正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Spare us the performative outrage. Angela Rayner still won’t commit to publishing the Islamophobia report - despite serious concerns it could pave the way for a backdoor blasphemy law. Let’s be real: the Government’s definition is already stitched up to win votes. The bare minimum is transparency. Publish the report.

124,942 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

10 条评论

Fellasmum 的头像
Fellasmum1 年前

What incendiary language?

Kevin Hollinrake MP 的头像
Kevin Hollinrake MP1 年前

Quite!

Mark (Wizard/Engineer) 的头像
Mark (Wizard/Engineer)1 年前

@2b_freeforever What is insentry language? That's not a slip of the tongue, she genuinely tries to use words she doesn't understand. We're an embarrassment as a country, when a thick mess like that is secretary of state. I despise the labour party for what it has become. Champagne socialists.

Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧🇮🇱 的头像
Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧🇮🇱1 年前

"This is about power. It's about silencing uncomfortable facts. It's about neutering any criticism of Islamist ideology - the same ideology that fuels grooming gangs, honour killings, and jihad."

Stuck Farmer 的头像
Stuck Farmer1 年前

Deeply disappointed by the tone and conduct of this child. Is this really the standard of conduct for a Deputy Prime Minister? Hard to believe how far we've fallen.

Mobile Scanner 的头像
Mobile Scanner1 年前

Scan any documents, convert images into text, PDF files, etc. 👍

Benjamin Davis-Rice 的头像
Benjamin Davis-Rice1 年前

Don’t forget she’s going to lose her seat to an ‘independent’ candidate. It’s all performative nonsense and a Hail Mary to save her job.

🇬🇧 Suicidal Empathy 🇬🇧 的头像
🇬🇧 Suicidal Empathy 🇬🇧1 年前

She won’t even disclose whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood (a designated Terrorist organisation in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain) is involved in the report or not. I strongly suspect they are. Absolutely outrageous. Fire her IMMEDIATELY.

Clive Smith - cure Pulmonary Hypertension now 的头像
Clive Smith - cure Pulmonary Hypertension now1 年前

This is what the Coral Lady is sayin The EU lover and UK traitor @dominicgrieve_ and the rest of this secretive group, who are all Muslim will decide on the definition and completely avoid scrutiny within the House of Commons What's the point of Parliament under @Keir_Starmer

Nicholas Cook 的头像
Nicholas Cook1 年前

'Incendiary language' is Rayner's double-speak for reasoned argument.

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.

Imtiaz Mahmood

26,252 次观看 • 7 天前