Hardeep Singh (ਹਰਦੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ)

Excited to see the volume I co-authored with @JhuttiJay - Racialization, Islamophobia and Mistaken Identity The Sikh Experience, will be available to order in paperback from April onwards: @Rout_PoliticsIR routledge.com/Racialization-…

Very sad to hear the news about Dame Jenni Murray. She was an exceptional broadcaster who combined an authoritative presence with warmth, humour and a wonderful voice. She interviewed Sheila Jeffreys about Gender Hurts in 2014. bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b0…

@JustineBrian Sorry to have missed this Justine! The distinction is the message in the call to prayer.

@Singhtwo2 I’m wonder if Timothy has slightly missed the target here? I thought the call to prayer in Islam was just that - like a church bell?

Most politicians won’t want to delve into the specific (and important) detail of religious doctrine/scriptural meaning described here by Nick Timothy - it’s of-course a much safer option to skirt around the issue, and heap opprobrium on the messenger instead. Given, Sikhs have been mentioned, it’s worth noting that the standing Sikh prayer (Ardas) which has indeed been performed in Traflagar Square, during Vaisakhi celebrations, explicitly asks for: ‘sarbat da bhalla’ at the end, which translates to ‘blessings for all of humanity’.

A useful thread on the tendency that has grown to assert authority by combining public prayer with political protest on the streets:

His finest work

Very well said Lord Sewell! thetimes.com/comment/column…

Of course he is. I would expect nothing else.

The government definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ and the appointment of an ‘Islamophobia’ tsar will foster resentment and marginalise other faiths All faiths and beliefs should be treated equally 'Who is the arbiter of what is ‘hostile’, ‘prejudicial’ or ‘negative’?  Such terms are loaded with subjectivity and open to inconsistent interpretation. For example, could the Sikh objection to halal slaughter of animals be considered ‘negative’ or interpreted as ‘hostility’? Or could an honest recounting of Sikh history under Mughal persecution, like the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur (our ninth Guru), be reported to a public body as being ‘hostile’ to Muslims? The lack of clarity in the guidance opens the door to such application.' @SteveReedMP @ClaireCoutinho @NJ_Timothy #freespeech #freedomofreligion #twotier #policy nsouk.co.uk/the-government…

Here we go again… Guru Nanak was not the founder of an ethnic group. Sikhism is a world religion open to people of all backgrounds. spectator.com/article/why-th… 1/2

Due to his recent demise Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not on the shortlist to be the UK's anti-Muslim hostility 'Tsar'. Is Massoud Shadjareh or anyone else from the Islamic Human Rights Commission?

spectator.com/article/labour… 2/2

Creating special definitions for particular groups risks undermining cohesion. As a former Equality and Human Rights Commission chair has warned, it’s “the enemy of equality and community cohesion” — and a self-defeating part of the Government’s strategy.

Special definitions for some groups and not others The gov tell us, ‘Creating a new definition of anti-Muslim hostility is not about granting special privileges, giving preferential treatment to particular communities..’ They’d have a leg to stand on if there was in existence a gov backed definition on: Anti-Christian hatred, anti-Hindu hatred anti-Buddhist hatred, anti-Sikh hatred, anti-Apostate hatred and every other faith and belief including anti-Atheist hatred. When you’re creating a special definition for one group with a special Working Group for only one group, that’s nothing but ‘preferential treatment’ and a deliberate marginalisation of other faiths and beliefs. More galling still, the gov acknowledges Sikhs and others face backlash when perpetrators perceive them to be Muslim (not least, after jihadist attacks), but did not extend the courtesy of including a member from these other faiths onto the Working Group. No ‘preferential treatment’ there then! 3/3

Protective security funding issued per year by faith group The table below is from my @Civitas_UK report from last year. civitas.org.uk/publications/t… Since the report, Starmer announced an ‘extra’ £10 million security funding to protect Muslim communities from hate crimes and attacks, following an arson attack at Peacehaven mosque: (BBC report dated Oct 2023) bbc.co.uk/news/articles/… And the gov announced: ‘Up to £40 million will be available through the Protective Security for Mosques Scheme, which supports mosques, Muslim schools and community centres’ in Feb 2026: gov.uk/government/new… When Hindu temples were targeted in Leicester during civil unrest between Muslims and Hindu in 2022, the then gov did not announce any special funding measures to protect them. 2/3

There’s a few elements here to consider/unpack on the question of ‘special privileges’ & ‘preferential treatment’: Taxpayer funding for third-party hate crime recording organisations: If we look at funding given to Muslim groups for the purpose of third-party hate crime reporting. Tell MAMA received £6 million taxpayers’ funds since 2012. hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-1… The British Muslim Trust (BMT) is the recipient of the gov’s new Combatting Hate Against Muslims Fund which the gov announced would have up to £650,000 taxpayers’ funding available for the 2025-26 financial year, + up to £1 million per year financial year for 2026-27 & 2027-28 religionmediacentre.org.uk/news/governmen… 1/3

The government inform us Sikhs, Hindus and apostates suffer ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ - they should also be clear, that apostasy is punishable by death in some Islamic countries. Perhaps a definition of ‘anti-apostate hostility’ might be warranted given they’ve specifically mentioned them? But ‘Islamophobic’ hate crime also impacts Christians, Jews, Atheists and Buddhists based on FOI data I previously obtained from the MET. There’s no special gov Working Group devised definition of hate crime or a special tsar for - Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Atheists and others beliefs. We have a government actively creating and pushing hierarchical public policy for electoral purposes. "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" from William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, springs to mind when considering the clear marginalisation of other faiths and beliefs. The blatant hierarchical approach to public policy, tells you all you need to know about the state of Britain today and it’s frightening. What happened to a level playing field and equal treatment for all? Rather than promote social cohesion, the government is contributing to discontent and sowing seeds of division. Worst still this definition (although non-statutory) due to (in part) the vagueness of the word ‘hostility’ - which is not defined in law, will almost certainly be used as a backdoor blasphemy law and be weaponised by activists to stymie important discussions and investigative journalism on important issues like ‘grooming gangs’, consanguinity and violent extremism. #twotier #hatecrime #policy gov.uk/guidance/a-def….

What’s going wrong with the extension of equality laws? As a new Civitas report reveals, draft proposals end up: 👉Confusing discrimination with disparity 👉Reducing growth and harming the poorest in society 👉Costing taxpayers billions Author @DanielDieppe argues, the current proposals should not progress any further⬇️

@sacrareleges Good idea

@Singhtwo2 Ask MHCLG for a Equality Impact Asssement of this policy?