LONDON, ENGLAND - DECEMBER 06: Labour politician Keir Starmer and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn talk onstage during a campaign speech on December 6, 2019 in London, England. Mr Corbyn announced that he has a government report which shows that there will be customs checks between Britain and Northern Ireland. (Photo by Peter Summers/Getty Images)
Alors que le Parti travailliste se rassemble à Liverpool, dans une tentative de retrouver une certaine crédibilité morale après des mois de pouvoir désastreux, une tempête se prépare à gauche de Starmer. Pour l’instant, elle manque des projecteurs médiatiques des fêtes d’anniversaire financées par des donateurs et des escapades à New York, mais ses implications politiques pourraient finalement s’avérer plus importantes. À sa tête se trouve l’homme que Starmer a cherché à écarter comme un déchet : Jeremy Corbyn.
Rishi Sunak a surpris presque tout le monde en annonçant une élection anticipée en mai, y compris l’ancien leader travailliste — qui est resté membre du parti mais avait perdu le whip du parti en 2020. Il était clair qu’il ne serait jamais autorisé à se présenter à nouveau pour le Parti travailliste, mais alors que Sunak se tenait devant le n° 10 — ressemblant à un préfet d’école en désordre — Corbyn a agi rapidement. Deux jours plus tard, il a annoncé qu’il se présenterait en tant qu’indépendant. Le parti qu’il avait rejoint pour la première fois en 1965 était fermement dans son viseur.
Pour beaucoup, le mouvement contre Corbyn plusieurs années plus tôt était principalement motivé par le désir de rompre avec sa politique socialiste. En effet, c’était le premier d’une série de mouvements que la direction a entrepris pour désarmer la gauche du parti. Plus tard, il y a eu des désélections de haut en bas de Faiza Shaheen et Lloyd Russell-Moyle, tandis que Sam Tarry a perdu un vote serré avec le système controversé ‘Anonyvoter’ déployé. Et pourtant, lors de l’élection elle-même, contredisant le précédent historique, Corbyn – en tant qu’indépendant – a conservé son siège. La bataille pour le Parti travailliste, et l’avenir de la gauche britannique, avait commencé.
Expulsé du parti, et en dehors de la tente, Corbyn est sans doute plus problématique pour Starmer. Il se trouve maintenant sous son propre drapeau, aux côtés de quatre autres outsiders propulsés au Parlement par leur opposition à l’austérité et leur critique acerbe de la guerre d’Israël à Gaza. Et bien que leurs campagnes électorales n’aient pas été coordonnées, ces cinq indépendants s’organisent maintenant, annonçant une Alliance Indépendante formelle plus tôt ce mois-ci. Cela en fait le cinquième plus grand groupe à Westminster. De plus, aux côtés de quatre membres des Verts, leur rassemblement est le plus grand groupe de députés ‘à gauche du Parti travailliste’ de l’histoire. Ce qui était initialement un rejet inchoatif de Starmer à travers un mélange de sièges devient un mouvement national.
Pire encore pour le Parti travailliste, tout cela a commencé pendant ce qui était censé être le sommet de l’attrait de Starmer. Pourtant, trois mois après la formation d’un gouvernement, un récent sondage montre que le Parti travailliste est aussi bas que 29%. Six électeurs sur dix affirment maintenant que le Premier ministre ne peut pas être digne de confiance et, ce qui est le plus remarquable, Starmer est moins populaire que Rishi Sunak.
Ce n’est pas que les Conservateurs bénéficieront des problèmes croissants du Parti travailliste. Malgré son penchant pour des lunettes de créateurs gratuites, le public voit toujours Starmer plus favorablement que les prétendants au leadership Kemi Badenoch, Robert Jenrick et James Cleverly. Plus largement, l’électorat reste plus critique envers les Tories qu’envers le Parti travailliste. Toutes ces années d’incompétence n’ont pas été oubliées du jour au lendemain.
Et c’est cette présomption — que gagner consiste à être l’option ‘la moins mauvaise’ — qui explique peut-être la décision de couper l’Allocation de chauffage d’hiver pour 10 millions de retraités. Dans un système à deux partis, tout ce qui compte est d’être légèrement moins méprisé que les autres. Mais la Grande-Bretagne n’est plus un système à deux partis, quelque chose que le Parti travailliste ignore à ses risques et périls. Avec les Libéraux-démocrates, le pays a maintenant son plus grand troisième parti depuis un siècle — les entreprises ont même commencé à leur prêter attention — et le SNP cherche à riposter sous une direction stable. Ailleurs, les Verts et le Reform sont maintenant de véritables acteurs nationaux. Ce n’était pas seulement Carla Denyer disant que le Parti travailliste devrait supprimer le plafond des prestations pour deux enfants, mais aussi Nigel Farage. Malgré plus de 400 sièges, l’optique est que le Parti travailliste est non seulement en désaccord avec le pays, mais que des alternatives électorales deviennent de plus en plus évidentes.
Cependant, le plus grand problème pour Starmer reste sans doute son ancien camarade d’Islington North, Corbyn et ses collègues indépendants étant un paratonnerre pour ce qui était la gauche travailliste. Les répercussions potentielles de son approche de tolérance zéro envers la dissidence peuvent déjà être observées. Le mois dernier, le Parti travailliste a suspendu sept députés après qu’ils ont voté en faveur d’un amendement SNP visant à supprimer le plafond des allocations pour deux enfants. Un jour plus tard, Corbyn et sa bande de joyeux lurons ont signé une lettre conjointe en soutien à ces rebelles, disant qu’ils se réjouissaient de travailler ensemble — et qu’ils représentaient une alternative aux deux partis établis. Le sous-texte était évident : quittez le Parti travailliste et asseyez-vous avec nous.
Mais à mesure que l’héritage difficile de Starmer devient plus clair, il y aura de plus en plus de dissidence au sein du parti quant à la manière dont il aborde divers défis. Ceux qui ne sont pas d’accord avec la ligne du parti envisagent déjà d’autres options — y compris l’Alliance indépendante. En août, le Parti travailliste a annoncé que son nombre de membres était tombé en dessous de 400 000 pour la première fois en une décennie. Pour la droite du parti — des arrangeurs anti-démocratiques par disposition — cela est considéré comme une bonne chose. Mais beaucoup de ceux qui partent iront ailleurs et feront campagne contre la rose rouge. À Chingford, Faiza Shaheen, dont la campagne indépendante a privé le Parti travailliste de ce siège en juillet — il était détenu par le député conservateur sortant, Iain Duncan Smith — a plusieurs centaines de partisans qui ont quitté le parti avec elle. Si Shaheen choisit de se présenter aux prochaines élections générales, cela pourrait avoir de l’importance.
Pour les députés socialistes au parlement, soumis à l’intimidation de la machine du parti, rejoindre l’Alliance indépendante est moins risqué qu’il n’y paraît. Pour ces sept députés suspendus, par exemple, le choix n’est pas entre se ranger du côté de Corbyn ou de Starmer lors de la prochaine élection — mais d’être député tout court. En toute probabilité, s’ils continuent à se rebeller, le Premier ministre et son entourage utiliseront les mêmes tactiques qu’ils ont déployées contre Shaheen plus tôt cette année, et qu’ils ont échoué à utiliser contre Diane Abbott : dès qu’une élection est convoquée, leur candidature sera révoquée par le NEC du parti. La solution sensée — d’un point de vue purement intéressé — est que ceux comme John McDonnell et Zarah Sultana supposent qu’ils ne seront plus jamais autorisés à se présenter sous la bannière travailliste. À mesure que cela devient plus clair, attendez-vous à les voir s’asseoir aux côtés de Corbyn.
Une reconnaissance plus large du style autoritaire de Starmer parmi les députés travaillistes mettra à l’épreuve son approche disciplinaire. Rosie Duffield, à peine à gauche du parti, a déjà déclaré qu’elle devait plus à ses électeurs qu’au PM. C’est un terrain dangereux pour Starmer, qui a besoin de sa grande majorité s’il veut s’attaquer à des défis difficiles comme la crise du logement. Certains s’opposeront à Starmer — jouant à un jeu de poker politique en sachant qu’il existe une alternative avec Corbyn. Pendant ce temps, d’autres députés, moins courageux, feront semblant que l’abstention est en quelque sorte un acte de défi (plus de 50 députés travaillistes se sont abstenus sur le projet de loi sur l’allocation de chauffage d’hiver). Mais cela prouvera être une mauvaise politique — avec un mauvais bilan de vote, une manne pour les challengers indépendants lors des prochaines élections générales. Si Jess Philips n’avait pas défié la consigne du parti en appelant à un cessez-le-feu, par exemple, elle aurait très probablement perdu son siège.
Je parie qu’un nouveau parti ne verra pas le jour, même avec Corbyn ouvert à la possibilité. La force des cinq indépendants est qu’ils sont maîtres de ce qu’ils ne disent pas : leur plateforme d’opposition à la guerre, de soutien aux services publics et de critique d’Israël est extrêmement populaire auprès de l’électeur travailliste médian. Avoir un programme plus détaillé, où ils sont susceptibles de ne pas être d’accord entre eux sur des sujets tels que les LTN ou la biodiversité, comporte trop d’inconvénients. Une alliance élargie d’indépendants lors des prochaines élections générales — qui fait de la politique dans les grandes lignes — a le plus de sens pour l’instant.
Lors de la couverture de l’élection partielle de Batley et Spen en 2021, j’ai eu la chance de rencontrer certaines des familles d’affaires de Batley (la ville du Yorkshire est la pierre angulaire de l’industrie de la literie du pays). Même à l’époque, il était clair qu’un changement générationnel était en cours, en particulier dans les communautés musulmanes. ‘Nos grands-pères votaient travailliste, mais maintenant nous disons que cela ne doit pas être comme ça,’ m’a dit un. ‘Nous voulons façonner les choses.’ Ce sont précisément les types de réseaux associatifs denses qui ont propulsé des candidats indépendants comme Shockat Adam et Adnan Hussain vers la victoire à Leicester South et Blackburn respectivement. Parce qu’ils sont en dehors du M25, et ne font pas sens à travers le prisme de la politique bipartite, Westminster présume qu’ils n’ont pas d’importance. Mais bientôt, ils pourraient devoir se redresser et remarquer.
Les élections de mai de l’année prochaine se concentreront principalement sur les conseils de comté détenus par les conservateurs, donc attendez-vous à ce que les Lib Dems, les Verts et le Reform prospèrent. Mais les élections de 2026, en particulier à Birmingham et à Londres, pourraient être un point de tension pour Starmer. Comme les Verts l’ont démontré avant leur succès plus tôt cette année, construire du pouvoir dans les conseils est une première étape efficace pour gagner à Westminster. Wes Streeting et Jess Philips prêteront une attention particulière.
Cette année, la victoire du Parti travailliste n’était pas aussi définitive qu’elle aurait dû l’être. Leur mandat a été obtenu avec seulement 33,5 % des voix. Dans cinq ans, ils pourraient encore remporter une majorité décente, bien que sur une part de vote encore plus petite. Mais à leur gauche, il pourrait y avoir des dizaines d’indépendants coordonnés et de députés du Parti vert. Alors que les contours de la politique nationale évoluent, de telles figures pourraient encore s’avérer aussi influentes que le Reform, que ce soit en attirant des électeurs en colère sur des questions telles que les salaires des entreprises, l’inégalité et les coupes dans l’État-providence, ou des questions potentiellement codées conservatrices telles que l’incapacité à nettoyer les rivières et les côtes de la Grande-Bretagne.
Pour la première fois de son histoire, le Parti travailliste est exposé à sa gauche, ainsi qu’à sa droite. Cela réinitialise les paramètres de ce que signifie réellement ‘le centriste’ — un changement significatif étant donné l’absence d’une orthodoxie convaincante à l’heure actuelle. La majorité conservatrice de 2019 s’est révélée volatile et éphémère. Et avec Corbyn et sa bande maladroite aux trousses, lors de la prochaine élection, le Parti travailliste pourrait se retrouver dans une position similaire.
Aaron Bastani is the co-founder of Novara Media, and the author of Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
AaronBastani 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe author appears to be saying that the tide of Islam is inevitable. Nonsense! It was said that the tide of progressivism was inevitable in the United States, but now we’re witnessing something far more invigorating. The gut instinct of the US populace kicked in.
It’s far from being too late for something similar to happen in Europe. Any attempt to force Islamism down our throats – in effect, to upend the separation between church and state – would certainly be a test of how far our populations have come, especially since the manipulations of the Covid era have become clear.
The entire concept of the perfect god is pernicious and manipulative. The populations of the medieval period eventually overturned the Catholic church from its central position of authority; any attempt to reinstate such authoritarianism will not be tolerated.
I don’t think he’s saying that, LL. Rather, that it’s likely IF the left progressive loonies continue on their chosen path towards a socialist utopia. I think he explains quite clearly the way in which lefties play the role of useful idiots.
God I hope you’re right
If people, and more specifically their governments, in Western Europe don’t wise up, then ironically the notion of the Islamists regarding ‘jahiliyya’ may well be proven to have been correct.
Given current birth rates and trends in immigration, we could indeed be living in a pre-Islamist state of ignorance, or at least naivete.
Islamoprudence is a vote for your own safety. Blasphemy laws won’t end well. I am yet again reminded of Professor Betz: “it’s odd. Labour is doing everything it can to promote civil war”.
Civil insurrection looms.
A brave and brilliant author, cheers Ben.
Testing
You are.
Bogus accusations of Islamophobia and antisemitism are equally stifling free speech.
Bravo. Excellent article. Thank goodness that, in Rayner and Grieve, we have respectively Britain’s leading public intellectual and its most strident defender of democracy and objectivity to decide for us how Islamophobic we already are and how best we should be silenced.
Supported by that heroic defender of poor innocent terrorists Lord H.
“Terrorism” is what?
No state violent actions?
So, what are drone attacks guided by AI? Do they bring terror to civilian communities. You think you are saying something, but once again JT, you just repeat nauseating slogans. Try and look at behaviour without using nouns that obfuscate.
“And so gradually, seemingly inexorably, Britain will continue its weary progress into becoming an Islamic state in all but name. Islamophobia is a crucial tool to make that happen….”
Why are the politicians playing this game with us? Consider an alternative:
And so gradually, seemingly inexorably, Germany will continue its weary progress into becoming a Jewish state in all but name.
In Germany, this is what politicians are afraid of … and it’s rubbed off onto the rest of the western world.
“Once upon a time, the Islamic world was a superpower and its jihad an irresistible force to be reckoned with. Over two centuries ago, however, a rising Europe—which had experienced more than one millennium of Muslim conquests and atrocities—eclipsed and defanged Islam. As Muhammad’s civilization retreated into obscurity, the post-Christian West slowly came into being. Islam did not change, but the West did: Muslims still venerate their heritage and religion—which commands jihad against infidels—whereas the West has learned to despise its heritage and religion, causing it to become an unwitting ally of the jihad.”
Ibrahim, Raymond. Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (p. 296). Grand Central Publishing.
There is only one force of united terrorism that threatens the entire world, and that force has entered and is taking over nu britn without having to fire a single round.
‘…the notion of Islamophobia helps to bring together Islamic and Western intellectual traditions. It converts Islamic law… into secular rationalist and moral language…converting religious authority into a general, all-consuming rationality and morality.’
How can there be this admixture? Combining in one glass pure water with tinctures of other substances. If what is outside the glass is imperfect, putting it into the glass sullies the pureness of the water. Unlike oil and water, neither can be separated.
In Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, whence is the source of corruption? Is it inside the person who wears the ring? Or is it in the ring itself, even when not worn by a person?
To believe that the allure to commit wrong actions comes from outside oneself is to project temptation onto others. It is ‘your women’ who are ‘out of control’. A shield against self-examination of any sort other than what produces a highly expurgated view of oneself.
The sanctioning of whatever enterprise is conducted – giving a coin to a beggar or raping a lone woman – has already been acquired for the one who believes that within themselves lies perfectness of motive and is merely confirmed when it is carried to a successful conclusion.
The Western liberal ideology of improvement originated from within Western society, not from a deity that is a strict monism. How can what originates from a perfect God have an accord, share a ground of cooperation, with what is from the imperfect elsewhere? How can Western liberal intellectual traditions, being part of the imperfect elsewhere, have the same motive of improvement as one coming from a perfect deity, if the former are in ignorance of the will of the deity?
‘…converting religious authority into a general, all-consuming rationality and morality.’ If what is religious is converted into what is secular, how is it still of God? If what is secular is converted into what is of God, how is it still secular?
For the Christian, not the Western liberal, the submission to God is also a reception. A reception into the heart by faith of the Holy Spirit. The body is the temple of the Spirit. As such, the body must be treated as holy.
Every person’s body is made to be that. At the same time, the indwelling of the Spirit does not automatically make the body perfect. The Spirit is contrary to the flesh to constrain the motives of the latter but also leads to truth, so that, just as kindness can be wiser than truth, so truth is something that charity rejoices at and, in concert, charity becomes the ontological reality.
A perceptive article that clears away much misunderstanding.
I think Islam will have its tendons cut by the historicity issues long before it is ready to jump into the air and become Britain’s #1 faith.
Not hateful questions but rather ones like these (from an academic paper I’m reading this morning.)
Who exactly is this prophet ? Name given ‘MHMT’ is a title only. Seems to have referred to Christ initially, ‘the desired one’ – name appears on coins with a cross. Then starts to mean ‘the praised one’, crosses disappear, replaced by symbols of stones, but it’s still Christ in some way then it’s another bloke? Let’s call him ‘Mo’.
Why does it pick up a long discredited heresy to dismiss Jesus’ death, when all serious historians agree – if they agree on nothing else – that a preacher we know as Jesus existed & was killed by the Romans?
Why are events in this book based in towns which in all likelihood barely existed at the time they’re supposed to have happened?
Given all that, what’s the basis on which we ought to forswear wine and beer, and our beloved pork, and take up a very different life, all based on the utterances of this hazy entity, who early on, is identified with a bloodthirsty warlord, and who only slips into the role of creator of a new faith via a confused process where a man ‘Jesus’ gets separated from his ‘Christological predicate’, in an older faith?
Don’t you have to be better than the thing you’re replacing? If you’re just smashed up bits of the old thing, scrambled, reassembled badly in a botched job, inflicted via coercion & war, is that likely to take off?
I continually post that we are and always have been at war with Islam and that this force will always seek to take over opposite societies.
Ergo, I fully expect to be taken aside by British border police should I visit the UK as an expatriated national. If not next time then it will just be a matter of time.
““incidents of anti-Muslim hatred reach[ed] the highest number on record in 2024.”
Direct result of people shouting Allah Akbar as they kill people perhaps ?
The idea that the solution to people objecting to being murdered is to define objecting as a crime could only happen under this government.
Rise of anti- semitism due to Israel killing innocent women and children perhaps?
All this talk of free speech yet I haven’t read one complaint here about the shut down of free speech when it comes to criticism of Israel. Everybody cool with that infringement of free speech?
Maybe if they called it Israelaphobia we would get more push back.
Perhaps that’s because there hasn’t been a ‘shut down of free speech when it comes to criticism of Israel’. On the contrary, we’ve had the usual suspects screeching demands for another holocaust whilst attacking the police and bystanders virtually every Saturday afternoon for more than a year. Haven’t you noticed?
But there has Hugh. Depending on what country you live in. Look at Germany, you can’t protest it, write about it, nothing. Just the other day, an student at Colombia university in NY wrote a pro – divestment article about Israel. She gets accused of “discriminatory harassment” whatever that might be. Has the right to “speak her truth” through words or not. The western media is largely not critical of Israel at all. I agree with the author, islamaphobia might be thing, but it can’t be put into law. One should be able to criticise, religion, culture, sovereign states, the whole thing. And free speech loving done, and his goons, ran on free speech, mocking the over sensitive left. What does he do? Threatens to defund universities that allow “illegal protests.”
What’s an illegal protest in the so called liberal west? The protests against Israel has nothing to do Jewishness or the lazy and by now laughable “anti semetism” slurs.
It is against a sovereign state carrying out ethnic cleansing in Gaza, and now the West Bank. 40000 people have been removed from their homes on the west back. What do you read about this in western media? Are you allowed to protest that without being called a Jew hater? Unbelievable.
Not sure I entirely follow your point. Is criticism of Israel’s response to being attacked by Hamas being shut down ? I know the pro palestinian protesters try to do that . But they too are very wrong. Hamas have been attacking Israel daily for years . The folk in Gaza choose to be lead by Hamas and are very vocal in their support of Hamas and its brainwashing in schools. So it’s unsurprising that a wholesale attack has produced a violent response.
My own view is that Israel’s response has not been particularly successful and it has killed a lot of non combatants . I also think the pro Palestinian protesters are quite wrong .
It’s a big subject. And most of those talking about haven’t been there -indeed many of them couldn’t find it on a map.
Where is the criticism of Israel being shut down? I hear it every single day so i think you’re dreaming.
Look at the German laws. You can’t express your thoughts on what kind is state Israel is. What other country are we not allowed to comment on?
In what other place on earth would the bulldozing of houses, burning of mosques, stealing land, and pushing 40000 people out of their homes not be headline news every day? This is what Israel are doing in the Hamas free West Bank. The western media is largely silent. What if it was the other way around? Yes I know.. anti Semite.
If you have a problem with the term Islamaphobia for critical views on certain aspects of a certain religion or culture, then you should feel the same way by the way anti semitism is being flung around.
a) what have German laws got to do with a discussion on UK Labour islamophobia legislation. b) Maybe Germany has strict antisemitism laws due to some particular event in its history. I mean nothing springs to mind but it’s a possibility…
My experience with German airport police convinced me that it was still 1936 not 2025: one just has to ” scratch the surface” in that odious, tedious, ghastly country
Thanks for demonstrating the source of the rise of anti-Semitism.
You just made my point.
Islamaphobe Nathan.
Childish.
If Muslim influence were to disappear from the West tomorrow, there would not be one thing that would not be improved.
Seems incontrovertible, and yet all but one of our governments seem to be in thrall to this idea that all virtue is in direct reverse-proportion to melatonin. And since our education in history extends no further back than 2000AD, our picture of an individual Muslim is sufficiently swarthy to qualify as ‘virtuous’, as opposed to the pale architects of our own society.
“Islamophobia” is a nonsensical, overly-emotive term for essentially reasonable antipathy towards the encroachment of islamic overentitlement and intrusion into UK daily life. A phobia is a misplaced fear to the point of avoidance which alters capability to live one’s life normally.
A better spelling would be IslamoFAUXbia.
Love your alternative spelling!
Fear of Islamic supremacism is entirely rational. Islam means “submission”. A muslim is one who has submitted. And the related word, “salam” carries the clear connotation that “peace” is achieved through submission.
Why should I not fear an ideology that promises me peace only if I submit?
“Islamophobia” usually refers to legitimate criticism of a pernicious and intrinsically violent set of anti-western beliefs and practices.
160 million views now of Silenced. And I am not allowed to say anymore. Rag.
When Stalin fights Hitler, who is the good guy?
Yes, the powers that be have pushed upon us “Islamophobia”. They have also foisted upon us “anti-Semitism”. Those powers that favor support of Israel apply anti-semitism with a very broad brush. Likewise, those that view Israel unfavorably use Islamophobia as their crudgel.
75 years ago, in the wake of the holocaust, the State of Israel was created in war, and over a half a million Moslem and Christian people where ethnically cleansed from that state. Since then, the war has not ceased. Both sides have resorted to their own means of terrorism in the fighting of that war. The West has generally supported Israel. Many influential Zionists have help paint the picture of the Islamic terrorist in the collective consciousness of the West. It is very difficult for many to not see a devout Moslem as a violent Islamacist. Especially since Zionists try and paint that picture.
We do not need Zionists to try to paint the picture of a violent Islamic terrorist. We see it every time a car or van is driven into a crowd or a bomb is exploded on a bus/tube/in a theatre, or a maniac runs amok with a knife. We do not need to faff about with your idea of collective consciousness, we just need to listen to and watch the news for real events.
Fair enough, but look at the history of Zionist terrorism. When they were fighting to establish Israel they assasinated Lord Moyne, they assasinated Count Bernadotte, they bombed the King David Hotel, they killed every man woman and child they could find in Deir Yassin. These are just the well documented atrocities. There are countless others not so well documented.
Ancient History? Well, what have the Zionists been doing since 10/7. Massive murders of civilians, justified by military necessity. Assasinations of leaders of groups that they have signed cease fires with. Bombing embassies.
Take your fingers out of your ears and realize that in the Middle Eastern conflict, terrorism is a way of life for all parties.
Lots of down votes but nobody with the gonads to debate me.
Are you suggesting that until such time as we unequivocally condemn the behavior of Israel vis a vis the Palestinians, we should not be allowed to object to knife-wielding maniacs on European streets? Asking for a friend.
There is a strong correlation between truth and downticks on Unherd.. they are, in fact, directly proportional – bigots hate truths and facts because they interefere with their vitriol and challenge their ignorance.. so take heart from that!
Somehow I think the result of this work would be different if the Muslims voted Tory.
Always remember: the rise of Islamism in Britain wasn’t an accident of organic migration. Our ruling class has deliberately sabotaged society.
Exactly, and it goes all the way back to Churchill, who was quite enamored with the ‘Moslems’. So be careful what you wish for in a strong leader, as often he wants strong (i.e. forceful) but submissive peoples over independent (think tolerant) but disobedient ones.
“Eventually the Government will have to decide between censorship and freedom.”
It’s already made its views perfectly clear on that issue.
The law makes you afraid to have an opinion. The UK media limits what you can say. The result is a herd of English sheep. And all that is left them to say is ‘good article Unherd’.
It is a pathetic sight.
Free Tommy Robinson.
In tandem with Islamism is that Muslims are incapable of racism…as are Blacks and any so called p o c. Muslims are incapable of antisemitism. Even when nurses video themselves bragging they will kill Israeli patients. Then it’s “selective outrage” according to Islamic organizations. IN America, I’m not aware of a single Islamic organization that condemns the murder of Jewish Israelis. Jewish students, any politicians who denounce the ongoing Palestinianist jihadi takeover of universities are of course “ISLAMOPHOBES” and worst of all Zionists I see that in Britain as at the Oscars, Zionists are held in contempt and Palestine represents the highest ideals to which humankind can aspire.
The only part of your vitriol that makes sense is your final sentence, taken literally! It is quite true, in comparison to Israeli Jews, Palestinian Muslims are amazing, wonderful people; but the Istaeli Jews (97% by their own admission) are heinous, degenerate, lowlife, evil monsters.
I find the whole thing weird. Is it now Labour party policy to support movements whose views suppress women and oppose homosexuals ?
You sir have been drinking kool-aid. This may be true of counties like Saudi Arabia that follow a strict Sharia Law, it does not hold true for many countries. Even Iran is not as strict as SA. It did not hold true for Syria under Assad, I don’t know if it held true for Gaza before 10/7. Many Moslems in western countries want no part of that kind of law, and would organize to fight it, if zelots tried to make it happen.
Some time, watch Al Jazzera. There are lots of women doing journalism on it, and other than the higher proffessional standards, looks exactly like western media.
You are 100% correct but, as you see, most Unherd folk don’t wants facts confusing their bigotry! ’twas ever thus!
I’ve worked in Islamic countries.. I never experienced any difficulties of any kind even vaguely related to my Christianity.. including entering mosques btw!
I also never had any difficulties travelling in Muslim countries. But I know a woman who worked as a nurse in Abu Dhabi, who was told to buy a riding-crop so that she could swat away the groping hands of male passers-by. One could hope that such attitudes towards women would eventually fade away in western Muslims, but I, for one, don’t think it fair to expect women to have to wait for the day when Muslim men sort themselves out, and in the meantime have to walk in fear on the streets of their own cities.
Of even greater concern to me is the apparent inability of Islam’s apologists in the West to accept that Islam was from its inception equal parts religion and political project. Practically speaking, this means that in order to live a fully Muslim life, you have to live in a Muslim country under Islamic law. But don’t take my word for it; read Bernard Lewis, or here’s John S. Badeau in The Genius of Arab Civilization: “It is significant that, as Islam elaborated, it was Canon Law (Shari’ah) rather than theology that was most rigorously protected and applied. Men had to live within a Muslim society to be fully Muslim, not simply to profess Islamic beliefs in any society in which they might find themselves.” The implications of this, if true, are not pleasant to contemplate, but given present demographic trends, we may be confronted with them soon. It may be that, as the previous commenter wrote, resistance may build from within the Muslim community to any attempt to impose Shari’ah. That would be terrific, but if I were living in Europe I would not be pinning my hopes on an agreeable outcome. By all means, have Muslims settle these issues among themselves, but have them do it in the “house of Islam” which, for now at least, doesn’t include Europe.
Right. Two very good points that need to be central in our anti-Sharia efforts. Out of respect for the memory of my mother and my aunts, etc., I refuse to accept the veiling of women. And for the sake of my many gay friends I will not tolerate a renewal of anti-gay prejudices.
Honestly, I have no respect for men who can’t deal with women (gyno-phobia!). Or with homosexuals. It’s childish, deeply un-manly and, truly medieval. The Islamic world needs to grow up and find some balls. We need to start saying this loud and clear. To make our distaste and lack of respect known.
There are as many takes on Islam as there are on Christianity.. from fundamentalist to liberal.. you, lumping them all together, are simple demonstrating your ignorance, at best; bigotry at worst.
And now the media will bring down Rupert Lowe.
They are your problem. But you can only say that via the media.
UK is finished if they break Reform.
I try to imagine a hypothetical Islamic country accepting thousands of non-Muslims seeking refuge from economic deprivation or civil strife, forming localised communities, building places of worship and getting representation in the political system. But, somehow, I can’t see that happening.
You’re obviously not very well travelled then! There are large Jewish communities (+Christian) in many Islamic countries..
The Jewish and Christian communities in Islamic countries are not immigrants: they are remnants of pre-Islamic populations subjugated by Muslim invaders. They are largely deprived of political representation and prevented from building places of worship.
My feeling after recently viewing the movie Lady of Heaven is that the concept of Islamophobia is a creature of Sunni Islam with its historically derived warring tendencies and depictions as unbelievers as evil because they resist the hard hierarchies of Sunni jurisprudence.
However what is striking about the zeal in which Islamists and Progressives wish to reformulate society according to their own image is the degree to which they have deviated from “al-wasatiyyah” which is a central concept for both Sunni and Shia jurisprudence.
https://www.islamicity.org/5465/al-wasatiyyah-moderation-as-an-agenda-of-the-ummah/
The idea behind the concept is to perfect oneself in the eyes of the Perfect God as was being demonstrated by Muhammad in the film Lady of Heaven. That is to say the point of “al-wasatiyyah” is NOT to perfect other people but oneself.
Of course, increasingly within our British State and increasingly within our British nation, the opposite is true whereby Islam is being promoted as means to perfect others with aggressive activists demanding the reformation of individuals, organisations and the government in accordance with their own very imperfect infallible egos.
Thus the House of Islam which is meant to promote as a central principle “al-wasatiyyah” in order to perfect oneself in the eyes of a Perfect God is rapidly turning into a House of War that seeks to subjugate others to the ego of Islamic and Progressive fundamentalists.
This discordance provides a pathway through the weapon of Islamophobia by simply arguing that any expressions of Islam that don’t align with “al-wasatiyyah” isn’t actually an expression of Islam at all but an ego-driven version that goes by the same name. Once a particular expression is shown not to be Islam then one can’t be accused of Islamophobia without explaining how a particular expression conforms to “al-wasatiyyah” and the perfection of oneself.
For example threatening to behead school teachers is not Islam since it is clearly not moderate and does not seek to perfect oneself. Similarly, how does the definition of Islamophobia convey moderation and self perfection if it seeks to encapsulate all forms of criticism and rational objections. That clearly isn’t moderate or self perfection but extremism since if a faith and the journey towards self perfection cannot withstand criticism and rational objections then it is not faith or self perfection at all but blind subservience to the ego of Islamic and Progressive fundamentalists.
In other words, if expressions of Islam aren’t predicated on the perfection of oneself in the attempt to emulate the Perfect God then it isn’t Islam and those faux Islamic expressions should be rightly criticised.
So instead of being fearful of Islam, let’s be the national gatekeepers of Islam and so if expressions or definitions don’t conform to the quest towards self perfection then let’s call them out for the heresies that they are.
There’s a sense of surprise in this article and when people comment about this how the establishment seems unable to see the “true nature” of the Islamists.
This entails a significant amount of myopia about the long history of mutually beneficial relations between the rulers of Anglosphere and Islamists. Perhaps it starts as early as the colonisation of India where Muslims are seen as the trustworthy minorities against the majority Hindus.
Going forward, following Churchill’s decision to move to using oil in the British navy, British Empire fights the Ottomans to acquire Arabic oil fields making great use of reviving ancient (as well as fabricated) Islamism when bringing back the Saudi dynasty in puritanical form that had never been seen before. This is of course all captured in the iconic movie Lawrence of Arabia (which includes a lot of romanticisation of what was actually happening needless to say).
Even Iran’s democratically elected (and much more mildly Islamic) regime is sabotaged by the establishment enabling the take over of the Islamic Republic – in a major strategic error that foreshadowed similar errors which happened in Iraq decades later.
Go forward a little more, and Zbigniew Brezinski (Kissinger’s lesser known counterpart) comes up with the plan to revive the, then dormant, Islamism across Asian countries such as Afghanistan to counter the Communist influence – which amongst other things seeds the creation of organisations like Al Qaeda.
So you see there’s more than a century of long fruitful collaboration between the British and American establishments and zealous Islamism, therefore no need to be very surprised at their reactions here.
“…they have all been shortlisted for Islamophobe of the Year awards by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), a British campaign and advocacy group …”
Perhaps it is time to enact legislation to deal with Anglophobia and to create an English Human Rights Commission?
This article illuminates the profoundly unpleasant nature of the expanding Islamic core at the heart of Western civilisation. It is deeply worrying and sinister in its implications for our future.
“If we are not to be Islamophobic, it seems we must defer to Islamists, to their interests and their interpretation of their religion as perfect. We must bow to Islamists’ authority to decide the boundary between right and wrong in relation to Islam.”
Quod erat demonstrandum!
I suggest you rewrite your piece and use Jewish instead if Islamic and see how similar it looks… What we know so far is that Islamic values have had zero effect on British govt. policy but Jewish (Zionist) values have made jenoc¡de acceptable as British foreign policy. Don’t you see how idiotic you case looks now?
Hmmm … that you resort to personal attack proves that you are not worth listening to. Bye bye!
“Britain will continue its weary progress into becoming an Islamic state in all but name.”
>> we’re already there. If anyone had burnt any other copy of book in Manchester a few weeks ago, nothing would have happened; but burning a copy of the Quran was a crime.
Invaluable analysis, Ben. Thank you.
I cannot understand why Islam is accepted in the West. It opposes our culture, our history, our lifestyle. It is a primitive religion without respect for people who choose other ways of living. The left should hate it, but they support it. Why? I would like to see the end of Islam in the West. It has no place here. If that makes me Islamophobic them so be it.
All of this presupposes that god or allah or anyone else actually exists and that religion is not just a means of controlling people and making a huge amount of money for the people at the top!!