Category: Speeches

Key Lecture by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi at Queen Mary University of London– Muslims Don’t Matter, The Anatomy of Prejudice 04th February 2025 Check against delivery. Delighted to be invited to deliver this lecture following in the footsteps of Neil Kinnock and Michael Heseltine. In 2018 on his BBC program Reflections with Peter Hennessy – I spoke openly and candidly about my time in government- he had the ability to make one do that. And to be featured in his book Reflections alongside John Major, Tony Blair, William Hague and Paddy Ashdown amongst others. I recall Peter being introduced to the House of Lords in 2010 and the Times describing him as the political historian who once said the main attraction of becoming a peer was so that he could have lunch with his exhibits. The Guardian described him as “the zoologist who went to live in the safari park” I suppose it has been a privilege being an animal in Peters safari park and one of his exhibit’s. Peter is away today and I know you will join me and wishing him well and good health. Today once again I am offered the Hennessy spotlight to deliver this latest Hennesy Lecture. And once more Ladies and Gentlemen I intend not to mince my words. It’s also a privilege to follow last year’s Hennesey lecture by Sir Simon Schama – much of his reflections were triggered by the violence on the 7th of October and my reflections too are very much informed by that moment and the violence that followed. The war in Gaza was an inflection point where we saw with burning clarity the politicisation and dismissal of concerns of so many including British Muslims. From the language used by politicians to describe Pro Peace marchers, to the dehumanised descriptions used by media outlets to report the killing of Palestinian children and for the conflict to follow so soon after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and yet for our political response to be so markedly different. From refugees’ programmes to military support, from condemnation of brutality and sanctions as well as political solidarity with the victims, we tangled ourselves in diplomatic and legal webs trying to justify a diametrically different stance in circumstances with many similarities Muslims Don’t Matter- the title of this lecture, the title of my book was born midst the onslaught in Gaza. The reason I wrote the book, triggered by the very personal moment when the conversations amongst family and friends became too loud and too often to ignore. When too many successful and settled British Muslims were talking of Plan B’s and Exit routes. Where a regular walk to Nostell Priory turned sinister and silent as I questioned whether we too should be buying a sanctuary home elsewhere, It felt like a moment that was hopeless. For me it felt like heartbreak. A moment that I felt at the least needed to be documented. To document how British Muslims felt and explain why. And how nearly 70 years on from my families in country relationship with Britain, that started a decade after the end of British rule in India and partition , how as the granddaughter of two men who served in the BIA , the daughter of parents who helped re build Britain and the mother of a child now back in uniform , in our armed forces serving our nation , I and others like me were being told we did not belong. Muslims Don’t Matter is the anatomy of a prejudice, one I had been warning about for over two decades and the basis of one of my first interventions in Cabinet in 2011 when I said “Islamophobia has passed the dinner table test” Much has been written about my dinner table reference, and I want to briefly recall the arguments. First the bifurcation of Muslims into moderates and extremists, a clumsy and theologically unsound designation foisted upon a British Muslim community of 4 million and a worldwide community of nearly 2 billion. Since then, the language has changed, the talk is now of Islamist and non-Islamist, but the connotations are the same. Islamist or Islamism are much like Sir Simon referred to last year as the words Zionism and Zionist – words with multiple potential meanings and whilst having a place in academic discussions also have the potential to make corrosive policy and are disingenuously used by some as a fig leaf in an attempt to disguise their bigotry. Its why I try not to use either term without a full explanation of what I mean by its use. Secondly, I was reflecting the discomfort around those who devoutly observe Islam as opposed to those who wear their faith lightly. Thirdly was the leaking of Islamophobic discourse into mainstream politics and the media via think tanks journalists and politicians under the guise of challenging orthodoxies around institutionalised religion and protecting freedom of speech. And finally, was the exceptionalising of Muslims to demarcate them as somehow different from other groups. Post that intervention work was started within government to start building the structure to challenge this latest form of racism – the establishing of the cross government working group on anti-Muslim hatred, the Remembering Srebrenica programme, community initiatives like the Big Iftar and Sadaqa day- were all small steps but which post the Cameron era were over time undermined and defunded. But even what I would describe as the enlightened years during the coalition government it was challenging, and little would have been achieved in this area if the government was not a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and if colleagues like Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke had not been around the Cabinet table. How the state and those in power have exceptionalised, marginalised and held to standards different to others is a recurring theme over the last two decades and it has become progressively more overt and aggressive. I want to talk today in some detail about specific areas. The disengagement of British Muslims and the lack of agency afforded to them, the so called grooming gangs scandal the imbalance in treatment using the example of debanking and the weaponisation of fundamental values like freedom of speech. Much of this as well as the corrosive effect of stereotyping and stigmatising Muslims in art , culture, sports , the double standards applied in law including the appalling injustice of citizenship stripping and the humiliation of British Muslims not even afforded the right to define and name their own racism is explored in the book which will be available at the end of the lecture – I do encourage you to buy a copy! Let me start with British Muslims and the Disengagement process – an early example of the culture wars with which we are all now too familiar. This policy began in 2007 under New Labour, continued in the coalition years and was supercharged by the Conservatives – with the encouragement of right- wing think tanks and newspapers, which took to task British Muslims in ways no other community was subjected to. Through the disengagement policy vast sections of Muslim civil society, particularly institutions rooted in communities, have been systematically maligned and excluded by successive governments. Both Labour and Conservative politicians have over a period of seventeen years cherry- picked or created new interlocutors from Muslim communities who do not question or challenge government. In the Blair years, the government championed now defunct groups like the Quilliam Foundation, and the Sufi Muslim Council. The policy of disengagement also meant a concerted effort to freeze out and undermine the vibrant British Muslim charitable sector. The period between 2012 and 2018, when Sir William Shawcross was chair of the Charity Commission, saw a disproportionate focus on Muslim charities. More than a quarter of the statutory investigations launched within the first two years of his tenure targeted Muslim organisations. In the seventeen months from December 2012 to May 2014, the commission labelled fifty- five charities with the issue code ‘extremism and radicalisation’ without their knowledge, meaning they were monitored as a potential concern. Disturbingly, no written criteria existed for applying or removing this label; it was described by critics as ‘non- evidence based’ targeting of Muslim groups. To give some context, Shawcross is a neoconservative journalist who in 2006 warned that ‘We simply do not wish to face the fact that we really are threatened by a vast fifth column’ of extremist Muslims. He served as a director of the right- wing think tank the Henry Jackson Society from October 2011 to September 2012, shortly after it had merged with the Centre for Social Cohesion, a think tank run by journalist Douglas Murray. – who became infamous for declaring in his 2006 Pim Fortuyn speech that ‘conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board. Europe must look like a less attractive proposition.’ This policy of freezing out Muslims completely contrasted with the approach to other social groups: women, race groups, the LGBTQ+ community, Jewish communities and others. In all these cases, the government rightly made efforts to include a wide range of representation without interfering by favouring one set of interlocutors over another. And yet in the case of Muslims, successive governments felt emboldened to determine the ‘acceptable Muslims’ – whether representative or not – based on whether they agreed with their often- biased policies towards Muslims and particularly their views on aspects of the UK’s foreign policy in the Middle East. They were subject to approval by certain think tanks and even organisations from other faiths something that horrified me in government. The outsourcing of these decisions to institutions with vested interests led to serious problems. For example In 2024, the taxpayer had to pay libel damages and costs on behalf of Michelle Donelan, then Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, who, based on advice from Policy Exchange, falsely accused an academic of being an extremist and supporting Hamas. Reports suggested that the legal advice and damages could cost the taxpayer up to £60,000. Disengagement has meant that successive governments have stigmatised, isolated and, via a process of tenuous guilt by association, detached most mainstream British Muslim organisations and institutions from consultation and policymaking. Whether it’s who British Muslims choose to represent them, who speaks for us, how we want to frame our issues, how we want to engage or how we are defined, when it comes to our relationship with power and decision- making, Muslims lack agency. We are not stakeholders. Policy is not something Muslims help to shape; it is weaponised as something done to them. They are increasingly denied participation and forced to protest to be heard. This is in stark contrast to how other communities are treated. Let me give another specific example. Marie van der Zyl, then president of the Board of Deputies for British Jews, wrote to the government in March 2024 about rumours circulating suggesting the imminent removal of Lord Mann, the government’s independent adviser on antisemitism. When talking about a potential replacement for Lord Mann, she said: ‘I trust that you will consult with the Jewish community’s democratic representative leadership and look to appoint through an open and transparent process an equally outstanding and non- controversial figure who will command respect from the vast majority of our community.’ This kind of opportunity is not afforded to British Muslims. Instead, there is no consultation with Muslim leadership, no open or transparent process for appointments. The people the government engages with, appoints or seeks advice from are most often controversial figures at the margins of British Muslim society, if a part of it at all. And unlike the Jewish community, British Muslims do not have the privilege of a government adviser on Islamophobia at all, never mind one that commands the respect of the vast majority of the country’s four million Muslims. In the Conservative Party leadership race of 2022, triggered by Boris Johnson’s resignation, the Daily Mail even used Muslim engagement as a stick with which to beat one of the leadership hopefuls, Penny Mordaunt. They ran a story about a meeting held over a year earlier and already in the public domain between Mordaunt, a government minister, and Zara Mohammed, the first woman to be elected secretary- general of the Muslim Council of Britain, one of the largest Muslim umbrella organisations in the UK. The Mail chastised Mordaunt for her ‘dodgy judgment’, in contrast to Liz Truss, whom they welcomed with high praise running the front page ‘Cometh the hour, cometh the woman’. The headline did no age well Ladies and Gentlemen- Forty- four days later, having crashed the markets, Truss went down in history as the shortest- serving prime minister in UK history. Truss has since taken to sharing platforms in the US with Islamophobes and conspiracy theorists. The state’s use of a counter- extremism lens through which to view all things Muslim has poisoned the government’s relationship with Muslims – including cultural events such as Eid receptions at Downing Street, invitations to which are only extended to those who acquiesce to a ‘state sanctioned’ version of what Muslims should think. This approach has resulted in flawed policymaking, stunted Muslim civil society development, left the best of the community out in the cold. There is a particular irony to the tangle political leaders have got themselves in. On the one hand, the government insists on Muslims embracing ‘fundamental British values’ defined in the Prevent Strategy Document 2011 as ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs’. But when Muslims challenge government on actions that detract from our commitment to the rule of law, for example torture or rendition; or challenge actions that undermine democracy, for example freedom of speech or freedom of association; or challenge actions that undermine respect and tolerance such as institutional Islamophobia; or challenge actions that undermine individual liberty such as the right of women to wear what they want – when Muslims apply fundamental British values such as exercising their democratic right to vote by electing MPs independent of party political constraints – they are demonised, marginalised, excluded from political arenas and treated as outcasts. Years of being told the community is segregationist takes on an even more Orwellian tone for those of us who chose participation (and encouraged others to do the same) and who are now faced with accusations of ‘entryism’. During my time in Cabinet, I was accused of just such ‘entryism’. I detail much of this nonsensical and pernicious maligning in the book The second issue I want to explore is an issue which in recent weeks has once again been weaponised – child sexual exploitation – the so called “Grooming gangs” The debate about Muslim grooming gangs has as its central tenant that over a period of years Muslim men in northern towns targeted white girls for sexual exploitation and that this was somehow a behaviour rooted in their ethnic/ religious identity. The Muslim grooming gangs’ issue is one that has been exploited by Stephen Yaxley Lennon also known as tommy Robinson himself a convicted fraudster and stalker who has served multiple prison sentences and is currently serving a prison sentence for contempt of court. It’s an issue that has led to the death of 2 Muslims grandfathers in 2 different incidents by 2 different men on our streets, it was referenced by Brenton Tarrant the shooter who killed worshippers in mosques in Christchurch New Zealand, its an issue being exploited by Elon Musk to try and destabilise the democratically elected UK government and it’s an issue unashamedly being used opportunistically and politically by some of my colleagues who having been in power for 14 years have chosen their first year in opposition to concern themselves with these appalling crimes. None are concerned either with the facts or the plight of victims. Britain like most societies has a long history of child abuse, much of this again I document in the book. Again, like most societies tragically this occurs most often in the home or within close family and social circles. And yet this seems not to concern those that now seek to challenge child sexual abuse. A 2022 report by the centre of expertise on child sexual abuse based on records of defendants prosecuted for child sexual abuse offences concluded that the vast majority of perpetrators were white, 89% while 6% were Asian and 3% were black. Two years earlier the home officers group based child sexual exploitation characteristics of offending report found that based on the existing evidence it seems most likely that the ethnicity of group based CSE offenders is in line with CSA more generally with the majority of offenders being white. The Home Office report makes very clear that there are no grounds for asserting that Muslim or Pakistani heritage men are disproportionately engaged in such crimes. It warned of potential for bias an in accuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected with the possibility of greater attention being paid to certain types of offenders. But here is the shocking part, this study was commissioned in 2018 by the then home secretary Sajid Javid who had tweeted about “Asian paedophiles” and no go areas and yet his own department’s report found there was no specific Asian paedophile problem nor were they any no go areas. Successive home secretaries refused to make the report public claiming that publishing would not be in the public interest and suggested that the report was for internal use only. A Freedom of Information request and a public petition of more than 130,000 people asking for the report to be released led to Priti Patel agreeing to publish. It however took a further seven months and yet another change of home secretary for the report to at last be made public. These crimes were appalling. Crimes which – I raised in 2012 at the insistence of my father , a Pakistani origin British Muslim. Crimes for which the MCB and others held conferences and awareness training Crimes and behaviour for which imams and other leaders fronted country wide Friday Khutbahs Crimes for which British Pakistani Muslim Chief Prosecutor Nazir Afzal was at the forefront of investigating and bringing perpetrators to account Crimes for which the Muslim Women’s Network and Shaista, now Baroness Gohir highlighted , campaigned and sought government support to no avail. Yet these interventions , this leadership is neither acknowledged nor referenced by those seeking now to raise this as an issue because it doesn’t support the anti Muslim narrative nor the pernicious culture wars being fought off the back of victims. Reni Eddo Lodge asks the crucial question -why when we discuss grooming gangs we “don’t think that their white male actions are because of the deviancy of white men when white men target babies children and teenagers for sexual gratification we don’t ask for a deep reflection of these actions from the white male community” and yet “men of colours crimes are held up as evidence of the savagery of their race” Let me move onto another area , the imbalance of treatment between different citizens in this country. In 2023 Couts a private bank owned by NatWest group closed Farage’s account claiming that he failed to meet the financial eligibility criteria and instead offered him a NatWest account. It subsequently came to light that in an internal Couts dossier Farage was described as a disingenuous grifter who was xenophobic and pandering to racism. When the story broke some British Muslims were not altogether surprised by the bank’s summary action a closure of bank accounts is a phenomena that has blighted British Muslim organisations and individuals for a decade with reports of High Street banks such as HSBC closing accounts as far back as 2014. Over the years I have had numerous contacts with individuals, organisations and banks on this issue. Both people and institutions have had services arbitrarily withdrawn and been left without any banking facilities, often not being able to function as a business or charity or even manage day- to- day living. Some have spoken publicly about this discrimination; others have not, fearing damage to their reputations and the impact it would have on their livelihoods- not having the privilege, platform or political support to mount the kind of campaign we saw on behalf of Farage. According to Financial Conduct Authority data for 2022, the group most likely to be unbanked are Muslims; they are also most likely to be debanked. Banks are not obliged to provide reasons for closure and there has been little recourse for those whose lives and livelihoods have been devastated by these actions. In February 2015, Peter Oborne resigned as the Telegraph’s chief political commentator. He had been reporting on HSBC closing British Muslims’ bank accounts, a story which the paper failed to publish, despite, says Oborne, ‘lawyers [being] unaware of any difficulty’ in doing so. Oborne’s piece, which was eventually published on the openDemocracy website in December 2014, details how Muslims as young as twelve had their accounts cancelled. His investigations also found that World- Check, the database used by banks to justify their debanking decisions, flagged certain Muslim account holders as posing a ‘terrorism’ risk. World- Check, owned by Thomson Reuters, is used by forty- nine out of fifty of the world’s biggest banks. Oborne found that it utilises sources of a dubious nature including state- sponsored news agencies in populating entries in its database. (World- Check insists the decisions to close accounts lies with the banks alone.) Finsbury Park Mosque was one of the institutions that had an account cancelled and launched a successful legal challenge to get themselves removed from the World- Check database, securing an apology and damages from Thomson Reuters. Some Muslim charities were given less than three months’ notice before their accounts were closed, with no explanation. The debanked charities were registered with the Charity Commission, which did not have any concerns about them. Islamic Relief is one of the largest and longest- standing Muslim charities in the country and is a member of the UK Disasters Emergency Committee. In 2016, HSBC closed its account, hindering the delivery of crucial aid in response to the Nepal earthquake. Another charity, Ummah Welfare Trust, was threatened with bank closure during Ramadan, the month when Muslims make the most donations to charity. At a meeting with Antonio Simoes, HSBC’s then UK chief executive, the charity, which at the time turned over more than £20 million annually with HSBC, was told that ‘pressure from the UK and US governments’ may have led to the bank’s action. In 2016, the Co- op Bank closed an account belonging to Friends of Al- Aqsa, a British non- governmental organisation supporting Palestine. This, as reported in the Independent, followed the closure of the accounts of ‘as many as twenty- five other Palestinian affiliated organisations including the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign’. I accept banks are commercial organisations; they take decisions based on risk. But what shocks me is the hypocrisy and unequal treatment. When Nigel Farage had one of his bank accounts closed and was offered another, the Telegraph complained of a ‘pernicious culture [that] has seeped through the City and needs to be challenged now, not batted away into a long- grass inquiry’. Yet when Muslims were having all their bank accounts closed, the paper wanted to kill the story. Senior media commentators including Andrew Neil and Piers Morgan piled in to defend Farage. Ministers raised the issue in Parliament. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said it was ‘not right’ to deprive people of banking services because of their political views. The Chancellor of the Exchequer demanded an inquiry. The regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, intervened. British banks were placed under the spotlight. Senior executives lost their jobs. Yet when the Muslim debanking scandal unfolded, there were no ministerial statements about the injustice inflicted on our fellow British citizens, no calls for an inquiry into the banks’ decisions, no support from high- profile politicians and commentators, no calls for resignations, no change of policy – because, unlike Nigel Farage, in the eyes of the powerful Muslims Don’t Matter. Only last week a report found that 68% of Muslim charities reported difficulties opening an account and 42% experienced a complete withdrawal of services. Let me move on- Freedom of speech- the principle regularly quoted at Muslims as a reason why Islam can be ridiculed, and why the most incendiary statements about Muslims are fair game. Allow me to unpick the rank hypocrisy and double standards where free speech is sometimes considered a fundamental right and sometimes a privilege. An example that seems apt in the University setting of this lecture. In 2018, Toby Young was appointed to the Office for Students, the independent regulator for higher education in England. By way of background Young is an associate editor at the Spectator, a friend of Michael Gove’s and during Michaels time in government was funded by the taxpayer to establish a free school in west London. Young’s appointment, later described by the Guardian as ‘flawed and rife with political interference’, caused a backlash because of his history of homophobic, misogynistic and other offensive comments. Young, who made many of these comments on Twitter, was alleged to have deleted forty thousand tweets, including offensive posts such as ‘Fuck you, Penis breath’ and ‘smoking hot women . . . there should be an award for Best Baps’ in relation to women attending the Emmys, and offensive comments about the cleavage of a female parliamentarian at Prime Minister’s Questions. In the past, Young had also said working- class boys studying at the University of Oxford were ‘universally unattractive’ and ‘small, vaguely deformed’. (Interestingly his statements on Islam, including ‘few people can be in any doubt that Islam is a deeply misogynistic religion’, were not the basis of the outrage against him. Senior political figures stepped forward to defend Young. His former editor at the Spectator, Boris Johnson, tweeted: ‘Ridiculous outcry over Toby Young. He will bring independence, rigour and caustic wit. Ideal man for job’. Michael Gove agreed, tweeting ‘how many of Toby Young’s critics have worked night and day to provide great state schools for children of every background’. Unlike the Trojan Horse affair, where Gove led the charge against the unsavoury views of governors who presided over schools rated outstanding by Ofsted, it seems in this case he was prepared to overlook Young’s unsavoury views. Jo Johnson, younger brother of Boris Johnson and Universities Minister at the time, was reported to have personally encouraged Young to apply. When Young’s tweets came to light, he dismissed suggestions that government departments should have waded through tweets ‘made years – in some cases, decades – ago’. Yet the government has for years maintained an Extremism Analysis Unit (now called Home Office Security Analysis and Insights) which does exactly this before any Muslim is allowed to engage with government, let alone be appointed in a formal role. Young gave a robust defence of his past conduct: ‘Given that defending free speech will be one of the Office for Students’ priorities, there’s a certain irony in people saying I’m “unfit” to serve on its board because of politically incorrect things I’ve said in the past. Some of those things have been sophomoric and silly – and I regret those – but some have been deliberately misinterpreted to try and paint me as a caricature of a heartless Tory toff.’ And yet Such a defence is not a privilege afforded to British Muslims: they are not permitted to reject their past conduct as ‘silly’. In fact, many British Muslims have been deliberately misinterpreted and caricatured as ‘extremists’ for their youthful posts by the very publications Young writes for. I watch with amazement the indignation at ‘cancel culture’ when applied to well- connected white male rightwing writers as contrasted to the enthusiastic application of it to Muslims. There is one rule for others and another higher standard for Muslims. After pressure from the Labour Party and others, Toby Young stepped down, but he continued to enjoy the support of some of the most senior people in government and the media. When the appointment was investigated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, he found evidence that ‘demonstrated a lack of consistency in the approach to due diligence throughout this competition – it did not delve back extensively into his [Young’s] social media, yet the social media activity of the initially preferred candidate for the student experience role was extensively examined’. In fact, the Commissioner’s report says one of the candidates was rejected because ‘Ministers concluded that it would undermine the intended policy goals of the new regulator to appoint student representatives who publicly opposed the Prevent duty’. So, one candidate was denied appointment because of their opposition to Prevent, a policy that stifles free speech. But the defence of free speech justified Young’s appointment, with his declared caveat that offensive comments he had made in the past was ‘sophomoric and silly’. In 2023, the government announced the appointment of a ‘free speech champion’ to keep an eye on university campuses. It also continued to enforce the Prevent duty, which, since the Shawcross review, magnified Muslim ‘extremists’ as its main target rather than all forms of extremism. So Ladies and Gentlemen we are now in a place where we champion free speech – just not for Muslims. The right to debate, disagree and dissent is a privilege afforded to the likes of Toby Young, who went on to set up the Free Speech Union, designed to defend victims of ‘cancel culture’. It’s an organisation that eventually found among its members the Islamophobe Tommy Robinson. And in the New Years honours list the Conservative Party nominated Young for a peerage, he now joins us in the Lords as Peter would say as another exhibit. Ladies and Gentlemen – Politics and the landscape for British Muslims has changed dramatically since that warm day in 2010 when I confidently walked down Downing Street to my first Cabinet meeting in a pink shalwar kameez As the then only non white member of the Cabinet we could argue that since then much progress has been made. Almost every senior office of State including Prime Minister has over the last decade been occupied by a person of colour. And yet despite my warnings in 2017 in my book The Enemy Within the landscape today is far more hostile for Muslims in public life and far more dangerous. How despite the perceived progress on diversity and inclusion from those early days in 2010 as increasingly British Muslims are sanitising their Muslimness in politics and particularly within the Conservative Party. Where tragically ethnicity and race are being weaponised by politicians of colour to pander to racism and punch down on minorities and migrants because it pays political dividends. This is not new, black political figures have throughout history disagreed on the right approach to achieving equality. The debate over the differences in approach by black leaders in the US in the 19th Century is an interesting study. Leaders such as the likes of author , educator, campaigner and Republican Booker T. Washington, himself born into slavery and author, academic, civil rights activist and socialist William E B Du Bois, born into a small free black community Both highly accomplished leaders but had very different notions of equality and the approach to achieving it. Washington was seen as encouraging African Americans to start with low-level jobs and gradually work their way up in society. Many thought this reinforced the idea that African Americans should accept subservient roles and delay the fight for equality and dignity. 2.) ‘Our greatest danger is that in the great leap from slavery to freedom, we may overlook the fact that the masses of us are to live by the productions of our hands.’: He emphasised manual labour and vocational skills over intellectual pursuits. Critics argued that this limited African Americans’ potential for ambition, suggesting that philosophical and political empowerment was less important than physical labour. 3.) ‘The wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremist folly.’: Pursuing social equality was not a priority, and that agitation for civil rights he felt was counterproductive. This was seen as undermining the fight for racial justice and equality, aligning with the interests of White conservatives rather than African American aspirations.White businessmen, philanthropists, and business leaders supported Washington’s ideas. Du Bois was one of the most vocal critics of Washington. He advocated for political equality, higher education, and full civil rights for African Americans. He believed that Washington’s acceptance of segregation and lack of focus on political activism were limiting. Ida B. Wells was an African American journalist who too criticised Washington for failing to address the urgent need for civil rights and for his tendency to avoid directly challenging the system In the UK we saw the early representatives from minority backgrounds in Mancherjee Bhownaggree the Conservative MP for Bethnal Green between 1895 -1906 and Dadabhai Naorji’s who had been elected as the Liberal Party MP for Finsbury Central in 1892. Both Indian origins born in British ruled India and yet both adopted a very different approach to achieving equlity. Bhownaggree aligned with British imperialism, supporting the Boer War. He distanced himself from the Indian National Congress and its leaders, and opposed demands for self-rule He was perceived as a tool for British imperialism to counteract Indian self-governance. Although he raised some Indian issues in Parliament, critics argued that his advocacy was superficial, limited and just symbolic gestures. Dababhai Naoroji, on the other hand actively criticised the British exploitation of India, and was a founding member of the Indian National Congress and an early campaigner for the independence movement. He also interestingly advocated for Irish home rule. I raise these examples because the interplay of identities, heritage and citizenship provide a complex cocktail and make for interesting politics especially in a multi racial multi faith democracy such as ours. A diversity of opinions and political allegiances amongst politicians of minority backgrounds is an important part of our political landscape. It is positive to see for example British Muslims making their mark in both the right and left of politics. And whilst we may disagree on the best way to achieve equality, what we should all be able to agree on is the danger of minority ethnic politicians doing the bidding of the extreme anti minority brigade. When minority politicians find themselves advocating , promoting and sharing platforms with those that malign , marginalise or propose two tier approaches to policy making for Muslims then they are not merely expressing a different approach to achieving equality but are pandering to racism and punching down against a community. There are many socio political or psychological reasoning proposed for this behaviour. Some cite unconscious internalised oppression the likes of which have been discussed in publications explaining that internalised racism is a critical component of systematic racial oppression where people of colour adopt a negative belief about their worth and abilities. When internally oppressed individuals become leaders, they can unconsciously perpetuate the very stereotypes that oppress minority communities. Others cite a desire for acceptance and validation where individuals can internalise norms of the dominant culture, sometimes even at the expense of one’s own identity, hoping to gain access to its privileges. Studies have shown that cultural minorities can exhibit higher levels of commitment to an organisation than dominant cultural members, which is thought to be a strategy to gain acceptance and validation within the dominant group. Others argue that the individuals are a tokenistic, superficial or symbolic effort to include individuals from underrepresented groups to create an appearance of diversity without implementing meaningful inclusion. I think most often it is simply naked political ambition, where in Britain 2025 anti Muslim racism can prove to be career enhancing. Where today in some political spaces to be a racist carry’s less consequences than calling out racism and where calling out anti Muslim racism almost in any political party has career ending consequences. Where disturbingly offshore prejudices are being played out on shore Where Modism and the rise of far right Hindutva ideology in South Asia found its way onto the streets of Leicester. Where Settler extremism and the rise of Israeli anti Muslim and anti-Arab racism plays out in newspapers in the form of fictionalised stories , untrue reporting and headlines about Muslims that read like historic tropes of blood libel – the tropes Sir Schama referred to in last year’s Hennessey lecture. And where political leaders make disparaging statements about communities with sub cultures. It is time to call out the worst culture wars of foreign places- they should have no place in our democracy and our system should not be corrupted to play out foreign tribal animosities creating division in our nation. People of colour and other minorities should not be given a free pass when it comes to challenging anti muslim racism. And so I come to the Conclusion In my 2017 book The Enemy Within I argued that Muslims were the canaries in the coalmine. The racist riots of last summer were the most stark and most violent manifestation of my fears. The simmering prejudice being fed by those in power, deliberately poisoning the political discourse had found its way onto our streets. Debates on multiculturalism had over time become solely focused on Muslims, and refugees and migrants became synonyms for the same. In 2017 I explored the position of Islam in modern Britain – and analysed the changing space for British Muslims in public life. Much has changed since then and the direction of travel have been dangerously wrong. The last 15 months particularly have seen an unprecedented silencing of British Muslims, with a sharp rise in GMC referrals of British Muslim Drs, Muslim lawyers , judges and other legal professionals being subjected to lawfare, politicians being demonized and treated as suspect. The complexities and super diversity of the British Muslim Identity being reduced to tropes, a community stigmatised and stereotyped – as I detail in my book – through arts, culture, literature, drama and even comedy Made to question their sense of place in Britain and their right to belong and matter. Finding themselves at the bottom of a hierarchy of racism – prevalent sadly in the right and left of politics. So, my ask is for us to remake the case for why multiculturalism has succeeded even though many wish it had not. For us to pushback against the deliberate othering of our fellow citizens . For allies to step up I have great faith in my country and its people. Once the poisonous tap of culture wars is switched off, once those in leadership stop feeding hate the ordinary Brit embraces and has embraced British Muslims. Whether it’s our Cake Queen Nadiya Hussain, World cup winning cricketer Moeen Ali , the Egyptian King in Liverpool Mo Salah , our multiple gold winning medallist Sir Mo Farah, Saliha Mahmood Ahmed the Dr and MasterChef winner, rhythm personified Hamza Yassin (Strictly Come Dancing winner 2022), or Asmaa AlAlak the surgeon and seamstress extraordinaire that won Sewing Bee our national life is enriched by Muslims and I take pride that Muslims are embraced as national heroes in our society. But for many Muslims, the harsh reality of prejudice, stunted aspirations, and blocked pathways is becoming the norm The fear in communities is deep, the Plan Bs exit routes are being prepared. The paralysis and feeling of being silenced is stifling And these anxious , fearful , hushed conversations have gone on for too long behind closed doors- that fear had to be vocalised. It’s what I have tried to do in Muslims Don’t Matter- I am sounding the sirens, our approach must change. Nearly 70 years after my families in country relationship with Britain started and five generations later I refuse to accept that my country may not be home to my grandchildren and their children My grandfathers fought Hitlers armies as part of the British Indian effort, they did not give their blood and sweat for their descendants to be stereotyped , stigmatised and silenced. They did not make sacrifices for the freedoms we enjoy today to see their future generations deprived of those very liberties. They fought for Britain , helped build Britain’s industries and infrastructure , added colour, sounds and wonderful flavours to the rich tapestry of its culture and as a young and growing community will once again provide the workforce , entrepreneurs and international networks to , if I may repurpose a phrase for better use Make Britain Great Again. Thank You

Embargoed until 6pm on Thursday 19th October 2023 Key Lecture by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi at The University of Leeds – Muslims Don’t Matter (Check against delivery) Thursday 19th October 2023 – Katie Hopkins – a cup of tea, and a rendezvous in York at the home of Sanjoy Battarcharjee and countering hate is why we are all here today – it’s a tale for another time. But today I want to speak about countering hate. This week is National Hate Crime Awareness week. We meet as hateful rhetoric swamps social network feeds and divisive narratives poison our national politics. In an intervention I have thought about long and hard, and one that could not be more tragically timely than now. Over a decade ago in government in 2011 within 12 months of my Cabinet career I spoke out on this issue. Islamophobia ‘passing the dinner table test’ was the first time a major speech on anti-Muslim prejudice had been made by a Cabinet Minister, let alone from the Conservative Party, and a Chairman of the party. Having been part of the optimistic early Cameron years, with a commitment to get language right, a questioning of ideology and a concerted effort to engage openly, honestly and authentically. Let me quote David Cameron from 2006 The Britain America Project- DC “That is why we must not stoop to conquer. We must not stoop to illiberalism – whether at Guantánamo Bay, or here at home with excessive periods of detention without trial. We must not turn a blind eye to the excesses of our allies – abuses of human rights in some Arab countries, or disproportionate Israeli bombing .. We are fighting for the principles of civilisation – let us not abandon those principles in the methods we employ” To David Cameron in 2007 On language *I try not to use phrases like ‘Islamist terrorist’ *because I think British Muslims read that and think, ‘He just means me.’ So we are all trying to find a way through this language issue… descriptions more accurate than those that were used in the past” Post the appalling Blair years of patronising engagement and caustic language which had started the process of vilification of British Muslims. I genuinely felt we could change direction and step away from, the now much discredited, Neo conservative thinking being imported from the US , thinking that New Labour had become enamoured with. I have spoken to many Cabinet ministers and advisers from the New Labour years who have candidly spoken of the ideological and blinkered rot that had set in on this policy area and it wasn’t until the late years of the Labour government under a Gordon Brown government that some sanity was restored. I recall proudly saying that the UK is the best place to be a Muslim. When I looked at the ways in which European counterparts purported to uphold the liberty of their citizens by banning headscarves in classrooms and Burkinis on the beach, banning minarets as they caused offence and even calling for bans of religious text. I felt proud that even during moments like the ex-Foreign Secs Jack Straws unwelcome and uninvited soirée into womens closets, my colleagues seemed to instinctively fall on the right side of the argument. However, by early 2011 talk of muscular liberalism and attacks on multiculturalism starting to infect Conservative politics, a Party that pride itself on individual liberty , freedom of speech and freedom of religion and belief found itself setting a vision for British Muslims in conflict with its own stated values. I saw this up close and first hand and much of that time is well documented in my book The Enemy Within in the chapter- The Paranoid State. In a nutshell policy making started to exceptionalise the way we engaged with, judged and viewed British Muslims – one set of rules for everyone else but a higher standard and different set of rules for British Muslims. Think tanks, the editorial bias of certain papers and ideological crusader like Cabinet colleagues for whom fact and expert evidence was simply an irritating distraction fed the frenzy of bad policy making rooted in a new acceptable, dare I say socially respectable form of racism, the kind casually discussed around the dinner table. RECAP Let me recap what the speech argued. Much has been made of the ‘dinner table’ reference, but the principal arguments were these- -Firstly the bifurcation of Muslims into ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’ , a clumsy , incorrect and theologically unsound designation foisted upon a worldwide community of nearly 2 billion. Since then the – the language has changed – talk is now of ‘Islamist’ ( a phrase which has dozens of potential meanings, again explained in detail in the book) and ‘non-Islamist’ but the connotations are the same. It is but a fig leaf often used by Islamophobes to disguise their bigotry. Secondly the discomfort around those who faithfully observe religious practice as opposed to those who wear their faith lightly. Thirdly the elision of Islamophobic discourse into mainstream politics and media via thinks tanks, journalists and politicians under the guise of challenging orthodoxies around institutionalised religion and in the stated pursuit of freedom of speech and fourthly the exceptionalising of Muslims to demarcate them from other groups. I have often been asked why I felt it necessary to give that speech at that time, that in many ways it marked my political cards. I have been asked again this week why I choose to intervene again. I did so and do so because the evidence of the silencing , stigmatising and stereotyping of British Muslims is stifling communities , its corrosive impact on public discourse and public opinion is real, the approach is deliberate and the consequences if we follow this approach to its natural conclusion are catastrophic. Ladies and Gentlemen – This climate is not led by the British people , our fellow citizens , the everyday encounters and relationships between us all are organically made and resilient, this is a dangerous and deliberate attempt by some in politics, in the media and in think tanks to divide, demonise and demarcate the other, individuals who pose as patriots but behave as arsonists , setting our country alight and creating uncertain futures for all of us. Multiculturalism has not and is not failing in this country, but there is a deliberate and concerted attempt by some to not let it succeed. Ladies and Gentleman I am sounding the sirens and I ask you to sound them with me. POSITIVE Let me start however by acknowledging some early positive steps in the coalition government where some inroads were made in addressing Islamophobia. After huge rows within government , funding was made available for setting up a CST like organisation – to record and capture data on anti-Muslim attacks The very first Review of the Prevent Strategy in 2011, raised the important issue that Islamophobia was a driver of radicalisation. The Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012 – which abolished New Labours Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000- stop and search without suspicion) and introduced Section 47A, curtailing police powers to stop and search without reasonable suspicion. Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014 – which brought in some respite amendments to Schedule 7 powers ( the stop, search, question and detain at port powers) The Leveson Inquiry in the wake of the phone hacking scandal amongst other issues examined instances of press bias against Muslims, asylum seekers and refugees. A BME 2020 strategy was developed. The introduction of police recorded crime data on Islamophobia- an initiative led by PCCs Remembering Srebrenica- a country wide program to remember and learn from the Srebrenica genocide of Muslims on European soil in our times was launched. Although funding for this highly successful program has been increasingly cut in recent times There was a recognition of monitoring Islamophobia around the world by the FCO through inclusion of anti-Muslim hatred in the annual Human Rights and Democracy reports published by the FCO, again sadly later removed in the 2015 report. I set out the examples above because some attempts were made to get some things right in addressing the challenge of racism in society. And some of these measures had some positive impact on British Muslims. Sadly some if not most measures have since been reversed. Like the Stop and Search changes The Leveson Inquiry recommendations on the media were never fully implemented with Government shying away from the creation of a press regulator with teeth that would tackle the egregious breaches of standards on accuracy and discrimination that blight reporting on Islam and Muslims in the media. But even during this what looking back seems like a golden era , specific policy areas we got badly wrong. The introduction and subsequent use of the ‘closed material procedures’ in the Justice and Security Act 2013 (JSA) – has rightly caused much concern. The expansion of counter-terrorism into the vague ‘non-violent extremism’ space without detail or clarity. The ‘Trojan Horse’ affair and the handling of it by Michael Gove which super changed the course of hostile policy making regarding British Muslims despite the letter that triggered the whole saga being proven to be a hoax with investigations concluding it was ‘bogus’. The leaking of the letter by Michael Gove’s department DfE unleashing of a torrent of inflammatory media coverage and the collapse of the disciplinary hearings against Muslim teachers implicated after DfE failed to supply evidence to support their case and yet to date there has been – no recourse to justice for the teachers, -no remedial action for the schools dragged into the public glare of negative media coverage -no effort at a public relations strategy to rebuild confidence in Muslim communities and schools affected by the Government’s mishandling and crucially, -no apology to any of those harmed, including children , by the Government’s actions. Why – Because Muslims Don’t Matter But it wasn’t just the proactive policy making we got wrong we also failed to respond when our fellow British Muslims came under attack. In 2013 our shamefully inadequate response to the detection of bombs planted in mosques in the West Midlands as part of a ‘race war’ plot orchestrated by the Ukrainian far right Pavlo Lapshyn and the murder of Mohammed Saleem. And again with the murder of Muhsin Ahmed in Rotherham in 2016 by two thugs who stomped on his head as he made his way home after dawn prayers while verbally abusing him and calling him a “groomer”. And it seems no lessons have been learnt with both Suella Braverman and her predecessors, Priti Patel and Sajid Javid, continuing to propagate and popularise notions of ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ even though evidence from the Home Office itself contradicts this. Braverman went further this year falsely asserting that child abuse was “ almost all British Pakistani men” a divisive comment she has had to row back from and one proven earlier this month to be false and misleading with the Mail on Sunday having to issue a correction. So why do they stereotype and stigmatise in this way – Because Muslims Don’t Matter. But one of the most fascinating area of policy that I have seen develop and ironically unravel has been the Prevent statutory duty introduced in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The Prevent duty has been the precursor to what we now know to be ‘cancel culture’. British Muslims were the first community in our country to be cancelled , something I lay out in some detail in my book. A policy of disengagement that was started by New Labour, continued in coalition years and supercharged by the Conservatives- encouraged by right wing Think Tanks and newspapers who tracked, and took to task British Muslims in ways no other community was subjected to. Creating a ‘chilling effect’ , pushing Muslims out of the public domain on fear of being tarnished as ‘extremist’ and finding tenuous links to cancel individuals through a guilt by association approach. Universities, arenas for opening debate and critical thought too contributed to risk-averse strategies shutting down free speech and healthy debate. And more recently used in schools including here in Leeds to police and silence children wanting to show solidarity with Palestinian children. I have taken call after call from anxious parents fearful of the climate in schools, colleges and Universities and the impact it is having on the confidence of their children and their future career prospects. This stifling of free speech and this silencing has to stop. But here is the irony -the Government’s announcement of the appointment of a ‘Free speech champion’ to uphold freedom of expression on campuses// it also continues to enforce the Prevent duty, So Free Speech for everyone except Muslims, the silencing of British Muslims because Muslims Don’t Matter. I watch with amazement the indignation of ‘cancel culture’ when applied to speakers often male often white , often far right, often homophobic , misogynistic and Islamophobic contrasted to the enthusiastic application of it to Muslims. The hypocrisy paradigm that plays out when it comes to assessing the merits of one against the other. Let me use Toby Young as an example and his appointment to the Office for Students in 2018 Mr Young was alleged to have made homophobic and misogynistic comments. An appointment that the Commissioner for Public Appointment in his report referenced evidence that “demonstrates a lack of consistency in the approach to due diligence throughout this competition- , it did not delve back extensively into his social media, yet, the social media activity of the initially preferred candidate for the student experience role was extensively examined.” Interestingly the Commissioner’s report refers to the reasons for one of the candidates being rejected for appointment was – “Ministers concluded that it would undermine the intended policy goals of the new regulator to appoint student representatives who publicly opposed the Prevent duty .” So cancelled for opposing cancel culture. Note also the irony of Young’s defence of his tweets: “Given that defending free speech will be one of the OfS’s priorities, there’s a certain irony in people saying I’m ‘unfit’ to serve on its board because of politically incorrect things I’ve said in the past. Some of those things have been sophomoric and silly – and I regret those – but some have been deliberately misinterpreted to try and paint me as a caricature of a heartless Tory toff.” So the preferred candidate was denied appointment because of his/her views on Prevent but the ‘defence of free speech’ justified Young’s appointment with his declared caveat that stuff he had said in the past was “sophomoric and silly”. A privilege not afforded to British Muslims – they are not permitted the privilege of rejecting their past conduct as ‘silly’ and again ironically many have been deliberately misinterpreted and painted as a caricature of an “ extremist” by the very publications that Young himself writes for One rule for everyone, a harsher higher standard for Muslims. Let me move on to another recent example. Closure of bank accounts, a phenomenon that has blighted British Muslim organisations and individuals for over a decade, with reports of high street banks like HSBC closing British Muslim accounts as far back as 2014. According to the FCA in its data for 2022 the group most likely to be unbanked are Muslims , they are also most likely to be de-banked? With banks not being obliged to provide reasons for closure there has been little recourse for those whose lives and livelihoods have been devastated by such actions. They were not afforded the support of high-profile politicians and commentators to pressure banks to account for their actions nor did we see calls for resignations. investigations into Muslim bank account closures found that the database , Worldcheck, used by the banks to justify their debanking decisions relied upon political assessments of organisations with Muslim account holders being flagged as posing a ‘terrorism’ risk. The database World Check owned by Thomson Reuters is used by 49 out of 50 of the world’s biggest banks. Peter Oborne the renowned journalist found that it utilises sources of a dubious nature including State sponsored news agencies in populating entries in the database. Finsbury Park mosque was one of the institutions that was denied a bank account and launched a successful legal challenge to get themselves removed from the World Check database, securing an apology and damages from Thomson Reuters. Despite this there was no government support for its challenge, no debate or ministerial statements about the injustice inflicted on a British citizen, no calls for an inquiry into the bank’s decisions , no change of policy – all of which followed the Farage bank closure case because unlike the furore surrounding Coutts Bank and Nigel Farage, Muslims Don’t Matter. Let me move onto another example. The GB news Wooton/ Fox saga and the fallout from the interview regarding Ava Evans Fox’s appalling comments were clearly misogynistic and it was right that he had to go., the Evans interview quite rightly sparked widespread condemnation for its obvious misogynistic tone, and yet on numerous occasions both his and Wooten’s comments about Muslims have passed without comment or criticism. It reveals something of the normalisation of Islamophobia in everyday discourse. Only this week we saw it on display with Richard Madeley’s bizarre questioning of Lib Dem MP Layla Moran – the question he asked “ with your family connections in Gaza, did you have any indication of what was going to happen…..was there any word on the street?” Let me give another example – only this week Jake Wallis Simons the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle tweeted “ we need to face reality that much of Muslim culture is in the grip of a death cult” – referencing the “culture” of nearly 2 billion people worldwide all of whom who have very different and distinct cultures. After I challenged him and others, he deleted his comments. The problem is compounded by deliberate obfuscation about what Islamophobia is and what it isn’t in a calculated ploy to keep its normalisation in circulation without hindrance. Only last week Richard Ferrer the Editor of the Jewish News wrote “ this is plain and simple historic Islamic bloodlust passed down the generation” Appalling racism repeating the equivalent of the antisemitic blood libel trope . After I challenged him he subsequently changed the word Islamic to Islamist (that fig leaf again) and felt that was sufficient – the appalling stereotyping with no consequence – because Muslims don’t matter The consequences of this approach are catastrophic. – Societal attitudes on Islam and Muslims in Britain impacts Muslims and demolish the glue that hold societies together. From the Islamophobia Defined report and NatCen British Social Attitudes surveys to the University of Birmingham report on Islamophobia in 2022 the findings are shocking. – Muslims are viewed less favourably than other religious groups in society – people are more likely to say they would not want someone in their family to marry a Muslim -Muslims are the UK’s second ‘least liked’ group, after Gypsy and Irish Travellers: 25.9% of the British public feel negative towards Muslims ( Gypsy and Irish Travellers , at 44.6% ) More than one in four people, and nearly half of Conservative and Leave voters, hold conspiratorial views about Sharia ‘no-go areas’: and a majority of Conservative voters also agree that ‘Islam threatens the British way of life. Support for prohibiting all Muslim migration to the UK is higher for Muslims than it is for other ethnic and religious groups:– Trumpism is alive and well. British people are more confident in making judgements about Islam than other non-Christian religions but are much more likely to make incorrect assumptions about it. People from middle and upper class occupational groups are more likely to hold prejudiced views of Islamic beliefs than people from working class occupational groups: YouGov tracker on Islam and British values shows that almost consistently 50% of British people feel “There is a fundamental clash between Islam and the values of British society” And its not just an older generation issue According to a survey of 6000 schoolchildren by the charity, Show racism the red card, “Nearly a third agreed with the statement “Muslims are taking over England”, , and on average respondents thought Muslims made up 36% of the population, as opposed to the true figure of around 5%. And these views and others have consequences , racism and exclusion at one end to attacks at the other Our public discourse is being poisoned- and it is deliberate. We are this week marking Hate Crime awareness – Let me give you some Hate Crime stats In year ending March 2022: religiously motivated hate crime was up 37% with Muslims accounting for 42% of all religious hate crimes In year ending March 2023 religiously motivated hate crime is up again by nearly 10% with Muslims accounting for 39% of religious hate crimes. Muslims have consistently been the most commonly targeted religious group. The impact on the economy of our approach is real for both Muslim communities and the economy as a whole – The Citizens UK – Missing Muslims report chaired by ex AG Dominic Grieves details some of these consequences quoting the cost of not meeting BME full potential at – £24 billion. This is the loss to the UK economy to all of us. – What is also disturbing is that despite Muslims being well represented in higher education, higher numbers enter University than other groups they are under-represented in professional and managerial roles. Your own Professor Jacqueline Stevenson report on Muslims and social mobility challenge- refers to layers of discrimination in higher education from application, to campus experience, to degree attainment saying that “Racism and discrimination in the workplace is working to limit aspiration and prevent young Muslims from ‘aiming high’ and fulfilling their potential.” For Muslim women, twice as many (58%) were economically inactive in 2015 compared to all women (27%) Research from Bristol University shows the extent of discrimination faced by Muslim women, noting that they are 71% more likely than white Christian women to be unemployed, even after controlling for factors such as similar language abilities, education, marital status, number of children and strength of religious belief. – name blind applications and social experiments with ‘Muslim sounding names’ shows the starkest evidence of direct discrimination, were where Muslim sounding names, resulted in being filtered out of the recruitment process. – Women and Equalities Committee report on ‘Employment Opportunities for Muslims in the UK’ refers to the triple penalty faced by Muslim women, -sex, race and religion combine to leave British Muslim at the rock bottom of the employment pile. Furthermore, the findings presented reveal that the penalty many groups face in the United Kingdom is of a hierarchal nature. This hierarchy seems to be highly determined by the colour (ethnic/racial) and religion (culture). For example, when we looked at Christian groups only, black Christians were the only group to face a significant penalty. But when we examined the black groups, all of them seem to face a penalty, with black Muslims appearing to face the severest penalty. So if you are a Muslim in the United Kingdom, you are likely to face a penalty regardless of your colour or geography. If you are a Christian in the United Kingdom, you are not likely to face any penalties unless you are black. If you are white you will also be protected unless you are a Muslim. The penalty will peak if you are a Muslim and black. But the area I have seen up close and disturbs me the most is how increasingly politics has become the place when British Muslims are silenced, stereotyped and stigmatised. Where over years there has been a closing of the political space for British Muslims in mainstream politics Where you have to be the “right kind of Muslim “ to survive never mind succeed. Both our main parties have been mired in accusations of Islamophobia, the Conservatives heel dragging attempts to challenge it after years of campaigning was a whitewash of a report , chaired by a controversial figure with historic anti Muslim comments and did not even manage to garner the support of Conservative Muslim parliamentarians. No consequences followed for those whom even this whitewash of a report accepted were examples of anti-Muslim racism The Labour Party too after years of taking that vote for granted having received over 80% of the Muslim vote found itself failing to respond to anti Muslim racism being experienced by its members. The appalling experience of Conservative MP Nusrat Ghani who was alleged to have been removed from ministerial position because of her ‘Muslimness’ – sacked for being perceived to be too Muslim. And only this week we see reports of the Labour Party banning its councillors and members of Parliament from attending Pro Palestinian marches not others, despite having spent months before the recess fighting the government to protect the right to protest in the Public Order Act. The abuse Parliamentarians receive who are Muslim or perceived to be Muslim is overwhelming, the death threats, even mainstream respectable individuals such as ex Tory donor encouraging violence suggesting “someone should kill” the “ Muslim”Mayor of London for his ULEZ policy. He later withdrew his incendiary comments. Beyond Parliamentarians , Muslim civil society has been methodically disengaged by successive Governments, Conservative and Labour, over a period of nearly 15 years with governments cherry-picking interlocutors from Muslim communities who do not question or challenge. From the Blair years failed experiment with the now defunct groups like Qulliam and the Sufi Muslim Council to more recent approaches towards the charitable sector. A policy of disengagement in complete contrast to the approach to engagement with all other social groups in society: women, race groups, LGBT community, Jewish communities for example – in all cases the Government rightly make efforts to include a wide representation from the groups without interfering in group representation by favouring one set of interlocutors over another. And yet in the case of Muslims successive Government feels justified and emboldened to determine “acceptable Muslims” – whether representative of Muslim communities or not – based on the prejudicial stance that they agree with all aspects of Govt policy, do not question legitimate areas of concern and are subject to ‘approval’ by think tanks and other groups – something that horrified me in government. The outsourcing of these decisions to groups and institutions with vested interests. Using a counter-extremism lens to determine which Muslims should be engaged and even which invited to Eid receptions favouring those that acquiesce to a “ State sanctioned “ belief system and a total commitment to policies that impact British Muslims however wrong they may be. There is a particular irony to this political struggle- because on the one hand the Govt insists on the observance of ‘Fundamental British Values’ but when Muslims (a) challenge actions that detract from our commitment to rule of law – eg torture, rendition (b) challenge actions that undermine democracy – eg freedom of speech or freedom of association (c) challenge actions that undermine respect and tolerance eg Institutional Islamophobia (d) challenge actions that undermine individual liberty eg right of women to wear what they want – when Muslims APPLY Fundamental British Values in their participation in wider society, they are demonised, marginalised, excluded from political arenas and treated as outcasts. The irony is evocative of Orwell’s dictum, ‘all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others’. And after years of being told the community is segregationist and not integrated those of us who participated and encouraged others to participate are faced with accusations of ‘entryism’ – many hounded out of their posts or subjected to intense media and political scrutiny . I was accused as such during my time in Cabinet. Treating Muslims in public life with suspicion , the enemy within , the term used for me as I sat at Cabinet and in the NCS dealing with the aftermath of the killing of Lee Rigby- a statement that hit hard but a great title for a book Even referred to as an ISIS sympathiser whilst I was on the ISIS kill list, a comment only retracted after a legal battle. We are a liberal democracy with a long and proud history , we demean ourselves by adopting a totalitarian approach to a section of our fellow citizens ,British Muslims. We undermine our stated values and we appear as hypocrites. This approach and anti Muslim racism / Islamophobia must stop. Others have too been sounding the alarm bells. The UN warned in 2021 That Islamophobia builds imaginary constructs around Muslims that are used to justify state-sponsored discrimination, hostility and violence against Muslims with stark consequences for the enjoyment of human rights including freedom of religion or belief,” The stigmatisation has been drip fed over decades and is there any surprise that the polling now reflects as it does. When Prime Ministers speak about Muslim women as ‘traditionally submissive’; or letter boxes when integration reviews (Casey Review) are predominantly about Muslims even as anti-Muslim racism in society is rising; when national broadcasters, can broadcast programmes titled ‘What British Muslims Really Think?’, and use selective data to portray Muslims as ‘the enemy within’; when think tanks can drive Government policy despite their record of Muslim fixation and anti-Muslim hostility and when national media can get away with asking why a Muslim woman in a hijab is fronting a news report about terrorist incident in France (Fatima Manji and The Sun’s Kelvin MacKenzie); when Women’s Hour, a flagship programme on the BBC can post a video clip on twitter of hostile questioning of the first Muslim female to lead a major British Muslim organisation as click bait, when counterterrorism policy wants to refocus on ‘Islamist’ terrorism even as far right and others ideologies account for the greater proportion of terrorism sympathisers we are feeding and creating suspicion and hatred. Muslims were the first victims of the Culture wars which have become a toxic feature of our politics. I have been a racial justice campaigner all my life. From anti-black racism to anti-Jewish racism , for me anti Muslim racism is simply the latest evil An evil that needs to be defined. You cannot tackle what you do not define. I would need a whole hour to tell the story of how attempts to define anti Muslim racism have been sabotaged over the last decade but I will give you the 30 second version. From attacks on staff, to pseudo academic posturing about the term Islamophobia, from the exclusion of civil society organisations to leaking and briefing from government departments to the feeding of false information to the Police , to outright lies published in reports and newspapers -the campaign to silence and stop our work has been ferocious. It merits a research PhD And the governments disingenuous approach of initially not wanting a definition , to wanting one but one that most Muslims agreed with, to being presented with an agreed definition supported by over 800 Muslim organisations and institutions from traditional to secular , underpinned by over 80 academics who are specialists in this field , framed by a cross party group of Parliamentarians after the largest countrywide consultation and evidence gathering process including victim testimonies , the government decided it needed to appoint its own two advisers who would find a new definition and then proceeded to only appoint one advisor, give him no terms of reference, no ministerial engagement , no resources and years late unceremoniously dismissed him via a letter in the media. These are the actions of a government that far from tackling anti Muslim racism doesn’t even want to define it. But here is the good news , that despite all of this the definition today has been adopted by all major political parties bar the Conservatives in Westminster, it’s been adopted by the Conservatives in Scotland , it’s been adopted by over 60 councils, trade unions , local authorities , businesses and Universities and Im delighted to be able to announce that the University of Leeds has too expressed its intention to adopt and will be taking this forward. And I want to remain on a more optimistic tone and look forward. We still have an opportunity to reset. To ensure that all in our country belong and matter. To protect all who make up our country. I want the government to formally adopt the agreed definition of Islamophobia As a form of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived muslimness, a definition which is neither religious or theologically based and expressly seeks to protect people not the faith, It mirrors the IHRA definition of Antisemitism, with its examples. Both are non-legally binding working definitions which signal intent and a direction of travel. We need a determined and concerted effort to address Islamophobia across all sectors of politics, economy, education, healthcare and society And I ask all of you to adopt it in your workplaces . The APPG stands ready to support you in this process. I want to see the Introduction of mandatory reporting on the Ethnicity Pay Gap – to tackle employment discrimination and wage disparity as we have done it for Gender. We need to establish an independent inquiry into the Trojan Horse affair, to bring full closure into the whole disgraceful episode and to identify the areas and actors that failed our school children, teachers, governors, and parents in Birmingham, and to learn lessons for the future. It’s time to establish a judge-led inquiry into Prevent one that considers the evidence, and focuses on finding a policy that keeps us secure and protects our freedoms. We must end the government policy of disengagement and allow British Muslims the agency of their own representative bodies as we do so for every other community. And for all of you who care I ask you to aide what is in effect a Muslim civil rights movement a demand to belong, to be a part, to play our part, to have the same rights and freedoms as others, to be heard, to have the right to be heard, for our citizenship to be worth the same as everyone else’s, to be treated equally under the law. I have great faith in my country and its people. Once the poisonous tap of culture wars is switched off, once those in leadership stop feeding hate the ordinary Brit embraces and has embraced British Muslims. Whether it’s our Cake Queen Nadiya Hussain, World cup winning cricketer Moeen Ali , the Egyptian King in Liverpool Mo Salah , our multiple gold winning medallist Sir Mo Farah, Saliha Mahmood Ahmed the Dr and MasterChef winner, rhythm personified Hamza Yassin (Strictly Come Dancing winner 2022), or Asmaa AlAlak the surgeon and seamstress extraordinaire that won Sewing Bee our national life is enriched by Muslims and I take pride that Muslims are embraced as national heroes in our society. But for many Muslims, the harsh reality of prejudice, stunted aspirations, and blocked pathways is becoming the norm The fear in communities is deep, the Plan Bs exit routes are being prepared. The paralysis and feeling of being silenced is stifling And these anxious , fearful , hushed conversations have gone on for too long behind closed doors I have thought long and hard about what I have said today And its why I am sounding the sirens, our approach must change. Nearly 70 years after my families in country relationship with Britain started and four generations later I refuse to accept that my country may not be home to my grandchildren and their children My grandfathers fought Hitlers armies as part of the British Indian effort, they did not give their blood and sweat for their descendants to be stereotyped , stigmatised and silenced. They did not make sacrifices for the freedoms we enjoy today to see their future generations deprived of those very liberties. They fought for Britain , helped build Britain’s industries and infrastructure , added colour, sounds and wonderful flavours to the rich tapestry of its culture and as a young and growing community will once again provide the workforce , entrepreneurs and international networks to , if I may repurpose a phrase for better use Make Britain Great Again