Extended tweet explaining who was really behind the notorious islamophobia definition signed off by MPs, why it must be shelved … and highlighting senior voices in the muslim community who bravely challenged it: ••• One of the reasons the grooming scandal was able to continue for so long with impunity is that so many arms of the British establishment were paralysed with fear of being called ‘islamophobic’ if they blew the whistle. How did the term ‘islamophobia’ become so weaponised as to cause complete institutional seizure? The answer is that it didn’t happen by accident. In recent days there has been heightened interest in the work of a grouping of British MPs who took it upon themselves to define and then advocate for the adoption of a new definition of Islamophobia. The work was done a by the ‘APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group) on Islamophobia’ which became the APPG on British Muslims. The report is here: static1.squarespace.com/stat… One of the reasons this report has come to public attention again is because it includes this chilling line: “The recourse to the notion of free speech and a supposed right to criticise Islam results in nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism, whereby the criticism humiliates, marginalises and stigmatises Muslims. One real-life example of this concerns the issue of “grooming gangs”.” In other words, blowing the whistle on the grooming gangs is islamophobic. When the report was released the Labour Party immediately endorsed it, followed by numerous Councils. Anyone opposed was accused of being ‘islamophobic’. But the report and definition are far from neutral, and even though it was portrayed as a protective shield for all muslims at a time of heightened anti-muslim activity, it was harshly rejected by a wide range of leading moderate muslim voices. It was even condemned by the General Secretary of the world’s largest Muslim organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama, who responded to the campaign by saying: “There is a desperate need for honest discussion of these matters... We appeal to people on both sides of the political divide in the West, of all faiths and none, to renounce the practice of weaponising Islam for partisan advantage.” An open letter to the Home Secretary, signed by a long list of equality campaigners – most of them muslim – said; “The government must resist growing pressure to adopt a definition of Islamophobia. This proposal would render legitimate comment about Islam beyond the bounds of reasonable public debate. A commitment to tackle the real and pressing problem of anti-Muslim bigotry should not, and need not, infringe on the basic right to speak freely.” Professor and political advisor @Ed_Husain warned; “Our politicians cannot submit to the collectivist victimhood narrative of Islamists: this does a disservice to Britain, our liberty, and ordinary British Muslims.” Leading anti racism campaigners joined the criticism. Trevor Philips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, wrote; “the adoption of this definition would be a grave mistake... I fear that [the MPs] have been persuaded to recommend a course that far from supporting the integration of British Muslims will isolate them...” Sir John Jenkins, a career diplomat and leading middle east expert said; “Should the Government accept this highly partial definition, which reflects an agenda unrepresentative of the expressed concerns of many, if not most, British Muslims, they would risk endangering free speech, press freedom and open the door to an assault on current counter-extremism policy.” More recently Middle Eastern author, analyst and researcher @Amjadt25 tweeted: "If you look into the forces demanding that Britain outlaws Islamophobia, you find the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-western global movement dedicated to destroying Israel and removing all Arab and Muslim governments; an organisation that is openly homophobic and misogynistic. Islamists are banned in Mecca but operate freely today in Britain. And they specialise in using the equalities agenda to demand the means to pursue, defame and (ideally) prosecute their critics.” Supporters of the APPG definition sought to dismiss such criticism as ‘islamophobic’. But given the sheer breadth and depth of criticism, that is clearly nonsense. In fact the report doesn’t provide clarity or specifics about what constitutes islamophobia, but it cites a few examples submitted as evidence, for example “Ofsted questioning the wearing of hijab.” The definition is sufficiently vague that almost any language could qualify as ‘islamophobia’. We have already seen how that works out. In the recent past, Sara Khan, the lead Commissioner for countering extremism; Maajid Nawaz, the broadcaster and founder of the counter-extremism think tank Quilliam; Amanda Spielman, the head of Ofsted; Sarah Champion, the MP who took up the cause of the victims of child grooming gangs in Rotherham, have all been labelled as islamophobes for the work they do tackling extremism. The definition would likely also capture the government’s own anti extremism and anti radicalisation programme, Prevent. It is perhaps not a coincidence that some of the loudest voices in support of the definition come from those who label Prevent as “institutionally Islamophobic”. That is why Maajid Nawaz warned at the time “The Labour Party’s formal adoption of the definition is a victory for Islamists.” So who was behind the report? When it came out I tweeted “if you ask supporters of Islamism to write up a definition of islamophobia, you can’t be surprised if they craft it to insulate themselves from scrutiny.” Anna Soubry who was one of the report’s co-authors responded “Utter tosh. We, MP members of the APPG, took evidence from members of the muslim community throughout the UK and many non muslims.” She went on to declare that she ‘and other MPs like my co-chair Wes Streeting MP wrote the excellent definition of islamophobia.” Is that really true? The APPG on Islamophobia’ (formerly the APPG on British Muslims) was run by an organisation called iEngage until reports emerged of it defending extremists and displaying ‘troubling attitudes to antisemitism’. But iEngage didn’t disappear. It became MEND and MEND was closely involved in the islamophobia report. For example, one of the acknowledged contributors is Dr Antonio Perra, who was previously MEND’s senior policy analyst. Perra says he ‘co-edited’ the report. The Islamophobia Response Unit was also involved in the report. It was created by MEND in 2017. MEND’s record is mixed, to put it mildly. The former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and head of Counter-Terrorism Command, Sir Mark Rowley, said that MEND was “seeking to undermine the state’s considerable efforts to tackle all hate crime”. The Jewish Chronicle says of MEND’s former head of community development and engagement “[Azad Ali] never hid some of his other extreme views from the public — such as support for Hamas, a Caliphate, Friday prayers for the Mujahedeen.” Ali left MEND and joined CAGE, the organisation that made headlines after describing the ISIS militant, Jihadi John, as a ‘beautiful young man.’ CAGE, unsurprisingly heavily promoted the APPG definition. What is extraordinary is that the MP authors were well aware of controversies surrounding MEND. Soubry even withdrew from a MEND event in Parliament, admitting that the organisation does not “have the best of reputations”after being challenged by the Jewish Chronicle. Streeting said “I have been following the considerable controversy about reported comments by people associated with Mend closely and with serious concern.” Meanwhile numerous moderate, mainstream voices were not included in the report. Tell Mama for instance, which records and reports anti muslim incidents in the UK, was invited to give evidence only at the very last minute, perhaps to convey a sense of balance. Counter terror organisation Quilliam’s appeals to the APPG were “completely ignored”. Nowhere in the report is there any mention of Britain’s Ahmadi muslim community. That community faces a double threat – from anti muslim bigots and from islamists who do not believe they are proper muslims. MEND has long had associations with anti-Ahmadi clerics. So too has the Muslim Council of Britain, which has also actively pushed for adoption of the APPG definition. One of the MCB affiliate groups, Khatm-e-Nubuwwat congratulated all muslims after the murder in 2016 of Ahmadi shopkeeper Asad Shah, who was killed for being Ahmadi. So why did the MPs on the APPG largely exclude moderate, mainstream voices- in favour of activists with such worrying track records? Perhaps they were misled into believing radical organisations like MEND and CAGE are genuinely representative of all British muslims. Perhaps they just weren’t paying attention and were happy to sign the work off to ingratiate themselves with a block vote. Whatever the motivation, the MPs did the country and ordinary British muslims a disservice and no responsible political party, government of public body should touch it with a barge pole.