For over a decade I have been writing about my serious concerns about how I believe Labour is sleeping walking into the hands of Islamists. I raised my concerns during the days of Ed Milliband, Harriot Harman, Jeremy Corbyn and of course Keir Starmer. I list all the leaders since often people say to me that maybe it’s just one rogue Labour leader who fell to the charms of the Islamists. However, as you can see this narrative of Labour dancing to the tune of the Islamists has been on-going for quite some time.
The All Party Parliamentary (APPG) group for Muslimsinvented and championed a corrupt and grotesque definition of ‘Islamophobia’. That APPG was controlled then, as it isnow, mostly by Labour MPs. Over the past five years Muslim Labour MPs, Muslim Labour Councillors and of course Muslim organisations have systematically promoted the adoption of this false ‘Islamophobia’ definition.
The Labour Party adopted the APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’in March 2019 in what it describedas an important statement of ‘principle and solidarity’. The Labour NEC reaffirms that position in its Code of Conducthandbook.The majority of Councils that have already adopted this definition are of course also Labour.
Recently Labour MP Afzal Khan on 22nd November 2023 attempted to use Parliament to adopt this absurd definition of Islamophobia. Thankfully the Tories chucked it into the gutter where it belonged.
In 2019, an open letter by Civitas (an Institute for the Study of Civil Society):said, ‘We are concerned that allegations of Islamophobia will be, indeed already are being, used toeffectively shield Islamic beliefs and even extremists from criticism, and that formalising thisdefinition will result in it being employed effectively as something of a backdoor blasphemy law’.
That letter was supported by many faith groups and I am pleased to tell you that our Indic leaders who also co-signed it were:
Hardeep Singh, Network of Sikh Organisations (NSOUK)
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
Trupti Patel, President of Hindu Forum of Britain
Dr Lakshmi Vyas, President Hindu Forum of Europe
Harsha Shukla MBE, President Hindu Council of North UK
Tarang Shelat, President Hindu Council of Birmingham
Ashvin Patel, Chairman, Hindu Forum (Walsall)
Ashish Joshi, Sikh Media Monitoring Group
Satish K Sharma, National Council of Hindu Temples
It is therefore timely that this week the Network of Sikh Organisationswrote to The Rt Hon Angela Rayner the Deputy-Prime Minister expressing their grave concerns. The letter provides ample evidence as to why the definition should be rejected. In one telling example it highlights what the definition states is Islamophobic, ‘… claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule...’. Ask any Sikh, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Christian or anyone else and they will ALL tell you; Islam was spread by acts of utter brutality, pervertedviolence and by the sword.
So if I were to speak or write about the atrocities committed by Islamic rulers who violently conquered vast expanse of Bharat (India) and subjugated and murdered my ancestors, then that will be deemed as Islamophobic. i.e. If the Labour government puts this definition into law, then I and many millionwill be behind bars for telling the truth of history. It’s a bit like the Germans demanding that we cannot talk about Hitler because that would be anti-German. As I understand it, the Labour government is currently looking at making changes to the Race Equality Act.Let’s hope Starmer does not take us down the cul-de-sac of self-destruction.
This madness goes way beyond just Hindus or Sikhs, this definition will put every one of you behind bars if you ever raise any issue of concern against Muslims or Islam.
The Prime Minister needs to rid his Labour party of this definition. If he fails in his duty of care to this nation just to appease to the Islamists vote bank, then history will forever deem the Labour party as an anti-national party.
Let us be clear, yes there is antisemitism, as there is anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim hatred. As there are many other types of prejudices that are already covered by existing legislation. And yes, we as a nation must ensure all citizens are protected. But we can never sacrifice the nation and its people for a morally and ethically corrupt definition that disenfranchises the majority and puts them at risk of being imprisoned for telling the truth about historical facts.
There can only be One Law, for One Nation, and for One People.
