I was an early fan of the straight-talking Lee Anderson. On the 3rd of February last year I badgered the Prime Minister to make him Chairman of the Conservative Party. In the event he made him Deputy Chairman. I was disappointed when he had to resign in order to vote for an amendment to the Rwanda Bill, I voted for that amendment too.
I regret his suspension for his tirade against the London Mayor Sadiq Khan, but his refusal to apologise left the PM with no alternative. There were plenty of perfectly proper things that Anderson could have taken khan to task over. He has been a dreadful mayor, squandering the legacy left by his predecessor Boris. His record on Housing, transport, police, and almost everything else has been lamentable.
To accuse him of being controlled by Islamists however, is absurd. I know Khan, he is a former parliamentary colleague, he is about as secular a politician as one can get.
Nevertheless, many constituents have registered with me their disgust at Anderson’s treatment.
They believe that he has so often articulated their own thoughts and they are concerned about the way that freedom of expression is being diminished. I understand those concerns, but politicians do need to be cautious about the language that they use. Imagine if a politician had criticised a high-profile holder of public office as being controlled by Zionists, the furore would have been deafening.
Muslims must not be stereotyped. It is quite wrong to conflate ‘Muslims’ with Islamist extremists. We do well to remember current contribution of Muslims to our society as well as their historic contribution to the Empire and, in particular the imperial forces of the Crown.
But there are aspects of Islam which it is perfectly proper to subject to public scrutiny, such as the role of women, attitudes to homosexuality, Sharia councils, and teachings on apostacy. Just as there has been no shyness in subjecting Christianity to that same scrutiny ever since the Enlightenment.
In a liberal society an important aspect of public life, like Islam, must accommodate itself to the discomforts of public scrutiny and free discussion. Notions of blasphemy are an affront to liberal democracy.
After a long consultation and subsequent deliberation, the Parliamentary Group on British Muslims defines ‘Islamophobia’ as “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Whist I can understand what they are getting at, I think this is too broad a definition and has a chilling effect on criticism of aspects of Islam, or indeed of Islam itself. It is far too widely drawn. We must be very careful to ensure that criticism and freedom of expression in public discourse is not constrained by inappropriate accusations of ‘hate speech’. The reality is that Islam, like Christianity, is a religion adhered to by people of all races, and not itself a race.
As a Christian I am used to the criticism of my religion, both fair and unfair, and I’ve been critical of it myself too.
Islam must be subject to the same rigour, and Muslims free to be equally critical of it.
Politicians, however, should endeavour to be accurate and justify their assertions with facts.