Alan Huffgay

At Malahide Castle today, the tour guide compared one of the rooms to Bridgerton and gushed about season 4. I was shocked to hear an elderly white historian praise what I see as a racist, anti-historical show. My black traveling companion agreed with him and asked if I watched it. I told him straight: black people should feel insulted by Bridgerton, not represented. Because the producers are essentially saying, “your real history is too depressing or unmarketable, so here’s a fantasy version of someone else’s elegant British past instead.” They avoid American slavery stories because they’re grim and unprofitable. They skip authentic African histories because it would mean portraying blacks as “savages” and losing viewers. So they insert black characters into a Regency England where racial integration happens magically—no slavery, no colonialism, no systemic barriers—just a black queen, black duke, black elite thriving without explanation. Producer Shonda Rhimes calls it an “inclusive world,” but it’s really the worst kind of FANTASY because it pretends no actual black history ever happened. FACT: The industry won’t touch real black stories because they know white audiences won’t watch—and not enough black viewers will either. Praising this garbage as “representation” does ALL people a disservice. But the scariest thing of all: Even knowledgeable UK scholars are lapping it up - instead of decrying it for destroying history. Do better, guys.

Left: Me and my goats in Afghanistan. Right: Me after my PhD from one of the UK's top universities. Conclusion: Farage is an ignorant coward who thrives on hate mongering and racial stereotypes.

Why are muslims so insecure as a group that they DEMAND specific rules, laws and clauses to protect them and their ideology from being criticised or ridiculed? Why are they so sensitive that they need to be shielded from opinions they don't like? Why are they so fragile that they need to threaten others with violence for "disrespecting" their prophet. Why are so many of them so deranged that they have been known to drive cars through shoppers at Christmas markets, blow up children at a pop concert or chop off the heads of people as a demonstration of how "peaceful" their religion is? Why do they EXPECT to be allowed to marry their own cousins and have several wives in several different households claiming several separate amounts of welfare benefits? Why do they treat women and girls as 2nd class citizens by telling them to wear specific clothing, use separate doors to enter their places of worship and ban them from participating in their own "community" events such as the local mosque fun run? Why do politicians continually pander to their needs, whims and egos despite all of the above? Why do just 6.5% of the population cause so much trouble?

Nick Timothy and Nigel Farage are right, and Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer are wrong. Small groups of people, of whatever religion, praying in public places is fine. And as a Christian country we should allow a special privilege for churches to lead services in our national spaces, like the Palm Sunday celebration that happens in Trafalgar Square. What we don't want is mass ritual observances intended to claim the civic realm for another religion, or assert the domination of another culture over our own Christian traditions. What happens in our national spaces is not neutral. People use Trafalgar Square, for celebrations and demonstrations, to make a point about the kind of country they want us to be. The Palm Sunday pageant reminds us of who we are - not as individuals (many or most of us don't identify as Christians at all) but as a national community, with the roots of our institutions in the ground of the Bible and our most solemn communal moments, from coronations to funerals, mediated through the liturgies of the Church. A mass Adhan held there, or in any town square, is making a different point: that Britain is not a Christian country, and that - inshallah - one day it shall be Muslim. This is unacceptable to the British public and indeed incompatible with our constitution. As ever with these debates, the issue is partly one of kind and partly one of degree. There is an issue with Islam itself as a religion which in most interpretations does not admit of pluralism or freedom of conscience, and therefore is inherently aggrandising, including over territory. But with a bit of confidence and a bit of toleration we could handle that - if it were not for the issue of degree. It is the scale of Islam in Britain, and the ambition of its leaders for greater scale, that makes the problem. The numbers of people who assembled for the adhan in Trafalgar Square, clearly and openly claiming the territory for a faith with no connection (indeed, with strong doctrinal disagreement) with the model of Western liberal democracy that Britain has developed and exported to the world - that is the problem. The numbers, whether everyone there understood it this way or not (and I suspect many did), convey an explicit threat to the foundations of our country. Being relaxed about other people's religion is a good thing, a very British thing. I don't mind modern druids dancing around Stonehenge in my constituency (arguably, though the historicity is tenuous, they have a claim to the place). I don't mind small groups of Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims demonstrating the reality of Britain's religious toleration by worshiping in Trafalgar Square. But let's not kid ourselves about this adhan, or pretend that we're just seeing another harmless expression of Britain's religious diversity. We are seeing an abuse of liberalism, led by people who are not themselves liberal; or - let us imagine they are acting in good faith - who are themselves deceived about what they are doing. It should not happen again. And it would be good to hear the Church of England say so.

Leftist-Islamist coalition closes in on Timothy Nick Timothy said that mass ritual prayer in a shared civic space is an act of domination. He was not suggesting every Muslim at Trafalgar Square is an Islamist. He was identifying a strategy. Within twenty four hours, thirty six Labour MPs and peers had written to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards demanding he be investigated. The letter, signed by Afzal Khan MP and backed by Naz Shah, Apsana Begum, Imran Hussain, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Zarah Sultana among others, accuses Timothy of Islamophobia, invokes the Great Replacement theory, and demands his removal from the front bench. Read that list of names carefully. Naz Shah was suspended from Labour in 2016 for sharing antisemitic social media posts. Rebecca Long-Bailey was removed from the shadow cabinet for sharing an article containing antisemitic conspiracy theories. Afzal Khan was himself the subject of a Campaign Against Antisemitism complaint. And Zarah Sultana, who co-signed a letter accusing Timothy of spreading hostility and hatred, is herself the subject of a complaint to the same Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for posting that Zionism is one of the greatest threats to humanity and that Israelis love killing kids. The complaint describes her language as a modern iteration of the medieval blood libel. The commissioner has not yet decided whether to investigate. That is the Leftist-Islamist coalition that has mobilised to silence Nick Timothy. A group of MPs, several with documented histories of antisemitic language or associations, using the parliamentary standards machinery to shut down a man who pointed out that declaring there is no god but Allah in the middle of Trafalgar Square is not equivalent to lighting a Chanukah menorah. The letter does not answer Timothy's theological point. It does not explain why the Adhan, which is by definition a declaration of exclusive religious truth, is equivalent to a celebration. It simply asserts that raising the question is Islamophobia and demands investigation. That is not a rebuttal. That is a demonstration of exactly what Timothy was describing. The domination of public discourse by a coalition that treats any scrutiny of Islamist strategy as racism, any observation about religious assertion in shared spaces as hatred, and any politician who names what is happening as a legitimate target for destruction. The grievance shield, deployed on cue. At parliamentary level. In a formal letter. With thirty six signatories. Meanwhile the teacher remains in hiding in Batley. The IHRC leads death chants on the Embankment. Iranian linked charities operate under Gift Aid while the Charity Commission files cases as resolved. And the parliamentary machinery is being used not to hold any of that to account but to investigate the man who said out loud what the evidence plainly shows. Nick Timothy was right. The letter proves it. And every MP who signed it has told us, more clearly than any opinion piece could, exactly whose side they are on. "Naz Shah was suspended from Labour in 2016 for sharing antisemitic social media posts. [...]. Afzal Khan was himself the subject of a Campaign Against Antisemitism complaint."