Better Way Forward by Nabeel Qureshi, the New York Times bestselling author, a former Muslim who converted to Christianity. Two colleagues found it in his locker, photographed it and reported him as a “risk” to superiors. The next day, he was hauled into a meeting with a female inspector who told him: “I don’t like your beliefs,” and told him to hand in his police ID and go home. He was later told he had been suspended. He said: “There is no way that inspector would have taken a Muslim officer into a room and said ‘I don’t like your beliefs’.” Mr Salmons was suspended on full pay for months, and eventually resigned in April 2025. A disciplinary hearing was held in July 2025 at which he was found to have committed gross misconduct and he was placed on the College of Policing barred list... With the help of the Christian Legal Centre, he appealed against the disciplinary panel’s decision and at a hearing in December last year, Tim Forber, the chief constable, overturned it before Mr Salmons had even finished presenting his case. After beginning employment tribunal proceedings, Mr Salmons reached an out-of-court settlement with the force in April. He said he had never had an apology from North Yorkshire Police. Mr Salmons said: “There is a culture of fear – people are scared to say anything or ask anything in case they get pulled up for it. Even the sergeant said to me, ‘sit on your hands and just sign the piece of paper to say you’ve done the course’. “We need to get back to people doing their job on merit and not on skin colour or religion. Our institutions are scared of Islam. “I have a lot of ex-colleagues who are doing a brilliant job and I fully support the police as an organisation, but I just want us to change the institutions so our communities are a safer and better place.”... “People are weaponising DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] for their own advantage. People know they will get a heightened response from the police if they say it’s to do with their religion or sexuality. This was something I raised but I was shot down for saying it.”... Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “This case demands urgent political attention. It reveals a profound failure of leadership and neutrality within public institutions, and it raises serious questions about whether the Home Office and those responsible for police oversight are willing, or able, to confront the ideological capture that is eroding freedom of belief and expression from within.”"
Clearly, because the Christian Legal Centre was involved, the UK is in danger of becoming a Christian Theocracy. Time to stop the Church from interfering in public life and pushing Islamophobia!
Connie Shaw on X - "In 2006, polling showed that 68% of Muslims in Britain think it should be a criminal offence to insult Islam. So far, Britain has chosen a path of appeasement and capitulation to Islamic blasphemy laws. Since Starmer came to power, cases received by the Free Speech Union of people being penalised for criticising Islam or Muslim cultural practices have increased by a multiple of 4. This was before the 'anti Muslim hostility definition' was introduced by Labour. All 5 members, hand picked by Labour, of the working group that came up with the definition have links to Islamist organisations."
South Wales Police accused of threatening free speech over new Islam ‘hostility’ guidance - "South Wales Police has instructed staff to log anything that goes beyond “legitimate” discussion of Islam. Campaigners fear this subjective definition gives officers the power to decide what is acceptable behaviour and could have a “chilling effect” on free speech. They argue that if an officer decides someone has crossed the line in a conversation about Islam or Muslims, they will create a record of an anti-social behaviour incident, which would then be disclosed if the person who said it was vetted by an employer... Lord Young, the union founder, said the force risked “penalising people for expressing misgivings about Islam”, contrary to free speech protections enshrined in law. The Telegraph previously revealed that the chairman of an independent police scrutiny panel was removed after insisting that West Yorkshire Police addressed the “elephant in the room” of Islamist extremism following a terrorist attack on a synagogue... The European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of expression, including expression which may offend, shock or disturb. It also protects freedom of thought, conscience and belief, including the right to hold and manifest religious or philosophical beliefs which may be critical of, or incompatible with, the doctrines or practices of other faiths. But the police’s interpretation of anti-Muslim hostility means that “individuals are left unable to predict whether their lawful speech or beliefs will attract police recording, or how any resulting record may be used, retained, or relied upon”, the letter says. Several other forces are understood to have taken a similar approach to South Wales Police."
Police force accused of creating blasphemy law reported to watchdog - "A police force has been reported to the equalities watchdog after being accused of effectively introducing a blasphemy law for people who criticise Islam... Anything officers decide crosses the line must be recorded, and could be disclosed if the person who said it was vetted by a prospective employer. In her letter to Mary-Ann Stephenson, the chairman of the EHRC, Ms Coutinho writes that policing what is or is not “legitimate” discussion of Islam “creates a more restrictive category of speech that applies only in the context of one religion and has no basis in law”. She adds: “No equivalent instruction exists for the discussion of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other faith. It is, in effect, a de facto blasphemy law which only applies to the discussion of Islam. A public body which applies different rules to the discussion of different religions is not treating citizens equally under the law.” The fact that “entirely lawful comments” made by a person might be recorded and disclosed in an enhanced disclosure and barring service (DBS) check, damaging someone’s employment prospects, “is an inexcusable assault on freedom of speech and equality under the law”, the MP said. The Government’s definition of anti-Muslim hostility contains safeguards for free speech, which campaigners including the Free Speech Union say are ignored by South Wales Police."
Police scrap 'Islamic blasphemy law' after free speech uproar
Meme - Benjamin Jones @BenBarryJones: "We're seeing huge numbers of people being punished for criticising Islam or Muslim cultural practices at @SpeechUnion. This is the number of new such requests for help we get each month. Look what happens after Starmer comes to power. It's a 4x increase. And that was before the new 'anti-Muslim hostility' definition."
‘I told police that criticising Islam wasn’t illegal. Then they sacked me’ - "It was in October last year, when two men were killed in a terrorist attack at a synagogue in Manchester, that Elaine (who has asked for her name to be changed) realised the awful truth about West Yorkshire Police. Even after the attempted mass murder of Jews, officers in Bradford prioritised the feelings of Muslims and censored any criticism of Islam. “I could not believe what I was hearing,” Elaine recalls. “I was taking part in this emergency Teams meeting hosted by West Yorkshire Police that day after the horrific attack on the synagogue. It was chaired by a white female inspector. She was very fair, very strict and didn’t take any nonsense, but she was under constant pressure from the Muslim men in the meeting... “The whole meeting wasn’t about what it should have been about. [It should have been about], ‘How can we protect the Bradford synagogue and the Jewish population?” Instead, she says, much “[was about], ‘We Muslims need protecting because we are now at risk of anti-Muslim reprisals.’” “The perpetrator hadn’t been [named] yet,” Elaine adds, but a significant number of those on the call – about 25 people – seemed to think there was a good chance he was Muslim. “Community leaders, people from the council and police... were all insisting we couldn’t possibly know who the killer was or what his motives were. At the same time, [community leaders] were demanding: ‘What are you going to do to protect Muslims? We’re going to be attacked because of this, so the mosques need 24/7 security.’” Elaine, a whistleblower who has bravely come forward to tell her story to The Telegraph, says there was a “clear contradiction” between Muslim members of the panel claiming “immediate victim status”, as well as their insistence that “we don’t yet know the identity of the attacker”. As a retired senior academic with a distinguished international record in biosecurity, Elaine was approached in 2022 to serve on West Yorkshire Police’s Bradford Hate Crime Scrutiny Panel, made up of members of the public and local officers. The panel’s purpose was to monitor how the police responded to hate crime reports, but it also covered stop and search, as well as incidents when force was used... Some on the panel could be highly critical of the police, but Elaine was usually supportive, often pointing out what a difficult job officers had to do in one of the UK’s most ethnically diverse areas. From time to time, however, she did have cause to wonder about the impartiality of the authorities. In the “random” selection of cases that the panel was given to appraise, why did so few feature British-Pakistanis who dominate the inner-city areas of Bradford? If that thought occurred to her, she quickly dismissed it. In November 2024, Elaine was driving into Shipley when she passed a large electronic sign by the side of the road – the type usually reserved for announcements about speed limits and accidents – flashing the message: “Have you been a victim of Islamophobia?” She emailed a police contact to establish who was behind the sign saying: “I think it’s highly divisive and deprioritises all other sorts of ‘hate crimes.’” She never found out who was responsible. Another incident would come back to bite her. A man had been charged with a hate crime after he rang a police helpline and ranted to the Muslim operator about the Prophet Mohammed marrying a nine-year-old girl, calling him a “paedophile”. Reviewing the case, Elaine was reminded of the so-called “Quran burner” who had been acquitted of a religiously aggravated public order offence by the High Court following a judicial challenge by the Free Speech Union. “I thought what the caller had said was deeply unpleasant, and I don’t agree with it, but I didn’t think it was criminal,” Elaine recalls. “In Britain, you are allowed to criticise a religion – it’s free speech, isn’t it?” Elaine feared that the police’s initial response, which presumably was not unique to this man and this police force, was tantamount to Britain having a blasphemy law by the back door. She arranged to see Chief Superintendent Richard Padwell, the district commander for Bradford, and expressed her concerns during an apparently constructive 90-minute meeting on May 19 last year. Padwell told her that a senior legal panel had agreed with Elaine’s assessment that the comments about the Prophet Mohammed were not a crime, and the man’s charge was downgraded to a non-crime hate incident, with his name being struck from police records. Padwell said there had been a “very heated” meeting about the case, including Muslim officers. Elaine learnt that Muslims in that meeting had been very angry about the outcome, but had been persuaded to change their minds. Elaine wasn’t convinced the Muslim officers had changed their minds – still, she felt the matter was amicably resolved, and at least justice had been done. What she couldn’t possibly know was that the meeting would soon be produced as evidence to support allegations that she had displayed inappropriate, racist behaviour – and used to terrorise her. For three years, Elaine served dutifully on the Hate Crime Scrutiny Panel, eventually becoming chairman. Despite winning a vote to lead the panel, there was a clear reluctance to tell her so and to depose the incumbent (a Muslim man). It was only after repeated nagging over several months that Elaine’s appointment was finally confirmed in December 2024. “It’s my understanding that, when I was chair, Bradford was the only police scrutiny panel in West Yorkshire not to be chaired by a Muslim man,” she says. It was in her capacity as panel chairman that Elaine was invited to that emergency meeting after the deadly attack at the synagogue. “I was totally gobsmacked by what I heard,” she says. The woman police inspector who was chairing said: “Our activities are intelligence-led. There is no intelligence of any danger to any mosques.” She repeated that fact several times. “But the men kept on about how worried they were, [saying]: ‘Our women are too afraid to go out, and we need police protection and CCTV.’” Although there was a promise of police presence “for a while” at the Bradford synagogue, in more than an hour’s discussion, the terrorist atrocity in Manchester was barely mentioned, Elaine says. She reckons the meeting was about half Muslim and half non-Muslim, but “even the non-Muslim people, especially those from the council, were taking the Muslim line”.
Laurence Fox on X - "We need to remove meaningless words such as “Islamophobia” from our beautiful and ancient language. We need to be as rigorous in mocking the term as the midget dictator @SadiqKhan is about making sure no one can reply to his tweets."
John Cleese on X - "The right to criticise a religion is part of British culture. Criticism of Islam is Islamoscepticism, not Islamophobia. Phobias are irrational fears, like arachnophobia- the fear of spiders. Or in the case of Islam, fear of dogs and pigs. Calling scepticism (or criticism) a phobia is a misuse of the English language. An infidel's fear of being beheaded is not irrational"
In praise of Trevor Phillips, the Islamic Human Rights Commission's latest target | The Spectator - "Trevor Phillips turns out to be among the few adults left in the room. His interventions in Britain’s public debate these days are always thoughtful, humane, informed and always worth listening to. So of course the Khomeinists in the preposterously mis-titled ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission’ have decided to put him in their sights. Specifically, they recently named him as a contender for their ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award. I have written about this event a number of times before (for instance here, here and here). I used to treat this annual event with the frivolity and contempt that it deserved. When they nominated me for the title alongside people like Maajid Nawaz or Raheem Kassam it seemed obvious that they were just hilariously demonstrating what anybody with eyes and an attention-span could see – which was that here was a group of people with a very obvious set of goals manipulating a word in an effort to mislead the world. Then in 2015 I thought even the most biting laughter ought to stop. That was the year in which the IHRC gave the award of ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ to the journalists at Charlie Hebdo who had been slaughtered only a few weeks earlier. During the awards ceremony itself the IHRC’s presenters ‘joked’ about the fact that there didn’t seem to be anybody around to pick the award up. I wrote about this at the time, in a piece which drew a typically illiterate response from the IHRC’s Chair. That man – one Massoud Shadjareh – tried to present his case to my editor that the IHRC which organises the ‘Islamophobe’ of the Year awards is an entirely different entity from the IHRC Trust (which is a registered charity). As I said at the time, Shadjareh must have thought that Britain’s oldest periodical was in fact born yesterday. Anyhow – I dispensed with Shadjareh’s time-wasting here. I will leave it to the British public to decide in what way the IHRC remaining a charity is remotely in the ‘public benefit’. One can see how it is to the benefit of Khomeinists. But most of the British public are not Khomeinists. In any case, Massoud Shadjareh evidently found these exchanges somewhat bruising. They clearly preyed on his mind. So much so that earlier this year, when he got a rare opportunity to appear on the BBC, Shadjareh seized the opportunity to slander me. So outrageous were the IHRC Chair’s remarks that the BBC was subsequently forced to suspend normal programming and broadcast an on-air retraction and apology to me which went out on their news channel. Perhaps it is for this reason that Shadjareh and his group have dropped me from the list of nominees of an event they now describe as ‘a satirical awards ceremony’. However, in my place they have put Trevor Phillips and also the former government integration tsar, Dame Louise Casey. I am pleased that Trevor has responded with the vehemence and outrage his nomination demands... in the IHRC’s strange, Khomeinist, moral universe, revealing what some British Muslims actually think must be ‘Islamophobic’. Especially when some British Muslims turn out to think things that are worrying. A decent group might recognise that the answer to such disturbing findings would be to try to help change what British Muslims think, or make them think more decent things. But, as I say, the IHRC are a Khomeinist group and for such a group, with such goals, the best course of action is of course to attack anybody who reveals what some British Muslims think. Trevor Phillips simply turns out to be the IHRC’s latest victim."
From 2017
Islamophobia award ‘puts target on back’ of former equalities chief Trevor Phillips - "The annual Islamophobia awards are “genuinely dangerous”, according to Trevor Phillips, the former equalities chief who is nominated for a controversial satirical award from the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC). Other nominees for the Islamophobia awards, presented in a London ceremony tonight by the pressure group — which is authorised to take part in UN meetings — include Ofsted, the schools inspectorate, and Dame Louise Casey, the former integration tsar. Phillips said the label “painted a target on the back of people on the list”. He added: “Defining Louise or myself or anybody else as an Islamophobe is offering a licence to do us harm... Ofsted, which last week announced plans to question children who wear the hijab to primary school, described the label as “disappointing and unhelpful, particularly if it leads to flawed perceptions about what we, as an inspectorate, are trying to achieve”. In its announcement of the nominations, the IHRC says it is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) holding special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN. It was admitted in 2007, entitling it to take part in UN meetings... The IHRC said the public nominated the contenders for the awards, and voted on who they wanted to win. It said it was unable to explain on what grounds particular nominations had been made, but would announce the citations for the winners. Casey’s review of integration, published by the government last December, found that segregation was at “worrying levels” and accused public bodies of being too afraid to challenge divisive or harmful religious practices."
It's Islamophobia if you question whether primary school kids are wearing the hijab of their own accord. Meanwhile, other defenders of Islam claim that it's a choice and/or that only post-pubescent females are supposed to wear it
This is a pretty naked admission that "Islamophobia" is basically any criticism of Islam or pointing out of issues with it or Muslims
Muslims Are Creating ‘Nations Within Nations’ Says Former Head of U.K. Equalities Commission - Newsweek - "The former head of Britain's Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he "got almost everything wrong" regarding immigration in a new report, claiming Muslims are creating "nations within nations" in the West. Phillips says followers of Islam hold very different values from the rest of society and many want to lead separate lives. The former head of the U.K.'s equalities watchdog also advocates the monitoring of ethnic minority populations on housing estates to stop them becoming "ghetto villages."... He says schools may have to consider a 50 per cent limit on Muslim, or other minority pupils, to encourage social integration. And he says disturbing survey findings point to a growing chasm between the attitudes of many British Muslims and their compatriots. Phillips' intervention comes after he was asked to analyse the findings of a major survey on Muslim attitudes in the U.K., which will form the basis of Channel 4's documentary, What British Muslims Really Think...
• One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house
• 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband
• 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife
• 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal
• 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament...
"Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. "Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.""
From 2016. Clearly, Muslims refuse to enter non-Muslim houses because they are repelled by Islamophobia, so non-Muslims need to do better and anyone who talks about Sharia is an ignorant far right scaremongerer raising discredited conspiracy theories
Trevor Phillips' warning on 'UK Muslim ghettoes' - "Fifty-two per cent of the Muslims surveyed did not believe that homosexuality should be legal, and even more opposed gay marriage. Almost half thought it was unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children. And young Muslims were found to be nearly as far removed from the rest of British society as their elders. Mr Phillips says most Muslims in this ‘nation-within-a-nation’ reject violence in defence of their faith. But 4 per cent, equivalent to 100,000 British Muslims, had sympathy for those who used violent ends to defend Islam... Two fifths (39 per cent) of Muslims say a woman should always obey her husband, compared to 5 per cent of non-Muslims... Finally, there’s the small matter of the Jews: 35 per cent of British Muslims – compared to 8 per cent of others – believe Jewish people have too much power in Britain... Four per cent – the equivalent of more than 100,000 British Muslims – told the researchers that they had sympathy for people who take part in suicide bombing to fight injustice. Asked if they knew that someone was involved with supporting terrorism in Syria, just one in three would report it to the police... All the while, girls are shipped off to have their genitals mutilated, young women and men are being pressured into marriages they do not want, and teenagers are being seduced into donning suicide vests or becoming jihadi brides. We have ‘understood’ too much, and challenged too little – and in doing so are in danger of sacrificing a generation of young British people to values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us, including many Muslims. In my view, we have to adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism. In the case of British Muslims it means ensuring that schools – such as those in the ‘Trojan Horse’ case in Birmingham where hardliners tried to impose an Islamist agenda – are not taken over by any single minority group... Some will find such steps distasteful. One Left-wing commentator has already claimed that our analysis reveals attitudes no different from those of elderly white Britons – or indeed some Conservatives. This entirely underestimates the seriousness of what Britain’s Muslims are telling us"
Left wing logic: because there're non-Muslims who think women should always obey their husbands, it's racist and Islamophobic to criticise Muslims though more of them believe that. Per capita is only important when it makes white people look bad
An inconvenient truth | The Spectator Australia - "I think the general British public have known for some time what Phillips’s documentary professed to find surprising: that large numbers of Muslims don’t want to integrate, that their views aren’t remotely enlightened, and that more than a few of them sympathise with terrorism. It’s only the establishment elite that has ever pretended otherwise. As former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Phillips was very much part of that elite... The fact that so impeccably liberal a figure is now issuing a mea culpa like this speaks volumes about how dire the situation has grown. ‘Everyone who has pinned their hopes on the rise of reforming and liberal British Muslim voices are in for a disappointment,’ said Phillips. ‘These voices are nowhere near as numerous as they need to be to make an impact... Normally the PC response to these surveys is to shoot the messenger, as the BBC and the Guardian and the usual dhimmi apologists did last year, when the Sun revealed that one in four British Muslims sympathised with the motives of the Charlie Hebdo killers. They’ll find it harder this time, not just because Phillips is black and probably reads the Guardian, but also because the survey was so thorough. It was conducted, face to face, by people of the same religion. And when it came to the really tricky question — the one about terrorism — a blank envelope was provided for the answer, so that respondents felt freer to say what they really thought. There wasn’t much to disagree with in this brave and honest programme, except for the odd momentary lapse, as when Phillips said, of Islamophobia, ‘I’ve no doubt that most of it emanates from sheer blind prejudice.’ I doubt even he believes that excuse any more. It was just a legacy of the kind of language all public figures were pretty much forced to use about the Religion of Peace till quite recently — Cameron showing the way with that disingenuous speech about ‘moderate and reforming voices who speak for the vast majority of Muslims’. Of course we’d all like to believe that stuff, but the truth just doesn’t accord with the fantasy. Take those 85 Sharia councils currently violating one of the most basic principles of English justice — equality before the law. Yes, we can cosily delude ourselves that they just deal with civil issues — marriage mainly — that can safely be regulated by religion. But can they? A Zurich professor called Elham Manea, herself a Muslim, had attended these courts and found them promoting a version of Islam as extreme as that practised in her native Yemen or by the Taliban, where women were treated as ‘minors in perpetual need of male guardianship’. How exactly does that accord with the legislation and practice of a country where men and women are supposed to have guaranteed equality? Our solution up until now has been a kind of national cognitive dissonance — one where we all agree to pretend that Muslims are sweet, smiley and integrated, like lovely Nadiya from Great British Bake Off and that her fellow Lutonians — the 7/7 suicide bombers — have, as the weasel phrase has it, ‘nothing to do with Islam’. It’s not easy, though, and getting harder — as we saw on this week’s The Island with Bear Grylls (Channel 4, Mondays). I don’t doubt the producers were overjoyed when they managed to recruit their first Muslim castaway — Bradford body-builder Rizwan Shabir. But any hopes of a male Nadiya vanished this week when he quit, pleading an inability to cope with ‘living with women who are half-naked’... I’ll leave the last word on this yawning cultural chasm to Noshaba Hussain, middle-aged former headmistress of Springfield Primary, one of the Trojan Horse schools in Birmingham. A nine-year-old pupil had asked why she wasn’t wearing a headscarf, declaring, ‘Only slags don’t cover their heads.’ ‘This attitude is not acceptable in state schools in Britain,’ observed Ms Hussain. Well indeed. As Ray Honeyford was so maligned for telling us just 32 years ago."
Trevor Phillips suspended from Labour over Islamophobia allegations - "The former UK equality watchdog chief, Trevor Phillips, has been suspended from the Labour Party over allegations of Islamophobia... Mr Phillips was among 24 public figures who wrote to the Guardian last year declaring their refusal to vote for Labour because of its association with anti-Semitism... Mr Phillips has been suspended pending investigation over remarks, including expressing concerns about Pakistani Muslim men sexually abusing children in northern British towns... It says the complaint also covers his comments about the failure of some Muslims to wear poppies for Remembrance Sunday and the sympathy shown by some in an opinion poll towards the "motives" of the Charlie Hebdo attackers... Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Phillips stood by his previous assertions that Muslims were "different", adding: "Well, actually, that's true. The point is Muslims are different and in many ways I think that is admirable." But he criticised the party for taking offence, saying: "I am kind of surprised that what is and always has been an open and democratic party decides that its members cannot have healthy debate about how we address differences of values and outlooks." Mr Phillips went on to describe the decision by Labour to adopt the definition of Islamophobia agreed by an all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims as "nonsense", as Muslims were "not a race". He added: "My objection is very simple. That definition said...that Islamophobia is rooted in a kind of racism - expressions of hostility towards Muslimness. "First of all, Muslims are not a race. My personal hero was Muhammad Ali, before that Malcolm X. "They became Muslims largely because it is a pan-racial faith. This is not a racial grouping, so describing hostility to them as racial is nonsense."... Mr Phillips was the founding chair of the EHRC, which is currently investigating anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, when it launched in 2006. He has previously made documentaries about race and multiculturalism, and now chairs Index on Censorship - a group that campaigns for freedom of expression."
Labour lifts Trevor Phillips’ suspension for alleged Islamophobia - "He also said it was correct for Muslims to be judged collectively because “the truth is, if you do belong to a group, whether it is a church, or a football club, you identify with a particular set of values, and you stand for it. And frankly you are judged by that.”"
From 2020/2021, when grooming gangs were still a racist, far right conspiracy theory. Good luck if you refuse to wave the Pride flag
The irony of Trevor Phillips’ suspension - spiked - "There is something grimly ironic about the Labour Party’s decision to suspend Trevor Phillips from its membership on the grounds of ‘Islamophobia’. For it was Phillips who helped introduce and popularise this bogus word and fraudulent concept in the first place. In 1997, the Runnymede Trust think-tank, which Phillips chaired, published a report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All, assessing the state of race relations and specifically looking at the question of sometimes hostile attitudes towards Muslims. Despite being noble in intent, the neologism was an unfortunate one. ‘Phobia’ suggests irrational fear, and while some anti-Islamic prejudice may be irrational – there is a whole spectrum of different interpretations of Islam – some fear of Islam isn’t. The fundamentalist interpretation, as acted out on the Twin Towers four years after the Runnymede report was published, proved that a form of Islam is indeed something to be feared. ‘Islamophobia’ not only presented itself as something inherently irrational, but it also sought to protect one religion from any criticism. The term became a means to reintroduce heresy, if not into actual law, then into modern-day discourse. It is to this day employed to censure or silence anyone who criticises the religion, its adherents or those brought up in Muslim communities. Thus, any prominent figure who has expressed concerns about the Rotherham child-abuse scandal, perpetrated by men of Pakistani-Muslim origin, is tarnished as an ‘Islamophobe’. The same goes for those who draw attention to evidence showing a disturbingly high proportion of British Muslims sympathising with the terrorists who killed the editorial staff of Charlie Hebdo. ‘Islamophobia’ inevitably becomes attached to a voice who worries that the UK is ‘sleepwalking towards segregation’, and that a ‘chasm’ has been opening up between Muslims and non-Muslims on key issues such as sexuality, the validity of violence, and freedom of speech.
Leading Muslims hit out at Trevor Phillips’s role in Covid-19 BAME deaths inquiry - "The selection of Trevor Phillips to investigate why Covid-19 is killing more Black, Asian and minority ethnic people has sparked a row after leading Muslims criticised his appointment as “insensitive”."
Trevor Phillips: Islamophobia has been warped by ‘orcs’ - "There were many layers of irony in Labour’s decision to suspend Trevor Phillips last week. Notwithstanding that a lifelong anti-racism campaigner and former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission was deemed Islamophobic by the party, but it was Phillips himself who popularised the term. In 1997, he commissioned the ‘Runnymede Report’, which sought to shed light on the rising levels of anti-Muslim and anti-Islam hatred in the UK. In the two or so decades since, critics have argued that the term has become so warped (and even weaponised) in everyday discourse that it has lost meaning...
'If you read Lord of the Rings, one of the things that somebody asks is: what are the origins of the orcs? Tolkien tells you that orcs are elves that were taken, tortured, stretched and deformed into a completely different, ugly and vicious form. Something like that has happened with what we tried to do on Islamophobia: we simply tried to create the situation where people who were not being treated equally would be protected. Then some other people came with completely different purposes and have taken that and tried to turn it into something different.'
Just a few weeks ago, Phillips argued that minority voices and cultures would be less protected if the right to dissent and free speech was not defended. That he has now found himself falling prey to the same forces that he warned about makes his point all the more pertinent."
From 2020
