What is wrong with the UK? You'd have thought the 9/11 terrorist attacks would have made them understand what Islam is capable of. Instead, they are capitulating to the Muslims they've let into their country and allowing them to make the rules. It's hard to believe this is England.
Let's just hope that Americans are stronger than that.
-------------------------
Britain's chilling trajectory. New guidance on "anti-Muslim hatred" will accelerate the slide towards cultural suicide.
Melanie Phillips, Mar 12, 2026
"Hardly had the UK Communities Secretary, Steve Reed, finished
claiming that the new definition of anti-Muslim hostility would
safeguard freedom of speech and in no way restrict it than an attempt
was made by a Muslim MP to use it to to muzzle Parliament itself.
"Iqbal
Mohamed, a “Gaza First” MP, claimed that “Islamophobia” had been
normalised in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. So, he
demanded, “what sanction will apply?” to MPs and peers.
"The
British parliament is a place where freedom of speech has near sacred
status. Its members can speak without fear of being sued for libel, for
example, on the grounds that the central institution of democracy should
be where the people’s representatives aren’t fettered.
"It is
grotesque to claim that MPs and peers have indulged in so much
anti-Muslim prejudice that it has become normalised. They have merely
drawn attention to troubling developments in Britain’s Muslim community,
such as the Muslim-dominated rape and grooming gangs or the deeply
alarming defamation of Israeli football fans by Birmingham police
seemingly doing the bidding of local Muslim leaders.
"Just as
feared, an attempt was promptly made under the new definition to depict
this legitimate and indeed essential discussion as anti-Muslim bigotry.
"But
instead of slapping down this instantaneous realisation of people’s
concerns, Reed dodged the demand to muzzle parliament and agreed instead
that it was “right to point to the huge concern that we should all
share about the unacceptable level of hostility and abuse directed at
Muslims”. Thus a government minister tacitly agreed with the defamatory
falsehood directed at MPs and peers.
"The definition is the centerpiece of government guidance
for behaviour codes to be adopted by public bodies, councils and
businesses to combat prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards
Muslims. This will be policed by an anti-Muslim prejudice “tsar”.
"Although
it won’t have the force of law, it will have a chilling effect on a
society already genuflecting to Islamist intimidation — pressure from
Muslims promoting a politicised Islamic agenda to force Britain to adopt
Islamic practices.
"Real prejudice against Muslims or anyone else
is obviously bad and to be condemned. But Muslims, like other groups,
are already protected by existing laws against discrimination and
stirring up religious or racial hatred. The only purpose of this new
definition is to shut down necessary and legitimate criticism or
condemnation of Islam, Muslims or the Islamic world.
"Part of the definition of what constitutes anti-Muslim hatred states:
It
is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to
be Muslim, including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or
their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by
fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging
hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or
actions as individuals.
"This is dangerously broad. As
the Government’s counter-terrorism tsar Jonathan Hall, KC has said, it
could make people worried about discussing “uncomfortable” topics around
Muslim culture, migration and Islamism.
"And Lord Walney, the
government’s former anti-extremism tsar, has said extremists could use
the definition to “deflect scrutiny from their quest to undermine our
values and intimidate fellow Muslims”.
"The government itself knows
very well how dangerous this definition is. Immediately after setting
it out, its guidance states — with one line emboldened for emphasis:
It must be read alongside the accompanying text set out below,
which makes clear that open debate in the public interest is important
and must be fully safeguarded. Context must also always be taken into
account when interpreting and applying the definition.
"In
other words, the definition itself is a threat to free speech so grave
it has to be followed by a hasty caveat. But no such feeble calls to
protect open debate or apply context will mitigate it.
"The fact
that the government has chosen not to use the term “Islamophobia” has
been welcomed by some as a climbdown from the threat to deploy that
deeply sinister, catch-all term. Such relief is premature. The term
“Islamophobia” was dumped not because of anything bad in the concept. It
was dumped purely because “Islamophobia” had become too toxic. Using
the bland term “anti-Muslim hatred” neutralises that disquiet while
introducing a measure which has the same catch-all characteristic and is
just as dangerous to a free society.
"In other words, the language
has been massaged to spin something dangerous to society as a
progressive and necessary measure. It’s dangerous not least because the
whole thing is dependent on a highly subjective view of hatred,
hostility or prejudice.
"The minister, Steve Reed, said:
Over
40 per cent of all reported religious hate crime is directed against
Muslims, which is wildly out of proportion to the number of Muslims we
have in the country.
"It’s not clear where his 40 per
cent figure comes from, since the latest government figures, published
in October, showed that “hate crimes” targeted at Muslims were up by
under one fifth, from 2,690 offences recorded in the 12 months to March
2024 to 3,199 offences in the year ending March 2025.
"In any
event, some 90 per cent of terrorist suspects on the security service’s
books are Muslim, a figure that really is wildly disproportionate to
their estimated six per cent segment of the British population.
"But
since Muslims claim that anything critical of the Islamic world is
“hatred”, that 40 per cent figure likely to be itself a wild
overstatement of real prejudice against them.
"Most British Muslims
aren’t extreme and pose no danger to Britain; but a huge minority do.
And as in the Islamic world in general, antisemitism among British
Muslims is majority and mainstream.
"It’s certainly the case that
rising public anger over mass immigration and the fact that the
authorities bend over backwards not even to call out let alone tackle
Muslim misdeeds has provoked increasing violence on the streets directed
at the Muslim community.
"But it is British Jews whose every
school, synagogue and communal gathering has had to be protected for
years against attack, including the terrorist attack on a Manchester
synagogue which left two worshippers dead. And Muslims are
disproportionately involved in those attacks — something it may well
become impossible to say under the government’s new definition.
"Indeed,
the entire premise of that whole exercise is grotesque. British Jews
are under siege from a vast increase in anti-Jewish attacks. For two
years, Muslim-led mobs have staged demonstrations “for Gaza” chanting
for the murder of Jews. Still more Muslim mobs have been marching in
support of the genocidal Tehran regime which has sworn to wipe Israel
off the map and kill all Jews.
"Muslims have attacked Hindus in
north-west London and Birmingham, and Sikhs in west London. And yet the
government chooses this moment to protect Muslims from hostility. One
religion alone is responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist
attacks in Britain and indeed the world. Yet that is the one religion
to which the British government has decided to offer special protection.
"The
deeper point is that hatred is an indelible part of human nature and
cannot be eradicated. In addition, its identification is necessarily
highly subjective and therefore always contestable. Moves to eradicate
it therefore invariably entail an oppressive and even totalitarian
approach.
"The comparison with the International Human Rights
Association definition of antisemitism is inappropriate. That definition
itself is weak and full of holes and has patently done absolutely
nothing to halt the tsunami of antisemitism in Britain.
"But the
real point is that antisemitism cannot be compared with “anti-Muslim”
attitudes because it isn’t a mere prejudice or expression of hostility
or hatred. It is is a unique pathology casting Jews as a demonic force
with sinister powers, and it is fundamentally exterminatory in intent.
It is in and of itself a danger to society.
"The reason that
antisemitism has so appallingly roared out of control in Britain is the
absence of political will to deal with it. And the reason for that, in
addition to the government’s support for the cause of “Palestine” which
has acted as a Trojan horse for Jew-hatred, is that ministers are
desperate to placate and appease Muslim extremism — which takes its
energy from the psychotic hatred of Jews.
"The consequences of
official Britain’s genuflection to predatory Islamism are becoming
increasingly widespread, egregious and dismaying.
The Royal Mint, of all things, has announced
that it has partnered with Islamic Relief UK for Ramadan to donate
online sales profits of its gold, sharia-compliant Kaaba bars to the
charity.
"Zakat, one of the five pillars of
Islam, requires Muslims to give 2.5 per cent of their wealth to charity.
The Royal Mint produces Britain’s coinage. Why on earth is it
performing a Muslim religious requirement? And why is it donating to
Islamic Relief, a worldwide organisation that has faced accusations of ties to extremism and terror financing?
Bristol city council had the Muslim call to prayer sung out in Arabic at a public council meeting.
Chester-le-Street Church of England primary school in county Durham invited
a Muslim speaker to teach pupils how to pray to Allah. The school
published photographs of the visit on Facebook that showed the speaker
and the children kneeling as if in prayer and a girl trying on a hijab.
The Free Speech Union reported
this week that guidance issued to teachers by Labour councils warns
that images made by pupils in art lessons could be seen as “idolatrous”
under sharia law. The advice also warns that music and dance classes
could be contrary to the teachings of Islam.
"Teachers
have been advised in the guidance titled “Sharing the Journey” that
“for some Muslim parents, sensitivities may exist in connection with the
teaching of aspects of art, dance, drama, music, physical education,
religious education and RSHE.” It goes on to say:
It
is very important that the school understands this and is also careful
not to ask its students to reproduce images of Jesus, the Prophet
Mohammed or other figures considered to be prophets in Islam. Some
Muslim pupils may not wish to draw the human figure.
"He told his class that Britain was
still a Christian country – pointing out the King is head of the Church
of England and Islam ws a minority religion here Some children and
parents complained that this “upset” them.
'Police investigated the
teacher for hate crime but dropped it completely. Yet the school and
council still fired him for “gross misconduct” after years of service,
and even tried to bar him from ever working with children again, which
he successfully fought. He’s now suing the local authority with support
from the Free Speech Union, arguing he was punished just for stating
obvious historical and factual reality while enforcing normal hygiene
and school standards.
"What’s happening is that Britain has lost the will to uphold and defend its own historic identity as a nation.
"Thus
the government’s anti-extremism body Prevent includes in its
sub-category of extreme right wing terrorist ideology, along with white
ethno-nationalism and white supremacism, “cultural nationalism” which it
defines as holding:
‘Western culture’ is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups.
"Which
in effect stigmatises as extreme right wing terrorist sympathisers
millions of ordinary people in Britain who are concerned about precisely
that because they see Britain’s identity rooted in a common culture
being steadily destroyed.
"And now we learn that the Bank of
England will replace historical figures on its new banknotes by animals
and other images from the natural world. This is after a public
consultation in which, after reading the Bank’s guidance note that
stated:
The theme should not involve imagery that would reasonably be offensive to, or exclude, any groups,
the public overwhelmingly plumped for images from nature. Thus Winston Churchill might be replaced by a badger.
"So
great is the collapse of British national identity, in a nation whose
common culture has been replaced by groups competing for power and whose
own history is therefore viewed as “divisive”, that people are now
being replaced by wildlife.
"In Britain, predatory Islamism is pushing at an open door in a nation that is committing cultural suicide."
.jpg)