'We're not going anywhere' Scot who led UK's Muslims on Islamophobia

Memories of being physically confronted by a screaming racist on the London underground. Laughter.
Recalling the Tory Party's attempt to label her an extremist. Laughter.
Describing the violence her dad faced from the National Front. Laughter.
It's an understandable defence mechanism. At just 29, Mohammed scored an astonishing hat-trick, becoming the first woman, youngest person, and first Scot to lead the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). The experience, however, was deeply bruising.
She took the organisation, which represents Britain's Muslims, through its most stormy period since September 11, navigating events like Gaza and the far-right riots.
Mohammed doesn't hide the toll it took on her mental health. So using laughter as a barrier between her and the past seems psychologically sound.
She's now stepped down, and giving her first major interview since the job ended to the Herald on Sunday.
(Image: Zara Mohammed, former secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain) HOSTILE
'The first year was a baptism of fire. I was desperate to prove myself,' she says. She worked relentlessly every day from 8am to 10pm. 'I really struggled with sleeping and eating. I was stressed out. I realised I couldn't continue if I carried on like that. But lots of people were counting on me so I had to take care of myself. It was a difficult journey.'
Her election as leader caused 'hysteria', she says. It confounded stereotypes of both who spoke for Britain's Muslims, and the role of women in Islam. Shortly after she became leader, Mohammed took part in what she calls 'my famous Women's Hour interview'. Presenter Emma Barnett was accused of being 'strikingly hostile'.
Hostility, though, was to become standard. She served the maximum four years as secretary-general, and looking back, Mohammed says, 'I keep thinking, how did I survive?'. Her defensive laugh returns. 'Being Britain's most senior Muslim was a really difficult experience. I was dealing with a tidal wave of very negative, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant hysteria. The political and media narrative was so nasty and toxic. I was constantly on the back-foot.'
Read more
Loyalist supremacy, hatred, racism and poverty: I know elements of Ulster riots well
Finally, we have proof the BBC is helping Reform. It's become a danger to democracy
The Scottish Tory who has perfected the art of 'vice-signalling'
Beware white women: a Dickensian masterpiece of modern Africa
Her hardest battle was with the former Conservative government. 'I was in a deeply charged Islamophobic environment,' Mohammed explains. 'The Conservatives were getting further and further to the right.'
There have been long-running claims of Islamophobia within the Conservative Party. Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman once claimed 'Islamists' ran Britain.
The biggest showdown Mohammed faced centred on Michael Gove. Last March, the Daily Mail reported that the then communities secretary was considering branding the MCB extremist. The move would have been catastrophic for the organisation and Mohammed.
The report caused outrage, however. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York attacked Gove's plans. Eventually the MCB - which threatened legal action - wasn't listed as extremist. The affair was 'sinister', Mohammed says. The MCB was never told under what 'criteria' it was judged extreme.
If the MCB had been labelled extremist, then by extension so would Britain's entire Muslim community. 'We're the majority representative body,' Mohammed said. 'Once you say we're extreme, you're saying the community is extreme.
'I went on Newsnight and said 'my background in is international human rights law, and now you're saying I head an extremist organisation'. What on Earth is happening? There was no basis for it.
'If they could have, they would have, but there was a lot of pushback. It would have been the nail in the coffin to shut us out and marginalise mainstream British Muslims from public life. It was about keeping us on the fringe. It was really quite dangerous and dark. That affected my mental health.'
She feels Gove has an 'ideological position' on Islam and amplified misinformation against British Muslims. The MCB was denied access to government throughout the period of Conservative rule. 'I don't get why we're the bogeyman. Why not just speak to us? What are they afraid of?'
(Image: The biggest showdown Mohammed faced centred on Michael Gove)
RIOTS
Indeed, Mohammed believes Conservatives 'should look in the mirror' regarding extremism. Liz Truss, she notes, met with former Donald Trump adviser, Steve Bannon, 'a convicted criminal who praised Tommy Robinson'.
Bannon was found guilty of contempt of Congress after refusing to appear before the US Capitol riots hearing. Robinson is prominent in Britain's far-right, and has multiple criminal convictions. His real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. He was accused of fomenting last summer's riots.
Mohammed says Conservative 'rhetoric was deeply charged and extremist and had a negative impact' on Muslims. 'Gove was part of a wider issue. Media narratives were stoking tensions'.
British Muslims feel 'securitised. It's grim.' She laughs defensively again. 'I was possibly going to head an organisation considered extreme. That was really serious. What did it mean for my life, my colleagues, our members? It was so damaging. Institutionalised Islamophobia definitely exists.'
When the MCB asked the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to investigate Tory Party Islamophobia, Mohammed was told 'they couldn't take the case forward. There wasn't a will to look into it further. There was a clear case, but they didn't proceed. They looked into anti-semitism in the Labour Party'.
Prominent Muslim women Conservatives have highlighted Islamophobia in the party.
The MCB was 'shut out of government since 2010 when the Conservatives took over. The non-engagement continued into this new Labour government. I did lots of relationship-building with the shadow cabinet, but when the general election happened, we still didn't get engagement, particularly during the riots - that was really disappointing. That necessitated engagement.
'How can you not talk to the biggest Muslim representative body whose communities are being attacked? I went to Belfast and sat with the Northern Ireland government. I talked to the Scottish Government. Others were onboard, but the UK government was still adhering to this non-engagement position which hasn't changed.'
Mohammed added: 'Being treated as a potential extremist organisation was deeply distressing. Our members are ordinary people - professionals, students, parents … It wasn't just a period of deep anxiety, it felt deeply personal. There was a profound sense of injustice.'
She spoke of how 'painful' it was to see the MCB's 'community-led work cast under suspicion simply because it's Muslim-led.
'It also highlighted something bigger: the systemic nature of Islamophobia, and the ease with which Muslim civil society is viewed through a lens of security rather than service. It was difficult to comprehend that this could happen, and even harder to sit with the fear of what it would mean if we were labelled extreme.'
Mohammed had to overcome prejudice about her age and sex as well as her race. 'People called me 'token',' she adds.
(Image: Mohammed doesn't hide the toll her role took on her mental health)
IMAMS
Within the Muslim community, she faced little sexism, but much ageism. 'The toughest part was my youth, not gender. Many struggle taking direction from young people.' She laughs again. Mohammed, though, won over 'male conservative' Muslims. 'They saw what I was doing in terms of representation and defending our communities. They appreciated my visibility'.
The fact that so many 'men, imams, mosques and community leaders' voted for her as MCB leader smashed stereotypes about Muslim women.
The pressures of the job meant she became obsessed with social media. 'I was literally glued to my phone, always nervous about the next breaking news story'. Threats, intimidation and online abuse 'came with the territory'.
A tweet about her from someone like Tommy Robinson unleashed 'hundreds and hundreds of nasty, vile comments'.
During the far-right riots, Mohammed had to take extra security precautions around travel and information about her location. 'As every year went on, my heightened level of security increased.'
On the London Underground, the day the general election was called, a man shouting about Muslims 'effing taking over' approached her and tried to touch her legs. He said to a colleague 'just let me touch her, and was swearing about 'England's gone to eff'. It was three in the afternoon. I think it was just my visibility as a Muslim woman'.
Claims by the MP Lee Anderson, now in Reform, that 'Islamists' had 'got control' of the London Mayor Sadiq Khan emboldened racists, Mohammed says. 'This doesn't happen in a vacuum'.
When she took over the MCB, Mohammed wanted to 'push aside the 9-11 shadow and say it's a new time for us. I wanted to shift the wider narrative about who British Muslims are, and create a new narrative about belonging'. She regrets that so much time was taken up 'firefighting'.
'The scale of Islamophobia is unprecedented right now. According to government statistics, 40% of all religiously motivated hate crime is against Muslims,' she says. 'Most people in Muslim communities don't even report hate crime, though. They think nobody will take it seriously. Often they're made to feel like the suspect rather than victim.
'Sometimes people think 'if it was verbal abuse, was that really a hate crime?' Then there's the scale of online abuse. Physical and verbal abuse has proliferated against visibly Muslim women.
'Islamophobia is systemic: the inability to get a job because you look visibly Muslim. Of all minorities, Muslim women are the most marginalised when it comes to employment. If your name is Mohammed you're more likely to pay more for your insurance premium.'
There's 44,000 Muslim NHS workers. Many were subjected to Islamophobic 'hate' while 'providing frontline services' during the riots.
(Image: Anti-immigration demonstration outside the Holiday Inn Express in Rotherham)
ATTACKS
Islamophobia is 'global', Mohammed says. 'There's the dehumanisation of Palestinians. The Uyghur genocide in China. Trump's Muslim ban. The rise of the far-right. The weaponisation of immigration.'
She points to the lie which sparked the summer riots: that the Southport attacker was a 'Muslim asylum seeker'. During mass casualty attacks, she says, 'people are just waiting' for the assailant to be Muslim.
Grooming gangs have been used to 'other' Muslims, despite, Mohammed notes, studies showing that the majority of child sexual abuse gangs comprise white men under 30.
Nigel Farage recently called for an inquiry into grooming gangs, she adds, even though there has already been an inquiry. The Conservative Party failed to implement its recommendations.
Mohammed says she has consistently condemned 'grooming gangs. They're criminals. They don't represent a faith or an ethnicity. Criminals come from all walks of life. People in political positions and commentators used this awful topic against Muslims.
'What they're really trying to do is assert that your culture and faith make you a groomer. What about the white British people grooming? Why aren't we concerned about them? Criminals are criminals. This has been weaponised as a tool to create division and incite hatred'.
She notes that Glasgow - where she's from - was recently the site of an horrific paedophile ring involving white men and women.
Farage, Mohammed continues, claimed Muslims don't 'share British values, but millions of Muslim soldiers fought in World War One'. Farage has a 'sinister and troubling influence on politics', she said. 'Islamophobia is more embedded than ever. Reform is a big worry. We're worried about populist parties taking over and pushing very anti-immigrant rhetoric'.
When rightwing politicians attack 'Islamists, the average person doesn't differentiate. They just think 'Muslim'.'
Mohammed's family has been in Scotland since 1944, but: 'I'm still framed as an immigrant.' She laughs protectively. 'People conflate Muslim with immigrant. That's what the riots were really about - this 'enemy within' discourse. Every year I see this getting worse.'
Muslims are accused of 'not integrating' yet when they are visibly part of the wider community - even at the level of First Minister, like Humza Yousaf - they still 'face blatant Islamophobia. We're more visible, more integrated, doing the British thing, yet you still hate us. Where does this go?'
The 'securitisation of Muslims' began after 9-11. The same period saw an increase in 'physical attacks'. Mohammed adds: 'You're either a security risk or an immigration issue.' That's left a sense of 'collective trauma'. British Muslims feel 'disenfranchised'.
However, whilst earlier generations felt they should 'keep their head down, just get on with it, take the punches and play the long game, my generation is confident and proud of our faith. But we still look over our shoulder to see if someone wants to attack us'.
(Image: Mohammed says Conservative 'rhetoric was deeply charged and extremist and had a negative impact')
BRITISH
Muslims are made to feel 'we'll never be British enough'. She asks what this means for the 'relationship of the state to British Muslims. There's this dissonance where we're good if we're contributing, and assessed on our citizenship for good deeds. We're seen through a different prism.
'We're not going anywhere, this is our home. For younger generations, we're past having to prove our identity.'
She laughs that protective laugh again.
Mohammed referred to the Spectator's associate editor Douglas Murray, accused by some of being far-right. He said Humza Yousaf wasn't 'First Minister of Scotland. He's become the First Minister of Gaza'. Murray claimed 'people like Humza Yousaf … have infiltrated our system'.
Muslims in public life suffer 'awful language. It's clearly, unapologetically Islamophobic. They face anti-Muslim hatred. They're vilified as enemies despite representing their country. You're told integrate more, then the problem will be fixed. But we've got people at the highest level representing their country and they face the most abuse'.
During the riots, she said, Labour ministers were 'very hesitant to even say the word 'Islamophobia'.' In Britain, she believes, 'Islamophobia now passes the dinner table test' - meaning it's acceptable in so-called 'polite society'.
The debunked racist conspiracy known as the Great Replacement Theory - which claims governments are using immigrants to replace white people - is now widely peddled online. Elon Musk flirted with it.
'Some people subscribe to a very deep ideological position that we're enemies, that we're going to over-populate and take over. That didn't start just yesterday. It's been fuelled for decades.'
When she asks the public how many Muslims live in Britain, the number is often wildly over-estimated. There's 3.9million, but she's heard 30million. Mohammed laughs: 'People feel we're everywhere.' She sees 'similarities with the Jewish community' and how it was demonised in the past.
Memories of the Bosnian genocide against Muslims remain fresh. 'I don't want to whip up hysteria that people are going to start killing Muslims, but the riots showed us the real danger, the lived reality. We don't want to live in fear, but the fear is there.'
She adds: 'There's always got to be a scapegoat community - the villain who's the reason why you're suffering.' She refers to attempts to burn down hotels housing asylum seekers. 'It's like 'why should they be in hotels?'. Built-up grievance and rage, which comes from poverty, is being channelled.'
Unless there's an event like the Coronation, Mohammed says, where interfaith issues are celebrated, the media portrays 'Muslims as the bad guys. Farage gets an amazing amount of time on the news'.
Poverty helps fuel polarisation and segregation, she believes, as non-white families often have less money and live in poorer areas, whilst white families who have more money tend to move. That creates a sense of 'white flight'. Some '40% of Muslims reside in the poorest socio-economic areas', Mohammed says.
In the wake of the riots, however, 'some communities have said, 'well if we're being attacked, it's better to be amongst your own', so you feel a sense of security'.
Yet, the more people mix and the more diverse an area, she believes, the less risk there is of polarisation. 'Meeting people different from you is key,' Mohammed adds.
In the era of Donald Trump and Elon Musk, 'people are worried about agents of division, voices pushing divisive rhetoric which has a certain view of society - and that view doesn't include all of us'. Once more, that defensive laughter returns.
Labour has 'doubled down on immigration. The language in this country is pretty toxic. It's on the political front that I'm most nervous'.
She fears that Britain is on a trajectory which might one day see a far-right party in power and 'citizenship revoked, and the rule of law and international human rights compromised'. To Mohammed, it feels like 'hate has been legitimised. We cannot lose the middle ground'.
That requires a 'Prime Minister who speaks for the values of our society rather than worrying if he's going to lose votes to Farage. As long as we maintain the middle ground we can push against the tidal wave of hatred'.
Diversity is Britain's strength, she believes. In countries without diversity - whether white or non-white - a homogenous society holds nations back.
GAZA
For British Muslims, Gaza was 'the single most difficult, divisive, challenging and painful issue. People have felt so disheartened by the lack of moral courage from politicians'.
Muslims came under extreme scrutiny, in the wake of the Hamas October 7 attack on Israel, Mohammed says. They felt 'targeted. Any kind of pro-Palestinian activity could lose you your job.
'British Muslims were conflated with Hamas if we'd any pro-Palestinian views or stood up for human rights and international justice. We were conflated by commentators as terrorist sympathisers.
'People lost their jobs for tweeting. People felt unable to express what they truly thought. You couldn't say the word 'genocide' otherwise that would be it. You were conflated with being anti-semitic.'
It wasn't just Muslims offering support to Palestinians, she notes. 'Whole cross-sections of the British public and global communities have rallied and protested and said this is wrong'.
Mohammed refers to Suella Braverman calling pro-Palestinian demonstrations 'hate marches', even though, she says, the vast majority were simply protesting. In any protest movement, she says, 'crazy people come and you can't stop them'. It's impossible to control everyone, Mohammed adds, when there's 'hundreds of thousands of people' on a march.
'There was complete hypocrisy the way the protests were covered. There was a fixation on a few people who weren't representative of the majority.' There were Jewish groups taking part in the rallies as well, she says.
'They were never focused on. There was a lot of picking and choosing of narratives. It felt like there was an agenda to stigmatise Muslims - that if they were portraying any kind of Palestinian advocacy they were also inciting hatred, supporting terrorism and being very un-British.'
Mohammed says there were instances 'at schools where if young people wore Palestine badges and happened to be Muslim as well, they were sent home and told you aren't allowed to wear that'.
Her sister took part in a 'bake sale for Gaza' at her university. 'A student with an Israeli flag was shouting and swearing at them. The university didn't do anything. So hate crime was rampant against the Muslim community, but it was all fed on this idea that we're un-British'.
Even though 60% of Britons want peace, 'the whole issue of Palestine was around Muslims'. She adds that Muslims were constantly asked to 'condemn' Hamas. 'There was this idea that if you were Muslim then you had some relationship with this terrorist entity or sympathies with it. It was a really sinister portrayal of Muslims.
'There's disparity in treatment. You're worried that the repercussions for you will be much worse than for someone in the Jewish community for calling out Israel or Netanyahu. Whether you were mayor, councillor, MP, businessman, university rector, teacher, pupil - whatever level of power you had - people were checking and monitoring your social media account to find that one tweet and then it was your career over.
'I had so many people call me and say 'I said this and now it's being misconstrued, they're telling me to step down from my position'. Muslims in public life faced an unbelievable amount of scrutiny.'
Mohammed laughs her defensive laugh and says free speech 'is very selective'. It's rare to see those with a 'very strong pro-Israel stance silenced', she adds.
When Mohammed was asked what her position on Hamas was by journalists, she'd say: 'Well, last time I checked they were proscribed by our government so why would my position be any different? What do they think I'm going to say? Why does every Muslim need to put on the record how they feel about Hamas? It's a purity check, we're getting our citizenship check, our loyalty check'.
BURKA
The current political climate chills Mohammed. Reform MP Sarah Pochin recently called for a burka ban. 'This wasn't an isolated comment. It's part of a wider pattern of anti-Muslim sentiment flooding public discourse. There are now open calls to ban halal meat, conspiracies about Muslim 'takeovers' of the white population, and references to re-immigration as a political solution'.
Muslims are seen as a 'demographic threat. This racial framing and false hysteria about 'our roots' plays into racist narratives of which communities can and can't be truly part of Britain. These ideas are no longer whispered, they're spoken from the dispatch box'.
She was horrified by Keir Starmer using language lifted from Enoch Powell about Britain as an 'island of strangers'. 'It was awful. He absolutely knew what he was saying. He was trying to appease Reform.' Starmer's comments 'sent shockwaves' through the Muslim community.
This week in Northern Ireland 'mobs burned homes, destroyed streets and terrorised immigrant families … and still some public figures talk about how people are simply 'fed up' with immigration as through that justifies mob violence. That kind of rhetoric is reckless and dangerous and spurs on more hate'.
There's a feeling among some now that 'they need to take the law into their own hands, they need to attack communities'. Claims about two-tier justice - that ethnic minorities are treated more leniently than white criminals - are the reverse of the truth, she says.
She asks if Lucy Connolly, jailed for inciting racial hatred during rioting after calling for asylum hotels to be 'set fire', would have been treated so sympathetically if she was Muslim. Connolly, wife of a Tory councillor, was jailed for 31 months. Farage said she shouldn't have been jailed as 'millions of mothers' felt the same.
'If this was flipped around, if these riots were perpetrated by Muslims, the consequences would have been far more severe. It would've been 'lock 'em up for life'. What communities faced during those riots was absolutely terrifying. They were checking cars to see if they had Asian drivers.'
The idea that a 'nice mother' would incite people to set light to hotels is absurd, Mohammed believes. 'What about the mother with kids inside the hotel?' She takes hope, however, from 'the silent majority' in Britain who detested the rioting.
The riots were a terrible reminder of previous eras of racist violence. Mohammed's own father 'fought the National Front in the 1980s. They put needles in their boots and kicked you. My generation thought this was all gone and done, but it's just changed shape and form'.
Meanwhile, she says, the billionaire Elon Musk performs Nazi salutes and there's just 'excuses and justifications'.
Islamophobia is an 'industry', Mohammed says. 'People make money from it, get elected, sell books and podcasts, get newspaper clicks. While there's an industry, this will continue. It's down to good faith actors doing what we can to tackle it.
'My worst fear is that we continue on the trajectory of extreme far-right hate where Muslims become not just a political punchbag but literally live in fear. I'm hopeful we're not going to get there. You don't want a place where your friend and neighbour won't stand up for you or speak against hatred and evil.'
And what of her home Scotland? 'There's often an idea that Scotland is somehow different when it comes to racism, that we're more inclusive and compassionate. While there are many things to be proud of … we must be careful not to confuse that with immunity.'
The Hamilton by-election 'made that clear'. Reform's campaign featured 'a blatantly Islamophobic advert attacking Anas Sarwar, using race and religion to score political points … We continue to see hate crimes, vandalism of mosques, and rising anti-immigrant sentiment. We must resist the comfort of Scottish exceptionalism. We cannot be complacent.'
This time, there is no laughter.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Spectator

6 hours ago

• Spectator

Has the Islamophobia ‘Working Group' of MPs already made up its mind?

Sir John Jenkins was invited by the Government-appointed 'Working Group' to offer his views on a proposed definition of 'Islamophobia'. Here is his response to Dominic Grieve, the Group's chair: Dear Dominic Grieve, It is kind of you to seek my views on 'whether a definition [of Islamophobia] would be helpful'. I have some fundamental reservations about both the process you are overseeing and its likely trajectory. I owe you the courtesy of explaining what these are. I remain unconvinced that anything I might say would make a difference to the Working Group on Anti Muslim Hatred/ Islamophobia Definition's deliberations. But I am always open to being persuaded otherwise. The charge of special treatment may in fact increase hostility towards Muslims, not reduce it First, with regard to process: the creation of the Working Group was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner on 28 February and given a six-month timeframe in which to deliver a report. We are now over half-way through that period and very little information about the work of the Group has entered the public domain. I note that the Terms of Reference (TORs) specify that all discussions will be strictly confidential. On a matter of such public policy significance, this is highly unusual. As matters stand, the absence of transparency is bound to raise serious questions about accountability. This must surely damage the credibility of its conclusions. Second, the precise nature of the Working Group is unclear to me. The TORs talk about 'technical experts'. But the question of 'Islamophobia' is both heavily contested and subjective. In every definition I have seen – including that of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, to whose 2019 report you contributed an introduction – it is treated as a matter of 'lived experience'. You described it as such yourself in February. I do not understand how anyone can be a 'technical expert' on such experiential matters. What is needed instead is surely expertise in European law and jurisprudence (which must be the operational framework for such issues), Islamic jurisprudence (which is highly complex and varied but provides a context for some of the more extravagant claims in this area), the philosophy of liberty and the history of both western and Islamic political thought – plus a healthily sceptical attitude to critical theory and an intellectually rigorous approach to both social constructivism and what Marxists used to call 'reification'. I should also have thought that the membership of such a group would need to be diverse, representing different viewpoints, normative commitments and experiences. After all, if the government were to adopt a definition of Islamophobia, it would affect everyone in the country, of whatever ethnicity, faith or political persuasion. The Group's TORs go some way to recognising this – as indeed did the APPG Report. Yet every single member – apart from you – appears to be Muslim. Muslims, of course, have an entirely understandable interest in the matter: but so does everyone else. Against that background, I am concerned that the Working Group may have begun its work with its conclusions pre-determined. The TORs make clear that its objective is 'to develop a working definition' not to decide whether to have one or not. As you will know from my own publicly stated position on this issue, I believe that the case for accepting this – as a first principle – is far from proven. This is, of course, a commonly held view not just in this country but across Europe and across political divides. Yet it seems that the Working Group has, without argument, decided otherwise. That it has done so would seem to be in keeping with what I understand to be your own public position. The 2019 APPG Report claimed a definition of Islamophobia was needed to prevent 'negative attitudes that would not be classed as crimes by police' and to set 'appropriate limits to free speech' when talking about Muslims. Throughout the report there are frequent suggestions that this would need to be 'legally-binding'. Akeela Ahmed, a member of the current Working Group, is actually quoted as saying that 'a definition with legal power is required, one that could be implemented by the government and the police.' Even if the definition were not legally binding, it would still probably operate in much the same way. In the supportive foreword which you wrote, you 'greatly welcome[d]' the report and added, 'that action is needed I have no doubt.' Then there is the question of how you believe my own views would help shape the current debate. As you will remember, when I and my colleagues at Policy Exchange contested the conclusions of the APPG at the time, you publicly described our report as in large part 'total, unadulterated rubbish.' I have not changed my views on this matter. I daresay the same is true of you. Against that backdrop, it is hard not to wonder whether the real purpose of the Group's approach to me is not so much because they welcome challenge but instead to help legitimise a pre-ordained conclusion, by claiming that they consulted those on all sides of the debate – before proposing a definition which they then seek to present as a compromise. As I have said, my position is a matter of public record, but I am happy to restate it here. Hatred of and discrimination against Muslims are emphatically wrong – but are already illegal. It therefore remains unclear to me exactly what the definitional, policy or legal problem might be that a new, government sponsored definition of Islamophobia is trying to address. What then is its purpose? The government has periodically insisted that it will be 'non-statutory' and will maintain freedom of speech. The current TORs for your Working Group make the same claim. But they also explicitly talk about determining the 'appropriate and sensitive language' for discussing issues in this space. And the aim of many of the activists who seek such a definition is clearly to achieve legal enforceability. Whether a definition is legally binding or not, of course, the impact is clear. You will recall that Sir Trevor Phillips (whom I note you have also invited to speak to the Working Group) was suspended from the Labour Party in 2020 for 'Islamophobia'. The suspension was both absurd and later lifted. But it illustrates the problem. I do not understand how anyone can be a 'technical expert' on such experiential matters Whatever form of words is chosen, and whatever legal status it has to start with, any definition will have serious consequences. It will almost certainly turbocharge 'cancel culture'. Indeed, I have heard it described as potentially the most retrograde step in this country since Sir Robert Walpole's government in 1737 granted the Lord Chamberlain's office powers to licence theatrical scripts. And it will inevitably reduce social trust and heighten social tensions. In this regard, the debate over whether a definition would be legally binding is something of a red herring. Its effect would inevitably be to shrink even further the space for open debate. Moreover, this initiative comes at a time when the government is at pains to rebut the charge – not just in this country but from the Trump administration – that it operates a 'two-tier' policy in various areas. But unless it literally restates the existing legal protections covering all faiths, any official Islamophobia definition will be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone. The charge of special treatment may in fact increase hostility towards Muslims, not reduce it. It will certainly strengthen divisive extremism on all sides – not just from the populist right, but also the growing Islamist challenge to mainstream parties. That, too, is likely to harm both community cohesion and Muslims more generally. It is unlikely to alleviate Islamist discontent – it will stoke it, creating new opportunities for grievance politics, challenge and attack in every institution and workplace. Even without the force of an official definition, claims of Islamophobia are already used to close down legitimate debate and deter investigation of alleged wrongdoing, as in Rotherham or Batley, with disastrous results all round, including for the wider Muslim community itself. I have little confidence that the Working Group will approach these questions with an open mind. As I said at the beginning of this letter, I should be happy to be proved wrong on both points. Yours sincerely, Sir John Jenkins Senior Fellow, Policy Exchange How Not to Tackle Grooming Gangs: The National Grooming Gang Inquiry and a Definition of Islamophobia is published today

Daily Mail​

9 hours ago

• Daily Mail​

EXCLUSIVE Tory council leader is criticised for posting Facebook picture of luxury steak dinner and bottle of red wine with message asking: 'Wonder what all the poor people are doing?' Headline goes here

A Tory council leader has come under fire after posting a Facebook picture of her luxury steak dinner with a message saying: 'Wonder what all the poor people are doing?' Kay Mason Billig, 61, who leads Norfolk County Council and is a former Tory parliamentary candidate insisted that she was making a self-depreciating joke about her circumstances rather than mocking people in poverty But opposition councillors criticised her comment as 'shocking' and she is now facing calls for her resignation. The post by Mrs Mason Billig who is also chairman of the Standards Committee of South Norfolk Council, appeared on one of her publicly visible Facebook accounts on Saturday evening and has since been deleted. One of her pictures showed a freshly-cooked Tomahawk steak ready to be carved on a board, beside a bottle of red wine, a bowl of salad and a potato dish in peppercorn sauce. Another image featured her husband Michael sitting at a table and grinning while holding up a glass of wine, alongside the words: 'Wonder what all the poor people are doing?'. Tomahawk steaks which are thick cut with a long rib bone attached so they resemble an axe are usually cooked in the oven after being pan fried, and are often sold by Waitrose and Tesco to mark special occasions such as Father's Day last weekend. Mrs Mason Billig's steak is believed to be from Tesco's Finest range which was last week selling Tomahawk steaks for between £25 and £32.50 depending on the weight, complete with star shapes of wild garlic butter. Tesco described its Tomahawk steaks online as being 'succulent and flavoursome' and 'matured on the bone for 30 days for maximum flavour and tenderness'. The wine in her picture is thought to be an award-winning bottle of Amarone Della Valpolicella. Similar bottles of the Italian red are currently priced at £21 in Morrisons. Mrs Mason Billig, who represents the Loddon division south of Norwich and reportedly gets allowances of more than £51,000 a year from the county council, failed to answer multiple emails and messages from MailOnline asking for her to comment on the post. But she told the Eastern Daily Press today: 'My husband and I have sometimes called ourselves 'the poor people'. 'It's a private joke as we live fairly modestly, so when we have a treat, we will sometimes post about it. This is asking if friends wonder what we (the poor people) are doing. 'It's not intended to be about anyone else and is no reflection on people who are less well off than ourselves. It's a bad state of affairs when I can't even joke about myself without it being twisted into something it isn't. Talking about her post being leaked, she added: 'I am deeply disappointed that someone has decided to be this horrible when they must certainly know it's actually self-deprecation. What a sad world we live in.' But Steve Morphew, leader of the Labour group at Norfolk County Council, said: 'People like to have council leaders who show they are in touch, care about the plight of others and show humility and pride in the public positions they hold. 'This is a nauseating example of the exact opposite. I find nothing amusing here.' Michael Rosen, the Labour group leader on South Norfolk Council, told MailOnline: 'It is quite a shocking thing to say when we are freshly out of the winter period when so many people in Norfolk had to make a choice between heating or eating. 'It 100 per cent calls into question her suitability to lead Norfolk County Council which has a number of the country's most deprived areas in its boundaries. A lot of Norfolk residents have to make careful choices about what they eat very night. She is really letting her own side down by posting things like this.' Dr Catherine Rowett, the Green Party group leader on Norfolk County Council, said: 'I find it really distressing that someone in public service could be so snobbish, so devoid of empathy. 'She surely needs to resign now! Norfolk is a county with extremes of inequality. People are struggling, with two or three jobs, wishing they could see their children for Father's Day. 'My thoughts would be on how we could help those families enjoy Father's Day too, rather than mocking people who are less fortunate.' A senior Norfolk Conservative, quoted by the Eastern Daily Press, said they believe Mrs Mason Billig, should quit over the post. They said: 'I think she should resign. We are entitled to a private life and to let our hair down, but I don't think anybody should degrade those less well off than others. 'Under Conservative party guidance, there's a case that she has brought the party into disrepute and the party should be carrying out an investigation. 'This falls well below the Nolan Principles for Public Life.' Another Tory said: 'Most politicians are wise to avoid social media. It's hard to win votes, but easy to lose them.' A furious source who forwarded a screenshot of Mrs Mason Billig's post to MailOnline said: 'I couldn't believe it when I saw it. 'Lots of people post pictures of their nice dinners, but her comment about poor people and wondering what they were eating was in incredibly bad taste.' The source who asked not to be named, added: 'I have had to deal with the county council on occasion and they have a reputation for being so righteous with the letters they send out and employment stuff you have to fill in. 'Yet you have the leader of the council writing silly comments like this. She must have realised it was a stupid remark because she deleted it.' Mrs Mason Billig stood unsuccessfully as the Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Norwich North constituency in 2001. She has been a South Norfolk district councillor since 2011, and was the council's deputy leader from 2018 until her appointment as the county council leader in May 2023. She was re-elected as a county council for the second time in 2021. Mrs Mason Billig is reported to have had a 'legal background' with a career in the marine sciences industry in Great Yarmouth which led to her becoming a Group Company Secretary. A spokesperson for Tory-run Norfolk County Council said they could not comment as Mrs Mason Billig's Facebook post was 'not relevant' to her council work. The spokesperson added: ''It is not posted on any council accounts or relevant to her (council) business so it is not one we can comment on at the council. It's certainly one she may be able to comment on. A message has been forwarded on to her.' Daniel Elmer, the leader of Tory-run South Norfolk Council, failed to respond to calls for comment. His council's communication team was also approached and did not comment. Mrs Mason Billig was criticised earlier this week for comments made during a debate over Norfolk County Council's vision for a single council for when all eight of the county's councils are abolished and new ones created. She said children could die should plans to abolish all eight Norfolk councils and create new ones result in two or three different councils delivering social services.

Times

a day ago

• Times

Who is Iran's ruthless supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

Tehran's bitter winter had penetrated the dungeon and left the frail inmate shivering with cold. Houshang Asadi, a communist dissident, took pity on his cellmate and gave him his sweater. The man refused it at first before tearfully accepting the gift. 'Houshang,' the man said, 'when Islam will come to power, not a single tear will be shed.' That memory of Ali Khamenei in 1975 as an idealist who suffered for his opposition to the Shah stayed with Asadi for decades to come. Years later, in 2003, Khamenei, now the undisputed dictator of Iran who threw young men and women into those same dungeons, repaid Asadi's kindness by forcing him into exile. 'He changed from a man who fought for freedom into a dictator,' Asadi told an interviewer. 'Now Mr Khamenei is more of a dictator than a shah.' If he met him again, he said, he would ask: 'Who are you, Mr Khamenei?' • Israel-Iran conflict: follow the latest news Khamenei might answer that he is a survivor, born to an impoverished cleric, Javad Khamenei, in the religious Iraqi city of Najaf in 1939. He began his religious studies at four, studying under various jurists, until one day in 1958 he came across Ruhollah Khomeini — later supreme leader of Iran from 1979 to 1989 — in the Iranian seminary city of Qom. That encounter set Khamenei down a path that almost led to his death this week, when Israel spotted an opportunity to kill the leader — although the US vetoed the plan. If Khamenei escaped assassination, it would not be the first time. He had become a confidant of Khomeini, who began sending him on missions across Iran to agitate against the Shah, leading to his arrest and eventual exile. He returned to Iran triumphantly in 1979 with his mentor, and quickly rose up the ranks of the new Islamic regime. Two years later, a bomb hidden in a tape recorder blew up in his face as he gave a religious lecture, leaving him with a paralysed right arm. • Does Iran have nuclear weapons? Why Israel is attacking now In a picture taken at his hospital bed, Khamenei peers out from behind his thick spectacles, his arm in a sling, with a faint smile hidden by his bushy moustache and beard. Three months later, he became the president of Iran. Iran in the 1980s was torn by revolutionary fervour, purges and war. Opponents of the new Islamic regime were 'disappeared' and executed, as Khomeini sought to plant the seeds of Islamic revolution — and Iran's influence — in the region by backing militants from Lebanon to Kuwait. Iraq, backed by the US and Gulf countries, invaded Iran, setting off a ruinous war. The Iraqis were beaten back fairly quickly but Khomeini and Khamenei decided to counter-invade Iraq, a decision Khamenei later rued as Iran became bogged down in a war attrition that only ended in 1988. Before Khomeini died a year later, he had chosen Khamenei to succeed him. It was a controversial choice. Khomeini had been widely expected to be replaced by the relatively moderate Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, with whom he had fallen out shortly before his death. • Inside the Iranian opposition, from a rapper to the Shah's son Unlike Montazeri, Khamenei was not a Shia religious authority, a prerequisite to become the supreme leader. But Khomeini's confidence in him — and his own uncanny ability to build a network of alliances throughout the state — thrust him onto the voting council. As with Asadi's sweater on that winter's day in 1975, Khamenei made a show of declining the gift. 'My nomination should make us all cry tears of blood,' he said. He spent the following three decades ruthlessly entrenching himself, often at the expense of the state, by planting loyalists in the Islamic Republic's power centres and playing them off each other, weakening all but him. A self-professed admirer of western literature with the affectations of a philosopher, Khamenei had doubled down on Khomeini's hatred of the US and Israel. On his watch, Iran turned into an undisputed regional power, building allies and proxies in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza, while building the region's largest missile arsenal and furthering its nuclear programme. He occasionally allowed reformist presidents to be elected, only to undermine them publicly and privately. • The Iran-Israel conflict in maps, video and satellite images His police and soldiers periodically put down protests, and his regime is more unpopular than ever. In recent years, Khamanei has busied himself with preparations for his succession. After President Raisi was killed in a helicopter crash last year, he appears to have settled on one of his six children, Mojtaba. Those plans are in disarray. Iran's allies in the region have been devastated by war with Israel over the past two years, and Khamenei, who had predicted the Jewish state's demise by 2030, may not survive this one.