Latest news with #JohnJenkins
Spectator
a day ago
- Politics
- 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
NZ Herald
13-06-2025
- Sport
- NZ Herald
The Cossack ready to resume from where he left off: John Jenkins
Champion Hawke's Bay jumper The Cossack is ready to take on the big fences again at Te Rapa this Saturday. John Jenkins is a longtime racing journalist based in Hawke's Bay. Champion Hawke's Bay jumper The Cossack kicks off another campaign over fences at Te Rapa this Saturday when he attempts to win the $75,000 Waikato Steeplechase for the third year in a row. The 11-year-old Mastercraftsman gelding, trained at
Bloomberg
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Israel Was Planning Iran Attacks 'For A Very Long Time'
Israel launched airstrikes across Iran, targeting nuclear facilities and killing senior military commanders, in a major escalation that could spark a broad war in the Middle East. The attacks killed the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the military's chief of staff, and Iran vowed to retaliate against Israel and possibly US assets in the Middle East. The strikes have raised concerns about a broader regional conflict and have already affected the global economy, with oil prices surging and investors seeking safe-haven assets. John Jenkins, who has served as former UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Iraq during a 35 year career as a diplomat. He joined Caroline Hepker and Tom Mackenzie to discuss Israel's next move. (Source: Bloomberg)
NZ Herald
30-05-2025
- Sport
- NZ Herald
Hawke's Bay-owned horses dominate at Te Rapa jumps: John Jenkins
Hastings-trained Nedwin puts in a magnificent leap on his way to winning the $40,000 Restricted Open steeplechase at Te Rapa last Saturday. John Jenkins is a longtime racing journalist based in Hawke's Bay. Hawke's Bay-owned horses dominated the three jumping races at last Saturday's Te Rapa meeting. The powerful Hastings jumping stable of Paul Nelson and Corrina McDougal took out the two $40,000 features on the card, with Taika in the Jones
New York Times
21-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Ravens still have other extension candidates after finalizing deal for Derrick Henry
Extending running back Derrick Henry's contract was probably one of the easiest decisions Baltimore Ravens general manager Eric DeCosta has had to make this offseason. There was significant interest from both sides. Henry wasn't looking to reset the running back market, and there was a pretty clear picture of how the veteran stacked up against other ball carriers around the league. Advertisement Now that Henry's two-year, $30 million extension is official, DeCosta and vice president of football administration Nick Matteo, the team's top negotiator, can turn their attention to other matters, including more contract extensions for their own. This is typically the time of year for such deals as the draft and the crux of the roster building — the Ravens filled one of their biggest holes last week by agreeing to terms with veteran nose tackle John Jenkins — are done. Extensions give veterans who might be entering the final year of their deals, or are unhappy with their current contracts, stability and peace of mind before the start of training camp in July. It also provides teams with all-important cost certainty and, in some instances, creates much-needed salary-cap space along the way. Even after getting Henry done, the Ravens still have plenty of extension candidates. Contract status: Signed through 2025 Why extend? In keeping Andrews this offseason rather than releasing or trading him, the Ravens showed they believe their best chance to win this year is with the three-time Pro Bowler on the roster. Andrews is Lamar Jackson's favorite target and the franchise's all-time leader in touchdown receptions. A new deal, even if it's a shorter-term pact, would quiet some of the speculation surrounding Andrews, who has been the subject of plenty of rumors and outside blame this offseason. Why not? Andrews turns 30 in September, has taken a lot of big hits and has dealt with a litany of physical challenges. Beyond his 11 touchdowns, his offensive role was smaller last year, and his postseason struggles are well-documented. It would be prohibitive for the Ravens to extend both Andrews and Isaiah Likely, and Likely is four years younger. Urgency level: The Ravens could stay the course with Andrews, even if it means losing him in free agency next offseason and potentially getting only a compensatory pick in return. Those prospects may not excite Andrews, particularly if the Ravens extend Likely and not him, but that's something DeCosta and the coaching staff will have to navigate. Advertisement Contract status: Signed through 2026 Why extend? If the 24-year-old isn't the best safety in football, he's in the conversation. He's a Defensive Player of the Year type of talent who could be one of the voices of Baltimore's defense for years. He's exactly the type of player and leader the Ravens pay and build around. Why not? Hamilton has played through plenty of physical ailments in three seasons, and if the Ravens are concerned about how he'll hold up throughout his career, they have two more years to evaluate that. Top safety money is over $21 million per year. Hamilton could blow that out of the water. Urgency level: The Ravens picked up the fifth-year option on Hamilton, hoping that's a precursor to an extension. Hamilton has said he's in no rush to get an extension. Still, each new safety deal around the league drives Hamilton's price even higher. He's almost certainly going to be the highest-paid safety in football. It's just a matter of when. Contract status: Signed through 2027 Why extend? Jackson is two years removed from signing a five-year, $260 million contract extension, but that was always viewed as more of a three-year deal. Jackson's salary-cap number rises to $74.5 million in 2026, which would be untenable. At $52 million per year, Jackson is the ninth highest-paid quarterback in the league based on average salary per year. The price for the two-time MVP is only going up. Why not? Unless the Ravens have legitimate doubts about Jackson's ability to get them to the Super Bowl — and there are no signs they do — there won't be a pause on their end beyond the obvious challenges of pulling off deals of this magnitude. The question is just how badly Jackson, who is never easy to read, wants a new deal. He'd have more leverage if he waited until after the 2025 season. Advertisement Urgency level: Ravens coach John Harbaugh acknowledged this offseason that the organization has discussed a new deal for Jackson. How aggressive the Ravens have been is unclear. DeCosta is resolute about not revealing the nature of his talks with Jackson. Whether the Ravens extend Jackson now or wait until next offseason, a new deal is necessary in the next 10 months. It needs to become an organizational priority. Contract status: Signed through 2025 Why extend? Jones has shown how impactful he can be in flashes, but he hasn't had that breakout season yet. The Ravens might be able to get ahead of that and get a bit of a bargain by extending the 25-year-old now. The Ravens are thin on young, quality interior defensive linemen, and losing Jones would create a void. Why not? He's undoubtedly an effective player. Yet, it's fair to ask whether he's done enough to be a no-doubt second-contract guy. Jones has 3 1/2 sacks and 11 quarterback hits in 49 games. He finds other ways to contribute, but the ability to impact the opposing quarterback puts top interior defensive linemen into another tax bracket. Urgency level: Jones isn't a priority in the same way as guys such as Tyler Linderbaum or Hamilton. However, he could be the perfect example of a 'year early rather than a year late' guy. If he takes a big step in his fourth season, he's going to cost so much more. Contract status: Signed through 2025 Why extend? The Ravens view Likely as one of the better young tight ends in the league. When he's been featured more in Andrews' absence, he's delivered. He just turned 25 last month and has improved every year. The Ravens typically don't allow talented homegrown ascending players out of the building. Why not? There isn't any football reason not to extend Likely if the Ravens believe in his upside. He's young, talented and plays a position that more and more teams are investing in. The only drawback would be how much the Ravens are willing to earmark for the tight end position. If Baltimore chooses Likely long term over Andrews, that becomes a moot point. Advertisement Urgency level: The closer a young player gets to free agency, the harder it gets to re-sign him. If Likely has a big year in 2025, he'll only be more expensive. Likely may not be the team's biggest priority, but it would be a plus for DeCosta to solidify his long-term status. Contract status: Signed through 2025 Why extend? Linderbaum is already a two-time Pro Bowler and one of the best players in the league at his position. With his toughness, consistency and work ethic, he exemplifies the qualities Ravens decision-makers look for. If they don't extend him before next offseason, they'll potentially have to use the franchise tag, and that will be costly. Why not? The Ravens declined Linderbaum's option, but that was because centers are grouped with tackles and it would have cost them over $23 million. Still, top-of-the-market center money, which Linderbaum deserves, is $18 million a year. That's a significant expenditure for a cash-strapped team. Linderbaum dealt with a neck issue last year, and that can be concerning. Urgency level: There's always the franchise tag if the Ravens can't extend Linderbaum over the next 10 months, but that would be prohibitive. After not picking up his fifth-year option, the Ravens are on the clock if they want to extend Linderbaum, and they say they do. The price of top centers is clear. There shouldn't be ambiguity here. Contract status: Signed through 2025 Why extend? Oweh is still 26 years old and has gotten better every year. He's coming off a double-digit sack season, and quality young edge rushers typically find a lot of interest — and money — on the free-agent market. With Kyle Van Noy and David Ojabo also in the final year of their deals, the Ravens could use some stability at outside linebacker. Advertisement Why not? Oweh has battled consistency issues throughout his young career, making it hard to know what his ceiling is and whether he's close to hitting it. The Ravens have many key players due for extensions, and you can't pay everyone. They could view rookie second-rounder Mike Green as Oweh's replacement. Urgency level: At least earlier this offseason, the Ravens weren't acting like a team that was prioritizing a new deal with Oweh. That's understandable with how many other contract questions they have. Still, with another double-digit sack season, Oweh may price himself out of Baltimore. Rashod Bateman, WR: Bateman is a year removed from signing a two-year, just under $13 million contract extension that ties him to Baltimore through 2026. His contract suddenly looks team-friendly after his 2024 breakout. He hasn't publicly made any new contract demands, but his situation bears watching. Daniel Faalele, G: The much-maligned guard, who started every game last season, is entering the final year of his rookie contract. He's still up and down, but the Ravens have shown they believe in the 25-year-old's upside. Marlon Humphrey, CB: Humphrey, who returned to his All-Pro level last season, still has two years left on his deal. He does have a $26.3 million salary-cap number in 2026, his age-30 season, so his contract could be addressed next offseason. Charlie Kolar, TE: The 2022 fourth-round pick has settled nicely into the No. 3 tight end role behind Andrews and Likely. Kolar has 20 catches in three seasons but can contribute more with increased opportunities. Nick Moore, LS: Moore has been a solid replacement for the venerable Morgan Cox. He's a free agent after the 2025 season. Jordan Stout, P: A fourth-round pick in 2022, Stout probably hasn't been consistent enough to warrant an extension. However, the Ravens value stability with their kicking battery. Like Moore, Stout is eligible for free agency after 2025. Advertisement Kyle Van Noy, OLB: Van Noy has a base salary this season of just $2.75 million and a $6.125 million cap charge, both extremely low for a guy who has 21 1/2 sacks in two seasons in Baltimore. He's outperformed his contract, but he's also 34, and the Ravens presumably are content going year to year. (Top photo of Lamar Jackson and Isaiah Likely: Scott Taetsch / Getty Images)
