Canada’s New Blasphemy Laws by Khadija Khan

  • Although these motions against “Islamophobia” are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.

  • Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

A resolution, M-103, seeking to condemn so-called “Islamophobia,” was introduced a few weeks ago in the peaceful country of Canada by Liberal Party MP Iqra Khalid in the House of Commons, sparking a controversy.

A similar motion, labelled M-37, was later tabled in the Ontario provincial legislature by MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers on February 23, 2017, and was passed by the provincial parliament.

M-37, like its predecessor, demanded that lawmakers condemn “all forms of Islamophobia” and reaffirm “support for government efforts, through the Anti-Racism Directorate, to address and prevent systemic racism across government policy, programs and services”.

Although these motions are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.

There are, of course, no comparable motions against “Judeophobia” or “Christianophobia”.

Neither motion M-103 nor motion 37 exactly define “Islamophobia,” leaving that to the imagination of the supposed victim(s).

Hardliners who support this form of censorship, and presumably other restrictions required by Islamic sharia law, aim to blur the line between genuine bigotry and criticism of core problems across the Muslim world, such as the murder of apostates and homosexuals, communal hatred, anti-Semitism, violence against women and minors, female genital mutilation (FGM), child marriage, unequal legal and inheritance rights for women, stoning, flogging and amputation, and social taboos such as honour killings or right to choose a husband for girls or restrict girls’ education.

Those who present these motions claim that “Islamophobia” is rampant across the country, but seem blind to Islamic sharia law’s endorsement of killing homosexuals, violence against women and minors, atrocities such as those enumerated above, and notions of Muslim supremacy across the planet.

These issues are genuine concerns for millions of Muslims as well as human rights defenders, but are never addressed by those apologists, who always try to present these atrocities as perfectly acceptable “cultural norms”.

People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.

Broadly speaking, in the West, where people have the opportunity to stand up against persecution, Muslim extremists seem determined to sell themselves as victims and to get rid of whatever obstacles contradict a clearly expansionist agenda.

Motion M-103 claimed: “Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam”.

Are those who set forth these resolutions oblivious to the clerics who rally hundreds of thousands across the world — organizations such as Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, CAIR, ISIS, Hezbollah, Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Jamat e Islami, Sipah-e-Muhammad, TehrikNifaz-i-FiqahJafaria, JamatudDawa, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-jhangwi, TehrikNifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Islam, Jamiat-ul-Ansar, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Khuddam-i-Islam, Fatah Al Islam (Lebanon), Ansar Al Sharia in Libya, Jabhat Al Nusra (Al-Nusra Front) in Syria, the Haqqani Network in Pakistan and other offshoots of these jihadi movements?

The sales pitch for M-103 was given a pretty façade of human rights concerns, but actually inside was a veiled endorsement of a Muslim supremacist mentality.

While M-103 asks to recognize the need to curb systematic racism and religious discrimination against Muslims, there are no traces of any systematic hatred or racism against Muslims or any religious groups in Canada.

On the contrary, Canada already has laws to curb any discrimination or abuse against individuals or groups. All that is needed is to enforce those laws already on the books.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal Code, carry progressive laws to handle hate crimes or racism. Section 318, 319(1) and 319(2) are specifically designed to deal with such offenses.

Moreover, criticizing any genuine social concerns about a community or belief system is the democratic right of every citizen in a civilized country.

Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

Under Muslim blasphemy laws, such as those being slowly presented to Canada, such deeds are punishable by death or life in prison.

Unfortunately, blasphemy laws are often interpreted as a state’s permission to attack, lynch or destroy non-Muslim minorities, while the attackers are regarded as heroes for their crimes.

Victims of these laws also include critics of this barbarism such as Punjab’s Governor Salmaan Taseer, Pakistan’s Minister for Human Rights Shahbaz Bhatti, and often even human rights activists and the victims’ lawyers.

Aren’t we setting up the foundation of such norms in the West on pretense of curbing “Islamophobia”?

For example, a supposedly “infinitesimally small” number of jihadis are capable of shutting the mouths of approximately 200 million people (equivalent to the entire Pakistani population), seemingly forever, by literally killing dissent.

In the last century, the jihadis’ spiritual father, Sayyid Qutb, commissioned Muslims to impose salafist-style Islamic rule on the world by destroying the “infertile West” and eliminating anything non-Muslim.

Qutb’s book, Milestones, would undoubtedly be an eye-opener for those still unaware of what is required of “true” Muslims. The same is true of the writings of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This ideology is clawing its way into very fabric of the West, in places such as Britain, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, America, Australia and France.

It poses an imminent threat to the free world. Free societies will have to pay a heavy price if they choose to ignore the menace of extremism through a policy of appeasement and accommodation.

There is no need for specific laws about “Islamophobia”: it is not even defined. Worse, many extremist clerics also consider as “Islamophobic” any criticism of their jihadism, communal hatred, polygamy and violence against women, minors or possibly anyone else they target.

Canada has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world; please let us keep it that way.

Khadija Khan is a Pakistan-based journalist and commentator.

CAIR’s Dawud Walid: Civil Rights Champion or Radical Hiding in the Open?

  • With his March 25 Facebook post, CAIR’s Dawud Walid cemented his position as a preacher of hate and radicalism. He has already become known to many Muslims as an extreme figure, who bullies anyone who disagrees with him, maligns dissidents, harasses gay Muslims, and foments anti-American sentiments.

  • It is beyond denial to ignore the fact that Muslims such as Walid are leading radicalizers of American Muslims, and their efforts are dedicated to pushing vulnerable Muslims away from integration and reform against Islamist movements.

Dawud Walid is the longtime executive director of Michigan’s chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). His Twitter profile currently bills him as a “human rights advocate and political blogger,” and his blog sells him as an imam who lectures on topics such as how to maintain your manners when dealing with hostile people (the irony of this will soon become abundantly clear), and how to address the very real problem of anti-Black racism within the Muslim community.

To anyone less familiar with Walid’s persona — especially online — he could easily appear to be a champion of civil rights, a man before his time in terms of addressing intra-community problems as well as hostilities between Muslims and non-Muslims. A more comprehensive review of his activities — or even just a cursory review of his commentary on one of the days he has chosen to lash out at anyone with whom he disagrees — reveals a more sinister, even cruel, man. Further, his true aim seems not to be civil discourse and community cohesion, but rather the furtherance of a particularly malignant, vicious strain of political Islam.

I have seen Walid demean, bully, and slander other Muslims for years. He has actively worked to silence discussion of critical issues, by working to shut down screenings of Honor Diaries, a film addressing the mistreatment of women in the name of “honor” culture; instigating online hate campaigns and witch hunts against dissidents — women in particular — and pushing Muslims to ostracize those with whom he disagrees. While this behavior has been abhorrent and has brought significant distress and even potential danger to those he has targeted, the broader public has paid little mind.

His most recent tirade on social media, however, may — and should — wake the public up to his real agenda.

On March 25 of this year, Walid took to social media to talk about the Easter holiday, and how he believes Muslims should treat Christians on this day. Rather than using the opportunity to offer best wishes to Christians and condemn the slaughter of Christians by ISIS, Walid urged Muslims not to “encourage infidels” by wishing Christians a “Happy Easter.” His comments were at best hateful, at worst incitement. His is the kind of thinking that leads to attacks such as the one against Christians in Pakistan over Easter, or when the Pakistani Taliban blew up a crowd of mostly women and children of Ahmadi Muslims, or when Asad Shah, stabbed 30 times, was assassinated recently in his store in Glasgow, Scotland, for wishing Christians a Happy Easter.

On March 25 of this year, Dawud Walid (left), executive director of Michigan’s CAIR chapter, posted in Facebook, urging Muslims not to “encourage infidels” by wishing Christians a “Happy Easter.” This kind of thinking leads to attacks such as the stabbing murder this year of Asad Shah (right) in Glasgow, Scotland, who was killed by a fellow Muslim who claimed Shah “disrespected” Islam by wishing Christians a Happy Easter.

Dawud Walid wrote in a now-deleted Facebook post:

“Being respectful of others’ rights to observe and practice religious holidays doesn’t mean welcoming or celebrating them.

“‘Good Friday’ and Easter Sunday symbolize the biggest theological difference between Christians and Muslims. The belief of ‘original sin’ needing a human sacrifice of Jesus (peace be upon him) who is believed by Christians to be the son of Allah the Most High is blasphemous according to Islamic theology.

“There’s no original sin for humans to atone for since ‘no soul bears the burden of another’ according to the Qur’an. Regarding the crucifixion, ‘they killed him not’ and it was only a ‘likeness of him’ is stated in the Qur’an. And of course, ‘He begot none, nor was He begotten’ meaning Allah didn’t have a son is also a primary belief of monotheism articulated in the Qur’an.

“Be respectful, and don’t pick theology debates with your Christian family members and friends this weekend. However, avoid wishing them ‘Happy Easter’ greetings.

“Avoid giving the remote appearance of passively affirming shirk [polytheism] and kufr [disbelief].”

In the above post, Walid is referencing blasphemy — a crime in places such as Pakistan, where Christians and even minority Muslims are marked for death under archaic “blasphemy” laws, perceived insults to Muhammad or Islam. He further suggests that he believes Christianity to be a polytheistic religion, again asserting his belief in the doctrine of blasphemy. Finally, he instructs Muslims to self-isolate from both family and friends, by not extending the normal human kindness of a “Happy Easter” greeting, lest they seem to be affirming “shirk” (idolatry, polytheism) and “kufr” (disbelief; related to kafir, often used to mean “infidel”). Where blasphemy laws exist, and where this mentality takes hold, the punishment for what he calls “kufr” is death — sometimes by the state, sometimes by mobs tacitly endorsed by the state.

With this post, Walid cemented his position as a preacher of hate and radicalism. He has already become known to many Muslims as an extreme figure, who bullies anyone who disagrees with him, maligns dissidents, harasses gay Muslims, and foments anti-American sentiments. The above post could have been written by Anwar al-Awlaki, an imam who preached violence. In fact, when blogging about Awlaki’s long overdue assassination by an American drone in 2011, Walid’s few comments were not reserved for the opinions of Awlaki, who had radicalized countless Muslims who have massacred countless innocent Americans, but instead he referred to yours truly as “the lone wolf.”

For years he has advocated for every radical Islamist he could get away with defending. For example, Detroit’s radical Islamist imam Luqman Abdullah has long been the focus of Walid’s innumerable grievances against local police and FBI. He continues to this day to portray this armed militant imam, who led a separatist “Ummah” (or Islamic State) group (long before ISIS), as the “victim” of an overly aggressive FBI shooting, despite every investigation having shown otherwise and despite Abdullah’s core anti-American separatist militant ideology.

It should raise many alarms that his social media posts, such as the one this Easter (which he deceptively took down), was written not by a known radical in Yemen, but by a man employed as a leader of the self-appointed “representative” of American Muslims, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, in one of the regions of the United States most densely populated by Muslims. It is beyond denial to ignore the fact that Muslims such as Walid are leading radicalizers of American Muslims, and their efforts are dedicated to pushing vulnerable Muslims away from integration and reform against Islamist movements.

M. Zuhdi Jasser is the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix, Arizona and co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement. He is author of “A Battle for the Soul of Islam.”

British Officials Detained IDF Officer, Charged with ‘War Crimes’

British authorities detained a retired IDF officer on war crimes charges upon his arrival in the UK. He was on a list compiled by pro-Palestinian activists.


A retired IDF officer was questioned for several hours on charges of war crimes and finally released mainly due to intervention by Israel’s foreign ministry, as well as by the Operations Directorate and International Law Department of the IDF. British authorities later apologized to Israel for the detention.

The retired officer’s name was on a list prepared by pro-Palestinian activists who included any soldier who fought in Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014, which Israel had launched in response to the escalation of terror from Hamas-ruled Gaza, and whose identity was posted online. During the war, 67 IDF soldiers died defending the country, and hundreds were wounded.

“This includes 60 recipients of citations for excellence during the operation whose names and photographs were released by the IDF. For the Israeli public, it’s a badge of honor, but for pro-Palestinian organizations it’s the bread and butter of their delegitimization war against Israel,” a source told Ynet News.

“It is not just arrest warrants or delays of chiefs of staff or former generals, such as (former IDF chief) Gabi Ashkenazi, or (former head of Military Intelligence) Amos Yadlin, but the persecution of the every last soldier who served in the operation and whose identity was officially released,” the source explained.

Hamas Rocket damage Sderot

A man in the southern city of Sderot examines the damage to his home from a rocket from Gaza. (Edi Israel/Flash90)

There have been previous attempts by anti-Israel activists to have Israeli officials and senior IDF officers apprehended upon arrival in Great Britain. In late June, for instance, former Defense Minister and IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz was nearly arrested when he visited London. At the time, Mofaz was greeted at the airport by two Israeli diplomats. His arrest was avoided after swift action by the Israeli embassy in London and the British embassy in Israel.

Threats to arrest Israeli officials in the UK have been ongoing. In August, an online petition was launched demanding that Scotland Yard arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes upon his arrival in London the following month, when he visited British Prime Minister David Cameron to discuss the Iran nuclear deal and other issues of concern. The petition’s author, Damian Moran, alleged that international law dictates that Netanyahu should be detained for “the massacre of over 2,000 civilians in 2014.”

Israel dismissed the petition as a PR stunt.

By: Terri Nir, United with Israel

Britain? Moderates? How’s That Again? by Douglas Murray

  • A new poll of British Muslims found that a majority hold views with which most British people would disagree. For instance, 52% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be made illegal. An earlier poll found that 27% of British Muslims have “some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks” at the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo last year.

  • Whenever opinion poll results come out, nearly the entire Muslim community, including nearly all Muslims in the media and all self-appointed groups of “Muslim community leaders” try to prove that the poll is a fraud.
  • If I had always known my “community” harboured such views, and a poll revealing this truth came out, I would be deeply ashamed. But when such polls emerge about the opinions of British Muslims, is that there is never any hint of introspection. There is no shame and no concern, only attack.
  • If there were indeed a “moderate majority,” when a poll comes out saying that a quarter of your community wants fundamentally to alter the law of the land and live under Sharia, the other 75% would spend their time trying to change the opinions of that quarter. Instead, about 74% of the 75% not in favour of sharia spend their time covering for the 25% and attacking the polling company which discovered them.

One often hears about the “moderate Muslim majority.” ‘After any terrorist attack, politicians tell us that, “The moderate majority of Muslims utterly condemn this.” After any outrage, commentators and pundits spring up to say, “Of course the vast majority of Muslims are moderate.” But is it true? Are the vast majority of Muslims really “moderate”?

A number of factors suggest perhaps not — most obviously the problem repeatedly revealed by opinion polls. Time and again, the results of opinion polls in the Western world, never mind in the Middle East or North Africa, show a quite different picture from the “moderate majority” aquatint.

True, such polls can often show that, for instance, only 27% of British Muslims have “some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks” at the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo last year. True, that is only between a quarter and a third of British Muslims sympathizing with the blasphemy enforcement squad. On other occasions, such as recently in Britain with a new ICM poll commissioned by Channel 4, they find that a majority of Muslims hold views with which most British people would disagree. So for instance, the recent ICM poll found that 52% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be made illegal. That’s a striking figure. Not 52% of British Muslims saying homosexuality is “not their cup of tea” or that they are “not entirely on board with gay marriage,” but 52% of British Muslims thinking that homosexuality should be made a crime under the law.

But it is what happens after such polls emerge that the “moderate majority” idea really comes under strain. First, of course, there is always an attempt to put a positive spin on the results. So for instance, when the post-Charlie Hebdo poll came out last year, the BBC (which had commissioned the poll) ran it with the headline, “Most British Muslims ‘oppose Muhammad cartoon reprisals.’” Although true, it is not the most striking aspect of its findings. But it is what happens next that is most revealing and more truly calls into question whether we are really dealing with a “moderate majority” or, more truthfully, with a “moderate minority.” Because whenever the results come out, nearly the entire Muslim community, including nearly all Muslims in the media and all self-appointed groups of “Muslim community leaders,” try to prove that the poll is a fraud. It happened with the release of the ICM poll in the UK, as it has happened with every previous poll. With the exception of only one or two prominent dissident Muslims, every Muslim voice in the media and every Muslim group decided not to concern themselves with the ICM findings, but to try to pull apart the validity, methodology and even ‘motives’ of the poll. This is deeply revealing.

It is worth trying a thought-experiment here. Whatever community you come from, imagine your reaction if a poll like the ICM one on British Muslims had come out about whatever community you feel a part of. Imagine you are a Jew and a poll had come out saying the majority of other Jews in your country want to make being gay a crime. What would your first reaction be? My impression is that most Jews would be deeply embarrassed. Very shortly after that first reaction, you might begin to wonder what could be done to change such a terrible statistic around. It is possible, if you knew nobody of your faith who thought that homosexuality should be criminalized and had never come across this position before (or any previous polling which suggested the same thing) that you might question the credibility and methodology of the poll. But otherwise, you would probably sigh and wonder what could be done to improve things. If you knew the findings to be fairly accurate, why would you try to tear apart the findings?

Likewise, if tomorrow a poll were published of the opinions of white British people of Christian upbringing in the UK, I would take some interest in it. If it revealed that 39% of British Christians believed that wives should always obey their husbands (as the ICM poll showed British Muslims believe) then I would have some worries. If it also found that almost a quarter (23%) of British people of Christian origin wanted areas of the UK to divest themselves of the law of the land and be run instead on some Biblical literalist “take” on the law, I would worry some more.

Of course, neither of these eventualities is remotely likely to arise. But let us say that it did. What would be my reaction? The first would be to hang my head in shame. And I would hang it just that bit lower if the findings came as absolutely no surprise to me. If I had always known my “community” harboured such views, and a poll revealing this truth came out, I would be deeply ashamed that what I had always known was now known by everyone else in the country.

What is most interesting then, when such polls emerge about the opinions of British Muslims, is that there is never, ever, any hint of such introspection. There is no shame and no concern, only attack. If there were indeed a “moderate majority,” then when a poll comes out saying that a quarter of your community wants fundamentally to alter the law of the land and live under Sharia law, the other 75% would spend their time trying to change the opinions of that quarter. Instead, about 74% of the 75% not in favour of sharia spend their time covering for the 25% and attacking the polling company which discovered them. It is a tiny symptom of a much larger problem, the repercussions of which our societies have hardly begun to face.

Douglas Murray is a current events analyst and commentator based in London.

Britain: Labour Party Finds Itself Innocent! by Douglas Murray

  • The findings of this inquiry have now been published and amazingly the Labour party has found itself innocent.
  • In British left-wing politics, you cannot even clear yourself of accusations of anti-Semitism without having an outbreak of it right there and then.

Readers who have followed the UK Labour party’s recent travails will be surprised to hear the results of the party’s latest inquiry into its own behaviour. After a slew of anti-Semitic comments emanated from a Member of Parliament, a number of councillors and a member of the party’s executive committee, party leader Jeremy Corbyn finally ordered an inquiry into anti-Semitism in the party. The findings of this inquiry have now been published and amazingly the Labour party has found itself innocent. But even that has not gone down without incident.

The Labour party’s anti-Semitism problem began to be exposed at the start of this year when stories of routine anti-Semitism emerged from a junior wing of the party — specifically the Oxford University Labour Club. That scandal involved a number of resignations, and revelations of the use of anti-Semitic language as routine and commonplace among Labour students at Britain’s most prestigious university. An inquiry into these events, ordered by the party and conducted by Labour’s own Baroness Royall, promptly found “no evidence” of “institutional anti-Semitism.”

Then came the scandal of Naz Shah MP, who was suspended from the party pending an investigation into messages on social media, as well as the suspension of a number of Labour councillors for posting anti-Semitic content on Facebook and other sites.

Kerosene was promptly thrown onto this smouldering fire by National Executive Committee member, Ken Livingstone. The former Mayor of London used the opportunity of an anti-Semitism row to go on the BBC and talk about which early policies of Adolf Hitler’s he thought the Jewish people had agreed. The resulting firestorm culminated in Mr Livingstone locking himself in a disabled lavatory at the BBC while journalists shouted questions about Hitler under the door. Sensing that his party was in difficult public-relations waters, Jeremy Corbyn ordered an inquiry into the Labour party’s anti-Semitism problem, and asked left-wing campaigner Shami Chakrabarti to conduct the inquiry. Chakrabarti promptly joined the Labour party and started work.

On Thursday of last week Chakrabarti produced her findings. At an event in London organised by the Labour party, she announced that the Labour party was not in fact overrun by anti-Semitism “or other forms of racism,” but conceded that there was an “occasionally toxic atmosphere.” She also added that there was “too much clear evidence… of ignorant attitudes.”

UK Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn (left) appears at a press conference with left-wing campaigner Shami Chakrabarti (right), to present the findings of an inquiry into the Labour party’s anti-Semitism, June 30, 2016.

The man she was helping to vindicate, Jeremy Corbyn, then took to the stage and called for an end to Hitler and Nazi metaphors, and an end to comparisons between different human rights atrocities. He went on to say, “Racism is racism is racism. There is no hierarchy, no acceptable form of it.” In the hands of anyone else that might have been an end of it, but this is the modern Labour party of Jeremy Corbyn, and in the modern Labour party of Jeremy Corbyn no opportunity for a public relations catastrophe is ever missed. And so it was that at the launch of an inquiry into anti-Semitism a set of anti-Semitic incidents occurred.

First, there were the words of the leader himself. In his remarks attempting to curb anti-Semitism in the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn said,

“Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.”

This none-too subtle linkage between Israel and ISIS was promptly seized upon by commentators and religious leaders. Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis condemned the comments as “offensive,” and stated that rather than rebuilding trust with Britain’s Jewish community, Corbyn had in fact caused even “greater concern.”

Former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks called Corbyn’s comments “demonisation of the highest order, an outrage and unacceptable.” He went on to say that the comments showed “how deep the sickness is in parts of the left of British politics today.”

Meanwhile, in the audience of the event, a Labour MP who is Jewish — Ruth Smeeth — found herself the victim of anti-Semitic slurs from one of Jeremy Corbyn’s hard-left grassroots supporters. This individual insisted that Ms Smeeth was working in collusion with the “right-wing media” — an anti-Semitic trope of precisely the kind at which the Chakrabarti report had been meant to look. Corbyn failed to intervene, so the Jewish MP walked out of the event.

Smeeth subsequently joined the majority of Labour MPs who have already — for a whole multitude of reasons — called on Corbyn to resign. By failing to intervene in an anti-Semitic incident going on right in front of him, Corbyn had, she said in a statement, shown a “catastrophic failure of leadership,” adding:

“It is beyond belief that someone could come to the launch of a report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and espouse such vile conspiracy theories about Jewish people, which were ironically highlighted as such in Ms Chakrabarti’s report, while the leader of my own party stood by and did absolutely nothing.”

Yet here we are. It is 2016 and in British left-wing politics you cannot even clear yourself of accusations of anti-Semitism without having an outbreak of it right there and then. There are those who have long noticed this fact. There are also those who have long rued this fact. But only the current leadership of the Labour party can imagine that they are going to get away with avoiding this fact.

Douglas Murray is a current events analyst and commentator based in London.

Page 418 of 451
1 416 417 418 419 420 451
Skip to toolbar