I was on @GBNEWS to discuss why Barnet Hill Academy- a London school that forces seven-year-old girls to wear a veil, should not be receiving state funding. @tomhfh asked a pertinent question to @fahimaM100. Just watch how shamelessly she dodged the question and continued… pic.twitter.com/q6SwEmp85p
— Khadija Khan (@KhadijaKhan__) September 3, 2026
Britain now has an Islamic blasphemy law via the backdoor, thanks to the Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”.
From the start, the Free Speech Union warned that any such definition would have a chilling effect on free… pic.twitter.com/v2GkhR04EC
— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) September 3, 2026
That didn’t take long:
Britain now has an Islamic blasphemy law via the backdoor, thanks to the Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility”.
From the start, the Free Speech Union warned that any such definition would have a chilling effect on free speech and stifle our right to criticise, debate, and mock religion in this country.
We were proved right almost immediately. Since the definition was published in March, it has been used by activists and Labour MPs to silence legitimate criticism of Islam.
When the Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy, criticised a mass Muslim public prayer event in Trafalgar Square, he was branded an Islamophobe, reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and even faced calls to resign from the then Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer.
The Labour Government did not consult Parliament about its plans to revive Britain’s blasphemy laws for Islam alone. At the start of the year, the Free Speech Union exposed that all five members of the Working Group tasked by Angela Rayner to draft the Islamophobia definition had troubling links to Islamist organisations.
These include the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND, both of which are subject to a government policy of non-engagement over concerns about extremism. What is even more concerning is that it is almost certain extremists were able to influence the drafting of the definition.
If that is not alarming enough, Nick Timothy’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that the Communities Department deleted all the responses to the Working Group’s consultation on the Islamophobia definition.
If there is nothing to hide, why did the department delete all the responses — a move that appears to breach its own policy on data retention? There are serious questions for Angela Rayner and her department to answer.
Why did they delete all these responses? Did ministers direct officials to dispose of the submissions? Did extremist groups really have the chance to influence the definition, while the Free Speech Union and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) did not?
The public deserves to know the truth.