Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

“This is a battle for control over normative Islam.” There are individuals within parts of the Muslim community who hold extremist views about faith and power and are seeking to impose their worldview on the rest of society and our institutions. Islamists are attempting to dominate public discourse, squeezing...

SpeechUnion's profile picture

The Free Speech Union

219,193 subscribers

21,129 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsHealth & WellnessEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

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 👇
1:27

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 views • 7 months ago

“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 👇
3:33

“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 views • 6 months ago

The UK liberal government under Keir Starmer announces a new official definition of “Islamophobia” “Today we are publishing our definition of anti-Muslim hatred and hostility, and this is in response to what we have heard loud and clear from the Muslim community” “The definition must sit alongside action in order to make sure that we are protecting people in this country, and that we're also tackling those that want to sow hate and those that want to intimidate . That's why we will be appointing an anti-Muslim hostility czar to work alongside government to make sure that we are rolling this out in institution after institution” The UK is an Islamic State
0:55

The UK liberal government under Keir Starmer announces a new official definition of “Islamophobia” “Today we are publishing our definition of anti-Muslim hatred and hostility, and this is in response to what we have heard loud and clear from the Muslim community” “The definition must sit alongside action in order to make sure that we are protecting people in this country, and that we're also tackling those that want to sow hate and those that want to intimidate . That's why we will be appointing an anti-Muslim hostility czar to work alongside government to make sure that we are rolling this out in institution after institution” The UK is an Islamic State

Wall Street Apes

55,890 views • 5 months ago

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 👇
1:06

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 views • 2 months ago

The last time Labour adopted an Islamophobia definition, Labour-led councils didn’t speak up about grooming gangs because of fears of being called racist. Now, they are about to adopt a new definition and impose it on our public bodies without anyone seeing what is in it. No religion or religious group should be above legitimate criticism in a free society. Labour must end this work behind closed doors and publish the draft definition for full public scrutiny.
0:34

The last time Labour adopted an Islamophobia definition, Labour-led councils didn’t speak up about grooming gangs because of fears of being called racist. Now, they are about to adopt a new definition and impose it on our public bodies without anyone seeing what is in it. No religion or religious group should be above legitimate criticism in a free society. Labour must end this work behind closed doors and publish the draft definition for full public scrutiny.

Claire Coutinho

299,351 views • 9 months ago

An official definition of Islamophobia would have a chilling effect on free speech. It would silence legitimate debate on sensitive matters, such as the grooming gangs scandal. There are already laws in place that protect against religious hatred and discrimination. Watch Lord Young of Acton at our panel discussion ‘The problem with defining Islamophobia’ at the Academy of Ideas Battle of Ideas. The panel included leading opponents to the official definition - Nick Timothy MP, Toby Young, Amanda Spielman and Khalid Mahmood. Link to the full video below ⬇️
1:34

An official definition of Islamophobia would have a chilling effect on free speech. It would silence legitimate debate on sensitive matters, such as the grooming gangs scandal. There are already laws in place that protect against religious hatred and discrimination. Watch Lord Young of Acton at our panel discussion ‘The problem with defining Islamophobia’ at the Academy of Ideas Battle of Ideas. The panel included leading opponents to the official definition - Nick Timothy MP, Toby Young, Amanda Spielman and Khalid Mahmood. Link to the full video below ⬇️

The Free Speech Union

16,624 views • 10 months ago

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 👇
1:11

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 views • 5 months ago

There are clear political motivations behind the Labour Government’s decision to revive an official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”. As the 2024 general election showed, traditional Red Wall Labour strongholds are no longer secure. A number of sitting Labour MPs were unseated by pro-Gaza independent candidates backed by an organisation called The Muslim Vote. This group seeks to mobilise Muslim voters in support of national agendas aligned with Muslim causes. The Labour Party is running scared of Muslim voters. Senior government figures such as Wes Streeting and Jess Phillips saw their majorities significantly reduced. They are now using the full weight of a government department to appease a cohort of splintering voters. The consequence will be a chilling effect on free speech and the silencing of legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. It will also fuel sectarian politics in this country and fan the flames of community tensions. Watch our latest podcast episode with Lord Young and our new Director of Research and Policy, David Rose, below 👇
2:20

There are clear political motivations behind the Labour Government’s decision to revive an official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”. As the 2024 general election showed, traditional Red Wall Labour strongholds are no longer secure. A number of sitting Labour MPs were unseated by pro-Gaza independent candidates backed by an organisation called The Muslim Vote. This group seeks to mobilise Muslim voters in support of national agendas aligned with Muslim causes. The Labour Party is running scared of Muslim voters. Senior government figures such as Wes Streeting and Jess Phillips saw their majorities significantly reduced. They are now using the full weight of a government department to appease a cohort of splintering voters. The consequence will be a chilling effect on free speech and the silencing of legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. It will also fuel sectarian politics in this country and fan the flames of community tensions. Watch our latest podcast episode with Lord Young and our new Director of Research and Policy, David Rose, below 👇

The Free Speech Union

28,620 views • 6 months ago

“If you are a school teacher and you are teaching the history of the Muslim conquests, are you going to take the risk of saying that Islam was imposed by the sword? Islam was responsible for massacres that took place across what became the Muslim world? You’re going to be very careful.” An official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will stifle legitimate criticism of Islam, including its history and practices. Though non-statutory, it will be adopted zealously by public bodies, including schools and universities. It will deter honest, open and frank discussion, and risk obscuring the realities of historical events. Watch David Rose on our latest podcast episode 👇
1:02

“If you are a school teacher and you are teaching the history of the Muslim conquests, are you going to take the risk of saying that Islam was imposed by the sword? Islam was responsible for massacres that took place across what became the Muslim world? You’re going to be very careful.” An official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will stifle legitimate criticism of Islam, including its history and practices. Though non-statutory, it will be adopted zealously by public bodies, including schools and universities. It will deter honest, open and frank discussion, and risk obscuring the realities of historical events. Watch David Rose on our latest podcast episode 👇

The Free Speech Union

88,378 views • 6 months ago

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 👇
2:01

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 views • 2 months ago

No matter how well intentioned some may be in advocating for an official definition of Islamophobia, we must not entrench identity related aggravation to any activity or offense. An official definition of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred is not needed. The UK already has laws that protect ALL people from religious discrimination and hatred. Watch Amanda Spielman at our panel discussion on ‘The problem with defining Islamophobia’ during the Battle of Ideas. Full video available in the link below 👇
1:03

No matter how well intentioned some may be in advocating for an official definition of Islamophobia, we must not entrench identity related aggravation to any activity or offense. An official definition of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred is not needed. The UK already has laws that protect ALL people from religious discrimination and hatred. Watch Amanda Spielman at our panel discussion on ‘The problem with defining Islamophobia’ during the Battle of Ideas. Full video available in the link below 👇

The Free Speech Union

17,736 views • 10 months ago

🚨 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 👇
0:50

🚨 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 views • 6 months ago

1. Islamophobia is not racist. Christianity isn't a race, and neither is Islam 2. "Islamophobia" is an insidious term created to advance an Islamist agenda 3. Under Labour's new "blasphemy law", criticising child marriage or polygamy could be deemed Islamophobic if someone - anyone - "perceives" it so How did we arrive in this chillingly dystopian world? It's important we understand the origin of "Islamophobia" as a tool to advance a radical Islamist agenda through the strategy of victimhood. The term was first popularised by the violent & extremist Muslim Brotherhood as "an ideological weapon to silence critics" of Islam and to "criminalise any criticism of their religious and political beliefs". The term was then (naively?) popularised in the UK by Trevor Phillips, who later lamented how it has been twisted, more often being used as a cudgel to silence dissent and free speech. Labour says "Islamophobia" is racist because most Muslims are non-white. This is absurd. The majority of communists in this world are Chinese. Is it racist to criticise communism? A majority of Catholics are non-white. Is criticism of Catholicism racist? This is the logic of such a risible argument. Sunni and Shia Muslims preach violent hatred towards each other. Are they guilty of "Islamophobia"? If not, why not? We must speak out and vehemently protest the criminalisation of a sinister term which conflates criticism of Islam with hatred of Muslims. "Islamophobia" should be expunged from our vocabulary. The correct phrase should by "anti-Muslim hatred", a hatred as abhorrent as anti-Semitism. It is a cornerstone of free speech to be able to criticize or attack any religion or ideology, including Islamic beliefs, practices and culture -- indeed, Mohammed himself. This is entirely different from hating members of the Muslim faith. The freedom to criticise both religion and ideology has rarely been more important than it is now -- but it has never been at greater risk. How so? When the Labour Party forms Britain's next government it will desperately seek to appease and win back its disaffected Muslim base (much of which is angered over Labour's support for Israel). Labour will do this in part through its proposed "blasphemy law" banning criticism of Islam by incorporating the APPG's chilling definition of Islamophobia into legislation. This will be either through its proposed Race Equality Bill or as standalone legislation. It is expected that Islamophobia will be defined as "a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. What is "Muslimness"? Well, for example, under the APPG definition, simply to criticise the Muslim practice of polygamy or child marriage might be deemed Islamophobic if someone -- anyone --perceives it so. It might even affect how one describes Muslim r&pe gangs. This is chilling stuff. Under Labour, free speech will be tested as never before. The oft-quoted definition of Islamophobia as “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons”, did not emanate from Christopher Hitchens (that honour belongs to Andrew Cummins). But Mr. Hitchens was no less vociferous in his strident condemnation of the term. Many years ago, with remarkable prescience, he correctly foresaw the sinister erosion of free speech we now see unfolding before us. Hear his prophetic words below and share them widely:
3:34

1. Islamophobia is not racist. Christianity isn't a race, and neither is Islam 2. "Islamophobia" is an insidious term created to advance an Islamist agenda 3. Under Labour's new "blasphemy law", criticising child marriage or polygamy could be deemed Islamophobic if someone - anyone - "perceives" it so How did we arrive in this chillingly dystopian world? It's important we understand the origin of "Islamophobia" as a tool to advance a radical Islamist agenda through the strategy of victimhood. The term was first popularised by the violent & extremist Muslim Brotherhood as "an ideological weapon to silence critics" of Islam and to "criminalise any criticism of their religious and political beliefs". The term was then (naively?) popularised in the UK by Trevor Phillips, who later lamented how it has been twisted, more often being used as a cudgel to silence dissent and free speech. Labour says "Islamophobia" is racist because most Muslims are non-white. This is absurd. The majority of communists in this world are Chinese. Is it racist to criticise communism? A majority of Catholics are non-white. Is criticism of Catholicism racist? This is the logic of such a risible argument. Sunni and Shia Muslims preach violent hatred towards each other. Are they guilty of "Islamophobia"? If not, why not? We must speak out and vehemently protest the criminalisation of a sinister term which conflates criticism of Islam with hatred of Muslims. "Islamophobia" should be expunged from our vocabulary. The correct phrase should by "anti-Muslim hatred", a hatred as abhorrent as anti-Semitism. It is a cornerstone of free speech to be able to criticize or attack any religion or ideology, including Islamic beliefs, practices and culture -- indeed, Mohammed himself. This is entirely different from hating members of the Muslim faith. The freedom to criticise both religion and ideology has rarely been more important than it is now -- but it has never been at greater risk. How so? When the Labour Party forms Britain's next government it will desperately seek to appease and win back its disaffected Muslim base (much of which is angered over Labour's support for Israel). Labour will do this in part through its proposed "blasphemy law" banning criticism of Islam by incorporating the APPG's chilling definition of Islamophobia into legislation. This will be either through its proposed Race Equality Bill or as standalone legislation. It is expected that Islamophobia will be defined as "a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. What is "Muslimness"? Well, for example, under the APPG definition, simply to criticise the Muslim practice of polygamy or child marriage might be deemed Islamophobic if someone -- anyone --perceives it so. It might even affect how one describes Muslim r&pe gangs. This is chilling stuff. Under Labour, free speech will be tested as never before. The oft-quoted definition of Islamophobia as “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons”, did not emanate from Christopher Hitchens (that honour belongs to Andrew Cummins). But Mr. Hitchens was no less vociferous in his strident condemnation of the term. Many years ago, with remarkable prescience, he correctly foresaw the sinister erosion of free speech we now see unfolding before us. Hear his prophetic words below and share them widely:

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo

374,951 views • 2 years ago

📣🚨The Free Speech Union is mounting a legal challenge against the Government over its official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as 'anti-Muslim hatred' — and its appointment of a new 'tsar' to punish people who fall foul of it. This amounts to a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door. The definition is vague and subjective, and will be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism and debate about Islam, Muslims, and Islamic practices and history. The FSU’s General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, said: “This is the most serious threat to free speech the Government has come up with so far — the only area in which it’s achieving any success. “If we don’t win this fight, tens of thousands of people a year could lose their jobs at the say-so of a Labour-appointed ‘tsar’. It’s dystopian.” Public bodies will adopt this definition — despite it being non-statutory — with the same zeal the police have shown in investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). It is predicted by one of the drafters of the definition that it could lead to around 20,000 reports of 'anti-Muslim hostility' a year. At present, the number of recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes is around 4,000. In a free society, no religion should be shielded from legitimate criticism. This proposal places one faith above the rest. The Free Speech Union is bringing a legal challenge on two grounds. First, the definition relies on nebulous, legally undefined terms such as “negative and prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims”, making it incoherent and irrational — and ripe for weaponisation. Second, adopting such a definition cuts across legislation already enacted by Parliament and therefore breaches the public law principle known as “occupying the field”. Under this established public law doctrine, new regulations, put in place by ministers, must not replace existing legislation. It is constitutionally unlawful. In this case, the body responsible for protecting Muslims from discrimination is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not an anti-Muslim hostility 'tsar'. Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws 18 years ago. We can't let this Government resurrect them via the back door. This is one of the biggest battles the Free Speech Union has ever taken on in its six years — and we need your help. Judicial reviews are expensive, but this is a fight we felt we had to take on. Donate to our crowdfunder below👇
1:15

📣🚨The Free Speech Union is mounting a legal challenge against the Government over its official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as 'anti-Muslim hatred' — and its appointment of a new 'tsar' to punish people who fall foul of it. This amounts to a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door. The definition is vague and subjective, and will be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism and debate about Islam, Muslims, and Islamic practices and history. The FSU’s General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, said: “This is the most serious threat to free speech the Government has come up with so far — the only area in which it’s achieving any success. “If we don’t win this fight, tens of thousands of people a year could lose their jobs at the say-so of a Labour-appointed ‘tsar’. It’s dystopian.” Public bodies will adopt this definition — despite it being non-statutory — with the same zeal the police have shown in investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). It is predicted by one of the drafters of the definition that it could lead to around 20,000 reports of 'anti-Muslim hostility' a year. At present, the number of recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes is around 4,000. In a free society, no religion should be shielded from legitimate criticism. This proposal places one faith above the rest. The Free Speech Union is bringing a legal challenge on two grounds. First, the definition relies on nebulous, legally undefined terms such as “negative and prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims”, making it incoherent and irrational — and ripe for weaponisation. Second, adopting such a definition cuts across legislation already enacted by Parliament and therefore breaches the public law principle known as “occupying the field”. Under this established public law doctrine, new regulations, put in place by ministers, must not replace existing legislation. It is constitutionally unlawful. In this case, the body responsible for protecting Muslims from discrimination is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not an anti-Muslim hostility 'tsar'. Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws 18 years ago. We can't let this Government resurrect them via the back door. This is one of the biggest battles the Free Speech Union has ever taken on in its six years — and we need your help. Judicial reviews are expensive, but this is a fight we felt we had to take on. Donate to our crowdfunder below👇

The Free Speech Union

352,545 views • 5 months ago

“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 👇
2:01

“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 views • 6 months ago

An RAF cadet was suspended for calling Islam the greatest threat to Britain during a presentation on national security. If our servicemen and women tasked with defending us are unable to speak freely about threats to our national security, we should all be deeply concerned. We know that 75% of MI5’s caseload relates to Islamist terrorism and that there are 40,000 Islamists on our terror watchlist. It is undeniable that Islamists pose a serious threat to our national security. It should not be a sackable offence to speak the truth. The Islamophobia definition — essentially a de facto Islamic blasphemy law — has embedded itself at the heart of British institutions. It is a threat to us all. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer Connie Shaw below 👇
1:05

An RAF cadet was suspended for calling Islam the greatest threat to Britain during a presentation on national security. If our servicemen and women tasked with defending us are unable to speak freely about threats to our national security, we should all be deeply concerned. We know that 75% of MI5’s caseload relates to Islamist terrorism and that there are 40,000 Islamists on our terror watchlist. It is undeniable that Islamists pose a serious threat to our national security. It should not be a sackable offence to speak the truth. The Islamophobia definition — essentially a de facto Islamic blasphemy law — has embedded itself at the heart of British institutions. It is a threat to us all. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer Connie Shaw below 👇

The Free Speech Union

55,359 views • 3 months ago

Unless something is explicitly prohibited by law, it's permitted. The official definition of Islamophobia is non-statutory and therefore falls into an increasingly crowded grey area, just like NCHIs. An official definition will have huge implications on how criminal law is enforced and understood. If you are going to have an official definition, it should have been embedded in an Act of Parliament. Watch Lord Young talk about the problem with defining Islamophobia at Academy of Ideas’s Battle of Ideas. Full video in the link below 👇
2:16

Unless something is explicitly prohibited by law, it's permitted. The official definition of Islamophobia is non-statutory and therefore falls into an increasingly crowded grey area, just like NCHIs. An official definition will have huge implications on how criminal law is enforced and understood. If you are going to have an official definition, it should have been embedded in an Act of Parliament. Watch Lord Young talk about the problem with defining Islamophobia at Academy of Ideas’s Battle of Ideas. Full video in the link below 👇

The Free Speech Union

28,419 views • 10 months ago

🚨 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
1:15

🚨 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 views • 5 months ago

Laura has taken Rajdeep to the cleaners. Her response truly made my day🔥 Rajdeep Sardesai: Your remarks are brazenly racist and Islamophobic Laura : "Which Islamophobia, sir, is defined as an irrational fear. It is not irrational to fear an ideology that explicitly calls for the killing of non-Muslims. You're right. Everybody who is not a Muslim should really honestly be fearful of the ideology that explicitly calls for their removal from this planet their eradication. And so if you have a sense of survival, I think that it's perfectly normal to be fearful of Islam. Laura Ji sorry if i mocked you before🫶🏻
1:14

Laura has taken Rajdeep to the cleaners. Her response truly made my day🔥 Rajdeep Sardesai: Your remarks are brazenly racist and Islamophobic Laura : "Which Islamophobia, sir, is defined as an irrational fear. It is not irrational to fear an ideology that explicitly calls for the killing of non-Muslims. You're right. Everybody who is not a Muslim should really honestly be fearful of the ideology that explicitly calls for their removal from this planet their eradication. And so if you have a sense of survival, I think that it's perfectly normal to be fearful of Islam. Laura Ji sorry if i mocked you before🫶🏻

Right Singh

185,392 views • 5 months ago