Gary Westwood

A single father to a severely autistic son, trying to do the best i can and give him a positive future 😊

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

The Government must come clean over whether extremist groups were able to influence its Islamophobia definition — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”.

A Freedom of Information (FOI) request from Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy has revealed that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government deleted all responses submitted to the consultation carried out by the Working Group tasked with drafting the definition.

As Melanie Phillips writes in The Times: “When a government department starts shredding the evidence behind its decisions, it’s a fair bet that it has something to hide from the public.”

The whole process has been shrouded in secrecy. The Free Speech Union exposed that all five members of the Working Group had previously been sympathetic to the need for a definition and had troubling links to Islamist organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND — both of which successive governments have maintained a policy of non-engagement with.

The Working Group ditched the term “Islamophobia”, following criticism from groups including the FSU, which warned that such a definition would have a chilling effect on free speech. Accusations of Islamophobia have long been used to silence legitimate criticism of Islam, and this definition risks exacerbating that problem.

Nick Timothy himself was branded an Islamophobe, reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and even faced calls to resign after criticising a public Muslim prayer event in Trafalgar Square.

The Communities Department has denied that extremist groups were involved in the process and says consultation responses were deleted in line with data-protection requirements.

But that does not explain why the Government cannot disclose which organisations contributed to the consultation.

The Muslim Council of Britain and MEND have long campaigned for an Islamophobia definition. The public deserves to know whether they — or other similar organisations — were given an opportunity to influence it.

There are already laws protecting people from religious hatred and discrimination. There is no need for this definition.

If the Government is serious about tackling genuine anti-Muslim hatred, it should enforce the laws already on the statute book — not introduce what risks becoming a de facto Islamic blasphemy law.

Yet the Government is actively encouraging public bodies, private organisations and charities to adopt the definition.

The FSU has already successfully challenged South Wales Police after it attempted to implement an even more zealous version, under which officers were instructed to record comments that went beyond “legitimate” discussion of Islam.

Just 45 minutes after the then Communities Secretary, Steve Reed, unveiled the definition in the House of Commons, pro-Gaza MP Iqbal Mohamed asked whether it could be incorporated into the Nolan Principles of Public Life.

Had that happened, parliamentarians could potentially have faced sanctions for raising concerns about issues such as Islamist extremism and the grooming gangs scandal.

Phillips concludes: “Self-censorship is bad enough. But now there has been government censorship of the process by which that self-censorship is to be turned into outright submission.”

The Government must come clean about who helped shape this definition.

Read more in The Times below 👇

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@indykaila It's an absolutely pathetic situation to be in

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@Jenny_1884 And Tazers

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

Labour ‘lobbied EHRC in pursuit of the Muslim vote’.

The former Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Falkner, has accused the Government of attempting to persuade the watchdog to accept its ‘unworkable’ definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government attempted — in secret — to convince the Commission to adopt the definition, despite its opposition.

A Freedom of Information (FOI) request has also revealed that the watchdog will not be adopting the new definition, which it has consistently warned could have a “chilling effect” on free speech.

As the Free Speech Union has long argued, the Government has shamelessly tried to use this definition to win back the Muslim vote, which has splintered in recent years. In doing so, it has sacrificed our fundamental right to free speech — including the right to criticise any religion — on the altar of electoral ambition.

Baroness Falkner told The Times: “The reports that the government has secretly tried to get the EHRC — the regulator for freedom of expression — to sign up to its entirely unworkable ‘definition’ shows how ideological they are. They have been warned again and again that this definition will restrict speech and legitimate criticism of a religion or culture.

“They didn’t consult EHRC, which has responsibility for protecting our hard won freedoms and which repeatedly warned them of the implications of this definition.

“If they really want to restrict our freedom of expression, they should come up with a proper legal definition and see if they can get that through parliament, instead of adopting underhand tactics, presumably in pursuit of a Muslim vote which they have, for far too long, taken for granted.”

General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, said: “Reading between the lines, it looks as though the government’s adoption of a definition of anti-Muslim hostility was just the latest move in Labour’s long-standing effort to get the EHRC to investigate the Conservative Party for ‘Islamophobia’. So nothing to do with protecting Muslims and all about political point-scoring.”

It has also been revealed, through an FOI request from the Shadow Justice Secretary, that the department deleted all responses to the Working Group’s consultation on the definition. This has increased fears that extremist groups may have influenced the development of this de facto Islamic blasphemy law.

The Free Speech Union exposed at the start of the year that all five members of the Working Group had troubling links to Islamist organisations, such as the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND — both of which successive governments since 2009 have adopted a policy of non-engagement with due to concerns about extremism.

Unsurprisingly, neither the Free Speech Union nor the EHRC was invited to submit evidence to the consultation, despite both having repeatedly voiced concerns that the definition would have a chilling effect on free speech.

This saga gets more concerning by the day.

Read more in @thetimes below 👇

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@Jenny_1884 To destroy the economies and cull the global population

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@MaxtonLFC @SkySportsPL Macca lol bloody predictive text lol

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@MaxtonLFC @SkySportsPL The problem we have fundamentally is that we are playing an 8 an 8/10 and a 10 in positions that in my opinion need 6 an 8 and a 10.
Unfortunately i think mascara should be swapped with wirtz in the 10 role, and munoz has to play on the right

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@indykaila Everyone can see it, why are they doing this to Iraola, he doesn't deserve to be treated like this by the owners

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@EssexPR Another 3 years of what we already have and we'll already be finished, I just don't see how this country can last that long

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@NaomiSeibt @Alice_Weidel @Deu_Kurier Full on Marxism

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

Angela Rayner and her department have some serious questions to answer.

It has been revealed through FOI requests submitted by Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy that the Communities Department deleted all responses submitted to the Working Group tasked by Rayner with drafting the official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”.

Nick has accused the department of a “cover-up” and wants to establish whether extremist groups influenced the process.

Since its publication, the definition has been used to silence legitimate criticism and debate about Islam. It has revived Britain’s blasphemy laws for Islam alone.

Public, private and charitable bodies have been encouraged to adopt the new non-statutory definition — with some, such as South Wales Police, going even further.

The Free Speech Union exposed at the start of the year that all five members of the Working Group had troubling links to Islamist organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND — both of which successive governments have adopted a policy of non-engagement with since 2009 due to concerns about extremism.

Nick Timothy has said: “Labour must come clean on whether extremist groups helped to draft their ‘Islamophobia’ definition.

“Ministers have refused to answer whether these groups influenced the definition despite a no-contact policy, and we now know that the Government deleted every single response that the working group received.

“This is clearly a cover-up under way, and the public have a right to know whether a definition the Government is asking the entire public and private sector to adopt was influenced by the views of extremists.”

This is a truly astonishing admission. The Government introduced what amounts to a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in Britain, it could have been influenced by Islamist extremists, and it then deleted all the evidence submitted to the Working Group.

Questions must be answered.

Read more below 👇

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@Neccccy Buy more dogs

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

Angela Rayner must explain why her government department has deleted all responses to the Working Group tasked with drafting the official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”.

The Free Speech Union exposed that all five members of the group had troubling links to Islamist groups.

This definition has revived Britain’s blasphemy laws via the back door for Islam alone. It is already having a chilling effect on free speech.

The public deserves to know why these responses were deleted.

[Khan Fatima @Khan_Fatimaa1]

🚨🇵🇱SHOCKING: Poland have just sworn in
their new President.

He believes in National Sovereignty.
He believes in Protecting Borders.
He promotes Family Values.
He is unashamedly Pro-Christian.

The Polish people are celebrating they won't become like the UK. 🇬🇧

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@Neccccy Woodchipper

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@DanBig9953 Yes there should be no parallel law in this country, people should abide by British law. This is Britain

[Alan D Miller @alanvibe]

Thousands of Dutch Farmers in tractors making their voices heard against The EU anti democratic globalists

Stand Together with our Farmers 🚜🔥🌟

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

Parliament voted to abolish the blasphemy laws 18 years ago, yet the Starmer Government has revived them through the back door — and for Islam alone.

In a free society, no religion should be afforded greater protection than others or shielded from legitimate criticism, challenge or debate.

We have already seen the “anti-Muslim hostility” definition weaponised by activists and even some Labour MPs to silence criticism of Islam.

Iqbal Mohamed, the pro-Gaza Independent MP, pushed the former Communities Secretary to incorporate the definition into the Nolan Principles for Public Life, meaning MPs and peers who spoke about issues such as the grooming gangs scandal or Islamist extremism could face sanctions.

Nick Timothy, the Shadow Justice Secretary, was branded an Islamophobe, reported by Labour MPs to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and even faced calls to resign from the then Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, after criticising the mass Muslim public prayer event in Trafalgar Square.

28 Labour MPs wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to report Reform UK for Islamophobia and urged it to investigate after a number of the party’s MPs criticised the Trafalgar Square event.

South Wales Police adopted a gold-plated, beefed-up version of the “anti-Muslim hostility” definition that instructed officers to record any comment that went beyond “legitimate” discussion of Islam. After the Free Speech Union threatened legal action, the force withdrew the guidance.

We must not allow this de facto Islamic blasphemy law to take root.

[Gary Westwood @Gazlayo]

@WilsonCoxLFC Liverpool should put £110M on the table for Barcola and say that offer is there until we find a replacement. Trigger Nico Williams release clause and bid for Rafa Leao to put pressure on PSG let them know we won't be ripped off