Last week, I wrote about the history of Arabists in the UK and how the present generation of Arabists are influencing what has been taking place in London.

London ‘controlled’

Friday, February 23, 2024, was hardly a relaxing start to the weekend for Lee Anderson, the controversial Conservative MP representing Ashfield. He appeared on Martin Daubney’s GB News afternoon show to tell us what he really thought of Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London.

That evening, The Guardian reported (emphases mine):

The Conservative MP Lee Anderson has claimed that “Islamists” have “got control of London” and its mayor, Sadiq Khan.

Speaking on GB News, Anderson said of Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London: “He’s given our capital city away to his mates.

“I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London.”

The Labour party called for Anderson to lose the Tory whip. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chair, said: “Lee Anderson’s comments are unambiguously racist and Islamophobic. Rishi Sunak needs to immediately remove the whip. If he is too weak, then people will take their own view of the modern Conservative party.”

Tan Dhesi, the shadow exports minister, said: “Given the recent spike in Islamophobia and antisemitism, and the febrile atmosphere in our country, it’s deplorable that an elected MP can openly make such incendiary and divisive statements; especially against Sadiq Khan, who has done so much to foster community cohesion and tackle hate crime.”

Sure enough, the Conservatives’ Chief Whip, Simon Hart, suspended Anderson from the Parliamentary party the very next day.

However, one Conservative came to his defence:

A Conservative source said: “Lee was simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as [police and crime commissioner] for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently.”

Also:

In the same GB News appearance on Friday, Anderson suggested politicians should intervene in police operations because they had not cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters.

“Ultimately we run the country, and if the police aren’t doing their job – and they’re not doing their job … we need to step in and take over,” Anderson said.

Most of the Conservative-voting public would agree with that. These protests have been going on in central London since Saturday, October 7, 2023, with no end in sight.

The row escalated that weekend. By Sunday, February 25, Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer accused Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of harbouring ‘extremists’ in the Conservative Party. Dear, oh dear.

The Mail reported:

Keir Starmer has accused Rishi Sunak of harbouring ‘extremists’ in Conservative ranks following the suspension of the party’s former deputy chair Lee Anderson.

The ‘Red Wall’ MP had the Tory whip stripped from him yesterday after refusing to apologise for his claim that London mayor Sadiq Khan is controlled by ‘Islamists’.

His remarks caused widespread outrage – including from senior Tories – with Mr Khan hitting out at Mr Anderson for ‘Islamophobic, anti-Muslim, racist’ comments.

The London mayor has now also attacked the Prime Minister for his ‘silence’ over the Ashfield MP’s claims, while the Tories are being urged to launch an investigation into ‘structural Islamophobia’ within the party by the Muslim Council of Britain.

Sir Keir last night urged Mr Sunak to ‘get a grip’ and ‘stop this slide into ever more toxic rhetoric’.

Following his suspension by the Tories, Mr Anderson is due to sit in the House of Commons as an independent MP unless he defects to another party.

Lee still has a comfortable place on Conservative benches, even if he is sitting as an Independent.

On the news rounds that day, Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden said that all Anderson had to do was apologise for what he said. Dowden put the situation as ‘deeply concerning’, two words one is unlikely to hear in the former mining community of Ashfield.

Then there were former Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s words from a few days earlier:

But the Deputy PM said other comments made by former home secretary Suella Braverman had not ‘crossed the line’ to require an apology.

She has claimed Britain is ‘sleepwalking into a ghettoised society’ with ‘Islamists’ in charge.

Mr Dowden said: ‘When it comes to the wording used by individual Conservatives, I said I disagreed with the language used by Lee Anderson.

‘I don’t believe that the language used by Suella Braverman has crossed the line whereby she should apologise for it. No, I don’t.’

In a round of TV and radio interviews, the Deputy PM kept the door open for Mr Anderson to have his suspension lifted and have the Tory whip returned.

‘Of course, if he apologises, we’d look at the nature of that and make a determination at that point,’ Mr Dowden told Times Radio, adding: ‘But that’s a matter for the Chief Whip.’

Anderson’s week was turbulent but ended on a positive note as he appeared at a dinner on Saturday, March 2, in another Red Wall constituency, Bassetlaw, where the guest of honour was his good friend and fellow MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith, for whom it was a re-election fundraiser.

The Telegraph reported:

A Conservative MP has said that Lee Anderson is “always welcome” in his constituency after he appeared with Liz Truss at a Tory fundraising dinner, despite having the whip removed.

Brendan Clarke-Smith, the MP for Bassetlaw, said that the ovation received by Mr Anderson at the event showed the “high regard he is held in by the party faithful”.

Mr Anderson told The Telegraph he was “overwhelmed by the Bassetlaw members who applauded me as I entered the venue,” adding: “After a difficult week that was the perfect tonic.”

Liz Truss was also on hand:

Mr Anderson made a surprise appearance, with the Daily Express reporting that he received a standing ovation from members and shared a hug with Ms Truss.

Those present — as well as many other Conservatives who weren’t present — clearly do not share the London-centric view of things:

While a number of Tory MPs condemned his remarks, Mr Anderson has received support from other backbenchers, with some calling for the whip to be restored.

Meanwhile, back in Bassetlaw:

Mr Clarke-Smith told The Telegraph: “Having Liz Truss come to speak at our association was a huge coup for us and it gave us all plenty to think about in terms of how we set a Conservative agenda and tackle the obstacles that stand between us in implementing this.

“Lee is always welcome in Bassetlaw and it was great of him to come along and support our fundraising efforts for the general election. The reaction he got shows exactly how high regard he is held in by the party faithful.”

Rochdale by-election

To add an extra twist, the Rochdale (Lancashire) by-election was held on Thursday, February 29, upon the death of sitting Labour MP Tony Lloyd. Labour had to suspend their candidate in the end for anti-Semitic remarks, although he still showed up as the Party’s candidate on the ballot paper; it was too late to have them reprinted.

The well-known carpetbagger originally from Dundee, George Galloway, won Rochdale handily by identifying his campaign with disaffected Muslims and Gaza. Rishi Sunak was so alarmed at Galloway’s victory that he gave a speech on Friday, March 1, on the steps of Downing Street to condemn a democratic vote, no matter what we think of the outcome or Galloway himself.

It seems as if Rishi had never heard of George Galloway, who has won and contested other constituency by-elections over the past few decades in Glasgow and London. Wherever he wins, Galloway represents his constituency for better or worse. One thing that can be said is that Galloway is one of the true last products of Scottish education: he is an erudite debater who does not put a word wrong.

On Monday afternoon, March 4, Galloway was sworn into the House of Commons, having been presented by the Father of the House Peter Bottomley MP and Alba Party MP Neale Hanvey. He took his oath on the Holy Bible and swore allegiance to King Charles. He signed the book, shook the Speaker’s hand and briefly took his place in the empty Labour benches. One can imagine that Labour were quite unhappy about losing their seat to controversial candidate from an unknown working person’s party.

Journalists seemed to enjoy Galloway’s press conference, held in the biting cold.

The Telegraph reported, ‘Exploiting the “Muslim wedge issue” is Rishi Sunak’s only hope for re-election, says George Galloway’:

The controversial politician said it was “clear” to him that Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, had identified “Muslims and Gaza” as the “wedge issue” that he intended to use as his “only hope of re-election”.

He vowed to target [Labour Deputy Leader] Angela Rayner’s seat specifically, claiming to have “at least 15,000 supporters” in the Greater Manchester constituency, enough to overturn the deputy Labour leader’s majority of about 4,000.

At an impromptu press conference after his swearing-in ceremony, he also urged Jeremy Corbyn to launch and lead an alliance of “socialist, progressive and anti-war organisations”.

Mr Galloway, the leader of the Workers Party of Britain and a former Labour MP, stormed to victory in the Rochdale by-election last week, having aggressively courted the town’s substantial Muslim vote on a pro-Palestinian ticket.

On Monday, he declared the next election “will be about Muslims” and “the taking away of civil liberties in this country”.

“It’s clear to me that Sunak has identified Muslims and Gaza as the proximate centre of that wedge issue that he intends to use as perhaps his only hope of re-election,” he said.

He added: “They want to force [Keir] Starmer either to stand up and defend the democratic rights of the British people, including the rights of its religious and ethnic minorities – and if he does that I’m a Dutchman – or to engage him in what will turn out to be a Dutch auction of nastiness.

“If he chooses, as I suspect he will, the latter, that’s going to allow us and independent candidates to pick up potentially millions of votes from those who treasure the free rights that we have enjoyed since the Second World War in this country, and who wish to defend the Muslim communities in Britain.

“Either way, that suits Rishi Sunak. So that’s what I’m predicting here. The next election will be about Muslims, and will be about the taking away of civil liberties in this country” …

“If I give you just one example: Angela Rayner has a parliamentary majority I think of around 3,000. There’s at least 15,000 supporters of my point of view in her constituency.

“So we’ll be putting a candidate against her: either a Workers Party candidate or more likely an independent candidate that we [will] support, and that will vitally affect the election of the Labour deputy.”

Ms Rayner won a majority of 4,263 in her Ashton-under-Lyne seat in 2019, down significantly on 11,295 in 2017 …

Mr Galloway’s return to the Commons is likely to reignite tensions in the chamber, with the Board of Deputies of British Jews calling for him to be “shunned as a pariah by all parliamentarians”.

The Telegraph‘s Tim Stanley found Galloway intriguing, ‘George Galloway’s press conferences are so wickedly enjoyable, they ought to be illegal’:

Listening to Galloway is akin to flicking rapidly between the pages of the Morning Star and The Telegraph – his socialism is so old school it is practically nostalgic. In the Commons, he didn’t “affirm” his allegiance to the King – the Lefty option – he “swore” it. At his chilly presser, he bemoaned the lack of a “Mr Churchill” to unite the country, and proclaimed himself a “Roman Catholic” …

Journalists staggered away from the event humiliated, amused and satisfied … The Galloway press conference is so wickedly enjoyable, it ought to be illegal – and no doubt Sunak is drafting the legislation as we speak.

Tim Stanley is not wrong. On Monday, March 4, The Times reported that, in true pretzel logic, Michael Gove’s Levelling Up department was already drafting new anti-extremism legislation:

In an effort to tackle growing Islamic and far-right extremism in the UK, ministers are attempting to update the definition to encompass any group or individual that promotes an ideology that “undermines the rights or freedoms of others” …

Michael Gove, the communities secretary, is expected to announce the updated definition next week as part of plans to crack down on Islamic and far-right extremism.

Under proposals being considered, the definition would ban anyone in Whitehall, government bodies or quangos from engaging with or funding groups or individuals that meet the new definition. It is non-statutory, not a new criminal definition, so would only affect who government bodies, officials and ministers could engage with and fund.

The draft definition, which will need to be signed off by the cabinet later this week, currently includes three strands, according to government sources familiar with the plans.

It would define extremism as the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on intolerance, hatred or violence that aims to undermine the rights or freedoms of others.

Secondly, it would include those who seek to undermine or overturn the UK’s liberal system of democracy and democratic rights.

Any groups or individuals who intentionally create a permissive environment for either of these would also be banned from working with government bodies. It is understood that this would include influencers on social media who are not extremists themselves but deliberately play down the danger of extremism.

Senior government figures who have seen the current definition have warned it will “provoke tensions” with gender critical groups and a range of organisations such as religious groups who campaign against issues such as abortion or gay marriage.

“It’s going to be incredibly difficult,” a government source said. “You can see how, very quickly, small ‘c’ conservative groups will be hit with this.”

Gove’s department is understood to be working on plans to tighten the definition to ensure it protects people whose views fall under characteristics that are protected under the Equalities Act, such as gender, religion or beliefs.

Gove is also expected to announce that a new government unit for combating extremism will assess whether individuals or groups have breached the new definition. Government sources said this would add an extra protection to prevent groups inadvertently falling foul of the provisions.

Rishi Sunak also risks sparking a fresh battle with backbench MPs over the plans to broaden the definition.

Miriam Cates, a Tory MP from the socially conservative wing of the party, said that broadening the definition of extremism was a “slippery slope to the abolition of fundamental freedoms” and a “path to authoritarianism”.

Responding to revelations in The Times on Monday that the definition would cover actions that “undermine” institutions or values, Cates said such a move was unnecessary and Islamic extremism can and should be tackled through existing criminal offences such as incitement of violence, glorifying terrorism, promoting racism and making threats.

She wrote on Twitter/X: “What does it even mean to ‘undermine British values’ when there is no consensus — and certainly no legal definition — of what those values are? In a free and democratic society with a plurality of opinions and beliefs, it is foolish and dangerous to separate ‘extremism’ from violence and terrorism.

“Some people think that gender critical views are ‘extreme’. I think decriminalising abortion to birth is ‘extreme’. Opposition politicians think the current government is ‘extreme’. Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce and the suffragettes were all viewed as ‘extremists’.

“If ‘extremist’ views are illegal, then the person who defines ‘extremism’ has the power to curtail free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of association. This is the path to authoritarianism.”

In his speech outside No 10 on Friday the prime minister said the government would introduce a “new robust framework” this month to tackle extremism in the UK and “redouble support” for the Prevent programme, which is designed to tackle radicalisation.

This will end in tears, I can tell you now.

1924: the end of the Caliphate

Oddly enough, 100 years ago today, the world seemed to be a more enlightened place. The March 5, 1924, edition of The Times explored the end of the Ottoman Caliphate:

The Grand National Assembly at Angora has decreed the abolition of the Caliphate in the House of Othman, and Abdul Mejid, the last of the long line, has been expelled from the Ottoman dominions and conducted under escort to the frontier.

Of all the vast changes wrought by the war — the downfall of the Hapsburgs, the Romanoffs, and the Hohenzollerns, the transformation of the maps of all three continents of the Old World, the resurrection of ancient States and the rise of States unknown before, the evolution of novel forms of government, and the emergence of new ideas and new feelings among mankind — no single change is more striking to the imagination than this, and few, perhaps, may prove so important in their ultimate results.

The speech with which Mustapha Kemal Pasha opened the fifth year of the Grand National Assembly on Saturday, and the favour with which it was received by the great majority of the Popular Party, were a clear presage of the doom that has fallen upon this august institution. The end of an office, invested in the eyes of millions through 13 centuries with attributes that are almost divine, is a great event in the history of Turkey, and of the world-religion of Islam; it may be a great event in the history of other lands and to the followers of other faiths.

All members of the House of Othman, it is thought, are to be expelled, religious schools are to be abolished, the religious jurisdiction sanctioned by sacred law is to be exercised no more, and religion is to be wholly separated from politics.

It would be injudicious to surmise prematurely how such changes will affect orthodox Moslems in Turkey but sooner or later it must affect them deeply.

For the moment, it is enough to note the far-reaching character of the event, and to express some regret at the disappearance of an institution so venerable from one of the great religions of the world. “Men are we, and must grieve when even the shade of that which once was great has pass’d away.” And the Caliphate has been great and sacred to countless millions of men.

And now, here we are 100 years later, with a desire for a reinstatement of a Caliphate of some sort.