𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

The Labour Government has revealed plans to monitor anti-Muslim hate speech in public and private institutions by unveiling a new definition of Islamophobia. The introduction of an official definition of anti-Muslim hostility has sent a chill through free speech advocates as they fear legitimate criticism of Islam – from concerns about honour killings and Pakistani-heritage rape gangs – will be discouraged and community tensions inflamed.

Could columns like this one even be outlawed? The controversial move comes in the wake of the Government’s Social Cohesion Strategy research paper, which identified heightened hostility towards Muslim immigrants. It blames the rise of Union Flags and the Cross of St George as potential tools of hate.

But the flag-raising campaign was in response to genuine concerns about illegal migrants housed in hotels threatening the peace of local communities and some highly publicised assaults on local women. Are we no longer allowed to express our worries?

The Government document does admit that much of this tension has been created by mass migration at a pace that leaves local people feeling as though they are losing their identity. And, as the report insists, it’s not racist to say that. And so it shouldn’t be, yet the Left has always liked to foster the idea of it being Right-wing to object to uncontrolled migration.

This new anti-hate speech policy leaves this lingering in the air. It is a hammer blow to hit all those thinking of voting for Reform or other Right-wing parties, and is intended to intimidate anyone thinking of objecting to the increased presence of Islam in Britain.

It’s funny that there’s no demand for anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh, or anti-Catholic hate speech tsars. I wonder why that is? Equally, the Government has been slow to censure the relentless marches against Jewish people in Britain under pro-Palestine banners. In contrast, the German government has been much more forthright in its defence of Jewish citizens.

All these communities have long integrated into our way of life, respecting and not challenging our daily rules.

One cannot escape the thought that this political gesture is intended to ingratiate the Labour Party with the Muslim electorate. In the wake of the rise of sectarian politics, such as the naked courting of Muslim issues including Gaza, it looks like a sticking plaster to stop the haemorrhaging of votes to more extreme left-wing parties like the Greens.

Just recently, Keir Starmer has been at pains to dissociate himself from Donald Trump’s assault on Iran, even though he has diminished Britain’s role in the world as a result. As always, Starmer is happy to chip away at Britain’s global reputation if it means he can win a few extra votes. Party before nation is the reality of Labour in power.

But the social price is enormous. Councils are looking the other way when faced by allegations of so-called “family” voting. Vulnerable women are exposed to exploitation by Muslim gangs while police and social services seek to avoid being called “racist”.

Jewish families feel intimidated in what used to be a safe haven as weekly marches curse them in the name of pro-Palestine. Even Islamist terrorists have not been identified as security services don’t wish to be accused of negative profiling,as happened with the Manchester Arena bomber.

This new anti-Muslim hate speech campaign will only increase such failures of justice, as more and more of us are dissuaded from speaking out because someone comes from a different religion. And there is a danger bad actors on both sides of the debate will be encouraged to stoke division because of perceived special treatment.

The Government’s former anti-extremism tsar Lord Walney warns the new definition could be used by religious extremists to “deflect scrutiny from their quest to undermine our values and intimidate fellow Muslims”. The Government’s proposals are naked propaganda for a greater diversity agenda that leaves many of us feeling ignored and uneasy.

Free speech is our only protection against an open borders policy that no one voted for. I have just come back from Switzerland, a country much more at ease with its limited immigration, and they are proposing a referendum this summer on capping their population at its present figure.

Rather than trying to shut down this debate with anti-hate speech policies sucking up to one vociferous minority, this Labour Government should give us all the chance to vote on the mass migration that has profoundly changed our country over the last two decades. That would be real justice and fairness serving us all.