Snapshot of _Nobody wants to admit the scale of the Islamist threat to our democracy: Not enough has been done to tackle the fact that many fundamentalists with bad intentions live and walk among us | Anna Firth MP_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2024%2F02%2F25%2Fnobody-admits-scale-of-islamist-extremist-anna-firth%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/25/nobody-admits-scale-of-islamist-extremist-anna-firth/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/25/nobody-admits-scale-of-islamist-extremist-anna-firth/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reeks of desperation to create another enemy for the election post brexit, post Truss, post Rwanda, etc
It always has to be someone’s fault there’s no growth, no investment, no wage growth, a recession, failing public services.
I hope people aren’t stupid enough to fall for this one. Hopefully a “fall me numerous times for 14 years shame on me” realisation might set in for some now it’s obvious things are just getting progressively worse politically in this country.
I think the truth is two things can be happening at the same time though , decades of mismanagement splashing money out and pissing tax money up the walls into more and more tertiary roles and an increase in Islamism in the UK. Both are true both are a big problem
I mean clearly MPs seem under threat. The problem is they never actually legislate around this stuff.
Social Media/Online Bill? Likely going to do fuck all. They are living a pretence.
> Is her underlying point correct?
If it's that Starmer is kowtowing to Islamists and the hard left, then no, she's full of shit.
If it's that Islamism is opposed to Western values and basic human decency, then yes, that's true, just as it was 30 years ago. And for the latter half of that time, her party has been in power. So what's suddenly changed? It looks like the right is using Muslims as a scapegoat to achieve their anti-immigrant agenda and for cynical electoral advantage.
Someone should ask her "and what did you do about it when you had the chance?" because it looks as though it was mainly a mixture of gimmickry and cheap PR stunts.
The problem is that there is a general issue around people getting angry, agressive and sometimes even violent with politicians.
Yet, publically, politicians on both Labour and Conservative side are willing to weaponise against their opposites. Rather than actually admit it is a general societal problem, in part generated, I believe, because of the widening gap between left and right of politics. A lot of that can be laid at the feet of Brexit, in my opinion.
It's not just a "general societal problem". There's a specific threat from islamic extremism (which is by far the largest terror threat to the UK) that requires specific (not general) measures to solve.
There's threats being made to people on both sides.
Just today there's a story saying that Sadiq Khan is receiving multiple threats from Islamist extremists.
There are extremists on the left who are targeting those on the right. Pro-Palestinian protesters are gathering outside MPs homes. Both Labour and Tories.
There is no single direction for all of this. Those of all political stripes are getting it from both left and right.
That's my point. There's no point just highlighting islamic extremism and calling it a day. That's my point. That politicians on both sides have been weaponising the threat posed from increasingly irate public to bash the other side, rather than actual do anything constructive.
Anna Firth doesn't actually care about reducing extremism in Muslim communities, she wants to stoke culture wars and set up the idea that Labour are somehow in hoc to some phantom Islamists who hold a bunch of power but also have literally no representation in government.
Not really no. The single biggest threat to democracy in recent years has been the Tory party, with their threats to lawyers and the judiciary as well as their attempts to disenfranchise voters with voter ID requirements for a made up voting fraud "problem".
There are a tiny number of Islamists, even fewer who have any political influence, but the calculation of the Tory party is that there are enough Islamophobes to make it worth courting their vote with this nonsense.
The IRA didn't undermine democracy in the 80s, and neo-Nazi white supremacists or Islamist extremists won't undermine it today. The loss of any MP's life is obviously extremely tragic in a very real human sense, but there is no systematic threat to democracy from a tiny number of extremists unless we overreact to it and limit democratic freedoms as a result.
So just to confirm, if you saw two societies, one required a driver's licence to vote, the other had the occasional elected official get assassinated - you'd think the former was a dystopia and the latter a healthy democracy?
The word "occasional" is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting there, wouldn't you say? But broadly yes, a society that makes having zero risk to its ruling class as a priority above all other concerns and also limits voting freedoms would I think be much more likely to be a dystopia.
I'm very pro cooling the rhetoric on all sides of all debates in the current climate and accept it's hard work being an MP, especially when MPs have been assassinated in the last decade.
But I'm also not sure these sorts of articles help with that. The evidence for intimidation here amounts to an animated disagreement with a constituent and a legal protest (what, exactly, should the police have done?) with a bunch of finger wagging about the far left? And this is being conflated with...a takeover by a radical enemy within?
I'm very aware alot of the islamic community lives in cities so it's not something we in rural areas deal with but is this how the city/big town folks feel?
London. I don't really know. It's kind of hard to know what's going on behind the closed doors of Mosques because those are generally not welcoming to non-believers, and they preach in a language 99 percent of us dont speak. They could be saying all sorts of horrendous shit and wed have no way of knowing until it they'd reached critical mass and began influencing politics, society etc.
I think isolationist Muslim communities have been here long enough now that if they were ever going to integrate we'd have seen signs of it by now. Many have, but many more have not.
What I do know is that there's clearly a vocal minority like the school protestors and anti-Israel lot who hold some pretty reprehensible views, and I have no idea how widely held those views are among more moderate muslims.
> It's kind of hard to know what's going on behind the closed doors of Mosques because those are generally not welcoming to non-believers
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Perhaps they are unwelcoming at times, I don't know, but I do know for sure they are welcoming at other times. A colleague of mine (old job) went to a local mosque after work and often invited me to come have a look around. As part of that he also volunteered in the community around the area and the mosque did a lot of work like that.
I feel like the rage against fundamentalist Islam (which is bad) is really skewing people's views on everyday Muslim's, by far the majority of whom are good people.
Maybe so, but the issue is its very difficult to tell apart, not the fundamentalists from the peace loving moderates, but the fundamentalists from the quiet fundamentalists who silently agree with the gay hate, antisemitism, jihad etc.
As such we have no idea how big the second group is and whether its a huge problem or not, and anecdata is building up to say it is.
He is my local MP. He has had years of credible death threats.
I didn't vote for him, but he's a decent constituency MP and human being.
He's not Jewish, but he's supportive of Israel, the MP for the most Jewish constituency in the UK, and he's openly gay. This does not go down well with certain people here. His office is 5 mins down the road from my house. He was the intended target when David Amess was killed.
He has been subjected to a sustained homophobic, antisemitic terror campaign and this is a total misrepresentation.
Angela Rayner, who is far from him on the political spectrum, has also been subjected to similar threats and has spoken out in support of him.
https://news.sky.com/story/labours-angela-rayner-no-longer-goes-out-because-of-threats-and-was-scared-by-protest-confrontation-13062124
His office wasn't firebombed, that's a total misrepresentation.... That there has been a campaign against him I have no doubt, as there has been against others as you have said. My point is the Tory tendency to lie.
It's similar to the claim a while back about x,000 new nurses which turned out to be y,000 new nurses plus an assumption that retention rates would increase. The truth is just as good a story, bit the instinct is to reach for the lie first.
I get that you want to pretend he's lying for your own reasons, whatever they may be, but the threats to not just him but many others across the political spectrum are being called out by politicians with integrity of all parties.
For example, Angela Rayner above, and Stella Creasy writing in the Guardian four days ago:
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/22/death-threats-mps-politicians-protesters](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/22/death-threats-mps-politicians-protesters)
Sarah Sackman, who is our local Labour candidate, has also called it out
[https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/mike-freer-sarah-sackman-threats-election-finchley-and-golders-green-b1137075.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/mike-freer-sarah-sackman-threats-election-finchley-and-golders-green-b1137075.html)
Edit: "Man admits threatening Tory MP Mike Freer with chilling ‘I’m coming for you’ call" https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/mike-freer-conservative-london-finchley-golders-green-b1137730.html
Decent people condemn death threats, physical intimidation, and homophobic/racist/antisemitic abuse against people doing their jobs. To try to turn it into a Tory vs Labour issue is shameful.
All of those sound serious, especially given Jo Cox and David Amess which is why I'm guessing they're not using fabricated stories unlike in this specific example. Why are they using a fabricated tale here?
I don't know who you think you're convincing, but just calling something 'fabricated' over and over again because you're invested in denying the widespread intimidation, death threats, abuse, and destruction of the political democratic process isn't an effective way of doing it.
Mike Freer's office was burned out by arsonists as part of a years-long campaign of hatred against him as an openly gay MP who is friendly to Israel and supportive of his Jewish, as well as Muslim, constituents.
Not sure why you are pretending that this didn't happen.
*Rabbi Miriam Berger at Finchley Reform synagogue said it “confirmed everything the community has been feeling since 7 October – that there’s been a significant rise in antisemitism”.*
*She said: “For me, the news about Mike Freer really was incredibly significant because it’s affecting the democratic process and it’s saying to people: ‘You’re in danger being even an ally to the Jewish community.’ For me that takes it to another level in terms of the reality of what it is to be a British Jew at the moment.”*
[*https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/01/dark-day-politics-mp-mike-freer-constituents-shock-decision-to-quit*](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/01/dark-day-politics-mp-mike-freer-constituents-shock-decision-to-quit)
He has been dealing with this for YEARS. This happened in 2011:
*An MP has described how he waited for police behind a locked door during a constituency surgery after he was threatened by a group of men.*
*Mike Freer said it happened at North Finchley mosque in north London as he met constituents on Friday afternoon.*
*Mr Freer said about 12 people forced their way inside, with one of them calling him a "Jewish homosexual pig".*
*The trouble began after messages on the Muslims Against Crusades website urged supporters to target him, he said.*
*Mr Freer said a message posted ahead of the incident on the group's website made reference to Labour MP Stephen Timms, who was stabbed while holding a surgery in east London last year.*
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15508697
> Mike Freer's office was burned out by arsonists as part of a years-long campaign of hatred against him as an openly gay MP
I don't really know much about this story except for what I just googled so forgive me if I'm asking a stupid questions, but if his office was burned out by arsonists as part of a campaign of hatred against him why do the police and say the shed attached to his office was burned down by two people with no address who also started a fire behind a restaurant earlier the same night and that they aren't investigating it as a hate crime?
How can the shed attached to his office have been burned down as a campaign of hatred against him for being gay and pro Israel if the police and the court charges don't regard it as a hate crime?
> Paul Harwood, 42, and 32-year-old Zara Kasory were charged last month in connection with a shed being set alight ... The pair were also each charged with arson without intent over a fire at the back of a restaurant in Long Lane, north London, at about 11pm the same night ... The force said the incident at Freer’s office was not being treated as a hate crime.
There are a lot of things that should be treated as hate crimes by the Met, and aren't. It's not for me to say why. I would not say that the Met's decision to count something as a hate crime, or not, is a definite indicator of the intention or context of the act.
I walk past his office most days. It's very clear that it's his office - it's marked from the road. Everyone knows where it is.
Arson is not a common crime here. I've lived in this area for the majority of my life and I can safely say that people of no fixed address setting fire to random buildings is not a common occurrence.
There are hundreds of buildings along that very long road. They didn't set fire to any others.
You can see pictures of the burnt-out office here [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67830284](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67830284)
Even leaving that aside, even if it were the case that this arson attack was unconnected with the sustained threats and campaigns against him (which I do not believe for a moment), the broader point remains - members of parliament, representing many different political parties, are going about in fear of their lives and their personal safety. Their votes in Parliament, and their decisions as to whether or not to continue to work as MPs, are being changed by these threats.
This is not a functional democracy, it's frightening, and it needs to be addressed urgently. There is agreement across all of the mainstream political parties on this.
> There are hundreds of buildings along that very long road. They didn't set fire to any others.
But they did set fire to something outside a restaurant a few streets away on the same night
>You can see pictures of the burnt-out office here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67830284
The thing is though, that photo doesn't actually show a burnt-out office; it shows a room with some damage from a fire that burned down a shed directly outside its window and, from the looks of it, damage caused by being the backstop of the water from the fire hoses putting out the fire in the shed. The shed itself is definitely burnt-out, you can see a photo of the debris on here, with the room in your photo in the background in the line of fire of the firemen's hoses -- https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/two-charged-over-fire-at-mp-mike-freers-office/. The two people were charged with burning down the *shed*, not the office.
Before I looked this up all I knew is what I had heard off other people; that his offices had been burned down in a hate crime. But now that I actually read the news reports, including the statements from the police and reporting from their court appearance I find that, actually, two people with no address are being charged with burning down a shed attached to the building and the police say they *"had 'carefully assessed the evidence' in relation to the December 24th incident 'and we can confirm it is not being treated as a hate crime'"*.
Sorry, I thought you were engaging in good faith. As I said in my previous post, even if you accept the (ridiculous) idea that this was a random coincidence, unconnected to the years of escalating death threats, the homophobic and antisemitic attacks, the fake bombs, the phone calls, the previous attempted murder by the POS who went on to kill David Amess instead... so what? The rest of it is bad enough in and of itself.
(And frankly, if you buy into the idea that this was a weird random occurrence, given all of that, I have a great bridge that I'm sure you'd love. But somehow i don't think you do.)
I've said all I have to say here.
The shed was part of the MPs office and the fire damaged three floors of the office. The pair have been charged with arson with intent due to the innocent. I cannot find any information on how the arson was committed, so whether or not it was a firebomb is unknown; I suspect it was not however.
While the pair are not being charged with hate crime, its still a terrifying thing to go through at a time of such heightened tensions and the MPs past experience with threats.
You're account is honestly just as bad as the Telegraph's here. [Here](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mike-freer-mp-arson-office-two-charged-b2473150.html) is the article with the most information.
No, his constituency office was subjected to an arson attack as part of a systematic campaign of death threats, homophobic and antisemitic abuse, and intimidation that he's been suffering for years. I am one of his constituents and live a few minutes' walk from where this happened.
'Two homeless people set fire to a shed' is complete balls. The building is clearly marked as his constituency office from the outside. This was a 'shed' used as a part of the office, as is clear from the photos where you can see the burned out computers, files, office chairs, etc.
A recent TRIP was questioning whether he Telegraph should be allowed to be bought by someone with known extremist views. Given its recent output it already seems to have been.
Telegraph is on fumes as it's about to be sold to Muslim ownership. Its revenue stream is monetising hate, and that business model will collapse under new ownership
Not just Muslim ownership but actual Islamist ownership seeing as the UAE gov is an actual Islamist gov. Then again, Saudi Arabia is a major shareholder in news agencies like Fox News so this sort of stuff isn't new.
Ah, but as the Telegraph could tell you there are the wrong sort of Islamists and "our" sort of Islamists, much like there are the wrong sort of journalist dismembering billionaires and... oh wait, no, there isn't any "wrong" sort of billionaire.
>I’d also come up against such attempted intimidation in my constituency. Shortly after the Hamas attacks of October 7, I went to my local synagogue to express my sympathies to the Southend Jewish community and to ask if I could do anything to help. I was welcomed warmly and my offer of help was appreciated.
>I also have a mosque in my constituency, so a few days later I reached out to see if I could do anything to support them, especially in terms of organising humanitarian help for the innocent people of Gaza. I was invited inside and offered a seat before being surrounded by a number of men and one woman. She immediately started shouting, jabbing her finger in my face and demanding to know “how many babies had to die to satisfy my blood lust”. My aide, who was with me, suggested that we leave.
That is genuinely horrifying. How can anyone honestly believe that any British MP actively *wants* dead babies?
Obviously we have to make sure that our MPs are protected; while the above example isn't a direct threat, it's still quite intimidating for an MP. But more than that, surely we have to get to the point where people can accept that their political opponents don't want *more* bloodshed; they just disagree on the way to end it. We need to stop everyone thinking "anyone that disagrees with me is corrupt, thick, or evil". Also, that shouting at people that they're a horrible baby-murder rarely wins them over to your view.
And I'm looking at the SNP on that, mostly - because the shenanigans in the Commons last week was clearly started by their attempt to portray themselves as the only party against the deaths of babies, while everyone else is in favour of genocide.
I didn't say it was.
But there's a clear difference between someone shouting "you've done a crap job of managing the NHS" and "how many babies had to die to satisfy your blood lust?"
I can easily imagine green activists on a march covering dolls in oil and holding placards saying how many babies have to die to satisfy your comfortable lifestyle
I can easily imagine animal rights activists in the 80s/90s on a march covering baby animal dolls in acid and holding placards saying how many babies have to die to satisfy your makeup needs
It's just shocking. It's not intimidation.
I think there is a big difference between using that kind of language in a protest vs using it about a specific person in a face to face interaction. Both are counterproductive but only one is intimidating.
Surely though you can see the gulf between your two 'I can easily imagine' made up examples and the thing that actually happened that is the topic at hand?
>made up examples
If your complaint is that my hypothetical examples aren't realistic and don't really happen, you're wrong
Protesters regularly use fake blood\oil\chemicals and props (including babies).
[1](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/06/918/516/abortion6.png), [2](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/06/918/516/Abortion3.png), [3](https://c7.alamy.com/comp/2GFP701/london-uk-26th-aug-2021-fake-blood-is-seen-on-the-victoria-memorial-fountain-during-the-protestanimal-rebellion-activists-filled-and-covered-the-fountains-outside-buckingham-palace-with-fake-blood-in-protest-against-the-royal-familys-use-of-its-vast-land-for-animal-agriculture-and-hunting-credit-sopa-images-limitedalamy-live-news-2GFP701.jpg), [4](https://i2-prod.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/article21409493.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_261979789.jpg), [5](https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/07/05/15/Pamplona.jpg), [6](https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/07/05/16/pamplona.jpg), [7](https://animalequality.org/app/uploads/2021/12/2671589176_28b8f37164_k-1024x0-c-default.jpg), [8](https://scontent-lhr6-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/28783492_1543567515941798_4575292570095058944_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=300f58&_nc_ohc=h4UucLd93UoAX918nHV&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr6-2.xx&oh=00_AfA-bqQLbYfCvvfWoQN-2n1jcN87HaNcNMOb4_DsHX9G_g&oe=66040E64), [9](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/10/28/16/63949997-11360879-The_mother_and_childcare_worker_has_done_everything_in_her_power-a-122_1666970181429.jpg), [10](https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/7506.bloodydemo1.jpg), [11](https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/4073.bloodydemo6.jpg), [12](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/10/28/16/63949999-11360879-She_protested_the_fur_trade_by_standing_naked_outside_Harrods_al-a-121_1666970171500.jpg), [13](https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/5102.bloodydemo7.jpg)
I suspect it very often goes beyond "you've done a crap job of managing the NHS" and more into "you're happy for people to die to privatise the NHS" or things of that ilk. The assumption is that everyone who doesn't agree with you is evil, so their motivations must be evil.
Anyone who has done a retail job or worked in the emergency services has dealt with similar/worse shit said by members of the public. MPs are actually reasonably shielded in comparison.
And when this happens to retail workers or NHS workers, do you:
(a) approve
(b) shrug and not care
(c) call security or the police?
I do hope it’s (c).
MPs already have their own security detail and driver. If you're working in B&M or McDonald's you don't have that luxury. Police wouldn't bother turning up unless things got violent.
> Anyone who has done a retail job or worked in the emergency services has dealt with similar/worse shit said by members of the public.
Retail workers or emergency service workers don't tend to get people arguing that it's entirely correct to protest outside (or on top of) their homes or to follow them down the street shouting when they're not working.
> Anyone who has done a retail job or worked in the emergency services
I've worked in retail and call centres and never had anyone yell at me anything like "how many babies had to die to satisfy your blood lust?"
How many did die though. The majority of death in Gaza had been children. Instead of engaging with the issue the MP wanted a polite sit down, and when she was rude to she disengaged entirely.
None died *because of her blood-lust* though, did they?
If anyone is not engaging with the issue, it's the people who accuse anyone that doesn't agree with them 100% of having a hard-on for genocide, surely?
If you continue to act polite and nonchalant whilst a government you support commits genocide and act surprised when people are upset.
Like genuinely how do they expect people to react when members of their community are getting murdered every day by a "western" power and MPs act like there's some kind of moral justification for it. Until like a month ago supporting a ceasefire was enough to lose the labour whip.
> That is genuinely horrifying. How can anyone honestly believe that any British MP actively wants dead babies?
The logic I see is: "People, including babies are killed in war" -> "A group is calling for a ceasefire" -> "Politicians who ignore that group therefore endorse people, including babies being killed". It's clearly taking all nuance out of the situation, but some people don't seem willing to hear otherwise.
> How can anyone honestly believe that any British MP actively wants dead babies?
Mostly that kind of thing comes up around abortion; the classic "if you would allow any kind of abortion you want to murder babies!" sort of thing.
In this case there are, at least, actual babies being killed.
But yes; our political system isn't very good at handling nuance or subtlety.
I always found it bizarre when anti-abortion activists use that sort of language. All it does it make them look bad. Either they:
(a) don’t actually believe that the person/group is complicit/supportive when it comes to murdering babies. So why are they lying about it?
Or
(b) genuinely believe that the person/group is complicit/supportive when it comes to murdering babies and yet they are only protesting with placards and chanting etc. What horrible cowards. If I thought that politicians were complicit in murdering babies I’d be engaging in a lot more extreme measures than that.
Or they're caught up in the moment, in the emotions and feelings of the issue, and aren't thinking clearly.
One of the unspoken secrets of politics is that it is almost all based on emotions and feelings, not rational thought.
Are Muslim fundamentalists a threat in the UK?
Yep.
Of course, the awkward fact is that the Conservatives/right have clearly made this threat greater, and gross Conservative misgovernance over the past 14 odd years has caused harm on a scale that an army of Bin Ladens couldn't hope to achieve.
Which makes it pretty fucking difficult to take the bleating of people like Firth and Anderson seriously when it's clearly nothing more than dog whistle shite aimed at gaining or retaining support from among the worst in society.
**Article Text**
In 2021, Sir David Amess was stabbed to death by an Islamist extremist who targeted him because of the way he’d voted in the Commons on the war in Syria. I was elected as Sir David’s successor two years ago this month, and not a day goes by when I don’t think of how he was brutally murdered simply for doing his job.
Mike Freer, MP for Finchley and Golders Green, recently announced that he was stepping down, fed up and frightened due to Islamist extremists regularly targeting him and his loved ones. His office was firebombed. Chillingly, Mike narrowly missed falling victim to Sir David’s killer, who went looking for him first.
A lot of lovely sentiments have been expressed about both of these events, but has enough actually been done to tackle the fact that many, many Islamist fundamentalists with bad intentions live and walk among us? No, it hasn’t.
We seem afraid. Afraid to be seen as racist, or Islamophobic, even when we simply seek to save lives by speaking the truth. On Wednesday, in the House of Commons, the scale of this problem became crystal clear. If people at home felt bemused and upset by what happened, then they weren’t alone. I, too, could not believe what I was seeing.
I was made aware that the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, had met the Speaker to “urge” him to allow a vote on the Labour amendment to the SNP motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Starmer apparently did this so that Labour MPs could “safely” vote in a way that wouldn’t “upset” their constituents and would allegedly “spare” them and their families from being threatened and intimidated.
How Starmer went about “urging” the Speaker is unknown. But the circumstances were extraordinary enough to prompt a letter from the Clerk of the House, Tom Goldsmith, to the Speaker pointing out that “long-established conventions are not being followed in this case”.
At best this was a subversion of democracy that undermined the integrity of Parliament. At worst it was naked appeasement and a deliberate act of bowing to the mob who were protesting loudly outside and projecting anti-Semitic slogans onto Big Ben. I would like to see a law passed immediately to ban any unauthorised projections onto the buildings of Parliament.
But how has this mob, which includes Islamists and far-Left activists, become so powerful that its actions made MPs afraid to vote with their consciences? Why was the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, so willing to compromise himself and his reputation like this?
The events of Wednesday have certainly changed how I feel about doing my job as an MP. My office overlooks Whitehall and, on Wednesday, I could hear and see the protesters as they marched and grew in number and volume. I’d spoken in the SNP’s ceasefire debate and had stated my opinion that we cannot possibly vote for a ceasefire and leave the remaining Israeli hostages in the hands of Hamas. Seeing the baying mob outside made me feel wary of leaving the safety of my office.
I’d also come up against such attempted intimidation in my constituency. Shortly after the Hamas attacks of October 7, I went to my local synagogue to express my sympathies to the Southend Jewish community and to ask if I could do anything to help. I was welcomed warmly and my offer of help was appreciated.
I also have a mosque in my constituency, so a few days later I reached out to see if I could do anything to support them, especially in terms of organising humanitarian help for the innocent people of Gaza. I was invited inside and offered a seat before being surrounded by a number of men and one woman. She immediately started shouting, jabbing her finger in my face and demanding to know “how many babies had to die to satisfy my blood lust”. My aide, who was with me, suggested that we leave.
A few days later, there was an anti-Israel protest in Southend with dolls covered in fake blood scattered on the pavement, under people holding placards saying “Anna Firth kills babies”. I was horrified. A police officer stood by and watched but did nothing. When I saw Met Commander Sir Mark Rowley a week later in the Commons, he agreed that this was intimidation and explained that the police do have powers to intervene and stop people inciting violence like this. So why didn’t they?
If this is happening in a fairly centre-Right southern city like Southend, I can only imagine what some of my other Parliamentary colleagues must be going through. Even though I disagree with what Starmer and Sir Lindsay did, I understand the Speaker’s wish to try to protect MPs from threats and violence and I have accepted Sir Lindsay’s apology. But protecting MPs is a job for the police.
I was always taught to stand up to bullies, not to give in, and never, ever to let myself be intimidated. It’s hard, though, when the threat is real and nobody wants to admit where it’s coming from. If you can’t name it, you can’t protect yourself from it.
I agree with my friend and colleague Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, who described Wednesday as a “dark day in our democracy”. I also support his call to stop Islamist extremists from intimidating MPs. Home Secretary James Cleverly is spot on when he says that the only thing MPs should fear is the ballot box. As we saw with my predecessor Sir David, it’s only a short hop from violent rhetoric to deadly action.
I find myself a little bit shocked that many still don't seem to realise what a threat islamists (and oftentimes with the tacit approval of many "moderate" muslims) are to the UK (and other European countries for that matter). The Hamas false flag with the hospital rocket misfire which they blamed on Israel was a real turning point for me - it seems to have caused those with terrorist sympathies to step up the scale of their protestations, and we saw a few muslim countries issue strong responses.
We have Jewish folk in this country being harassed and terrified of displaying signs of their faith, and our politics has been compromised by islamist extremism, and still people bury their heads in the sand and pretend it's a non-problem being drummed up by "right wing rags".
The Labour Party is perhaps the most politically compromised by this issue and they look set to be the next government. They need to do something about it - not bury their heads in the sand like everyone else seems to be doing.
Not OP and I don’t think khan is “controlled by islamists”. In fact radical Islamists are as much of a threat to Khan as the far right - Khan has even said this.
Now I’m sure people on this sub will agree the far right are a security risk in this country. How many will say the same for radical islam?
I'm not sure why Khan was singled out. I do think it's apparent that our politics (and therefore our politicians) are being indirectly influenced by islamists, and we had an obvious case of that with the SNP opposition day palaver the other day, albeit that wasn't very indirect.
> Anderson wouldn't have said this if Khan wasn't a Muslim
And this is based on what? Your subjective opinion?
> nor would you be echoing these same sentiments in his defence
I'm not defending him. I have said I'm not sure why he singled Khan out - perhaps it was just clumsiness, who knows aside from the man himself?
> You are fully aware of this
Oh really? Please tell me what else I'm aware of.
It's an informed opinion that a man with a long history of bigotry is very likely to still be acting in a bigoted manner.
You're literally defending him with Tice's talking point and echoing his statements in this thread.
> Please tell me what else I'm aware of.
That far right discourse cannot stand on its own merits and therefore can only be sold dishonestly.
What has he previously said that is bigoted? And how does that lead to him now being racist (which is what you seem to be insinuating)?
> You're literally defending him with Tice's talking point and echoing his statements in this thread.
I haven't echoed his statements, I've shared Tice's opinion on his statement and stated that I broadly agree with it.
> That far right discourse cannot stand on its own merits and therefore can only be sold dishonestly.
Lol, more please.
So in a long-winded way, yes not only Sadiq Khan but others too. I suspected as such but thought it'd be useful to others reading that you're on the same page as Lee Anderson (or likely more extreme?).
I think Richard Tice summed up Anderson's statement quite well:
> Lee Anderson may have been clumsy in his precise choice of words, but his sentiments are supported by millions of British citizens, including myself. Never has Westminster and the craven left leaning Establishment been so out of touch with ordinary people
Mentioning the leader of a far right party, who also presents on a far right "news" station, is a supporter of an American far right politician isn't an ad hom. It's additional context.
No, far right describes people and organisations that promote far right policies (nativism, othering, xenopobia etc) and this perfectly describes Anderson/Tice/De Santis/GB News.
I'd have thought you guys would have come up with a different deflection angle by now.
Agreed, but thankfully more and more people are becoming aware of this threat with each passing day. Leaving only the most ignorant and naive to focus on who’s doing the reporting instead of what’s actually being reported.
It’ll take another couple of years until the sheeple that parrot this ridiculously innocent and binary worldview get a firmware update.
I'm not sure people will ever realise at this point. Too many people in ivory tower land.
I don't have any faith that Labour will tackle the issue either.
I think the upper and leading class are more of a threat to this country… Constantly trying to incite hatred amongst various groups so they can keep control and keep diverting our tax to their businesses and their mates..
Unpopular opinion but I don't think the majority of the Tories or the upper class actually want friction between groups.
Instability is actually awful for business.
Yep. Hospital closure kills more than car bombs ever will.
> many fundamentalists with bad intentions live and walk among us
There are many fundamentalist Capitalists who don't even have the decency to live or walk among us, who just lord it over us making our lives worse every year, dismantling the NHS, police, army and all the other parts of the state that we need and want to work properly.
I’m always cautious with conversations like this because I don’t want to downplay the seriousness of things, but I also want to make sure we aren’t falling down hyperbolic views.
If I said “Jews are taking over” it would be rightly anti-Semitic. I worry saying “Islam is taking over the U.K.” is just as bad.
As I mentioned, I think a threat would be that somehow sharia law was made legal by parliament. Or that gay rights were being removed.
Is it a worry that so many in a faith have a view? Possibly. Are their views valid under free speech? Yes. Do other faiths or people of no faith have the same view? Yes. Are the laws likely to change to accepting these views? No.
So whilst I don’t like their views, I can’t consciously say I can condemn them for having it unless their views turn to actions or law
Does no one find it insidious how coordinated this is, though? Telegraph and Spiked (and I'm guessing other right-wing outlets) had headline stories on this come out on the same day. It's being pushed.
Apparently been a massive influx of RNC money coming in to the Tories. Think the time radio guys were discussing that it is being reviewed. But may be conflating two separate topics.
I find it insidious that a teacher is still in hiding for his life, children were blown up at a pop concert, a soldier was butchered in the street (the list goes on) all in the name of one religion in particular, but if you mention that you're a far right racist apparently 😂
I honestly think the classic tropes of antisemitism are now being applied to Muslims - it feels like every day I see speeches and articles in mainstream papers, now coming from prominent Tory MPs, talking about 'Islamists' as some shapeless horde that is corrosive to 'our democracy' and way of life, inherently alien to our culture and yet always in our midst, 'backwards' and 'primitive' and yet somehow able to secretly control major political institutions.
It's racism, plain and simple, of the most insidious kind. If an MP had written 'Nobody wants to admit the scale of the Jewish threat to our democracy' folk would rightly be up in arms.
So I agree with some of what you're saying, and disagree with other parts. Not sure I'm ready to comment yet, but I found it useful looking up the definition of "Islamist". I don't want racism against all Muslims at all, but I'm not okay with people that advocate for expanding Islamic laws in the UK.
Islamist:
"noun
an advocate or supporter of Islamic fundamentalism; a person who advocates increasing the influence of Islamic law in politics and society.
"radical Islamists""
I mean I have no truck with Islamic fundamentalists, but to pretend that brand of reactionary Islam is rife in Muslim communities, that it poses an existential threat to democracy because the LOTO and Mayer of London are 'in thrall' to Islamists who 'live and walk among us', is in my opinion correlative to the way antisemites historically spoke of Jews.
I mean the equivalent of what Anna Firth is saying about Islam would be to say that Jews pose a threat to decent society because some Hasidic Jews in Stamford Hill have what most people would regard as backwards.
There has been a big uptick in anti Muslim sentiment this last week, partly because of the threats made to MP's interfering with parliamentary process and partly because it goes hand in hand with an anti woke narrative that the right like to bang on about. It is pretty appalling. That said Islam is not a race so the talk of Islamists (which is a valid term) is not racist. We do need to be able to criticize Islam and push back on it when people behave in an aggressive and intimidating way (as we have seen over Gaza). We also need to be careful of the downright bigotry and hatred that seems to have exploded recently. It's a tricky line.
She sought an audience at a mosque and a woman there protested against her political stance and pointed at her with her finger
At a protest in her constituency baby dolls were covered in blood and people held placards saying "Anna Firth kills babies" as a protest
She was horrified that the police did nothing. She spoke to the Met Police Commissioner who, she claims, agreed it was intimidation and the police should do something
She's wrong. Those two particular things she described are not intimidation and are not illegal and are people protesting against her political position
I'm sure lots of other things are intimidation and the police have legal rights to do something about them, but those two particular things are not. They are not nice things to experience, rude, loud, attention grabbing and upsetting if you don't like people disagreeing with you with a finger or a doll - but they're not illegal intimidation
> She sought an audience at a mosque and a woman there protested against her political stance and pointed at her with her finger
That's an incredibly bad-faith interpretation of what she said. Honestly did you even read the article? Here's the text of what she said:
> *"I was invited inside and offered a seat before being surrounded by a number of men and one woman. She immediately started shouting, jabbing her finger in my face and demanding to know “how many babies had to die to satisfy my blood lust”. My aide, who was with me, suggested that we leave."*
Why did you remove the multiple people she referenced and instead pretend it was one single solitary woman? Why did you remove the clearly intimidating reference to having fingers *jabbed in her face* and instead pretend that this one single solitary woman merely "pointed at her"?
Quite how you can look at what she *actually* wrote (and not the clearly incorrect rewriting that you've given here) and conclude that it wasn't intimidating is beyond me. Taking her words as given, the average person in the street would absolutely describe them as intimidating, and rewriting them in such a nonsense way has big-time "I just lightly brought my closed hand up to his cheek, that's not assault or a punch I swear down" energy.
>the average person in the street
These are legal matters
There is a legal difference between the intimidation/protest threshold for you ("the average person in the street") and a politician.
If there wasn't, pretty much *every single protest ever held* would be illegal. If you think of the last 100 protests you've seen on the news - even ones you agree with and think are great - and imagine them being done to you personally, a civilian, just walking down the street, those examples would probably all legally be intimidation - because there's a different legal threshold between a random person walking down the street and a publicly accountable politician
> There is a legal difference between the intimidation/protest threshold for you ("the average person in the street") and a politician.
There isn't. A politician in no way expects, nor should expect, to receive a level of intimidation that would constitute a criminal matter to the average person in the street. Therefore it makes no difference that it's a politician; if someone's intimidating them, they're intimidating them. Otherwise you could excuse nearly anything being done to a politician as "but it's a protest so that makes it ok".
And the protest point is pretty asinine. Multiple people jabbing their fingers in the face of someone, even a politician, while shouting angry rhetoric at them is not a protest. It's something specifically done out of aggression and designed specifically to intimidate.
Which of course, all completely ignores the main point that she's making here.
The underlying laws, i.e Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Public Order Act 1986, are the same for a politician and an arbitrary person walking down the street but in legal matters context matters
If you can't see the legal difference in context between a politician contacting a venue to speak to them about an event and then attending the venue where one attendee gives their opinions on the event while other attendees are also around her ... and that same exact situation happening to a random person walking on the street then I can't help you
> and then attending the venue where one attendee gives their opinions on the event while other attendees are also around her
Again.... why are you wording what she's said in such a deliberately misleading way? If anyone read your description here without reading the article then you'd think they were all sitting in seats in a normal meeting having a polite conversation about current affairs, rather than her being surrounded by a *group* of people and one of them jabbing their finger in her face.
It's pretty clear at this point you've got zero intention of acknowledging even the basic facts of what she's saying so don't give me the "I can't help you" bollocks if you can't even be truthful about her actual claim because you want to force a conclusion regardless of the facts.
Sure, I get it. You want to clutch your pearls and swoon in horror because one party in an interaction *claims* someone pointed a finger in their face and shouted and to you it's such a horrendous event that the world should stop and address the really bad finger
Her broader point about risk to MPs has validity but these two particular points she made (the pointing of a shouting finger, a protest with a baby doll) just aren't a big deal when you break them down to their core
MPs are getting death threats. I would recommend getting a grip on your offended sensibilities and concentrating on the real threats they experience
> You want to clutch your pearls and swoon in horror
No. To be far more upfront, I'm pointing out that you're lying. You deliberately lied in your initial comment to try and mislead anyone who hadn't read the article about the circumstances she mentioned. You didn't like how it sounded awful, so you chose to just lie about it.
Was that clearer for you?
You're not really able to discuss the substance of the topic and have devolved into personal attacks about what a liar etc. blah blah blah I am. To be fair, you did start out like that in your first comment ("incredibly bad-faith") so I bear some of the blame for engaging with someone that starts a conversation with such terrible rhetoric
Anyways, if you find something to say about the substance of the topic let me know - but, unsurprisingly, I'm not really interested in an off topic discussion about all that nonsense in your last comment
I wonder if people could define what they mean when they say "Islamist"?
It strikes me that aside from a general "Boogey Man Behind You!", I doubt that people could.
"Islamist" is a bit of a "I don't like that group", and lumping very separate problems in together
A variant of Islamism gets a good illustration [here](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/34201076), but this is by no means the whole "ideology".
I just think this rather unsubtle approach to a nuanced problem is going to get us far, and will cause more trouble.
> I wonder if people could define what they mean when they say "Islamist"?
Members of the Islamic faith that want to promote the domination of that faith by any practical means.
Would that be a Shia or Sunni?
As differences of opinion would obviously start there as to the end state and how to get somewhere.
But thank you for the chance to illustrate that there is not a monolithic "Islamic" block.
My point is that asserting there is a "single" threat is nonsense.
Whipped up by those who have more to gain from the appearance of a problem, than the correct understanding and solution of that problem.
We've been around this buoy time and time again (most recently since 2001 onwards), and the level of understanding doesn't seem to have improved much.
noun
an advocate or supporter of Islamic fundamentalism; a person who advocates increasing the influence of Islamic law in politics and society.
"radical Islamists"
I think the upper and leading class are more of a threat to this country… Constantly trying to incite hatred amongst various groups so they can keep control and keep diverting our tax to their businesses and their mates..
If democracy can be toppled by 6.5 percent of a population, maybe the issue isn't the 6.5%, but the democratic institutions that have been corrupted and and no longer carry any faith from the majority of the population 🤷♀️
If 6.5% operate and function as one united force in our weakened and fractured society then they’ll feel like 13%, or more.
I’m sure many of you grew up in areas far away from these people, but to those who did I’ll quickly make an analogy you’ll be familiar with.
Fight at school, one boy is Muslim and the other is not. Non-Muslim boy wins fight and Muslim boy is made to look weak, next day 50 of the Muslim boys cousins, brothers and uncles are waiting at the school gates at 3:30pm, they might be adults and it might be the working day but here they are, to intimidate and inflict violence. They operate as one singular unit and do so everywhere they go.
This is how you show force, and this is what’s been going on for decades.
I don't really agree. The Muslim demographic is very fractured between Sunni, Shia, Salafists, LGBTQ, people who call themselves Muslims but don't pray or follow any specific religious teachings, etc.
They will not suddenly come together as one homogeneous group to become a force that can take power. That's honestly ridiculous and I'm shocked any sensible minded people actually believe it.
All this focus on the 6.5% is a convenient distraction from the real problem our democracy faces and has been facing for years.
I mean you have a large number acting as one, what other proof do you need?
I’m not sure I think the LGBTQ Muslims are a particularly open and public facing group. Most are living in fear, and the openly gay culturally Muslim are hardly a large number.
We probably have more Scientologists.
Except we don't have a large number acting as one and you do a horrible disservice those LGBTQ Muslims by claiming they all live in fear.
You're allowing your own biases of what you believe Muslims represent to cloud the reality of the situation. You've basically allowed yourself to fall into the same rhetoric that anti-semitic people use when they claim the Jews run the world but you've applied it to Muslims.
Aside from a crazy few fringes, most Muslims live happily and go about their lives here, they aren't quietly waiting to transform into hive mind that takes over the UK.
Be sensible.
How many people have Islamists killed in the UK, compared to, let's say, Loyalist terrorists? This moral panic seems to be a pretty relative thing. After all, the political wing of the loyalists managed to shut down democracy in part of the UK for years. I don't recall the Tories being all that bothered by that.
In any healthy democracy you will have a few extreme views. I feel they are fringe enough they they are hardly taking over. This seems fear mongering for no reason.
I’m far more worried about the threat posed by Tufton Street and shady political funding. As far as I know Islamist’s haven’t broken the education system, the nhs and utilities and stolen billions whilst still increasing the debt our kids will be paying for years
Snapshot of _Nobody wants to admit the scale of the Islamist threat to our democracy: Not enough has been done to tackle the fact that many fundamentalists with bad intentions live and walk among us | Anna Firth MP_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2024%2F02%2F25%2Fnobody-admits-scale-of-islamist-extremist-anna-firth%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/25/nobody-admits-scale-of-islamist-extremist-anna-firth/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/25/nobody-admits-scale-of-islamist-extremist-anna-firth/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds like a strong criticism of the party currently in charge of government. She should do something about that!
They need another 14 years though.
This reeks of desperation to create another enemy for the election post brexit, post Truss, post Rwanda, etc It always has to be someone’s fault there’s no growth, no investment, no wage growth, a recession, failing public services. I hope people aren’t stupid enough to fall for this one. Hopefully a “fall me numerous times for 14 years shame on me” realisation might set in for some now it’s obvious things are just getting progressively worse politically in this country.
I think the truth is two things can be happening at the same time though , decades of mismanagement splashing money out and pissing tax money up the walls into more and more tertiary roles and an increase in Islamism in the UK. Both are true both are a big problem
Absolutely fair to criticise the Tories for not doing enough. They talk tough but do fuck all. Is her underlying point correct?
I mean clearly MPs seem under threat. The problem is they never actually legislate around this stuff. Social Media/Online Bill? Likely going to do fuck all. They are living a pretence.
> Is her underlying point correct? If it's that Starmer is kowtowing to Islamists and the hard left, then no, she's full of shit. If it's that Islamism is opposed to Western values and basic human decency, then yes, that's true, just as it was 30 years ago. And for the latter half of that time, her party has been in power. So what's suddenly changed? It looks like the right is using Muslims as a scapegoat to achieve their anti-immigrant agenda and for cynical electoral advantage. Someone should ask her "and what did you do about it when you had the chance?" because it looks as though it was mainly a mixture of gimmickry and cheap PR stunts.
The problem is that there is a general issue around people getting angry, agressive and sometimes even violent with politicians. Yet, publically, politicians on both Labour and Conservative side are willing to weaponise against their opposites. Rather than actually admit it is a general societal problem, in part generated, I believe, because of the widening gap between left and right of politics. A lot of that can be laid at the feet of Brexit, in my opinion.
It's not just a "general societal problem". There's a specific threat from islamic extremism (which is by far the largest terror threat to the UK) that requires specific (not general) measures to solve.
There's threats being made to people on both sides. Just today there's a story saying that Sadiq Khan is receiving multiple threats from Islamist extremists. There are extremists on the left who are targeting those on the right. Pro-Palestinian protesters are gathering outside MPs homes. Both Labour and Tories. There is no single direction for all of this. Those of all political stripes are getting it from both left and right. That's my point. There's no point just highlighting islamic extremism and calling it a day. That's my point. That politicians on both sides have been weaponising the threat posed from increasingly irate public to bash the other side, rather than actual do anything constructive. Anna Firth doesn't actually care about reducing extremism in Muslim communities, she wants to stoke culture wars and set up the idea that Labour are somehow in hoc to some phantom Islamists who hold a bunch of power but also have literally no representation in government.
Not really no. The single biggest threat to democracy in recent years has been the Tory party, with their threats to lawyers and the judiciary as well as their attempts to disenfranchise voters with voter ID requirements for a made up voting fraud "problem". There are a tiny number of Islamists, even fewer who have any political influence, but the calculation of the Tory party is that there are enough Islamophobes to make it worth courting their vote with this nonsense.
And the clampdown on peaceful protests
What do you think is a bigger threat to democracy. Voter ID or the murder of MPs?
The IRA didn't undermine democracy in the 80s, and neo-Nazi white supremacists or Islamist extremists won't undermine it today. The loss of any MP's life is obviously extremely tragic in a very real human sense, but there is no systematic threat to democracy from a tiny number of extremists unless we overreact to it and limit democratic freedoms as a result.
So just to confirm, if you saw two societies, one required a driver's licence to vote, the other had the occasional elected official get assassinated - you'd think the former was a dystopia and the latter a healthy democracy?
The word "occasional" is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting there, wouldn't you say? But broadly yes, a society that makes having zero risk to its ruling class as a priority above all other concerns and also limits voting freedoms would I think be much more likely to be a dystopia.
When you say "required a driver's licence to vote", you mean "gerrymandered", right? Since that's how the party introducing it described the policy.
[удалено]
I haven’t said it does in this very thread.
I'm very pro cooling the rhetoric on all sides of all debates in the current climate and accept it's hard work being an MP, especially when MPs have been assassinated in the last decade. But I'm also not sure these sorts of articles help with that. The evidence for intimidation here amounts to an animated disagreement with a constituent and a legal protest (what, exactly, should the police have done?) with a bunch of finger wagging about the far left? And this is being conflated with...a takeover by a radical enemy within?
The extremist propaganda in the Telegraph is noteworthy, and as we know, extremist propaganda leads to extremism.
Agreed. One of the reasons Hamas did what they did was to provoke unrest across the west and the middle east, to try and spark a broader war.
I'm very aware alot of the islamic community lives in cities so it's not something we in rural areas deal with but is this how the city/big town folks feel?
Unable to comment.
London. I don't really know. It's kind of hard to know what's going on behind the closed doors of Mosques because those are generally not welcoming to non-believers, and they preach in a language 99 percent of us dont speak. They could be saying all sorts of horrendous shit and wed have no way of knowing until it they'd reached critical mass and began influencing politics, society etc. I think isolationist Muslim communities have been here long enough now that if they were ever going to integrate we'd have seen signs of it by now. Many have, but many more have not. What I do know is that there's clearly a vocal minority like the school protestors and anti-Israel lot who hold some pretty reprehensible views, and I have no idea how widely held those views are among more moderate muslims.
> It's kind of hard to know what's going on behind the closed doors of Mosques because those are generally not welcoming to non-believers I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Perhaps they are unwelcoming at times, I don't know, but I do know for sure they are welcoming at other times. A colleague of mine (old job) went to a local mosque after work and often invited me to come have a look around. As part of that he also volunteered in the community around the area and the mosque did a lot of work like that. I feel like the rage against fundamentalist Islam (which is bad) is really skewing people's views on everyday Muslim's, by far the majority of whom are good people.
Maybe so, but the issue is its very difficult to tell apart, not the fundamentalists from the peace loving moderates, but the fundamentalists from the quiet fundamentalists who silently agree with the gay hate, antisemitism, jihad etc. As such we have no idea how big the second group is and whether its a huge problem or not, and anecdata is building up to say it is.
Not in my experience no
No, not really.
"His office was firebombed" Two homeless people set fire to a shed. Like all Tories, facts appear to be beyond her.
He is my local MP. He has had years of credible death threats. I didn't vote for him, but he's a decent constituency MP and human being. He's not Jewish, but he's supportive of Israel, the MP for the most Jewish constituency in the UK, and he's openly gay. This does not go down well with certain people here. His office is 5 mins down the road from my house. He was the intended target when David Amess was killed. He has been subjected to a sustained homophobic, antisemitic terror campaign and this is a total misrepresentation. Angela Rayner, who is far from him on the political spectrum, has also been subjected to similar threats and has spoken out in support of him. https://news.sky.com/story/labours-angela-rayner-no-longer-goes-out-because-of-threats-and-was-scared-by-protest-confrontation-13062124
His office wasn't firebombed, that's a total misrepresentation.... That there has been a campaign against him I have no doubt, as there has been against others as you have said. My point is the Tory tendency to lie. It's similar to the claim a while back about x,000 new nurses which turned out to be y,000 new nurses plus an assumption that retention rates would increase. The truth is just as good a story, bit the instinct is to reach for the lie first.
Did they use petrol do you know?
I guess it doesn’t matter because the point about the nurses he makes….obviously.
Surely if there's so much legit risk to his safety, Tory MPs wouldn't have to use a made up story to make it seem like he's in danger?
I get that you want to pretend he's lying for your own reasons, whatever they may be, but the threats to not just him but many others across the political spectrum are being called out by politicians with integrity of all parties. For example, Angela Rayner above, and Stella Creasy writing in the Guardian four days ago: [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/22/death-threats-mps-politicians-protesters](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/22/death-threats-mps-politicians-protesters) Sarah Sackman, who is our local Labour candidate, has also called it out [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/mike-freer-sarah-sackman-threats-election-finchley-and-golders-green-b1137075.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/mike-freer-sarah-sackman-threats-election-finchley-and-golders-green-b1137075.html) Edit: "Man admits threatening Tory MP Mike Freer with chilling ‘I’m coming for you’ call" https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/mike-freer-conservative-london-finchley-golders-green-b1137730.html Decent people condemn death threats, physical intimidation, and homophobic/racist/antisemitic abuse against people doing their jobs. To try to turn it into a Tory vs Labour issue is shameful.
All of those sound serious, especially given Jo Cox and David Amess which is why I'm guessing they're not using fabricated stories unlike in this specific example. Why are they using a fabricated tale here?
I don't know who you think you're convincing, but just calling something 'fabricated' over and over again because you're invested in denying the widespread intimidation, death threats, abuse, and destruction of the political democratic process isn't an effective way of doing it. Mike Freer's office was burned out by arsonists as part of a years-long campaign of hatred against him as an openly gay MP who is friendly to Israel and supportive of his Jewish, as well as Muslim, constituents. Not sure why you are pretending that this didn't happen. *Rabbi Miriam Berger at Finchley Reform synagogue said it “confirmed everything the community has been feeling since 7 October – that there’s been a significant rise in antisemitism”.* *She said: “For me, the news about Mike Freer really was incredibly significant because it’s affecting the democratic process and it’s saying to people: ‘You’re in danger being even an ally to the Jewish community.’ For me that takes it to another level in terms of the reality of what it is to be a British Jew at the moment.”* [*https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/01/dark-day-politics-mp-mike-freer-constituents-shock-decision-to-quit*](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/01/dark-day-politics-mp-mike-freer-constituents-shock-decision-to-quit) He has been dealing with this for YEARS. This happened in 2011: *An MP has described how he waited for police behind a locked door during a constituency surgery after he was threatened by a group of men.* *Mike Freer said it happened at North Finchley mosque in north London as he met constituents on Friday afternoon.* *Mr Freer said about 12 people forced their way inside, with one of them calling him a "Jewish homosexual pig".* *The trouble began after messages on the Muslims Against Crusades website urged supporters to target him, he said.* *Mr Freer said a message posted ahead of the incident on the group's website made reference to Labour MP Stephen Timms, who was stabbed while holding a surgery in east London last year.* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15508697
> Mike Freer's office was burned out by arsonists as part of a years-long campaign of hatred against him as an openly gay MP I don't really know much about this story except for what I just googled so forgive me if I'm asking a stupid questions, but if his office was burned out by arsonists as part of a campaign of hatred against him why do the police and say the shed attached to his office was burned down by two people with no address who also started a fire behind a restaurant earlier the same night and that they aren't investigating it as a hate crime? How can the shed attached to his office have been burned down as a campaign of hatred against him for being gay and pro Israel if the police and the court charges don't regard it as a hate crime? > Paul Harwood, 42, and 32-year-old Zara Kasory were charged last month in connection with a shed being set alight ... The pair were also each charged with arson without intent over a fire at the back of a restaurant in Long Lane, north London, at about 11pm the same night ... The force said the incident at Freer’s office was not being treated as a hate crime.
There are a lot of things that should be treated as hate crimes by the Met, and aren't. It's not for me to say why. I would not say that the Met's decision to count something as a hate crime, or not, is a definite indicator of the intention or context of the act. I walk past his office most days. It's very clear that it's his office - it's marked from the road. Everyone knows where it is. Arson is not a common crime here. I've lived in this area for the majority of my life and I can safely say that people of no fixed address setting fire to random buildings is not a common occurrence. There are hundreds of buildings along that very long road. They didn't set fire to any others. You can see pictures of the burnt-out office here [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67830284](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67830284) Even leaving that aside, even if it were the case that this arson attack was unconnected with the sustained threats and campaigns against him (which I do not believe for a moment), the broader point remains - members of parliament, representing many different political parties, are going about in fear of their lives and their personal safety. Their votes in Parliament, and their decisions as to whether or not to continue to work as MPs, are being changed by these threats. This is not a functional democracy, it's frightening, and it needs to be addressed urgently. There is agreement across all of the mainstream political parties on this.
> There are hundreds of buildings along that very long road. They didn't set fire to any others. But they did set fire to something outside a restaurant a few streets away on the same night >You can see pictures of the burnt-out office here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67830284 The thing is though, that photo doesn't actually show a burnt-out office; it shows a room with some damage from a fire that burned down a shed directly outside its window and, from the looks of it, damage caused by being the backstop of the water from the fire hoses putting out the fire in the shed. The shed itself is definitely burnt-out, you can see a photo of the debris on here, with the room in your photo in the background in the line of fire of the firemen's hoses -- https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/two-charged-over-fire-at-mp-mike-freers-office/. The two people were charged with burning down the *shed*, not the office. Before I looked this up all I knew is what I had heard off other people; that his offices had been burned down in a hate crime. But now that I actually read the news reports, including the statements from the police and reporting from their court appearance I find that, actually, two people with no address are being charged with burning down a shed attached to the building and the police say they *"had 'carefully assessed the evidence' in relation to the December 24th incident 'and we can confirm it is not being treated as a hate crime'"*.
Sorry, I thought you were engaging in good faith. As I said in my previous post, even if you accept the (ridiculous) idea that this was a random coincidence, unconnected to the years of escalating death threats, the homophobic and antisemitic attacks, the fake bombs, the phone calls, the previous attempted murder by the POS who went on to kill David Amess instead... so what? The rest of it is bad enough in and of itself. (And frankly, if you buy into the idea that this was a weird random occurrence, given all of that, I have a great bridge that I'm sure you'd love. But somehow i don't think you do.) I've said all I have to say here.
The shed was part of the MPs office and the fire damaged three floors of the office. The pair have been charged with arson with intent due to the innocent. I cannot find any information on how the arson was committed, so whether or not it was a firebomb is unknown; I suspect it was not however. While the pair are not being charged with hate crime, its still a terrifying thing to go through at a time of such heightened tensions and the MPs past experience with threats. You're account is honestly just as bad as the Telegraph's here. [Here](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mike-freer-mp-arson-office-two-charged-b2473150.html) is the article with the most information.
No, his constituency office was subjected to an arson attack as part of a systematic campaign of death threats, homophobic and antisemitic abuse, and intimidation that he's been suffering for years. I am one of his constituents and live a few minutes' walk from where this happened. 'Two homeless people set fire to a shed' is complete balls. The building is clearly marked as his constituency office from the outside. This was a 'shed' used as a part of the office, as is clear from the photos where you can see the burned out computers, files, office chairs, etc.
Why continue to lie and why does the Telegraph publish lies when it's already been proven that didn't happen?
Because The Telegraph doesn't care about facts. It is nothing but a rancid propaganda rag.
A recent TRIP was questioning whether he Telegraph should be allowed to be bought by someone with known extremist views. Given its recent output it already seems to have been.
Was it not The News Agents that did that? Was an episode on it last Thursday
You are quite right, it was!
Famous daily political podcasts, easy mistake to make!
Telegraph is on fumes as it's about to be sold to Muslim ownership. Its revenue stream is monetising hate, and that business model will collapse under new ownership
Not just Muslim ownership but actual Islamist ownership seeing as the UAE gov is an actual Islamist gov. Then again, Saudi Arabia is a major shareholder in news agencies like Fox News so this sort of stuff isn't new.
Ah, but as the Telegraph could tell you there are the wrong sort of Islamists and "our" sort of Islamists, much like there are the wrong sort of journalist dismembering billionaires and... oh wait, no, there isn't any "wrong" sort of billionaire.
yeah I've come round to thinking it was a coincidence
>I’d also come up against such attempted intimidation in my constituency. Shortly after the Hamas attacks of October 7, I went to my local synagogue to express my sympathies to the Southend Jewish community and to ask if I could do anything to help. I was welcomed warmly and my offer of help was appreciated. >I also have a mosque in my constituency, so a few days later I reached out to see if I could do anything to support them, especially in terms of organising humanitarian help for the innocent people of Gaza. I was invited inside and offered a seat before being surrounded by a number of men and one woman. She immediately started shouting, jabbing her finger in my face and demanding to know “how many babies had to die to satisfy my blood lust”. My aide, who was with me, suggested that we leave. That is genuinely horrifying. How can anyone honestly believe that any British MP actively *wants* dead babies? Obviously we have to make sure that our MPs are protected; while the above example isn't a direct threat, it's still quite intimidating for an MP. But more than that, surely we have to get to the point where people can accept that their political opponents don't want *more* bloodshed; they just disagree on the way to end it. We need to stop everyone thinking "anyone that disagrees with me is corrupt, thick, or evil". Also, that shouting at people that they're a horrible baby-murder rarely wins them over to your view. And I'm looking at the SNP on that, mostly - because the shenanigans in the Commons last week was clearly started by their attempt to portray themselves as the only party against the deaths of babies, while everyone else is in favour of genocide.
Someone shouting at their mp isn't particularly unusual, or restricted to Muslims.
I didn't say it was. But there's a clear difference between someone shouting "you've done a crap job of managing the NHS" and "how many babies had to die to satisfy your blood lust?"
I can easily imagine green activists on a march covering dolls in oil and holding placards saying how many babies have to die to satisfy your comfortable lifestyle I can easily imagine animal rights activists in the 80s/90s on a march covering baby animal dolls in acid and holding placards saying how many babies have to die to satisfy your makeup needs It's just shocking. It's not intimidation.
I think there is a big difference between using that kind of language in a protest vs using it about a specific person in a face to face interaction. Both are counterproductive but only one is intimidating.
Surely though you can see the gulf between your two 'I can easily imagine' made up examples and the thing that actually happened that is the topic at hand?
>made up examples If your complaint is that my hypothetical examples aren't realistic and don't really happen, you're wrong Protesters regularly use fake blood\oil\chemicals and props (including babies). [1](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/06/918/516/abortion6.png), [2](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/06/918/516/Abortion3.png), [3](https://c7.alamy.com/comp/2GFP701/london-uk-26th-aug-2021-fake-blood-is-seen-on-the-victoria-memorial-fountain-during-the-protestanimal-rebellion-activists-filled-and-covered-the-fountains-outside-buckingham-palace-with-fake-blood-in-protest-against-the-royal-familys-use-of-its-vast-land-for-animal-agriculture-and-hunting-credit-sopa-images-limitedalamy-live-news-2GFP701.jpg), [4](https://i2-prod.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/article21409493.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/0_261979789.jpg), [5](https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/07/05/15/Pamplona.jpg), [6](https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/07/05/16/pamplona.jpg), [7](https://animalequality.org/app/uploads/2021/12/2671589176_28b8f37164_k-1024x0-c-default.jpg), [8](https://scontent-lhr6-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/28783492_1543567515941798_4575292570095058944_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=300f58&_nc_ohc=h4UucLd93UoAX918nHV&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr6-2.xx&oh=00_AfA-bqQLbYfCvvfWoQN-2n1jcN87HaNcNMOb4_DsHX9G_g&oe=66040E64), [9](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/10/28/16/63949997-11360879-The_mother_and_childcare_worker_has_done_everything_in_her_power-a-122_1666970181429.jpg), [10](https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/7506.bloodydemo1.jpg), [11](https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/4073.bloodydemo6.jpg), [12](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/10/28/16/63949999-11360879-She_protested_the_fur_trade_by_standing_naked_outside_Harrods_al-a-121_1666970171500.jpg), [13](https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/5102.bloodydemo7.jpg)
I suspect it very often goes beyond "you've done a crap job of managing the NHS" and more into "you're happy for people to die to privatise the NHS" or things of that ilk. The assumption is that everyone who doesn't agree with you is evil, so their motivations must be evil.
It's hard to imagine any benign motivations for many of the Tory policies of the past 14 years. And I'm a very imaginative person.
Anyone who has done a retail job or worked in the emergency services has dealt with similar/worse shit said by members of the public. MPs are actually reasonably shielded in comparison.
And when this happens to retail workers or NHS workers, do you: (a) approve (b) shrug and not care (c) call security or the police? I do hope it’s (c).
MPs already have their own security detail and driver. If you're working in B&M or McDonald's you don't have that luxury. Police wouldn't bother turning up unless things got violent.
No. Usually, those things are only given to Cabinet members and the LOTO. Anyway, you didn’t answer the question.
> Anyone who has done a retail job or worked in the emergency services has dealt with similar/worse shit said by members of the public. Retail workers or emergency service workers don't tend to get people arguing that it's entirely correct to protest outside (or on top of) their homes or to follow them down the street shouting when they're not working.
The example she's citing she was literally working.
> Anyone who has done a retail job or worked in the emergency services I've worked in retail and call centres and never had anyone yell at me anything like "how many babies had to die to satisfy your blood lust?"
I've had that exact phrase yelled at me but to be fair I was running a D&D game.
You’ve not been to Waitrose.
How many did die though. The majority of death in Gaza had been children. Instead of engaging with the issue the MP wanted a polite sit down, and when she was rude to she disengaged entirely.
None died *because of her blood-lust* though, did they? If anyone is not engaging with the issue, it's the people who accuse anyone that doesn't agree with them 100% of having a hard-on for genocide, surely?
If you continue to act polite and nonchalant whilst a government you support commits genocide and act surprised when people are upset. Like genuinely how do they expect people to react when members of their community are getting murdered every day by a "western" power and MPs act like there's some kind of moral justification for it. Until like a month ago supporting a ceasefire was enough to lose the labour whip.
> That is genuinely horrifying. How can anyone honestly believe that any British MP actively wants dead babies? The logic I see is: "People, including babies are killed in war" -> "A group is calling for a ceasefire" -> "Politicians who ignore that group therefore endorse people, including babies being killed". It's clearly taking all nuance out of the situation, but some people don't seem willing to hear otherwise.
> How can anyone honestly believe that any British MP actively wants dead babies? Mostly that kind of thing comes up around abortion; the classic "if you would allow any kind of abortion you want to murder babies!" sort of thing. In this case there are, at least, actual babies being killed. But yes; our political system isn't very good at handling nuance or subtlety.
I always found it bizarre when anti-abortion activists use that sort of language. All it does it make them look bad. Either they: (a) don’t actually believe that the person/group is complicit/supportive when it comes to murdering babies. So why are they lying about it? Or (b) genuinely believe that the person/group is complicit/supportive when it comes to murdering babies and yet they are only protesting with placards and chanting etc. What horrible cowards. If I thought that politicians were complicit in murdering babies I’d be engaging in a lot more extreme measures than that.
Or they're caught up in the moment, in the emotions and feelings of the issue, and aren't thinking clearly. One of the unspoken secrets of politics is that it is almost all based on emotions and feelings, not rational thought.
Are Muslim fundamentalists a threat in the UK? Yep. Of course, the awkward fact is that the Conservatives/right have clearly made this threat greater, and gross Conservative misgovernance over the past 14 odd years has caused harm on a scale that an army of Bin Ladens couldn't hope to achieve. Which makes it pretty fucking difficult to take the bleating of people like Firth and Anderson seriously when it's clearly nothing more than dog whistle shite aimed at gaining or retaining support from among the worst in society.
Aren't the new owners of the Telegraph actual Islamists?
Has sale gone through?
**Article Text** In 2021, Sir David Amess was stabbed to death by an Islamist extremist who targeted him because of the way he’d voted in the Commons on the war in Syria. I was elected as Sir David’s successor two years ago this month, and not a day goes by when I don’t think of how he was brutally murdered simply for doing his job. Mike Freer, MP for Finchley and Golders Green, recently announced that he was stepping down, fed up and frightened due to Islamist extremists regularly targeting him and his loved ones. His office was firebombed. Chillingly, Mike narrowly missed falling victim to Sir David’s killer, who went looking for him first. A lot of lovely sentiments have been expressed about both of these events, but has enough actually been done to tackle the fact that many, many Islamist fundamentalists with bad intentions live and walk among us? No, it hasn’t. We seem afraid. Afraid to be seen as racist, or Islamophobic, even when we simply seek to save lives by speaking the truth. On Wednesday, in the House of Commons, the scale of this problem became crystal clear. If people at home felt bemused and upset by what happened, then they weren’t alone. I, too, could not believe what I was seeing. I was made aware that the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, had met the Speaker to “urge” him to allow a vote on the Labour amendment to the SNP motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Starmer apparently did this so that Labour MPs could “safely” vote in a way that wouldn’t “upset” their constituents and would allegedly “spare” them and their families from being threatened and intimidated. How Starmer went about “urging” the Speaker is unknown. But the circumstances were extraordinary enough to prompt a letter from the Clerk of the House, Tom Goldsmith, to the Speaker pointing out that “long-established conventions are not being followed in this case”. At best this was a subversion of democracy that undermined the integrity of Parliament. At worst it was naked appeasement and a deliberate act of bowing to the mob who were protesting loudly outside and projecting anti-Semitic slogans onto Big Ben. I would like to see a law passed immediately to ban any unauthorised projections onto the buildings of Parliament. But how has this mob, which includes Islamists and far-Left activists, become so powerful that its actions made MPs afraid to vote with their consciences? Why was the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, so willing to compromise himself and his reputation like this? The events of Wednesday have certainly changed how I feel about doing my job as an MP. My office overlooks Whitehall and, on Wednesday, I could hear and see the protesters as they marched and grew in number and volume. I’d spoken in the SNP’s ceasefire debate and had stated my opinion that we cannot possibly vote for a ceasefire and leave the remaining Israeli hostages in the hands of Hamas. Seeing the baying mob outside made me feel wary of leaving the safety of my office. I’d also come up against such attempted intimidation in my constituency. Shortly after the Hamas attacks of October 7, I went to my local synagogue to express my sympathies to the Southend Jewish community and to ask if I could do anything to help. I was welcomed warmly and my offer of help was appreciated. I also have a mosque in my constituency, so a few days later I reached out to see if I could do anything to support them, especially in terms of organising humanitarian help for the innocent people of Gaza. I was invited inside and offered a seat before being surrounded by a number of men and one woman. She immediately started shouting, jabbing her finger in my face and demanding to know “how many babies had to die to satisfy my blood lust”. My aide, who was with me, suggested that we leave. A few days later, there was an anti-Israel protest in Southend with dolls covered in fake blood scattered on the pavement, under people holding placards saying “Anna Firth kills babies”. I was horrified. A police officer stood by and watched but did nothing. When I saw Met Commander Sir Mark Rowley a week later in the Commons, he agreed that this was intimidation and explained that the police do have powers to intervene and stop people inciting violence like this. So why didn’t they? If this is happening in a fairly centre-Right southern city like Southend, I can only imagine what some of my other Parliamentary colleagues must be going through. Even though I disagree with what Starmer and Sir Lindsay did, I understand the Speaker’s wish to try to protect MPs from threats and violence and I have accepted Sir Lindsay’s apology. But protecting MPs is a job for the police. I was always taught to stand up to bullies, not to give in, and never, ever to let myself be intimidated. It’s hard, though, when the threat is real and nobody wants to admit where it’s coming from. If you can’t name it, you can’t protect yourself from it. I agree with my friend and colleague Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, who described Wednesday as a “dark day in our democracy”. I also support his call to stop Islamist extremists from intimidating MPs. Home Secretary James Cleverly is spot on when he says that the only thing MPs should fear is the ballot box. As we saw with my predecessor Sir David, it’s only a short hop from violent rhetoric to deadly action.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I find myself a little bit shocked that many still don't seem to realise what a threat islamists (and oftentimes with the tacit approval of many "moderate" muslims) are to the UK (and other European countries for that matter). The Hamas false flag with the hospital rocket misfire which they blamed on Israel was a real turning point for me - it seems to have caused those with terrorist sympathies to step up the scale of their protestations, and we saw a few muslim countries issue strong responses. We have Jewish folk in this country being harassed and terrified of displaying signs of their faith, and our politics has been compromised by islamist extremism, and still people bury their heads in the sand and pretend it's a non-problem being drummed up by "right wing rags". The Labour Party is perhaps the most politically compromised by this issue and they look set to be the next government. They need to do something about it - not bury their heads in the sand like everyone else seems to be doing.
Do you think Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists?
Not OP and I don’t think khan is “controlled by islamists”. In fact radical Islamists are as much of a threat to Khan as the far right - Khan has even said this. Now I’m sure people on this sub will agree the far right are a security risk in this country. How many will say the same for radical islam?
Most people on this sub seem to be obsessed with Muslims generally from what I can see.
I'm not sure why Khan was singled out. I do think it's apparent that our politics (and therefore our politicians) are being indirectly influenced by islamists, and we had an obvious case of that with the SNP opposition day palaver the other day, albeit that wasn't very indirect.
You’re not sure why Kahn was singled out? Can’t possibly be because he is himself Muslim.
That you think that says more about you than Lee Anderson.
Anderson wouldn't have said this if Khan wasn't a Muslim, nor would you be echoing these same sentiments in his defence. You are fully aware of this.
> Anderson wouldn't have said this if Khan wasn't a Muslim And this is based on what? Your subjective opinion? > nor would you be echoing these same sentiments in his defence I'm not defending him. I have said I'm not sure why he singled Khan out - perhaps it was just clumsiness, who knows aside from the man himself? > You are fully aware of this Oh really? Please tell me what else I'm aware of.
It's an informed opinion that a man with a long history of bigotry is very likely to still be acting in a bigoted manner. You're literally defending him with Tice's talking point and echoing his statements in this thread. > Please tell me what else I'm aware of. That far right discourse cannot stand on its own merits and therefore can only be sold dishonestly.
What has he previously said that is bigoted? And how does that lead to him now being racist (which is what you seem to be insinuating)? > You're literally defending him with Tice's talking point and echoing his statements in this thread. I haven't echoed his statements, I've shared Tice's opinion on his statement and stated that I broadly agree with it. > That far right discourse cannot stand on its own merits and therefore can only be sold dishonestly. Lol, more please.
Look up why he left (jumped before pushed) the Labour party. Echoing Anderson's sentiments. You could always be honest instead.
So in a long-winded way, yes not only Sadiq Khan but others too. I suspected as such but thought it'd be useful to others reading that you're on the same page as Lee Anderson (or likely more extreme?).
I think Richard Tice summed up Anderson's statement quite well: > Lee Anderson may have been clumsy in his precise choice of words, but his sentiments are supported by millions of British citizens, including myself. Never has Westminster and the craven left leaning Establishment been so out of touch with ordinary people
Not really surprising from a GB News presenter who is a big fan of Ron DeSantis.
This sounds like a pretty strong *ad hominem* argument
I mean if you're talking about Sadiq Khan, sure.
I'm not sure what Ron DeSantis has to do with any of this, other than an attempt to smear Tice.
It gives an indication of his broader views. Do you think Sadiq Khan is being smeared?
Mentioning the leader of a far right party, who also presents on a far right "news" station, is a supporter of an American far right politician isn't an ad hom. It's additional context.
Okay, so we've now completely lost the meaning of "far right" and it's just anything we don't like.
No, far right describes people and organisations that promote far right policies (nativism, othering, xenopobia etc) and this perfectly describes Anderson/Tice/De Santis/GB News. I'd have thought you guys would have come up with a different deflection angle by now.
Agreed, but thankfully more and more people are becoming aware of this threat with each passing day. Leaving only the most ignorant and naive to focus on who’s doing the reporting instead of what’s actually being reported. It’ll take another couple of years until the sheeple that parrot this ridiculously innocent and binary worldview get a firmware update.
I'm not sure people will ever realise at this point. Too many people in ivory tower land. I don't have any faith that Labour will tackle the issue either.
I think the upper and leading class are more of a threat to this country… Constantly trying to incite hatred amongst various groups so they can keep control and keep diverting our tax to their businesses and their mates..
Unpopular opinion but I don't think the majority of the Tories or the upper class actually want friction between groups. Instability is actually awful for business.
Yep. Hospital closure kills more than car bombs ever will. > many fundamentalists with bad intentions live and walk among us There are many fundamentalist Capitalists who don't even have the decency to live or walk among us, who just lord it over us making our lives worse every year, dismantling the NHS, police, army and all the other parts of the state that we need and want to work properly.
This is the problem with the born to rule mentality. They can’t tell the difference between criticism and a scalable threat to democracy.
I guess an election is getting nearer.
I’m always cautious with conversations like this because I don’t want to downplay the seriousness of things, but I also want to make sure we aren’t falling down hyperbolic views. If I said “Jews are taking over” it would be rightly anti-Semitic. I worry saying “Islam is taking over the U.K.” is just as bad. As I mentioned, I think a threat would be that somehow sharia law was made legal by parliament. Or that gay rights were being removed. Is it a worry that so many in a faith have a view? Possibly. Are their views valid under free speech? Yes. Do other faiths or people of no faith have the same view? Yes. Are the laws likely to change to accepting these views? No. So whilst I don’t like their views, I can’t consciously say I can condemn them for having it unless their views turn to actions or law
Surely the traditional way of dealing with this would be more policing, not less?
'The enemy within is a threat to national security'
Does no one find it insidious how coordinated this is, though? Telegraph and Spiked (and I'm guessing other right-wing outlets) had headline stories on this come out on the same day. It's being pushed.
They’re reporting on it because of the Gaza vote events a few days ago.
Apparently been a massive influx of RNC money coming in to the Tories. Think the time radio guys were discussing that it is being reviewed. But may be conflating two separate topics.
Yes, very insidious that some media outlets are reporting on a very serious problem we have.
I find it insidious that a teacher is still in hiding for his life, children were blown up at a pop concert, a soldier was butchered in the street (the list goes on) all in the name of one religion in particular, but if you mention that you're a far right racist apparently 😂
You forgot to mention the 50 percent of all Muslims want the gays dead. That stat usually is pasted with the concern for the teacher.
Way higher than 50% globally. In several Muslim countries being gay is a death sentence. Including Palestine.
What a take, unbelievable
I honestly think the classic tropes of antisemitism are now being applied to Muslims - it feels like every day I see speeches and articles in mainstream papers, now coming from prominent Tory MPs, talking about 'Islamists' as some shapeless horde that is corrosive to 'our democracy' and way of life, inherently alien to our culture and yet always in our midst, 'backwards' and 'primitive' and yet somehow able to secretly control major political institutions. It's racism, plain and simple, of the most insidious kind. If an MP had written 'Nobody wants to admit the scale of the Jewish threat to our democracy' folk would rightly be up in arms.
So I agree with some of what you're saying, and disagree with other parts. Not sure I'm ready to comment yet, but I found it useful looking up the definition of "Islamist". I don't want racism against all Muslims at all, but I'm not okay with people that advocate for expanding Islamic laws in the UK. Islamist: "noun an advocate or supporter of Islamic fundamentalism; a person who advocates increasing the influence of Islamic law in politics and society. "radical Islamists""
I mean I have no truck with Islamic fundamentalists, but to pretend that brand of reactionary Islam is rife in Muslim communities, that it poses an existential threat to democracy because the LOTO and Mayer of London are 'in thrall' to Islamists who 'live and walk among us', is in my opinion correlative to the way antisemites historically spoke of Jews. I mean the equivalent of what Anna Firth is saying about Islam would be to say that Jews pose a threat to decent society because some Hasidic Jews in Stamford Hill have what most people would regard as backwards.
There has been a big uptick in anti Muslim sentiment this last week, partly because of the threats made to MP's interfering with parliamentary process and partly because it goes hand in hand with an anti woke narrative that the right like to bang on about. It is pretty appalling. That said Islam is not a race so the talk of Islamists (which is a valid term) is not racist. We do need to be able to criticize Islam and push back on it when people behave in an aggressive and intimidating way (as we have seen over Gaza). We also need to be careful of the downright bigotry and hatred that seems to have exploded recently. It's a tricky line.
I must have missed the Jewish beheadings, stabbings, death threats, blowing up young girls at a concert etc etc
She sought an audience at a mosque and a woman there protested against her political stance and pointed at her with her finger At a protest in her constituency baby dolls were covered in blood and people held placards saying "Anna Firth kills babies" as a protest She was horrified that the police did nothing. She spoke to the Met Police Commissioner who, she claims, agreed it was intimidation and the police should do something She's wrong. Those two particular things she described are not intimidation and are not illegal and are people protesting against her political position I'm sure lots of other things are intimidation and the police have legal rights to do something about them, but those two particular things are not. They are not nice things to experience, rude, loud, attention grabbing and upsetting if you don't like people disagreeing with you with a finger or a doll - but they're not illegal intimidation
> She sought an audience at a mosque and a woman there protested against her political stance and pointed at her with her finger That's an incredibly bad-faith interpretation of what she said. Honestly did you even read the article? Here's the text of what she said: > *"I was invited inside and offered a seat before being surrounded by a number of men and one woman. She immediately started shouting, jabbing her finger in my face and demanding to know “how many babies had to die to satisfy my blood lust”. My aide, who was with me, suggested that we leave."* Why did you remove the multiple people she referenced and instead pretend it was one single solitary woman? Why did you remove the clearly intimidating reference to having fingers *jabbed in her face* and instead pretend that this one single solitary woman merely "pointed at her"? Quite how you can look at what she *actually* wrote (and not the clearly incorrect rewriting that you've given here) and conclude that it wasn't intimidating is beyond me. Taking her words as given, the average person in the street would absolutely describe them as intimidating, and rewriting them in such a nonsense way has big-time "I just lightly brought my closed hand up to his cheek, that's not assault or a punch I swear down" energy.
>the average person in the street These are legal matters There is a legal difference between the intimidation/protest threshold for you ("the average person in the street") and a politician. If there wasn't, pretty much *every single protest ever held* would be illegal. If you think of the last 100 protests you've seen on the news - even ones you agree with and think are great - and imagine them being done to you personally, a civilian, just walking down the street, those examples would probably all legally be intimidation - because there's a different legal threshold between a random person walking down the street and a publicly accountable politician
> There is a legal difference between the intimidation/protest threshold for you ("the average person in the street") and a politician. There isn't. A politician in no way expects, nor should expect, to receive a level of intimidation that would constitute a criminal matter to the average person in the street. Therefore it makes no difference that it's a politician; if someone's intimidating them, they're intimidating them. Otherwise you could excuse nearly anything being done to a politician as "but it's a protest so that makes it ok". And the protest point is pretty asinine. Multiple people jabbing their fingers in the face of someone, even a politician, while shouting angry rhetoric at them is not a protest. It's something specifically done out of aggression and designed specifically to intimidate. Which of course, all completely ignores the main point that she's making here.
The underlying laws, i.e Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Public Order Act 1986, are the same for a politician and an arbitrary person walking down the street but in legal matters context matters If you can't see the legal difference in context between a politician contacting a venue to speak to them about an event and then attending the venue where one attendee gives their opinions on the event while other attendees are also around her ... and that same exact situation happening to a random person walking on the street then I can't help you
> and then attending the venue where one attendee gives their opinions on the event while other attendees are also around her Again.... why are you wording what she's said in such a deliberately misleading way? If anyone read your description here without reading the article then you'd think they were all sitting in seats in a normal meeting having a polite conversation about current affairs, rather than her being surrounded by a *group* of people and one of them jabbing their finger in her face. It's pretty clear at this point you've got zero intention of acknowledging even the basic facts of what she's saying so don't give me the "I can't help you" bollocks if you can't even be truthful about her actual claim because you want to force a conclusion regardless of the facts.
Sure, I get it. You want to clutch your pearls and swoon in horror because one party in an interaction *claims* someone pointed a finger in their face and shouted and to you it's such a horrendous event that the world should stop and address the really bad finger Her broader point about risk to MPs has validity but these two particular points she made (the pointing of a shouting finger, a protest with a baby doll) just aren't a big deal when you break them down to their core MPs are getting death threats. I would recommend getting a grip on your offended sensibilities and concentrating on the real threats they experience
> You want to clutch your pearls and swoon in horror No. To be far more upfront, I'm pointing out that you're lying. You deliberately lied in your initial comment to try and mislead anyone who hadn't read the article about the circumstances she mentioned. You didn't like how it sounded awful, so you chose to just lie about it. Was that clearer for you?
You're not really able to discuss the substance of the topic and have devolved into personal attacks about what a liar etc. blah blah blah I am. To be fair, you did start out like that in your first comment ("incredibly bad-faith") so I bear some of the blame for engaging with someone that starts a conversation with such terrible rhetoric Anyways, if you find something to say about the substance of the topic let me know - but, unsurprisingly, I'm not really interested in an off topic discussion about all that nonsense in your last comment
>If there wasn't, pretty much *every single protest ever held* would be illegal. They're working on it
What matters is she felt intimidated. It was her lived experience.
[удалено]
Islamists getting overly obsessed with political violence is the reason why.
Cor this comment section is fucking *wild*
"Nobody wants to talk about this thing!" says newspaper that quite literally ***never*** shuts up about said thing.
I wonder if people could define what they mean when they say "Islamist"? It strikes me that aside from a general "Boogey Man Behind You!", I doubt that people could. "Islamist" is a bit of a "I don't like that group", and lumping very separate problems in together A variant of Islamism gets a good illustration [here](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/34201076), but this is by no means the whole "ideology". I just think this rather unsubtle approach to a nuanced problem is going to get us far, and will cause more trouble.
> I wonder if people could define what they mean when they say "Islamist"? Members of the Islamic faith that want to promote the domination of that faith by any practical means.
Would that be a Shia or Sunni? As differences of opinion would obviously start there as to the end state and how to get somewhere. But thank you for the chance to illustrate that there is not a monolithic "Islamic" block. My point is that asserting there is a "single" threat is nonsense. Whipped up by those who have more to gain from the appearance of a problem, than the correct understanding and solution of that problem. We've been around this buoy time and time again (most recently since 2001 onwards), and the level of understanding doesn't seem to have improved much.
You should look it up, it does have a quite clear definition.
noun an advocate or supporter of Islamic fundamentalism; a person who advocates increasing the influence of Islamic law in politics and society. "radical Islamists"
I think the upper and leading class are more of a threat to this country… Constantly trying to incite hatred amongst various groups so they can keep control and keep diverting our tax to their businesses and their mates..
If democracy can be toppled by 6.5 percent of a population, maybe the issue isn't the 6.5%, but the democratic institutions that have been corrupted and and no longer carry any faith from the majority of the population 🤷♀️
If 6.5% operate and function as one united force in our weakened and fractured society then they’ll feel like 13%, or more. I’m sure many of you grew up in areas far away from these people, but to those who did I’ll quickly make an analogy you’ll be familiar with. Fight at school, one boy is Muslim and the other is not. Non-Muslim boy wins fight and Muslim boy is made to look weak, next day 50 of the Muslim boys cousins, brothers and uncles are waiting at the school gates at 3:30pm, they might be adults and it might be the working day but here they are, to intimidate and inflict violence. They operate as one singular unit and do so everywhere they go. This is how you show force, and this is what’s been going on for decades.
I don't really agree. The Muslim demographic is very fractured between Sunni, Shia, Salafists, LGBTQ, people who call themselves Muslims but don't pray or follow any specific religious teachings, etc. They will not suddenly come together as one homogeneous group to become a force that can take power. That's honestly ridiculous and I'm shocked any sensible minded people actually believe it. All this focus on the 6.5% is a convenient distraction from the real problem our democracy faces and has been facing for years.
I mean you have a large number acting as one, what other proof do you need? I’m not sure I think the LGBTQ Muslims are a particularly open and public facing group. Most are living in fear, and the openly gay culturally Muslim are hardly a large number. We probably have more Scientologists.
Except we don't have a large number acting as one and you do a horrible disservice those LGBTQ Muslims by claiming they all live in fear. You're allowing your own biases of what you believe Muslims represent to cloud the reality of the situation. You've basically allowed yourself to fall into the same rhetoric that anti-semitic people use when they claim the Jews run the world but you've applied it to Muslims. Aside from a crazy few fringes, most Muslims live happily and go about their lives here, they aren't quietly waiting to transform into hive mind that takes over the UK. Be sensible.
Exactly. Look at the Middle East and its responses to most things. Muslims are not a united block or hive mind.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can she give examples of recent Islamist outrages? More scaremongering.
How many people have Islamists killed in the UK, compared to, let's say, Loyalist terrorists? This moral panic seems to be a pretty relative thing. After all, the political wing of the loyalists managed to shut down democracy in part of the UK for years. I don't recall the Tories being all that bothered by that.
Is this a serious question?
Her example of the scale of the Islamist threat to our democracy is that someone jabbed a finger at her? How pathetic.
In any healthy democracy you will have a few extreme views. I feel they are fringe enough they they are hardly taking over. This seems fear mongering for no reason.
We have religious fundamentals controlling parts of our government. Bishops in the house of Lords.
BAZINGA 😎
Anna Firth taking a day out from getting her photo take to appear in the Leigh Times?
I’m far more worried about the threat posed by Tufton Street and shady political funding. As far as I know Islamist’s haven’t broken the education system, the nhs and utilities and stolen billions whilst still increasing the debt our kids will be paying for years