Don't assume Labour has learnt from rape gangs scandal – now it's targeting criticism of Islam in free speech crackdown
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'.
2
2
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?
National inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal finally ordered by Keir Starmer in another Labour U-turn
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 Goodwin
Indeed, 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 Goodwin
You 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.
But 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Fast-track suicide if you pay extra, discount deals for couples and you don't even have to be terminally ill: Inside Germany's morally queasy approach to assisted dying where business is booming for the pedlars of euthanasia
Last week, the UK's highest elected officials ruled on the most existential of questions: how we choose to die. At its third reading, the Assisted Dying Bill passed the Commons by a slim majority of 23 votes, and now its fate lies with the Lords, where it faces a bumpy ride before it becomes law. The upper chamber, for instance, will examine if a three-person panel of professionals (from law, psychiatry and social work) offers greater safety and oversight in approving a patient's application to die than a High Court judge, as was originally proposed. Peers will have at their disposal the grim cost-benefit analysis to the NHS in accelerating the deaths of the terminally ill, released last month under the cover of the local election results. According to the report, as many as 1,300 people are expected to apply to die in the first year, saving as much as £10million in medical bills. But can the health service cope with this demand, especially as NHS staff will be offered an opt-out from the ugly business of state-sponsored suicide? No doubt private health providers are already bending the ears of peers for a slice of the death industry pie. It would be tempting to allow private enterprise to take some of the strain, but I urge the Lords to look at how business seized the opportunity with morally queasy gusto in my native land, Germany, where some firms offer a 'fast track' service for people who can pay more and even special discounts to couples wishing to hasten their demise. Pictured: Pedestrians walk past the posters promoting the Assisted Dying bill at Westminster Underground station In Germany, anyone 18 or over can lawfully commit suicide with the help of a third party. Yes, anyone. There is no requirement for the person to be six months from death, nor is there any specification over having a life-limiting or debilitating illness (as in the UK Bill). A perfectly healthy university student can seek help to kill themselves for no better reason than they are fed up with life. Hannelore Kring, 83, is typical of Germany's liberal approach to assisted suicide. A recording of her death featured in a podcast by news broadcaster WDR and it is a spine-chilling reminder of how relaxed my countrymen are about dying. At an undertaker's, Frau Kring is accompanied by two 'death helpers' – a nurse and retired teacher – and sounds relieved her life will end in a matter of minutes. Dressed in black and with make-up, as if attending a party, she suggests a dance with the nurse. Indeed, she is not ill, she is as healthy as anyone in their 80s. She has run a second-hand men's boutique in Hamburg but feels life's no longer worth living. She's lonely, all her friends have died and the state of the world depresses her. The helpers ask if she really wants to go through with it. 'Absolutely!' she replies enthusiastically. The nurse hooks her up to an infusion of a lethal dose of narcotics – a 'suicide cocktail'. She merely has to turn a valve, letting the toxic chemicals enter her bloodstream, putting her to sleep for ever. It's important she takes the final step herself, otherwise the helpers could be charged with manslaughter. Assisted suicides like this have been fully legal in Germany since 2020, although legislation has been a generation in the making. After the Second World War the subject was largely taboo, in no small part due to revulsion at the Nazis' Aktion T4 programme, which entailed the 'mercy killing' of 300,000 disabled people. By the 1970s and 1980s, a push for more patient autonomy led to court decisions in 1984 and 1990 that ensured suffering, bed-ridden people had the right to stop treatments that prolonged their lives. With the 2009 Patient Directive Law, people could include such instructions in a living will if they became incapacitated. This gave legal protections to doctors offering assisted suicide. But then the public grew uneasy at what seemed a creeping commercialisation of the right to die. Healthcare is not free at the point of use in Germany, so the nation is more comfortable than the UK with private provision within the system. But only up to a point. Many were appalled in 2014 when a Berlin urologist Uwe-Christian Arnold revealed he had helped 'several hundred people' take their lives since the late 1990s for fees of up to €10,000. Christian groups accused him of undermining the sanctity of life. The German Medical Association threatened him with a €50,000 fine, saying doctors should prolong life, not give their patients lethal poisons. Arnold took them to court over the fine and won. Also in 2014, a right-to-die association in Hamburg caused uproar for offering fast-track assisted suicide consultations in exchange for higher membership fees. Its normal rate was €2,000, with a waiting time of a year, but it introduced a jump-the-queue service for €7,000. Other providers offered discounts for couples interested in dying together. These were grisly bargains that lead many to regard Germany as a Las Vegas of suicide, which was anathema to a country that saw itself as otherwise Christian and conservative. Church groups took to Berlin's streets as legislators sought to crack down on the industry. Arnold and others passionately defended their businesses. The 'death helpers' argued the issue was comparable to abortion: a ban would be unfair to the terminally ill, who shouldn't have to travel to places like Switzerland to end their lives with dignity. The debate ended with parliament banning 'commercial' assisted suicide under Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015. Subsequently, only friends and relatives who received no money for their assistance could help someone end their life. Legal challenges were launched by right-to-die advocates and people suffering terminal illnesses. In a 2020 judgement, the Constitutional Court said the freedoms enshrined in the country's post-war constitution meant 'the decision to take one's own life must be respected by the state as an act of personal autonomy'. Those who had been put out of work by the previous ruling were free to ply their trade once again. Five years after that decision, it feels like we're back to the Wild West of pre-2015. Assisted suicide in Germany is an unregulated free-for-all. A slew of undertakers, lawyers and independent doctors are facilitating a rising toll of assisted deaths. Last year it was about 1,000, though no one is keeping exact figures. Likewise there's no central registry of providers. Nearly anyone can set up shop. The largest player in the business is the German Association for Humane Dying (DGHS), which charges €4,000 a suicide but offers a discounted €6,000 for couples. It says that of the 623 people for whom it arranged suicide last year (it forwards requests to independent teams of doctors and lawyers), 22 per cent were just 'fed up with life'. Two-thirds were female. DGHS spokesperson Wega Wetzel says: 'Women are more likely to be widowed and 'left over' than men. Women are more likely to plan and communicate, while men often choose 'hard' suicide methods such as hanging.' Equally worrying is the fact that nothing prevents young people from choosing the path of assisted suicide. The youngest case I heard of was a 21-year-old man. The only requirement spelled out by the court was that the person be 'freely responsible' for their decision. At least DGHS, to maintain its reputation, has doctors and lawyers screen applicants to ensure they understand what they're getting into, that they're not being coerced and that they do not show symptoms of mental illness or dementia. But nobody knows how many independent providers are making money with assisted suicide. Nobody knows how they are screening clients, particularly in the more affordable services where standards may be lower. A study last month in the British Medical Journal analysed 77 assisted suicides in Munich. It found that one patient's consultation with a clinic lasted 55 minutes and the death was booked for the next day. The assisting physician in another case was a relative of the patient. In a 2022 case, the suicidal person was judged of sound mind based on a five-year-old mental capacity evaluation. But there is still broad support for the right to die: 80 per cent of Germans feel it's appropriate for the critically ill. But just 30 per cent say it should be available to people with a long life ahead of them, and only 3 per cent for young people having a crisis. Ute Lewitzska, professor for suicide studies at Frankfurt University, sees a fundamental change in how we deal with growing old. 'Supply creates demand,' she says. 'The 2020 court decision didn't just open a crack in the door, it flung the door wide open – and we're not going to be able to close that door again.' The fear is a normalisation of assisted suicide. For some it's a humane way to end one's life; for others it's an easy solution to suffering that's being oversold. Dr Lukas Radbruch, director of palliative care at University Clinic Bonn, has worked with end-of-life patients for three decades. He says many more now ask about assisted suicide but 'so many people are not sufficiently informed. Or we have doubts about how voluntary their choice is. Or we realise they still want to live, even if they say they want to die.' Sometimes a suicidal person needs counselling, not the means to kill themselves. Where do you draw the line? Dr Radbruch asks. In 2023 the German parliament tried to hammer out rules to provide clearer guidance, but MPs couldn't reach a consensus. Like many in the West, Germany seems destined to grope its way through this ethical minefield with no transparent way forward that is satisfactory for all. I do not envy the task ahead for Britain's Lords. My country's experience offers a salutary lesson that for the Bill to become law, they must make black and white what is a painfully grey issue.
BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
Give new recruits £10,000 to join army, says Sir Ed Davey
New soldiers should be offered a £10,000 bonus to rapidly boost troop numbers to deal with an increasingly unpredictable world, the Lib Dems have government should also distribute pamphlets to make sure every British home is "war-ready" and able to deal with blackouts and chaos caused by the outbreak of conflict or cyber-attacks, Lib Dem Leader Sir Ed Davey Lib Dems claim the plans will "urgently" boost to the number of trained soldiers from just under 71,000 to more than 73, the face of a "barbaric" Russian President Vladimir Putin and an "erratic" US President Donald Trump, Sir Ed said the UK must be better prepared. Over the weekend, Sir Ed visited Estonia to see British troops on what he called Nato's "frontline with Russia".His visit had shown him "it is clear given the threat of a barbaric Putin and the challenge of an erratic Trump, we need to do more to make Britain war-ready," he said."War readiness also starts at home," Sir Ed added, "which is why I am calling for a public awareness campaign aimed at every home in Britain - to make sure we're all prepared for the possibility of a conflict or hostile acts such as major cyber-attacks".Under the plans, new recruits receive a £10,000 bonus after completing training and serving for two armed services personnel would be offered a £20,000 payment if they return to serve two additional starting salary for new recruits to the British Army is £26,334 a a government scheme launched last November, a total of 17,000 armed forces personnel became eligible for retention engineers can get £30,000 if they sign up for a further three years, with privates and lance corporals eligible for £8,000 for four proposed Lib Dem scheme would be limited to 3,000 personnel, including new recruits and re-enlistees, with its £60m cost covered by the main defence plans are drawn up with the expectation that defence spending would rise to 2.5% of national income or GDP by 2027 - as promised by Lib Dems have called for the uplift in defence spending to be funded through an increase of the Digital Services Tax - a 2% levy on the biggest social media and tech companies, which raises about £800m a Lib Dems argue the bonus scheme would "urgently increase" the number of trained UK regular soldiers up to 73,000 - from the 70,752 listed in the most recent official month, the government set out plans for a small increase to the size of the regular army to 76,000 full-time soldiers after 2029 - although this has yet to be has also proposed a 20% increase in Active Reserves "when funding allows" - most likely after 2030 following an overhaul of the armed forces. The government is consulting on plans to regenerate military homes with £7bn of funding by 2025, after bringing the defence estate back under Ministry of Defence (MoD) control last Conservatives have called for an increase in UK troop numbers but have not set out how many they think are week, the shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge set out plans to have military homes run by a housing association to tackle the "poor" state of accommodation and stem an exodus of a third of UK troops were considering leaving the armed forces due to the standard of accommodation, the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) own survey found. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
MPs' shock as former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe reveals he had pet labrador put down with a shotgun
He has been no stranger to controversy since becoming a Reform MP last year – and now Rupert Lowe has sparked fury after having his pet labrador put down with a shotgun. Colleagues were shocked after it emerged Mr Lowe – now sitting as an independent – asked his gamekeeper to shoot 17-year-old Cromwell in the back of the head at his Gloucestershire estate. The dog had been unwell and lost the use of his back legs. Mr Lowe said he took decisive action after realising Cromwell's suffering was extreme and that waiting overnight to take him to the vet would be 'cruel'. He made the admission openly to colleagues in Westminster, triggering fierce debate about whether it was a kind choice. A parliamentary source said: 'For weeks, it was going around the Commons like wildfire that Rupert had shot his dog. Colleagues were appalled and upset, with most thinking it was a cruel way to behave.' Some MPs see a town-versus-country element to this method of putting animals down. Those in rural areas, including landowners, are seen as being less sentimental. One MP said: 'It's an 'old money' thing to do. That may have been acceptable 100 years ago but it's not now.' Mr Lowe told The Mail on Sunday last night that he believes it is more humane to have a dog put down at home because animals can sense something is amiss at the vet and tend to panic. The Great Yarmouth MP said: 'My keeper shot our dog the other day. He was a labrador of 17. 'Dogs do go through ups and downs for a bit, but in the end Cromwell's back legs went and our keeper Kevin very kindly did the job. 'Cromwell didn't go anywhere, he wasn't away from home and he wouldn't have known anything about it. So much kinder. 'They are not driven to the vet, they don't smell the vet, it's just all over very quickly.' Mr Lowe said that while he gave the instruction to shoot Cromwell, he couldn't stomach doing it himself. He added: 'I would find it difficult, which is why my keeper did it. So you can call me a coward on that basis, if you want. 'I've got friends who can shoot their dogs. [They] just take them on a walk, put a shooting rifle at the back of their head and bang, done. 'They don't feel anything. I would have found it hard. He was 17 and had been with us that long. 'I would be proud to tell you it was me who did it, [but] I can't claim that credit.' Mr Lowe had Cromwell buried by his tennis court, with his previous pets, and raised a toast to him. Elizabeth Davenport, campaign manager at Animal Aid, said: 'It highlights a serious failing of animal protection in the UK. 'There is currently no legislation that protects dogs from this kind of 'at home' euthanasia – or indeed many other concerning practices. 'Legislation that does exist, such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006, only protects animals from 'unnecessary' harm but allows individuals – who may have no prior knowledge or experience of animal health and welfare – to decide what is or is not necessary.' In December, Reform Chief Whip Lee Anderson posted on social media about having his West Highland terrier Alfie, also 17, put down by a vet. Mr Anderson wrote: 'This morning Alfie went to sleep for the last time. All his pain has gone. He has left a massive hole.' Meanwhile, US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem's chances of being Donald Trump's vice-presidential running mate evaporated last year after she wrote about shooting dead her 14-month-old wirehair pointer Cricket, who she deemed 'untrainable', and a troublesome goat. FOR: Going to the vet is so distressing for them by Jamie Blackett Putting an animal to sleep is not as easy as the euphemism sounds. My dog Pippin can smell a vet at 50 paces, so going to the surgery is a rather distressing ordeal. Once there, a vet has to shave a patch of fur on the scruff before finding a vein to slide the needle into. While a dog doesn't understand euthanasia, it can sense something nasty coming – even if the vet carries out the procedure at home. I've been through this a number of times with past dogs and, though I have never been able to bring myself to shoot one, I suspect it would be much kinder. I've certainly shot dozens of cattle over the years, as I run a farm in Dumfriesshire. If one is beyond help, the vet shakes her head and says: 'Will you deal with it?' So, as the cow has its head in delicious cattle cake feed, I take aim and she is gone before she even hears the shot. Similarly, Rupert Lowe's dog will have woken up in the happy hunting ground in the sky without knowing anything. What is wrong with that? We owe it to our animals to make their end as quick and painless as possible. Jamie is the author of Land Of Milk And Honey: Digressions Of A Rural Dissident AGAINST: What if one bullet wasn't enough? by Beverley Cuddy For many people, dogs are cherished as members of the family, which is why they deserve the same dignity at the end of their lives as our two-legged relatives. After all, we often love them even more. In the 35 years I've been editing Dogs Today magazine and campaigning for higher animal welfare standards, I've seen dogs' quality of life improve dramatically. But, equally, we must ensure the quality of their death is never scrimped on. My dogs have all had planned and idyllic endings. Take my bearded collie, Sally. She chewed on the best steak and some very crispy bacon while I cradled her in my arms and told her what a perfect dog she'd been as our vet expertly sent her on her next adventure. Even Oscar, my latest dog to pass – who had an emergency mercy killing at a late-night veterinary chain – was given a gentle death. I could never have my dogs shot, however infirm. For one, it prevents you from comforting them in their last moments. And what if one shot wasn't enough? What if your last memory of them was of cleaning up the splatter from a violent, messy death? Much better to be nightmare-free.
