Latest news with #DominicGrieve
BBC News
3 days ago
- Politics
- BBC News
The World Tonight No sign of reconciliation between Trump and Musk
US President Donald Trump is "not particularly interested" in speaking to Elon Musk after the tech billionaire and former close political ally turned on him in a bitter and public war of words. Initial reports that the pair had scheduled a phone call came to nothing. With some among the MAGA branch of Trump's supporters rounding on Musk, we explored the factional infighting and what impact it might have on the Big Beautiful Bill which Trump wants the Senate to pass, but which Musk opposes. Also on the programme, can supporters of the European Convention on Human Rights head off criticism by adapting the treaty? That's what the Secretary General of the Council of Europe seems to suggest. We hear from former Attorney General Dominic Grieve. And we speak to the Hollywood actor turned cryptocurrency sceptic about his new documentary on the phenomenon, premiering at the SXSW festival in London.
The Guardian
09-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
There are three ways moderates could yet save the Tories. One is to renounce Brexit
The thanksgiving service for the Tory grandee Michael Ancram last week resembled the funeral of his party. Amid an array of traditional Conservatives such as John Major and a multitude of that old ilk, one observer tells me there was no sign of the current shadow cabinet: they belong to a different party altogether. After their lowest vote ever last week, is it all over? A sign of life stirs among the embers. All is not quite lost, if the silenced cohort of moderates listen to the likes of a new party member. David Gauke has rejoined the Conservative party, where he was justice secretary before being ejected for rebelling against Boris Johnson's threatened 'no deal' Brexit. He wasn't sure the party would take him back, he was ready to write about his second rejection, but the computer said yes. He's back to fight and fight again to save his party from its rightward march into Faragism. A phalanx of those expelled and those who walked, along with some quiet Tory MPs in parliament, see the glimmer of a chance of creating a renewed party with values they call core conservatism. Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general and also expelled by Johnson in 2019, is another appalled at the galloping campaign by Robert Jenrick to lead the party into the heart of the far right: Jenrick was caught by Sky revealing his 'unite the right' plan to merge one way or another with Nigel Farage. 'This is not my party,' says Grieve, who has not reapplied for membership. 'The party used to note populist sentiment as a problem but never inflamed it or echoed its vitriol. Jenrick runs a campaign that is racist: there's no other way to describe it, demonising immigrants as rapists and knife-killers who free-load on us. It's utterly reprehensible, stoking emotions that cause riots, exactly as Farage does.' He points with disgust to Jenrick's stream of immigrant hatred posted on X: 'Foreign criminals dodge deportation. Illegal migrants get to stay.' Here's pure Trumpism: 'Equality, Diversity and Inclusion has become a Trojan horse for anti-white discrimination. It's created identity-based recruitment, where opportunities are offered on the colour of someone's skin, not the content of their character. This state-sanctioned racism must end.' This former justice secretary issues Trumpian threats to the judiciary: 'The simplest solution is to remove judges with a record of activism.' All that, says Grieve, 'is the hallmark of the new Conservative party'. Other moderate Tories, sources say, will not speak publicly now, but about 20 MPs could join resistance to a Jenrick demarche: no names for fear of deselection. Justine Greening on these pages spelled out the party's 'dead parrot' state, scoring a lowest-ever 15% in local elections, a majority only among the over-70s. But she didn't quite have a recipe or a route to restoration. What would it take? A breathtaking turn. Public contrition is essential 'to distance us from Johnson and Liz Truss, acknowledging her effect on the economy', says Gauke. But here's the big one: repenting of Brexit, confessing it was a serious error; not necessarily advocating an instant rejoin, but rapidly repairing EU relations. That could summon back 4 million Tory remainers who, they say, fled post-referendum. Who could do that? Their best hope is for the affable and essentially moderate James Cleverly to step forward as an erstwhile Brexiter to tell the truth about how badly Brexit turned out, a stunning move to define these new/old Conservatives. The other essential shift, they say, is electoral reform, the only way to split from Jenrickism, allowing alternative opinions on the right and scuppering Jenrick's far-right bloc. 'First-past-the-post no longer fits five-party voting,' Gauke and other rebels say, quite rightly. Here Labour MPs need to sit up and listen: their party, which backed electoral reform at its conference, needs it urgently to defend the country against the far-right risk. Labour people might chortle with glee at Tory disintegration. But in the fight against the extreme right, Tory moderates are needed to take on Faragism. Without them, the country has no moderate alternative to the right of Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens and others, risking calamity if Labour is unpopular in 2029. Labour's win of 63% of seats on 34% of votes could be mirrored by Farage/Jenrickites. Look at Kent last week, where Reform won 70% of seats on just 37% of the vote, or Exeter where Labour topped the poll but won not a single seat. Naturally these new/old Conservatives have no appeal to social democrats, after all – these Tories are absolutely conservative. Talking to them for this column, their model is as follows: they are socially liberal, downplaying culture wars, but think woke went far too far. These Heseltinian Tories are strong on defence and strong on building regeneration, such as the former deputy prime minister's development corporations. Strongly pro-business, one tells me: 'No more ignoring productive finance in the south in favour of loss-making steelworkers in Scunthorpe.' They are pro-free market and want 'to expose Farage's sloppy thinking, especially on nationalisation, too far from Thatcherism.' They want public service efficiency, saying Labour is in the pockets of unions, on the side of producers, not consumers and some questioning the long-term viability of the welfare state. They challenge Liberal Democrats' 'unrealistic' policies: 'they're only a protest party', another says. Divided on slowing net zero, united on 'we'd burnish educational excellence and opportunity'. A 'pro-enterprise' tax system would repeal non-dom taxes that expel the rich. Lower taxes and spending are at their core, but pragmatically, only when possible. Defence bonds would raise funds. The sell is a 'sensible party' reclaiming the 'affluent, educated aspirational middle classes', while appealing to traditional working-class Tories with respect for heritage, institutions of the state, monarchy and parliament. No soap-box grandstanding but a grown-up political tone. No more awful ya-boo Tory press releases several times a day, many with utterly mendacious attacks on Labour: they would restore some political dignity, backing the government when it's right, attacking selectively on key matters. It's a hard task. Prof Tim Bale, aficionado on the Tories, warns that the Lib Dems are now firmly rooted in southern Tory turf. He points out with brutal realism that voters divided on left/right, liberal/reactionary axes cluster thinly in this one nation quadrant of socially liberal but economically dry: probably 20% of voters. But in these fractured days, 20% would see off the hard right. However, all this is unicorn and rainbow talk, unless Labour uses these next four years for electoral reform. If they refuse, they had better be 100% sure it won't gift power to an unspeakable Farage/Jenrick alliance. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
Middle East Eye
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
UK Islamophobia definition to protect right to 'insult religions'
The UK government has published more details about a working group set up to advise it on a possible definition of Islamophobia which would also protect the right to "insult" religious beliefs and practices. The membership of the working group appears to signal that the government is engaging with the recently launched British Muslim Network (BMN), but not the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) - the largest umbrella body claiming to represent British Muslims. Dominic Grieve, a former Conservative attorney general, has been appointed chair of the group with BMN co-chair Akeela Ahmed among its four other members. Earlier this year it emerged that the government was planning to create a working group to draw up an official definition for anti-Muslim discrimination. This suggested it was rowing back plans to adopt the definition proposed in 2018 by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for British Muslims. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters That definition, which the Conservative government rejected, was criticised by some as potentially stifling criticism of Islam, which the APPG strongly denied. Adopted by Labour in opposition, the definition characterises Islamophobia as "a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness". In September 2024, Labour's faith minister Lord Wajid Khan said that "the definition proposed by the APPG is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, which defines race in terms of colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins". Freedom of speech The new working group's terms of reference, published on Monday, include giving advice on "the merits of government adopting a non-statutory definition of unacceptable treatment of Muslims and anyone perceived to be Muslim, including what a proposed definition should be". This establishes that the government has not yet decided that it will adopt any definition of Islamophobia. In apparent reference to widespread criticism, the terms say that any proposed definition "must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression - which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents." Ahmed's inclusion in the working group comes just weeks after the official launch of the BMN in February with backing from faith minister Khan, and after Middle East Eye had previously revealed it had lost much of its Muslim support and was being backed by a charity set up by disgraced former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. Exclusive: British Muslim Network backed by charity set up by former archbishop Welby Read More » MEE reported ahead of the launch that several Muslim MPs privately said they would not attend after a series of controversies. Critics have suggested that the BMN's co-chairs and advisory board lack credibility, warning that the government could use the network to continue to avoid engaging with the Muslim Council of Britain. But the BMN's leadership has argued that the government should engage with a "whole range" of Muslim groups, including both the MCB and BMN. Consecutive governments have followed a policy of refusing to engage with the MCB - despite it having over 500 member organisations, including mosques, schools, local and county councils, professional networks and advocacy groups. Starmer's government adopted this approach and even ignored communications from the MCB during the far-right riots that raged across the country for over a week in August. The BMN does not claim to be a similarly representative body. But its representation on the new working group indicates that the government has chosen to engage with the organisation while continuing to boycott the MCB. Another notable omission from the membership list is Tell Mama, an Islamophobia reporting service funded by the communities ministry and accused of severely under-reporting hate crimes. The Guardian reported earlier this month that no grant will be provided to the organisation from the end of March, leaving it facing closure. Working definition Also on the working group is Professor Javed Khan, managing director of Equi, a new think tank which says it was "born out of the UK Muslim community". At the parliamentary launch of an Equi report last month, Khan told parliamentarians and civil society figures that the think tank was "seeing engagement" from the Labour government, including ministers and special advisers. "The government needs to be faith literate in its policy development," he said. Equi's report on Muslims in the British arts and culture scene notably warned that Muslim creatives are often "herded" into receiving funding from the contentious Prevent counter-extremism programme, which "often toxifies, devalues and limits artistic intent". British Muslim creators 'herded' into Prevent funding, says Equi think tank Read More » Grieve, the chair of the working group, previously chaired the Citizens' UK Commission on Islam, aimed at promoting dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims, and wrote the foreword to the contentious APPG report on Islamophobia in 2018, calling it "food both for thought and positive action". He said last month that "defining Islamophobia is extremely difficult for perfectly valid reasons relating to freedom of expression", but noted that "perfectly law-abiding Muslims going about their business and well integrated into society are suffering discrimination and abuse". Baroness Shaista Gohir, a crossbench peer and CEO of Muslim Women's Network UK (MWNUK), is another member of the working group. MEE revealed in late February that an MWNUK event in parliament in March celebrating the "cultural contribution of Muslims in the UK" was supported by TikTok, the social media giant accused of censoring content on human rights abuses faced by Uyghur Muslims in China. Aisha Affi, an independent consultant, is also named as a member of the working group. The terms of reference say that the group will have six months to deliver a working definition of Islamophobia to ministers. It establishes that the government "has the right to disband the Group at any point and without notice if they deem that it is no longer meeting its aims and objectives".
Telegraph
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Islamophobia laws are just censorship. Muslims already have solid protection
The noted theologian Angela Rayner has decided that this Labour Government should come up with a working definition of the term Islamophobia. She has now found a former Conservative, Dominic Grieve, to head the taskforce committed to solving this conundrum. For his part, Grieve has said that he hopes that the commission he is heading 'will come up with principles in defining Islamophobia' which will 'thus help support positive change in our country'. Allow me to make a prediction. Angela Rayner, Dominic Grieve and all the people involved will fail. Anybody could tell them that there are already more than enough laws in this country that protect people from abuse. And there are more than enough laws that prevent acts of criminality. For instance, it is already illegal to attack a mosque, like any other building. It is also already illegal to harass or harm someone. Furthermore, the woeful expansion of the 'non-crime hate incident ' as a part of the non-laws of this country has already allowed the police to come knocking on the front doors of people perceived to have said something mean online. But for those pushing for a definition of 'Islamophobia' none of this is enough. They do not want more laws to protect Muslims or Islam. They want special laws to protect one particular religion – and this is intolerable. It would be as though there was a large drive in this country to protect the feelings and views of Catholics. If there was a vast push, led by the government, to come up with a special working definition of 'Catholic-ophobia' then people might start to suspect something. And they would be right to do so. What would be the aims of such a move? Surely it would be to give extra protection to people of one faith? Protections above and beyond those which already protects citizens of any faith or none. What would be the societal repercussions? I can say with some certainty that it would introduce – among much else – a nervousness among elected representatives, newspaper editors and other public figures about exposing any mistakes or crimes carried out in the name of the Catholic Church, or by a Catholic. The average citizen in the pub or on social media would soon feel that pressure, too. Wonder about making a lame joke about all Catholic priests being child-abusers and you would have to wonder if there wasn't going to be a knock on the door from some low-grade police official. So it will be if this push to define 'Islamophobia' gets what it wants. After all, it is not as though there is already a level playing field when it comes to religious offence in this country. Ever since the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 every writer in this country has known that Islam is out of bounds when it comes to criticism. There is a reason why this age has not seen an outpouring of novels satirising the origin story of Islam. Likewise, cartoonists and others – who are often on the front lines of free-speech disputes – all know one thing above all: mock Christianity and attack Jews, but don't under any circumstances draw anything that might offend the sensibilities of Muslims. Their slain colleagues at Charlie Hebdo in Paris stand as a stark reminder of what happens if you poke that particular hornet's nest. In other words, none of this is theoretical. Everybody in Britain who has any care for using their free-speech rights in this country already knows that there is a religion and a subject which has been put assiduously off-limits by men of violence. And now comes the kicker. Which is that with that piece of censorship by the sword already put in place, this Government now seeks to put in place legislation which will without doubt prevent anyone from noticing the violent ways in which parts of the Muslim world already go about their business. If you were to notice that large crowds of Muslims in Bradford approved of the murder of Salman Rushdie would you be guilty of 'Islamophobia'? What if you noted that after the 2015 massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo almost 80 per cent of British Muslims said they found images depicting the founder of Islam as offensive and 27 per cent of British Muslims said that they had 'some sympathy' for the motives of the jihadists who carried out the attack? There will be softer cases which will come to hand even faster than these. Earlier this month there were huge celebrations in Piccadilly Circus with the turning on of the now traditional 'Ramadan lights'. The Muslim Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was joined by other Muslim celebrities as tens of thousands of lights appeared across the centre of London celebrating a Muslim religious event. Mayor Khan told media: 'If you had told me all those years ago that, within my lifetime, we would have lights in London celebrating Ramadan like we do Christmas, I wouldn't have believed you.' Well, me neither. But I can't say that I am especially thrilled by this 'progress'. I don't see it as especially desirable that a tourist travelling through central London should be under the impression that they were in Islamabad, just with better lighting. But that would almost certainly be 'Islamophobic'. What of the football fans who have had to start to get used to the new tradition of the match stopping so that Muslim players can break their fast during Ramadan? Is this something to be desired? If Catholic players insisted that they had to halt the game in order to celebrate the Holy Eucharist would everyone be expected to accept this with equanimity? I don't know. Try it at a Rangers-Celtic game some day. But in the meantime, people on the terraces will have to get used to the idea that feeling irritation (let alone expressing it) about this new tradition could itself become a crime. Say that you're not keen on an ultra-religious Muslim being the new head of Ofsted and you'll wade into equally tricky waters. Islam as a religion already has too many protections created by custom and fear. Muslims as people already have the same protections as everyone else. The 'Islamophobia' commission will fail – as its predecessors have done. But its idea of 'success' would be a defeat for everyone.
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Islamophobia laws are just censorship. Muslims already have solid protection
The noted theologian Angela Rayner has decided that this Labour Government should come up with a working definition of the term Islamophobia. She has now found a former Conservative, Dominic Grieve, to head the taskforce committed to solving this conundrum. For his part, Grieve has said that he hopes that the commission he is heading 'will come up with principles in defining Islamophobia' which will 'thus help support positive change in our country'. Allow me to make a prediction. Angela Rayner, Dominic Grieve and all the people involved will fail. Anybody could tell them that there are already more than enough laws in this country that protect people from abuse. And there are more than enough laws that prevent acts of criminality. For instance, it is already illegal to attack a mosque, like any other building. It is also already illegal to harass or harm someone. Furthermore, the woeful expansion of the 'non-crime hate incident' as a part of the non-laws of this country has already allowed the police to come knocking on the front doors of people perceived to have said something mean online. But for those pushing for a definition of 'Islamophobia' none of this is enough. They do not want more laws to protect Muslims or Islam. They want special laws to protect one particular religion – and this is intolerable. It would be as though there was a large drive in this country to protect the feelings and views of Catholics. If there was a vast push, led by the government, to come up with a special working definition of 'Catholic-ophobia' then people might start to suspect something. And they would be right to do so. What would be the aims of such a move? Surely it would be to give extra protection to people of one faith? Protections above and beyond those which already protects citizens of any faith or none. What would be the societal repercussions? I can say with some certainty that it would introduce – among much else – a nervousness among elected representatives, newspaper editors and other public figures about exposing any mistakes or crimes carried out in the name of the Catholic Church, or by a Catholic. The average citizen in the pub or on social media would soon feel that pressure, too. Wonder about making a lame joke about all Catholic priests being child-abusers and you would have to wonder if there wasn't going to be a knock on the door from some low-grade police official. So it will be if this push to define 'Islamophobia' gets what it wants. After all, it is not as though there is already a level playing field when it comes to religious offence in this country. Ever since the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 every writer in this country has known that Islam is out of bounds when it comes to criticism. There is a reason why this age has not seen an outpouring of novels satirising the origin story of Islam. Likewise, cartoonists and others – who are often on the front lines of free-speech disputes – all know one thing above all: mock Christianity and attack Jews, but don't under any circumstances draw anything that might offend the sensibilities of Muslims. Their slain colleagues at Charlie Hebdo in Paris stand as a stark reminder of what happens if you poke that particular hornet's nest. In other words, none of this is theoretical. Everybody in Britain who has any care for using their free-speech rights in this country already knows that there is a religion and a subject which has been put assiduously off-limits by men of violence. And now comes the kicker. Which is that with that piece of censorship by the sword already put in place, this Government now seeks to put in place legislation which will without doubt prevent anyone from noticing the violent ways in which parts of the Muslim world already go about their business. If you were to notice that large crowds of Muslims in Bradford approved of the murder of Salman Rushdie would you be guilty of 'Islamophobia'? What if you noted that after the 2015 massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo almost 80 per cent of British Muslims said they found images depicting the founder of Islam as offensive and 27 per cent of British Muslims said that they had 'some sympathy' for the motives of the jihadists who carried out the attack? There will be softer cases which will come to hand even faster than these. Earlier this month there were huge celebrations in Piccadilly Circus with the turning on of the now traditional 'Ramadan lights'. The Muslim Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was joined by other Muslim celebrities as tens of thousands of lights appeared across the centre of London celebrating a Muslim religious event. Mayor Khan told media: 'If you had told me all those years ago that, within my lifetime, we would have lights in London celebrating Ramadan like we do Christmas, I wouldn't have believed you.' Well, me neither. But I can't say that I am especially thrilled by this 'progress'. I don't see it as especially desirable that a tourist travelling through central London should be under the impression that they were in Islamabad, just with better lighting. But that would almost certainly be 'Islamophobic'. What of the football fans who have had to start to get used to the new tradition of the match stopping so that Muslim players can break their fast during Ramadan? Is this something to be desired? If Catholic players insisted that they had to halt the game in order to celebrate the Holy Eucharist would everyone be expected to accept this with equanimity? I don't know. Try it at a Rangers-Celtic game some day. But in the meantime, people on the terraces will have to get used to the idea that feeling irritation (let alone expressing it) about this new tradition could itself become a crime. Say that you're not keen on an ultra-religious Muslim being the new head of Ofsted and you'll wade into equally tricky waters. Islam as a religion already has too many protections created by custom and fear. Muslims as people already have the same protections as everyone else. The 'Islamophobia' commission will fail – as its predecessors have done. But its idea of 'success' would be a defeat for everyone. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
