I’ve been smeared for trying to speak out about Islamist extremists
LAST Wednesday was a dark day for our democracy. After steady deterioration, the Islamist threat reached a high-water mark, with the Speaker asserting that the high risk of physical violence towards MPS led him to bend parliamentary procedure. Even then, the debate ended with a respected colleague of mine pleading with the Speaker to hold a formal vote, fearful that his family’s security was still in jeopardy.
The backdrop of the Israel-hamas conflict may have given the Westminster bubble the illusion this was a disturbing anomaly, but the events in SW1 fit a much wider pattern.
In recent years alone, a school teacher in Batley, West Yorkshire, was forced into hiding by an Islamist mob because of direct threats towards their physical safety. We lost an outstanding colleague in Sir David Amess to an Islamist terrorist. And just last month,
Mike Freer was hounded out for taking a brave stand against anti-semitism.
After Hamas’s pogrom on Israel, weekly marches in central London have been littered with those glorifying Islamist terrorists and rabid antisemitism. Hundreds of thousands of people thought it appropriate to stand alongside these extremists.
At each of these junctures, appeasement has only emboldened Islamists and their extreme Left-wing allies. There was no better metaphor for the strength of their movement and the weakness of the authorities than the failure to prevent the genocidal chant, “from the river to the sea”, being projected on to Elizabeth Tower while, inside, the Commons caved.
Last Thursday, I spoke in the House of Commons to lament this pattern of intimidation. My comments sent some in the liberal elite into overdrive. They quickly attempted to discredit me for daring to diagnose this epidemic of extremism as of a distinctly “Islamist” persuasion. They would have had no problem if this was “far-right” extremism – as indeed it was with the tragic murder of Jo Cox.
Many sought to close down my argument about Islamist extremism, despite me doing exactly what they profess to care about and choosing my language carefully. Baroness Warsi described me as an “extremist”. The Scottish Greens sought to smear me an “Islamophobe”. Neither seemed capable of making the distinction between Islamism as a revolutionary and extreme political ideology and Islam as a peaceful personal faith.
It’s now become routine to use the “Islamophobia” label to silence criticism of extremism and sectarian politics. I am far from the first and I won’t be the last to be attacked as Islamophobic for holding a position that is in no plausible way anti-muslim if we accept the terms of the current debate.
Such practice is enabled by censorious definitions that have been hastily recognised by political parties and councils. For instance, Labour has adopted the nebulous and incredibly broad definition of Islamophobia as a “type of racism [that] targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. It runs head-first into two immediate problems: British Muslims are not bound by a shared ethnic identity, and within the community there are huge
differences. This definition classifies derogatory comments about Mohammed as Islamophobic.
But we would never apply the same standard against the Pope or Jesus, despite being a Christian country and these religious figures being sacred to millions of practicing Christians. Elsewhere the authors include “claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule”, which is a denial of a well-established history of Islamic imperialism. Again, we would never apply the same standard to Christians and The Crusades.
All-party Parliamentary Groups (APPG) on Islamophobia, which authored this definition, couldn’t
provide any example in its report of how criticism of Islamists would fall outside the definition.
In fact, the term “Islamism” only features in its report in a quote in which anti-islamism and antimuslimism are described as “intimately connected” and “both can be constitutive parts of Islamophobia”. Tellingly, this deeply problematic statement is not challenged by the authors. It’s this conflation of work to expose extremism as “Islamophobic” that has prompted Labour peer Lord Walney and prominent Muslims working in counter-extremism, such as Dame Sara Khan, to criticise the APPG definition.
In so doing, the definition risks enabling sectarianism within British Muslim communities. Just this week, a British Muslim had his kebab shop in Bradford, West Yorkshire, attacked by a mob for not boycotting Coca-cola. But under the Left’s soft bigotry of low expectations they ignore the fact Islamism is an extreme political project that is in fact largely rejected by British Muslims. Desperate to preserve their progressive status in polite society, they turn a blind eye to British Muslims being intimidated and harassed by this same mob.
Sir Keir Starmer’s silence on this threat is an abdication of leadership. If he were to legislate for Labour’s definition of Islamophobia as part of his proposed new race equality act it would be a gift for the identitarian activists seeking to close down debate on extremism. It would risk crucial
counter-extremism efforts at a time when Islamist extremists still make up 75 per cent of the security services’ caseload (even with the far-right threat growing).
And it would be tantamount to a blasphemy law, infringing fundamental free-speech rights.
None of this is incompatible with combatting anti-muslim prejudice. We must protect our fellow Muslim citizens, not illiberal Islamist doctrine. There has been a concerning rise in anti-muslim hate that must be called out and robustly tackled. To do so is in no way to downplay anti-semitism – racism is not a competition.
Nor is it to say that in their despair at the unacceptable status quo, some haven’t gone too far. Lee Anderson’s comments were mistaken. Sadiq Khan has turned a blind eye to sectarianism on the streets and appalling lack of integration, but he is not controlled by Islamists. They would despise his support for the LGBT community and his refusal to support the hate-filled BDS Movement.
But it is shameful that so many use these comments to dodge the uncomfortable but most pressing issue: political intimidation successfully subverted our democratic process and the cancer of Islamist extremism is growing unchecked in our communities. The alarm bells should be ringing.