Lisa Nandy accused of prioritising Islam over other religions
Lisa Nandy has made Fadi Itani, chief executive of the Muslim Charities Forum (MCF), a member of the steering committee of her Civil Society Covenant.
The 15-strong Civil Society Covenant aims to boost social cohesion with the help of 'volunteers, charities, faith organisations' and others.
Ms Nandy has described the committee as 'a new chapter in the relationship between this Government and the remarkable civil society organisations that form the backbone of our communities'. She describes such organisations as 'the eyes, ears and voice of the people'.
Yet the Muslim Charities Forum is the only faith-specific group to be represented on its advisory group. The only other religious organisation is Faith Action, which represents all faiths.
In 2015 the MCF was stripped of £138,000 of government funding after a Telegraph investigation reported alleged links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The MCF denies ever having supported any charities or groups that have links to terrorist or proscribed organisations.
The group was founded in 2008 by Dr Hany El-Banna, who was awarded an OBE in 2004 and remains a trustee of MCF.
In 2020 he posted a video on X of a lecture he gave in which he described the Yazidi people – thousands of whom were massacred by Islamic State terrorists – as 'devil worshippers'.
He has since apologised, saying he had been using a colloquial Arabic term but that it was 'clearly inappropriate'. He has met representatives of the UK Yazidi community to apologise directly.
A spokesman for Insight UK, the Hindu and Indian advocacy group, said: 'The Government's decision to invite only a Muslim charity to participate in its civic society covenant while excluding other faith groups is discriminatory and shows preferential treatment for one faith group.
'While the inclusion of Muslim voices in civic dialogue is valuable, the exclusion of other faith groups such as Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and other faith-based organisations suggests an inconsistent approach to interfaith representation.
'To ensure legitimacy and effectiveness, the Government should clarify its selection criteria and broaden participation to include all major faith communities in this civic initiative.'
A legal representative for the Muslim Charities Forum said: 'Our clients have no reason to believe or suspect that any of their member charities support (whether financially or by any other means) any terrorist or other proscribed organisations.
'For the sake of completeness, nor do our clients have any reason to believe that any of those charities support or have links to the Muslim Brotherhood (which is not proscribed in the United Kingdom).'
On the issue of Dr Banna's video, the MCF's legal representative said: 'Dr El-Banna has long since issued an apology for using a colloquial Arabic term which, although commonly used in the region, was clearly inappropriate.
'He has met with representatives of the UK Yazidi community to apologise directly and clarify any misunderstandings.'
Society's 'full diversity'
Mr Itani was awarded an OBE in 2021 for services to charity and interfaith relations.
The Civil Society Covenant also includes the head of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the head of the Co-op and the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress.
A spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: 'Faith groups are explicitly recognised and valued partners under our Civil Society Covenant and on the Advisory Council – acknowledging faith organisations as essential to delivering our Plan for Change missions and tackling Britain's biggest challenges.
'The Covenant was developed through extensive engagement with over 1,200 organisations across civil society's full diversity, including multiple faith and interfaith groups whose contributions helped shape the final document.
'We look forward to strengthening our partnership with faith organisations as we implement the Covenant's commitments together.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Proscribing Palestine Action has 'empowered' far-right, say protesters
Protesters in a UK town twinned with Al-Mawasi in Gaza blame the Palestine Action ban for an increase in violence and abuse against demonstrators. An organiser of the Friends of Al-Mawasi group, based in Hastings, East Sussex, said the UK Government has 'empowered' extremists by trying to 'demonise' Palestine supporters. In July, Hastings Borough Council passed a motion to back an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, an end to all arms sales to Israel and to support the town's friendship links with the people of Al-Mawasi – a section of the Gaza Strip. Last month, at a fundraising walk, there were multiple alleged incidents of verbal and physical abuse from counter-protesters which were reported to the police. A woman, waiting for the demonstrators at De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill, was pushed to the ground and called a 'f****** terrorist' for wearing a keffiyeh, while a Jewish man, whose father escaped the Holocaust, was repeatedly called a Nazi by Israel supporters. Both incidents were reported to Sussex Police after the walk on July 20. On Sunday, roughly 100 protesters ran a second fundraising walk from Hastings beach along the coast to Bexhill 'in defiance' of the abuse. Grace Lally, who helped set up the group and campaigned for the town to twin with Al-Mawasi, believes there is a 'clear link' between the Government action and the abuse. She said: 'Those extremists have been empowered by a Government that says, people supporting Palestine are terrorists, d'you know what I mean?' Ms Lally added: 'The reason it's being challenged in the court and the reason the court has given permission for a judicial review to be held is because of the chilling effect of that ruling which blurs the line between protest and terrorism.' She said it did not matter that the Government had only proscribed Palestine Action rather than all protesters. 'That (the decision) I think has emboldened people on the far-right, extremists, to sort of see anyone who's supporting Palestine as a legitimate target,' Ms Lally said. On Saturday, more than 500 people were arrested in central London for showing support for Palestine Action. Richard Wistreich, a member of Jews for Justice Hastings, was one of the demonstrators who faced abuse in the July fundraising march. He told the PA news agency that cars had parked on their route to Bexhill, with a couple of people waving Israeli flags and shouting abuse as the protesters passed by. Mr Wistreich, whose father escaped Poland in the late 1930s, said: 'At one point one of them got out of the car and saw my T-shirt, which made it quite clear that I am proclaiming myself to be Jewish. 'So I was then very loudly told that I was not a Jew and in fact I was a Nazi, in a very, very aggressive manner.' The woman wearing the keffiyeh, who wishes to remain anonymous, said a man approached her on the pavilion aggressively and said 'that scarf', which she ignored. She said: 'I wasn't responding to him at all because he looked so angry and then he went 'you're a f****** terrorist' and then he proceeded to grab the scarf and pull me close to him.' The woman said she tried to get his hands off her, but he pushed her to the ground and she hit her head, before two people intervened and pulled the man off her. On Sunday afternoon, the protesters were wary of further incidents but bolstered by much greater numbers, and the vast majority of passers-by seemed supportive. A few made comments which the protesters ignored. Before the walk, Green Party councillor Yunis Smith said: 'We may see some people trying to antagonise us, cause issues, trying to be abusive, aggressive, offensive, let's remember the strength, perseverance and patience that our Palestinian brothers and sisters have when we face this.' When links between the towns were first set up in 2022, Al-Mawasi, located in western Khan Younis, was a rural farming and fishing town with a population of 12,000. According to the United Nations, there were 425,000 displaced Palestinians living in the area as of June 19, and the protesters said the figure is now closer to 600,000. Israel is obliged under international humanitarian law to ensure adequate and safe shelter for internally displaced people, as well as access to food, water, and medical care, until they can return to their homes. A United Nations report released in June said that Israel had not made 'any effort' to comply with those laws since its offensive began. 'I can't understand how anybody, regardless of your political persuasion, can see this level of injustice and not break inside, I just don't, I don't get it,' said councillor Smith. Ms Lally said it was 'bittersweet' to have the council finally twin with Al-Mawasi given the devastation in the area, but still felt it was a positive step. 'Palestine is made up of communities of people and those people, they're not going away, they will rebuild, this will end, there will be a future for them and twinning sort of is just a testament to that,' she said.
Times
22 minutes ago
- Times
Ignorant government plans to tax bookies more could destroy racing
Tax the bookmakers more. It's a policy sure to garner public support, isn't it? The problem is not the idea of taxing the betting industry at a higher level, it is the way that the government is proposing to do it. It is not far-fetched to say that the changes, if introduced in the autumn statement, could be the death knell for horse racing in Britain. The government needs cash and the bookmakers are a soft target. The idea is to harmonise tax on bookmakers' profits on all their income streams. At the moment there is a division between tax paid on online casino profits (21 per cent goes to the government) and sports/racing betting (paid at 15 per cent). The suggestion is to charge 21 per cent across the board. There are exceptions, such as George Freeman (Conservative, Mid Norfolk) and Sally Jameson (Labour, Doncaster Central), but many MPs do not appear to understand the differences between betting on sports, which involves an element of skill, compared with casino betting, where bookmakers cannot lose. They also appear to be oblivious of the damage it will do to the racing industry, which provides jobs for 85,000 people. A further 10 per cent of bookmakers' profits from bets placed on horse racing are paid back to the sport. This levy came into force when betting shops were legalised in 1961 as a means to help fund the sport. It was introduced to combat the fact that fewer people would go racing once off-course betting was permitted, while also recognising the symbiotic relationship of the racing and betting industries. As a result, though, betting on racing is less profitable for bookmakers, making them keen to push punters towards higher-margin products, with online casinos being top of their list. The reason that racing will be badly hit by the proposed tax changes is that it will make bookmakers even less keen to promote betting on the sport, which provides the lifeblood of the industry. Modelling commissioned by the British Horseracing Authority suggested that increasing tax on betting on racing to 21 per cent, to level it up with betting on online casinos, would cost the sport £66million a year in lost income from levy, media rights and sponsorship. That would be ruinous for a sport that is already struggling. A hike in tax on online casino betting would make more sense and could generate the same level of revenue for the government. There is zero skill in betting on online casinos — bookmakers take a fixed margin, set by themselves, on a product on which they literally cannot lose in the long run. A higher level of tax on online casinos would have the added bonus of discouraging bookmakers from promoting a product that causes the majority of problem gambling. The Gambling Commission has already inflicted damage to racing's finances. In 2023 it produced a white paper suggesting that bookmakers should 'check for financial vulnerability' if a gambler lost either £125 in a month or £500 in a year. Bookmakers saw the proposals and, keen to avoid being hit with large fines, started making intrusive checks on their customers' financial situations to the extent that many punters now use offshore gambling companies that provide no income for racing or the government purse. The latter point is not hearsay — betting on racing has dropped 16 per cent in three years and polling carried out by YouGov for the Betting and Gaming Council recently found that 14 per cent of punters admitted to gambling on a black-market site. The public, many of whom are only cognisant of the biggest events, will perhaps believe that racing is a wealthy sport that can well afford the hit. That is a misconception. Flat racing in Britain has been kept competitive at an international level by the largesse of wealthy foreign owners, primarily from the Middle East. Even so, it is struggling at the top end, with prize money that compares badly with other leading racing nations. Much of the best bloodstock that is bred in Britain has been heading overseas for some time and it is now approaching a tipping point where British breeders will not be able to compete with similar operations abroad. Prize money at the bottom level is so poor that a horse can win eight races in a year and still not cover its costs. The vast majority of trainers and jockeys are struggling to make a living. The effects of overtaxing racing can be seen from recent events in India. In 2017 the government introduced a goods and services tax on money bet on racing at a rate of 28 per cent. Punters paid the price and as their returns dwindled many turned to illegal bookmakers who paid no tax. Government revenues from racing more than halved in five years. British racing has been revered throughout the world for decades. Its history has maintained its place in the minds of leading owners but the point is fast approaching where that is no longer the case. If the sport is to continue to provide work for so many, and continue to attract inward investment to the UK, the government needs to rethink its proposed tax changes.
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on attacking the ECHR: the real target is judicial independence and the rule of law
Most British citizens have little contact with human rights law, which is as it should be in a mature democracy. Widespread anxiety about basic freedoms is a feature of more repressive regimes. Many people will only have heard of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) in the context of the last Conservative government's failed attempts to dispatch asylum seekers to Rwanda, or in a handful of incidents where convicted criminals or terrorist suspects have avoided deportation to jurisdictions where they might face inhumane treatment. Such cases are amplified by politicians who are hostile to the whole apparatus of human rights law. The Strasbourg court that adjudicates on breaches of the ECHR is denounced as an enemy of British sovereignty. Those attacks will continue for as long as asylum, and small-boats traffic on the Channel in particular, are salient political issues – for the foreseeable future, in other words. Labour's new 'one-in, one-out' scheme for returning seaborne refugees is more robust in legal and humanitarian terms than the failed Tory method. France is a safe country. That won't stop critics accusing the government of failing to control the border and citing international human rights conventions as the main impediment to the restoration of law and order. Nigel Farage has said he would 'get rid of the ECHR' as a day-one priority should Reform UK ever form a government. Kemi Badenoch is drifting to the same position, albeit with circumspection. The Conservative leader acknowledges that peremptory rupture is not straightforward, especially for Northern Ireland since European convention rights are woven into the Good Friday agreement. Mrs Badenoch has commissioned a report to consider how an ECHR exit might be achieved but expressed her personal view that Britain 'will likely need to leave' because human rights are wielded as a 'sword … to attack democratic decisions and common sense.' The core argument, for both Mrs Badenoch and Mr Farage, is that voters want politicians to expel undesirable elements from society but the popular will is being thwarted by unelected judges. Human rights, in this conception, are a loophole through which criminals and foreign interlopers evade justice. Ideas codified after the second world war as foundational principles of a new democratic settlement for Europe are recast as attacks on the law-abiding majority. This rhetorical subterfuge gets a purchase on public discourse through channels previously opened by Brexit. The ECHR is not an EU institution, but the fact of it being European in name stirs suspicion that it is an alien imposition. Dispensing with human rights obligations would be a necessary step for any government seeking to emulate Donald Trump's programme of detaining and deporting migrants without regard for due process. It is not far-fetched to envisage a Reform government recreating that model, given Mr Farage's record of admiration for Mr Trump. ECHR rulings are not infallible. A 71-year-old institution can reasonably be scrutinised with a view to reform. But that is not what its noisiest UK antagonists have in mind. They target the convention not because it is a big part of public life, but because it is a minor one and poorly understood. It is a soft target in a longer campaign to undermine judicial independence, discredit liberal principle and, ultimately, degrade the rule of law to the benefit of unaccountable executive power.
