Ministers are under pressure to ditch 'two-tier' plans for a new definition of Islamophobia
The study ordered by the Commission for Countering Extremism found that the public do not believe Islam needs further protection – with many saying the law has already gone too far in limiting discussion.
More than a third of voters said they self-censor their language when discussing Islam for fear of potential repercussions.
The report found that the public is broadly happy with the protections given to most religions. But 39 per cent of people said Islam enjoys too much protection in law, compared with just 18 per cent who think it needs more.
'Islam is the only religion asked about where a larger proportion of the public think it is protected too much,' the report stated.
The findings came as a consultation closed yesterday on government plans for a new definition of Islamophobia, championed by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, which critics have warned could create a blasphemy law 'by the back door'.
MPs last night said the plan could create a 'two-tier' system in which people would be barred from criticising Islam in the way they can with other religions.
In opposition, Labour signed up to a definition of Islamophobia which suggests the term 'Asian grooming gangs ' is racist.
Ministers established a 'working group' in February to create a new definition. Critics fear it will reach similar conclusions and warn it would have a 'chilling effect' on free speech if adopted.
Tory MP Nick Timothy, who has been encouraging people to respond to the 'rigged' consultation, said the study underlined public concerns about the issue.
The former Downing Street chief of staff said: 'The research shows what everyone already knows. The threat of violence, self-censorship and our new de facto blasphemy laws mean our freedom of speech is disappearing...We need a government prepared to stand up before the mob, not surrender to it.'
Fellow Tory Richard Holden, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Freedom of Speech, accused ministers of pandering to hardline campaigners on the issue because of the electoral threat posed to Labour by pro-Gaza independents.
He said: 'No one should be subjected to bigotry or hatred and individuals are rightly protected already under the law from discrimination...What we should never do, though, is allow Labour to single out a religion from challenge and debate as they try and win votes from certain communities.
'Angela Rayner and Sir Keir Starmer must not be allowed to create a two-tier system in which Islam gets special protection while those who raise safeguarding concerns, speak plainly or make factual observations find themselves targeted, punished and ostracised.'
The Commission for Countering Extremism was set up in 2018 to provide expert advice to the Home Office on tackling extremism in society.
The study ordered by the Commission for Countering Extremism found that the public do not believe Islam needs further protection – with many saying the law has already gone too far in limiting discussion
The body commissioned pollsters Ipsos to conduct the survey on public attitudes towards free speech. It was published last week.
No10 has insisted it is committed to free speech and will not adopt a policy that prevents legitimate criticism of Islam.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said: 'Any working group proposal must be compatible with the unchanging right of citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression. But we also need to take a step back.
'Levels of Islamophobia are at a record high and the work to develop a definition of anti-Muslim hatred or Islamophobia is aimed at improving understanding of unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
What is a wealth tax – and would it work in the UK?
Pressure is growing on Rachel Reeves to find new ways to boost the ailing economy after government borrowing reached the second-highest June figure since 1993 last month. Many now predict the chancellor will have little choice but to tweak taxes to find more funds for the Treasury following dramatic changes to government policy over cutting welfare spending and stripping back the winter fuel payment. At the same time, calls are also growing to axe the two-child benefit cap – a Tory-era policy which experts say keeps 400,000 children in poverty and runs contrary to Labour 's missions. These policy decisions, paired with a difficult economic backdrop, will require funds from somewhere. The chancellor has so far stuck to Labour's manifesto commitment not to raise taxes for working people, meaning tweaks to national insurance, income tax, and VAT are off the table. This means more creative tweaks may be under consideration for her next autumn budget, building on changes already made to levies like inheritance tax and employers' national insurance. One option an increasing number of campaigners are pointing to is a ' wealth tax', an economic policy adopted by very few countries which focuses on the ultra-rich. Here's everything you need to know about the idea and what the experts say about it: What is a wealth tax? A wealth tax is a direct levy on an individual's total net assets – things like property, investments, cash, and other possessions. Unlike most regular taxes, the idea is to target accumulated wealth, rather than only income earned that year. Alongside being a new way to raise revenue for the exchequer, the policy is also designed to redistribute wealth to reduce economic inequality. The UK already has some taxes that focus on assets, such as inheritance tax, capital gains tax, and council tax. Tweaking any of these may also be on the table for the chancellor later this year. Capital gains tax is most similar to a wealth tax in that it sees a levy charged on the sale of an asset. However, most models of a wealth tax would see an annual charge based on the value of assets held, even if they are not sold. The idea of a wealth tax has proven divisive among economic experts, with debates ongoing around its fairness, revenue-raising potential, and economic impact. Could a wealth tax work in the UK? Campaigners say a wealth tax could generate significant sums for the Treasury, whilst only affecting a small number of individuals who are less likely to feel the sting of higher receipts. Tax Justice UK is calling for a two per cent levy on individuals who own assets worth more than £10 million. They say this would affect 0.04 per cent of the population, while raising £24 billion a year. The calls come at a time when the wealth of the ultra-rich in the UK has increased massively in recent decades, while living standards have dropped for those on low- to middle-incomes. The Sunday Times rich list recorded 171 UK billionaires in 2023 – up from 15 in 1990. At the same time, there are now record numbers of children living in poverty in the UK, and in precarious living conditions like temporary accommodation. A wealth tax should be seriously considered by the chancellor, said author and host of the Macrodose podcast, James Meadway: 'It starts to chip away at the idea that we're just going to allow wealth to pile up in a very few hands forevermore.' Responding to criticism that a wealth tax would threaten investment in the UK, the economist said: 'Investment has fallen off a cliff between Brexit and the financial crisis. Sixty per cent of wealth in Britain is inherited. It's not something that's been built up by somebody going off and setting up a new business. 'If these people were any good, our economy would be better. It isn't better, so they're not that good, so it doesn't matter that much.' He added: 'It's not going to solve every single economic problem, but 24 billion is not a number to be sniffed at if you're the government right now looking at how you're going to continue to fund the NHS, how you're going to pay for not imposing massive benefit cuts, how you're going to get rid of the two child benefit cap. 'There's a whole stack of things that we could do with that money that isn't being done at the minute because it's just sitting in the hands of very, very wealthy people.' What are the issues with a wealth tax? One of the most difficult factors in calculating the benefits of any wealth tax is predicting what the behavioural response will be. While a wealth tax would raise fairly large sums in any scenario, this uncertainty means it is hard to model. A common concern put forward is the risk of 'capital flight,' where wealthy individuals – who tend to be more globally mobile – simply leave the UK, or at least move some of their assets. Wealth can also be held in a diverse range of assets, anything from cars to art, meaning it may be hard for tax authorities to know exactly how to enforce the levy. Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said it is highly uncertain how much could be raised by implementing a wealth tax. While it is difficult to estimate exactly how many wealthy individuals would leave the UK should the measure come into force, the tax expert points out that just ten leaving could reduce the revenue by billions. This is because 15 per cent of the projected yield would come from just ten ultra-wealthy individuals, while 80 per cent would come from less than 5,000. Alongside the risk of capital flight, Mr Neidle argues that the economic damage of a wealth tax to the UK would be massive. He explained: 'If you tax something, you get less of it – always. All taxes are a trade-off; you need to just be clear about what they are. With a wealth tax, you're taxing savings and investment, so you get less savings and investment.' The tax expert points to modelling of wealth tax in the US and Germany, which found the long-term effect was a two per cent and five per cent reduction in GDP respectively. This would be damaging for the economy and hit employment hard. 'We need to respond not to what we want policies to do, but what they actually do,' Mr Neidle added. 'There are lots of ways you can reform tax and tax the wealthy fairly in a way that doesn't damage the rest of us.' These could include reforming land tax, capital gains tax, and inheritance tax. Any of these is probably a more likely option for Labour than introducing a wealth tax. But as autumn approaches, calls for some form of more redistributive measure will likely only grow louder.
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Former SNP Westminster deputy leader Mhairi Black quits party
Former SNP Westminster deputy leader Mhairi Black is reported to have quit the SNP, with the ex MP citing the party's 'capitulation' on trans rights as part of the reason for her decision. Ms Black said while she still supported Scottish independence there had been 'too many times' when she did not agree with decisions made by the party. She told The Herald newspaper: 'Basically, for a long time, I've not agreed with quite a few decisions that have been made. 'There have just been too many times when I've thought, 'I don't agree with what you've done there' or the decision or strategy that has been arrived at.' Ms Black said she was 'still just as pro independence, absolutely' but claimed the party's 'capitulation on LGBT rights, trans rights in particular' had been an issue for her. She added: 'I thought the party could be doing better about Palestine as well.' The former MP said: 'If anything, I'm probably a bit more left wing than I have been. I don't think I have changed all that much. I feel like the party needs to change a lot more.' Ms Black was catapulted into the political limelight when she was elected to Westminster at the age of just 20 and became the youngest MP since 1832. She was elected as the MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, ousting the former Labour cabinet secretary, Douglas Alexander, with her victory there coming as the SNP captured all but three of the seats in Scotland in the 2015 general election – the first since the independence vote in 2014. She later became her party's deputy leader in the House of Commons when Stephen Flynn took over as group leader, but stepped down at the 2024 general election, blaming the 'toxic' environment at Westminster. She was also diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) during her time at Westminster, saying previously that the condition was picked up after she became unwell with 'burn-out' during her time as an MP. An SNP spokesperson said: 'The SNP is the largest political party in Scotland, united under John Swinney's vision of creating a better, fairer Scotland for everyone. 'After a year of disappointment and let-downs from the UK Labour Government, it's clear that real change will never come from Westminster and that independence is essential for a better future.'
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Super-rich cancel property purchases in Britain over wealth tax fears
The super-rich are cancelling property purchases amid fears of a wealth tax, experts have said. Rachel Reeves is under mounting pressure from backbenchers and unions to impose a new levy on savings, investments and property as she looks for ways to fill an estimated £30bn hole in the public finances. Former Labour leader, Lord Kinnock, has said a 2pc tax on assets over £10m would bring in £11bn for the Treasury. So far, the Chancellor has refused to rule this out, despite warnings a wealth tax could trigger major capital flight. Advisers to the wealthy say the rumours have already pushed some to change their plans. Nimesh Shah, of business advisory firm Blick Rothenberg, said his clients – who were previously committed to Britain – were cancelling plans to buy property so they could remain 'flexible' in the event of a wealth tax. He said: 'I have had a wave of enquiries from clients after [Lord] Kinnock talked about a wealth tax. I had a query from a client this morning who was committed to staying and was about to buy a property and now think they won't because they want to be flexible about leaving.' He added others were planning to go 'anywhere but the UK' if the wealth tax went ahead. Mr Shah also said many feared Labour could bring in the wealth tax 'overnight', and impose anti-forestalling measures. James Ward, of law firm Kingsley Napley, said others had started moving cash and investments out of the UK ahead of the Budget this autumn. 'The potential wealth tax is on the tip of everyone's tongue at present,' he said. 'There is a genuine concern that there will be capital flight restrictions introduced if the situation gets too bad – so those who can be financially mobile are getting their assets away from the UK.' Wealthy fleeing UK Meanwhile, some advisers said clients had doubled back on property purchases because of the non-dom reforms and other tax changes. Matthew Braithwaite, of law firm Wedlake Bell, said: 'A high-profile wealthy client of mine last year was considering buying a trophy property this year, but has decided not to and is instead considering leaving the UK principally because of the business property relief reforms.' The Chancellor cut business property relief in the last Budget, introducing a £1m allowance for company shares qualifying for inheritance tax. Previously, families could pass on businesses of unlimited value tax-free. She also launched a major overhaul of the non-dom regime, reducing tax breaks for wealthy foreigners. Under the old non-dom rules, foreign nationals could live in the UK without paying tax on overseas income and gains for up to 15 years – but the Government has now reduced this window to just four years. The Chancellor is looking for ways to fill a black hole in the public finances resulting from weak growth, high borrowing costs and a £5bn welfare spending about-turn. A spokesman for HM Treasury said: 'As set out in the Plan for Change, the best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus. 'Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8bn and cut borrowing by £3.4bn. 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last autumn's Budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance, or VAT.'
