正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Angela Rayner has serious questions to answer. It is now almost certain that extremists had the opportunity to influence the drafting of the definition of anti-Muslim hostility. At the start of the year, the FSU exposed troubling links between all five members of the Working Group tasked with drafting... the Islamophobia definition and Islamist extremists. This included links to the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND — organisations with which successive governments have had a policy of non-engagement since 2009, due to their extreme views. A Freedom of Information request by Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy has now revealed that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government deleted all responses to the Working Group’s consultation. Why would the Government do that unless it had something to hide? Did Ministers instruct officials to delete the submissions? Did extremists have the opportunity to influence a policy decision that would revive Britain’s blasphemy laws for Islam alone? Why would the department delete— in an apparent breach of the Government’s own data policy —information that is a matter of historical importance? The public deserves the truth. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson below 👇show more

The Free Speech Union

223,609 subscribers

50,486 次观看 • 14 天前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治教育健康养生

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

12 条评论

Daniel ShenSmith (BlackBeltBarrister) 的头像

Daniel ShenSmith (BlackBeltBarrister)14 天前

That being the case, the “definition” should also be scrapped. It wasn’t required in the first place. Discrimination laws and offences are already adequate to deal with these things.

Peter Bauer 的头像

Peter Bauer14 天前

Has there ever in the history of parliamentary democracy in the UK been a more patently corrupt government than this one?

olloc 的头像

olloc14 天前

any progress with the Anti White Hatred and Anglophobia working group to determine a definition of Anti White Hostility while we can

J.P.White 的头像

J.P.White14 天前

Extremists influencing policy Ok, but billionaires giving cash to Reform …. 🤔

Sam 的头像

Sam14 天前

They all do, and so do those advising and implementing these decisions.

Samuel James 的头像

Samuel James14 天前

Angela Rayner doesn't have the inteligence she was born with

Clive Pettigrew 的头像

Clive Pettigrew14 天前

The working assumption is that every committee has a risk register, but apparently not a guest list. Governance by invitation remains a bold control framework.

The Lunatic Dreyfus 的头像

The Lunatic Dreyfus14 天前

That Labour Brass needs bracelets attaching

Derek Black 的头像

Derek Black14 天前

"Almost certain", eh? Do you support anti-Muslim hostility?

Kelsaeb 的头像

Kelsaeb14 天前

Why would any woman work with Islamists? They must realise when they get in power, they will become domestic slaves ( at best)

Mark Hanrahan 的头像

Mark Hanrahan14 天前

I wonder what crime will retrospectively be applied to that ginger criminal after 2029?

mama Jones 的头像

mama Jones14 天前

Scrap it and take her to court

相关视频

Britain now has an Islamic blasphemy law via the backdoor, thanks to the Government's official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as "anti-Muslim hostility". From the start, the Free Speech Union warned that any such definition would have a chilling effect on free speech and stifle our right to criticise, debate, and mock religion in this country. We were proved right almost immediately. Since the definition was published in March, it has been used by activists and Labour MPs to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. When the Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy, criticised a mass Muslim public prayer event in Trafalgar Square, he was branded an Islamophobe, reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and even faced calls to resign from the then Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. The Labour Government did not consult Parliament about its plans to revive Britain's blasphemy laws for Islam alone. At the start of the year, the Free Speech Union exposed that all five members of the Working Group tasked by Angela Rayner to draft the Islamophobia definition had troubling links to Islamist organisations. These include the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND, both of which are subject to a government policy of non-engagement over concerns about extremism. What is even more concerning is that it is almost certain extremists were able to influence the drafting of the definition. If that is not alarming enough, Nick Timothy's Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that the Communities Department deleted all the responses to the Working Group's consultation on the Islamophobia definition. If there is nothing to hide, why did the department delete all the responses — a move that appears to breach its own policy on data retention? There are serious questions for Angela Rayner and her department to answer. Why did they delete all these responses? Did ministers direct officials to dispose of the submissions? Did extremist groups really have the chance to influence the definition, while the Free Speech Union and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) did not? The public deserves to know the truth. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw👇

Britain now has an Islamic blasphemy law via the backdoor, thanks to the Government's official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as "anti-Muslim hostility". From the start, the Free Speech Union warned that any such definition would have a chilling effect on free speech and stifle our right to criticise, debate, and mock religion in this country. We were proved right almost immediately. Since the definition was published in March, it has been used by activists and Labour MPs to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. When the Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy, criticised a mass Muslim public prayer event in Trafalgar Square, he was branded an Islamophobe, reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and even faced calls to resign from the then Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. The Labour Government did not consult Parliament about its plans to revive Britain's blasphemy laws for Islam alone. At the start of the year, the Free Speech Union exposed that all five members of the Working Group tasked by Angela Rayner to draft the Islamophobia definition had troubling links to Islamist organisations. These include the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND, both of which are subject to a government policy of non-engagement over concerns about extremism. What is even more concerning is that it is almost certain extremists were able to influence the drafting of the definition. If that is not alarming enough, Nick Timothy's Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that the Communities Department deleted all the responses to the Working Group's consultation on the Islamophobia definition. If there is nothing to hide, why did the department delete all the responses — a move that appears to breach its own policy on data retention? There are serious questions for Angela Rayner and her department to answer. Why did they delete all these responses? Did ministers direct officials to dispose of the submissions? Did extremist groups really have the chance to influence the definition, while the Free Speech Union and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) did not? The public deserves to know the truth. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw👇

The Free Speech Union

82,445 次观看 • 26 天前

Britain now has an Islamic blasphemy law via the backdoor, thanks to the Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”. From the start, the Free Speech Union warned that any such definition would have a chilling effect on free speech and stifle our right to criticise, debate, and mock religion in this country. We were proved right almost immediately. Since the definition was published in March, it has been used by activists and Labour MPs to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. When the Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy, criticised a mass Muslim public prayer event in Trafalgar Square, he was branded an Islamophobe, reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and even faced calls to resign from the then Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. The Labour Government did not consult Parliament about its plans to revive Britain’s blasphemy laws for Islam alone. At the start of the year, the Free Speech Union exposed that all five members of the Working Group tasked by Angela Rayner to draft the Islamophobia definition had troubling links to Islamist organisations. These include the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND, both of which are subject to a government policy of non-engagement over concerns about extremism. What is even more concerning is that it is almost certain extremists were able to influence the drafting of the definition. If that is not alarming enough, Nick Timothy’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that the Communities Department deleted all the responses to the Working Group’s consultation on the Islamophobia definition. If there is nothing to hide, why did the department delete all the responses — a move that appears to breach its own policy on data retention? There are serious questions for Angela Rayner and her department to answer. Why did they delete all these responses? Did ministers direct officials to dispose of the submissions? Did extremist groups really have the chance to influence the definition, while the Free Speech Union and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) did not? The public deserves to know the truth.

Britain now has an Islamic blasphemy law via the backdoor, thanks to the Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”. From the start, the Free Speech Union warned that any such definition would have a chilling effect on free speech and stifle our right to criticise, debate, and mock religion in this country. We were proved right almost immediately. Since the definition was published in March, it has been used by activists and Labour MPs to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. When the Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy, criticised a mass Muslim public prayer event in Trafalgar Square, he was branded an Islamophobe, reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and even faced calls to resign from the then Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. The Labour Government did not consult Parliament about its plans to revive Britain’s blasphemy laws for Islam alone. At the start of the year, the Free Speech Union exposed that all five members of the Working Group tasked by Angela Rayner to draft the Islamophobia definition had troubling links to Islamist organisations. These include the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND, both of which are subject to a government policy of non-engagement over concerns about extremism. What is even more concerning is that it is almost certain extremists were able to influence the drafting of the definition. If that is not alarming enough, Nick Timothy’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that the Communities Department deleted all the responses to the Working Group’s consultation on the Islamophobia definition. If there is nothing to hide, why did the department delete all the responses — a move that appears to breach its own policy on data retention? There are serious questions for Angela Rayner and her department to answer. Why did they delete all these responses? Did ministers direct officials to dispose of the submissions? Did extremist groups really have the chance to influence the definition, while the Free Speech Union and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) did not? The public deserves to know the truth.

Imtiaz Mahmood

26,708 次观看 • 24 天前

“The public have been kept in the dark.” All five members of the government’s Working Group tasked with drafting an official definition of Islamophobia have links to Islamist organisations — including the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), both of which successive governments have maintained a policy of non-engagement with. Our new Director of Policy and Research has exposed these troubling connections in a new investigative briefing. If the government presses ahead with this proposed definition — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — it will chill free speech and silence legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw on GB News below 👇

“The public have been kept in the dark.” All five members of the government’s Working Group tasked with drafting an official definition of Islamophobia have links to Islamist organisations — including the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), both of which successive governments have maintained a policy of non-engagement with. Our new Director of Policy and Research has exposed these troubling connections in a new investigative briefing. If the government presses ahead with this proposed definition — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — it will chill free speech and silence legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw on GB News below 👇

The Free Speech Union

61,360 次观看 • 7 个月前

Who has been tasked with drafting the Government’s new Islamophobia definition? All five members of its Working Group have links to Islamist organisations — including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) — both subject to successive governments’ policies of non-engagement due to their extreme views. Some have even supported shutting down debate on issues such as the grooming gangs. In a new investigative briefing, our Director of Policy & Research, David Rose, exposes these troubling connections. If ministers press ahead with this rebranded and ever-expanding definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”, it risks chilling free speech and silencing legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. Watch David Rose on GB News 👇

Who has been tasked with drafting the Government’s new Islamophobia definition? All five members of its Working Group have links to Islamist organisations — including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) — both subject to successive governments’ policies of non-engagement due to their extreme views. Some have even supported shutting down debate on issues such as the grooming gangs. In a new investigative briefing, our Director of Policy & Research, David Rose, exposes these troubling connections. If ministers press ahead with this rebranded and ever-expanding definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”, it risks chilling free speech and silencing legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. Watch David Rose on GB News 👇

The Free Speech Union

14,825 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨 WHO IS DRAFTING THE ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ DEFINITION? The Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech. It risks silencing legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices, and deterring people from speaking out about issues such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. So who was tasked with drafting Britain’s new Muslim blasphemy law? In a new report, the FSU’s Director of Research and Policy David Rose reveals that all five members of the Working Group responsible for drafting the definition have links to Islamist organisations. Watch the full podcast episode in the comments 👇

🚨 WHO IS DRAFTING THE ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ DEFINITION? The Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech. It risks silencing legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices, and deterring people from speaking out about issues such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. So who was tasked with drafting Britain’s new Muslim blasphemy law? In a new report, the FSU’s Director of Research and Policy David Rose reveals that all five members of the Working Group responsible for drafting the definition have links to Islamist organisations. Watch the full podcast episode in the comments 👇

The Free Speech Union

36,578 次观看 • 7 个月前

People are rightly worried about the Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”. In effect, it risks introducing a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door — 18 years after Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws. In our latest podcast episode, FSU General Secretary Lord Young of Acton speaks with the FSU’s new Director of Research and Policy, David Rose, whose investigative briefing exposed that all five members of the Working Group drafting the definition have links to Islamist organisations. Watch the full episode on our YouTube channel 👇

People are rightly worried about the Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”. In effect, it risks introducing a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door — 18 years after Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws. In our latest podcast episode, FSU General Secretary Lord Young of Acton speaks with the FSU’s new Director of Research and Policy, David Rose, whose investigative briefing exposed that all five members of the Working Group drafting the definition have links to Islamist organisations. Watch the full episode on our YouTube channel 👇

The Free Speech Union

35,329 次观看 • 6 个月前

🚨📣 NEW BRIEFING An official definition of Islamophobia would be a direct threat to free speech. Last year, Communities Secretary Angela Rayner established a working group to draft one. In a new briefing, our Director of Policy and Research, David Rose, uncovers that all five members of the group have links to Islamist organisations. Even the only non-Muslim member — the chair, former Conservative MP and Attorney General Dominic Grieve — has admitted to taking advice from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), both organisations with a long record of promoting extreme views. Watch David below and read the full briefing in the comments 👇

🚨📣 NEW BRIEFING An official definition of Islamophobia would be a direct threat to free speech. Last year, Communities Secretary Angela Rayner established a working group to draft one. In a new briefing, our Director of Policy and Research, David Rose, uncovers that all five members of the group have links to Islamist organisations. Even the only non-Muslim member — the chair, former Conservative MP and Attorney General Dominic Grieve — has admitted to taking advice from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), both organisations with a long record of promoting extreme views. Watch David below and read the full briefing in the comments 👇

The Free Speech Union

28,590 次观看 • 7 个月前

The Free Speech Union’s latest investigative briefing reveals that all five members of the Government’s Working Group tasked with drafting the official definition of Islamophobia have links to Islamist organisations. Let’s start with the Chair: former Conservative MP and Attorney General Dominic Grieve KC. The story is extraordinary. For many years after the 9/11 attacks, Grieve made a number of statements that were highly critical of Muslims — at times bordering on the racist — including comments about political corruption among Muslims in his former constituency. He also suggested that some Muslims were seeking to change Britain in ways incompatible with a pluralist democracy, particularly in relation to freedom of expression. So what changed? In 2017, Grieve was appointed to chair a citizens’ commission on British Muslims, which produced a report on the challenges of Islamophobia. Among the advisers he relied on were individuals with concerning backgrounds — including the then-chair of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation successive governments since 2009 have pursued a policy of non-engagement with due to concerns about extremism. Another adviser was linked to Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND). A year later, he wrote the foreword to the All-Party Parliamentary Group’s (APPG) proposed report that presented a definition of Islamophobia. Although he insists his views have not changed, the record suggests otherwise. Last year, then Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner appointed him to lead the Working Group tasked with drafting an official definition of Islamophobia — now rebranded as “anti-Muslim hostility”. This definition risks stifling free speech and silencing legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion, its history and its practices. Watch FSU Director of Research and Policy David Rose below 👇 Full episode is available on our YouTube channel.

The Free Speech Union’s latest investigative briefing reveals that all five members of the Government’s Working Group tasked with drafting the official definition of Islamophobia have links to Islamist organisations. Let’s start with the Chair: former Conservative MP and Attorney General Dominic Grieve KC. The story is extraordinary. For many years after the 9/11 attacks, Grieve made a number of statements that were highly critical of Muslims — at times bordering on the racist — including comments about political corruption among Muslims in his former constituency. He also suggested that some Muslims were seeking to change Britain in ways incompatible with a pluralist democracy, particularly in relation to freedom of expression. So what changed? In 2017, Grieve was appointed to chair a citizens’ commission on British Muslims, which produced a report on the challenges of Islamophobia. Among the advisers he relied on were individuals with concerning backgrounds — including the then-chair of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation successive governments since 2009 have pursued a policy of non-engagement with due to concerns about extremism. Another adviser was linked to Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND). A year later, he wrote the foreword to the All-Party Parliamentary Group’s (APPG) proposed report that presented a definition of Islamophobia. Although he insists his views have not changed, the record suggests otherwise. Last year, then Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner appointed him to lead the Working Group tasked with drafting an official definition of Islamophobia — now rebranded as “anti-Muslim hostility”. This definition risks stifling free speech and silencing legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion, its history and its practices. Watch FSU Director of Research and Policy David Rose below 👇 Full episode is available on our YouTube channel.

The Free Speech Union

38,911 次观看 • 7 个月前

In 2006, polling showed that 68% of Muslims in Britain think it should be a criminal offence to insult Islam. So far, Britain has chosen a path of appeasement and capitulation to Islamic blasphemy laws. Since Starmer came to power, cases received by the Free Speech Union of people being penalised for criticising Islam or Muslim cultural practices have increased by a multiple of 4. This was before the 'anti Muslim hostility definition' was introduced by Labour. All 5 members, hand picked by Labour, of the working group that came up with the definition have links to Islamist organisations.

In 2006, polling showed that 68% of Muslims in Britain think it should be a criminal offence to insult Islam. So far, Britain has chosen a path of appeasement and capitulation to Islamic blasphemy laws. Since Starmer came to power, cases received by the Free Speech Union of people being penalised for criticising Islam or Muslim cultural practices have increased by a multiple of 4. This was before the 'anti Muslim hostility definition' was introduced by Labour. All 5 members, hand picked by Labour, of the working group that came up with the definition have links to Islamist organisations.

Connie Shaw

84,518 次观看 • 3 个月前

In less than a week, Labour’s “anti-Muslim hostility” definition has shown its true colours. Labour MPs have already tried to weaponise this non-statutory definition of Islamophobia to silence the Shadow Justice Secretary for calling out political Islam. Rather than allowing the definition to face scrutiny in Parliament, Labour set up a five-member working group to draft it — all of whom had ties to Islamist organisations. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw on Talk👇

In less than a week, Labour’s “anti-Muslim hostility” definition has shown its true colours. Labour MPs have already tried to weaponise this non-statutory definition of Islamophobia to silence the Shadow Justice Secretary for calling out political Islam. Rather than allowing the definition to face scrutiny in Parliament, Labour set up a five-member working group to draft it — all of whom had ties to Islamist organisations. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw on Talk👇

The Free Speech Union

120,851 次观看 • 6 个月前

“Hopefully after jury trials become the 14th U-turn, the Islamophobia definition will become the 15th”. The government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech. The decision to include racialisation and prejudicial stereotyping as a form of anti-Muslim hate is dangerous because it conflates Islam with race. Important conversations about Islam and its practices will be silenced. People will be deterred from legitimately questioning and challenging Islam for fear of being labelled as “Islamophobic”. Even without this de facto Muslim blasphemy law, we already have a culturally functioning definition of Islamophobia. A recent example includes the Conservative MP Rebecca Paul’s important report into the abuse Muslim women face within their own community being buried by the Women and Equalities Select Committee — despite the fact that it took evidence from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which the government has a policy of non-engagement with due to its links to extremism. An official definition will make matters far worse. It will also negatively impact those who decide to leave the religion of Islam. This includes FSU member Dheyaa, who fled Iraq, converted to Christianity, and burned a copy of the Quran in protest. He was then arrested and told he had committed a hate crime. Watch Connie Shaw on Talk 👇

“Hopefully after jury trials become the 14th U-turn, the Islamophobia definition will become the 15th”. The government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech. The decision to include racialisation and prejudicial stereotyping as a form of anti-Muslim hate is dangerous because it conflates Islam with race. Important conversations about Islam and its practices will be silenced. People will be deterred from legitimately questioning and challenging Islam for fear of being labelled as “Islamophobic”. Even without this de facto Muslim blasphemy law, we already have a culturally functioning definition of Islamophobia. A recent example includes the Conservative MP Rebecca Paul’s important report into the abuse Muslim women face within their own community being buried by the Women and Equalities Select Committee — despite the fact that it took evidence from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which the government has a policy of non-engagement with due to its links to extremism. An official definition will make matters far worse. It will also negatively impact those who decide to leave the religion of Islam. This includes FSU member Dheyaa, who fled Iraq, converted to Christianity, and burned a copy of the Quran in protest. He was then arrested and told he had committed a hate crime. Watch Connie Shaw on Talk 👇

The Free Speech Union

38,618 次观看 • 7 个月前

The Free Speech Union has long warned that the official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — would be used to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. Within weeks, Labour MPs had reported Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, branded him an “Islamophobe”, and called on the Prime Minister to remove him from his post. Last week, 27 Labour MPs reported Reform UK to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), accusing the party of Islamophobia and urging the Commission to investigate. Led by Afzal Khan, a leading campaigner for an official Islamophobia definition, the MPs cited Nigel Farage’s criticism of the mass Muslim prayer event in Trafalgar Square, alongside comments made by Lee Anderson and Sarah Pochin. This definition is already being weaponised to silence those who criticise Islam. It amounts to an Islamic blasphemy law by the back door. Hear from FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson 👇

The Free Speech Union has long warned that the official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — would be used to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. Within weeks, Labour MPs had reported Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, branded him an “Islamophobe”, and called on the Prime Minister to remove him from his post. Last week, 27 Labour MPs reported Reform UK to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), accusing the party of Islamophobia and urging the Commission to investigate. Led by Afzal Khan, a leading campaigner for an official Islamophobia definition, the MPs cited Nigel Farage’s criticism of the mass Muslim prayer event in Trafalgar Square, alongside comments made by Lee Anderson and Sarah Pochin. This definition is already being weaponised to silence those who criticise Islam. It amounts to an Islamic blasphemy law by the back door. Hear from FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson 👇

The Free Speech Union

37,498 次观看 • 3 个月前

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNION CHALLENGES GOVERNMENT “ISLAMOPHOBIA” DEFINITION A major legal battle over free speech is now unfolding in Britain. The Free Speech Union has announced it is launching a judicial review against the government’s adoption of a new official definition of “Islamophobia” (described by ministers as anti-Muslim hostility). Critics argue the policy risks creating a blasphemy law through the back door, something Parliament abolished in England and Wales nearly two decades ago. According to the Free Speech Union, the government’s plan to adopt the definition — and appoint an official “czar” to enforce it — could seriously restrict lawful debate, criticism, and public discussion. They say legal advice suggests the move may be unlawful, and have formally placed the government on notice that they intend to challenge the decision in court. The organisation is now asking supporters to help fund the case, warning that judicial reviews against government policy are extremely expensive but crucial for protecting civil liberties. The core question now being raised is simple: Has the government created a new form of blasphemy protection for one religion, or is this a necessary step to combat discrimination? The courts may soon decide. The Free Speech Union

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNION CHALLENGES GOVERNMENT “ISLAMOPHOBIA” DEFINITION A major legal battle over free speech is now unfolding in Britain. The Free Speech Union has announced it is launching a judicial review against the government’s adoption of a new official definition of “Islamophobia” (described by ministers as anti-Muslim hostility). Critics argue the policy risks creating a blasphemy law through the back door, something Parliament abolished in England and Wales nearly two decades ago. According to the Free Speech Union, the government’s plan to adopt the definition — and appoint an official “czar” to enforce it — could seriously restrict lawful debate, criticism, and public discussion. They say legal advice suggests the move may be unlawful, and have formally placed the government on notice that they intend to challenge the decision in court. The organisation is now asking supporters to help fund the case, warning that judicial reviews against government policy are extremely expensive but crucial for protecting civil liberties. The core question now being raised is simple: Has the government created a new form of blasphemy protection for one religion, or is this a necessary step to combat discrimination? The courts may soon decide. The Free Speech Union

Jim Ferguson

13,650 次观看 • 6 个月前

The official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will make it harder for public institutions to deal with issues such as the grooming gangs scandal, Islamist extremism, gender inequality and violence against women. Additionally, rather than preventing genuine instances of violence and harassment, it will criminalise legitimate debate about Islam and further exacerbate community tensions. As Shadow Equalities Minister Claire Coutinho says in the latest FSU Podcast, there are already laws in place to deal with violence and harassment against any religious group. Rather than waste taxpayers’ money and reintroduce Britain’s blasphemy laws — for Islam alone — the Government should enforce the existing laws. We have already seen the dangers of an Islamophobia definition with the grooming gangs scandal. Many of the councils in which the gangs operated in had adopted the APPG definition. The report into the scandal stated that specifically discussing the grooming gangs constituted an act of anti-Muslim racism. Authorities looked the other way while these young girls were raped for fear of being accused of racism and Islamophobia. Watch Claire Coutinho and David Rose on the latest episode of the FSU Podcast 👇

The official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will make it harder for public institutions to deal with issues such as the grooming gangs scandal, Islamist extremism, gender inequality and violence against women. Additionally, rather than preventing genuine instances of violence and harassment, it will criminalise legitimate debate about Islam and further exacerbate community tensions. As Shadow Equalities Minister Claire Coutinho says in the latest FSU Podcast, there are already laws in place to deal with violence and harassment against any religious group. Rather than waste taxpayers’ money and reintroduce Britain’s blasphemy laws — for Islam alone — the Government should enforce the existing laws. We have already seen the dangers of an Islamophobia definition with the grooming gangs scandal. Many of the councils in which the gangs operated in had adopted the APPG definition. The report into the scandal stated that specifically discussing the grooming gangs constituted an act of anti-Muslim racism. Authorities looked the other way while these young girls were raped for fear of being accused of racism and Islamophobia. Watch Claire Coutinho and David Rose on the latest episode of the FSU Podcast 👇

The Free Speech Union

10,385 次观看 • 3 个月前

The Government's official definition of Islamophobia is already having a chilling effect on free speech. South Wales Police went even further, instructing officers to record any incident that went beyond "legitimate" discussion of Islam. But why should a police officer get to decide what constitutes "illegitimate" discussion of a religion in a country without blasphemy laws? The Free Speech Union threatened South Wales Police with legal action unless it withdrew the guidance, and Claire Coutinho wrote to the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The force has now confirmed that it has paused the guidance. The Government's definition is a gold-embossed invitation for public bodies to go even further than ministers in stifling legitimate criticism and debate about Islam. As Claire tells FSU Director of Research and Policy David Rose, if an officer records an incident on the basis that your comments went beyond "legitimate" discussion of Islam, that could appear on an enhanced DBS check and potentially affect your employment prospects. That is effectively the reintroduction of non-crime hate incidents through the back door. There is no democratic mandate for this. Watch the full episode on the FSU YouTube channel 👇

The Government's official definition of Islamophobia is already having a chilling effect on free speech. South Wales Police went even further, instructing officers to record any incident that went beyond "legitimate" discussion of Islam. But why should a police officer get to decide what constitutes "illegitimate" discussion of a religion in a country without blasphemy laws? The Free Speech Union threatened South Wales Police with legal action unless it withdrew the guidance, and Claire Coutinho wrote to the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The force has now confirmed that it has paused the guidance. The Government's definition is a gold-embossed invitation for public bodies to go even further than ministers in stifling legitimate criticism and debate about Islam. As Claire tells FSU Director of Research and Policy David Rose, if an officer records an incident on the basis that your comments went beyond "legitimate" discussion of Islam, that could appear on an enhanced DBS check and potentially affect your employment prospects. That is effectively the reintroduction of non-crime hate incidents through the back door. There is no democratic mandate for this. Watch the full episode on the FSU YouTube channel 👇

The Free Speech Union

53,998 次观看 • 2 个月前

Rupert Lowe has been reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards over his repeated comments about Muslims, Islam and the crimes committed by some Pakistani men. The complaint focuses on Rupert Lowe MP’s use of the term “Pakistani Muslim rape gangs”, his claim of an “undeniable link” between Islam and the grooming gangs, and his warnings about the “Islamification of Britain”. We’ve been here before. The Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy, was reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards by Labour MPs after criticising a mass Muslim public prayer event in Trafalgar Square. The Labour Government promised that its “anti-Muslim hostility” definition would not silence criticism of Islam, Muslims or their practices. It has. Since the start of this process, the Free Speech Union has warned that the definition would stifle important discussions about issues such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. This censorious attitude is precisely what led to these heinous crimes being ignored by public bodies and authorities, which feared being branded racist or “Islamophobic” for pointing out what Baroness Casey highlighted in her review: that Pakistani Muslim men were disproportionately responsible for these horrific crimes. The Islamophobia definition is emboldening those who want to shut down these conversations. We cannot let an Islamic blasphemy law take root in Britain. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw 👇

Rupert Lowe has been reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards over his repeated comments about Muslims, Islam and the crimes committed by some Pakistani men. The complaint focuses on Rupert Lowe MP’s use of the term “Pakistani Muslim rape gangs”, his claim of an “undeniable link” between Islam and the grooming gangs, and his warnings about the “Islamification of Britain”. We’ve been here before. The Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy, was reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards by Labour MPs after criticising a mass Muslim public prayer event in Trafalgar Square. The Labour Government promised that its “anti-Muslim hostility” definition would not silence criticism of Islam, Muslims or their practices. It has. Since the start of this process, the Free Speech Union has warned that the definition would stifle important discussions about issues such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. This censorious attitude is precisely what led to these heinous crimes being ignored by public bodies and authorities, which feared being branded racist or “Islamophobic” for pointing out what Baroness Casey highlighted in her review: that Pakistani Muslim men were disproportionately responsible for these horrific crimes. The Islamophobia definition is emboldening those who want to shut down these conversations. We cannot let an Islamic blasphemy law take root in Britain. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw 👇

The Free Speech Union

63,835 次观看 • 1 天前

The official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will be used to suppress legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. We are already seeing this play out. Less than a week after the Communities Secretary, Steve Reed, published the definition — assuring the public it would not stifle legitimate criticism of Islam — Nick Timothy is facing calls to resign after criticising mass ritual prayer by Muslims in Trafalgar Square. He has been accused of “anti-Muslim hostility” by a Labour MP and reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. This is a Muslim blasphemy law by the back door. Today, the Free Speech Union has sent a pre-action letter to Steve Reed, threatening judicial review if the definition and guidance are not withdrawn immediately. This is one of the biggest fights we’ve taken on in our six-year history. Help us stop the Government’s de facto Muslim blasphemy law 👇

The official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will be used to suppress legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. We are already seeing this play out. Less than a week after the Communities Secretary, Steve Reed, published the definition — assuring the public it would not stifle legitimate criticism of Islam — Nick Timothy is facing calls to resign after criticising mass ritual prayer by Muslims in Trafalgar Square. He has been accused of “anti-Muslim hostility” by a Labour MP and reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. This is a Muslim blasphemy law by the back door. Today, the Free Speech Union has sent a pre-action letter to Steve Reed, threatening judicial review if the definition and guidance are not withdrawn immediately. This is one of the biggest fights we’ve taken on in our six-year history. Help us stop the Government’s de facto Muslim blasphemy law 👇

The Free Speech Union

215,152 次观看 • 6 个月前

Why would a government change the law to hide their records – unless they had something to hide? Doug Ford just did that. He rewrote Freedom of Information laws to bury his phone records and 40 years of government documents. As Premier, I will undo this. But right now, I need those records preserved. Especially all the ones related to the ongoing criminal investigation into the Greenbelt Scandal.

Why would a government change the law to hide their records – unless they had something to hide? Doug Ford just did that. He rewrote Freedom of Information laws to bury his phone records and 40 years of government documents. As Premier, I will undo this. But right now, I need those records preserved. Especially all the ones related to the ongoing criminal investigation into the Greenbelt Scandal.

Marit Stiles

24,631 次观看 • 5 个月前

An official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech and inflame already fragile community tensions. If the government presses ahead, it risks reintroducing Britain’s blasphemy laws and effectively banning criticism of Islam and its practices. It would also silence discussion of vital issues, including the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. In a free society, no religion should be afforded greater protection than others or shielded from criticism. We have already seen cases — such as in the West Midlands — where police have capitulated to Islamist extremists. Public services must not be deterred from doing their jobs — especially those responsible for keeping us safe — for fear of being labelled “Islamophobic”. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson explain the dangers of an official definition of Islamophobia 👇

An official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech and inflame already fragile community tensions. If the government presses ahead, it risks reintroducing Britain’s blasphemy laws and effectively banning criticism of Islam and its practices. It would also silence discussion of vital issues, including the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. In a free society, no religion should be afforded greater protection than others or shielded from criticism. We have already seen cases — such as in the West Midlands — where police have capitulated to Islamist extremists. Public services must not be deterred from doing their jobs — especially those responsible for keeping us safe — for fear of being labelled “Islamophobic”. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson explain the dangers of an official definition of Islamophobia 👇

The Free Speech Union

48,216 次观看 • 8 个月前

🚨 Sonia Elijah: Government agencies REFUSED to release Covid data that exposed the truth. “I submitted a Freedom of Information request to [the] Department of Science and Innovation and Technology in the U.K.” “I asked them for all the meetings, all the notes, emails, communications with NATO in reference to disinformation policy around the Covid shots.” “And they admitted that, yes, they do have all of that information.” “But they're not going to give it.” “[They said] it would threaten national security or would be used to further misinformation [and] be misinterpreted.” “That reminded me exactly the same excuse… given by the UK HSA.” “Key scientists took them to court to try and get them to release the data linking excess deaths to the Covid vaccines.” “They refused to give the data.” “This is anonymized data, so [there’d be] no one's names.” “They refused to give it.” “[They said] it would, again, fuel misinformation and relatives of the deceased would get very angry.” “That was their excuse.” Jeffrey A Tucker Sonia Elijah Brownstone Institute

🚨 Sonia Elijah: Government agencies REFUSED to release Covid data that exposed the truth. “I submitted a Freedom of Information request to [the] Department of Science and Innovation and Technology in the U.K.” “I asked them for all the meetings, all the notes, emails, communications with NATO in reference to disinformation policy around the Covid shots.” “And they admitted that, yes, they do have all of that information.” “But they're not going to give it.” “[They said] it would threaten national security or would be used to further misinformation [and] be misinterpreted.” “That reminded me exactly the same excuse… given by the UK HSA.” “Key scientists took them to court to try and get them to release the data linking excess deaths to the Covid vaccines.” “They refused to give the data.” “This is anonymized data, so [there’d be] no one's names.” “They refused to give it.” “[They said] it would, again, fuel misinformation and relatives of the deceased would get very angry.” “That was their excuse.” Jeffrey A Tucker Sonia Elijah Brownstone Institute

Children’s Health Defense

24,784 次观看 • 5 个月前