Pro-Palestinian demonstrators and workers gather and take to the streets to protest against Israeli attacks on Gaza during ”May Day Rally” in New York, United States on May 01, 2024. (Photo by Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images)
The people who make, report, and teach history should take note: it has never been kind to those who spread Big Lies. This time will be no different.
Mainstream journalists and politicians have engaged in a campaign of mass slander against U.S. college students protesting the Gaza genocide. Their “antisemitism” Big Lie echoes the racist hate campaigns of the past, inciting hostility toward young people whose only crime is their dedication to justice.
A newly published survey provides some important context for these protests and undermines the smear campaign against the protesters.
Students Are Not Antisemitic
The Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPOST), a project of the University of Chicago, recently published “Understanding Campus Fears After October 7 and How to Reduce Them,” subtitled “a non-partisan analysis of Antisemitism and Islamophobia among College Students and American Adults.” Robert A. Pape, political scientist and CPOST’s director, writes that its findings “are an opportunity to re-center the national discussion around students and away from politics.” Let’s hope so.
Understandably, Pape and his colleagues focus on the steps that should be taken to make all students feel safe on campus, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or politics. In doing so, their report includes important findings that deserve wider attention.
Their “antisemitism’ Big Lie echoes the racist hate campaigns of the past, inciting hostility toward young people whose only crime is their dedication to justice.
Is there a “climate of antisemitism” on campus? CPOST’s study found that college students are less Islamophobic than the general population, but they are not more antisemitic. The level of student bias against Jews is the same as their bias against Muslims, but no greater.
Why, then, is there a national debate about campus antisemitism and none about the comparable scourge of Islamophobia? What message does that send to the Muslim students whose fears are being ignored?
The Protests Aren’t Antisemitic, Either
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wants a vote on the “Countering Antisemitism Act,” but neither he nor the president have proposed similar safeguards against Islamophobia. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said that Columbia protesters have begun “to threaten lives and intimidate and harass people,” has an even more draconian antisemitism bill—also without plans to address Islamophobia.
President Biden, like the others, has condemned what he calls “antisemitic protests.” That slur is challenged by the Chicago study. The authors found that “while college students are not more antisemitic than the general population,” they are “more anti-zionist.” They also found that “prejudicial antisemitism and anti-zionism are largely separate phenomena,” with an “overwhelming” absence of any overlap between antisemitism and a negative view of Israel.
We’ve know for decades that the lie which equates anti-zionism with antisemitism serves a political goal by suppressing speech. We now have evidence to back it up.
“From the River to the Sea”
One protest slogan has been cited over and over as “antisemitic,” with accusers claiming it calls for genocide against Jews: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
Most students do not use it in anything approaching a genocidal way. The CPOST study found that only 14 percent of Muslim students, or roughly one in seven, interpret that slogan “to mean the expulsion or genocide of Israeli Jews.” That figure is too high, as is the 13 percent of students who believe that violence against Muslims is sometimes justified. But it also tells us that most people who use the slogan are not calling for harm against anyone.
Does antisemitism exist among [protesters]? Since it is pervasive in this society, the answer is yes. But amplifying a comment or two from a couple of isolated individuals is a totalitarian smear tactic.
That makes sense, since the phrase can be interpreted nonviolently in at least two ways. One is that a two-state solution should include the territory ceded to Palestine in 1948, which touched both the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Another is that Israel and Palestine should become a single, democratic, non-racial and non-theocratic state, with rights and safety for all. Under that interpretation, “Palestine will be free” is no more a call to genocide than “South Africa will be free” was a call to kill whites during the anti-apartheid struggle.
The study does note that the slogan makes two-thirds of Jewish students feel unsafe. For that reason, Pape recommends avoiding it.
But we now have confirmation that campus officials, politicians, and the media are misleading the public about that phrase. They’re endangering the protesting students and worsening the fears of pro-Israeli students. They should stop.
Conclusion
The political scientist Bernard Cohen once wrote that, while the press isn’t always successful and telling people what to think, “it is stunningly successful in telling people what to think about.” The student protests are a textbook example. The debate around these protests is focused on the false charge of antisemitism, not on the moral challenge raised by the protesters.
Does antisemitism exist among them? Since it is pervasive in this society, the answer is yes. But amplifying a comment or two from a couple of isolated individuals is a totalitarian smear tactic. Republicans did it with the racist Willie Horton ads in 1988. Trump does it when he highlights crimes allegedly committed by immigrants. And politicians, journalists, and college administrators are doing it today with their charges of protester antisemitism.
CPOST’s moderate recommendations for easing campus fears include, “Clear and immediate communication by college leaders condemning violence and intimidation by students and against students on their campuses.” Instead, those leaders are ordering police violence against protesting students, as they and the political/media elite stoke more fear and hatred against them—even in the wake of the anti-protestor mob violence at UCLA. That isn’t just wrong; it’s a dereliction of duty.
As leaders, these prominent individuals have been entrusted with the care and protection of the nation’s young people. Instead, they’re slandering them and putting them at risk. Why? To distract us from a genocide.
The people who make, report, and teach history should take note: it has never been kind to those who spread Big Lies. It won’t be this time, either.
With the encouragement of the state, universities from coast to coast are taking draconian steps to silence debate about US-backed violence in the Middle East.
The Columbia University community looked on in shock as cops in riot gear arrested at least 100 pro-Palestine protesters who had set up an encampment in the center of campus (New York Post, 4/18/24). The university’s president, Nemat Shafik, had just the day before testified before a Republican-dominated congressional committee ostensibly concerned with campus “antisemitism”—a label that has come to be misapplied to any criticism of Israel, though the critics so smeared are often themselves Jewish.
The New York Post (4/18/24) was also pleased that Google had fired 28 employees for protesting genocide.
A sense of delight has filled the city’s opinion pages. The New York Post editorial board (4/18/24) hailed both the clampdown on protests and Congress’s push to ensure that such drastic action against free speech was taken: “We’re glad to see Shafik stand up…. Congress deserves some credit for putting educrats’ feet to the fire on this issue.” The paper added, “Academia has been handling anti-Israel demonstrations with kid gloves.” In other words, universities have been allowing too many people to think and speak critically about an important issue of the day.
In “At Columbia, the Grown-Ups in the Room Take a Stand,” New York Times columnist Pamela Paul (4/18/24) hailed the eviction, saying of the encampment that for the “passer-by, the fury and self-righteous sentiment on display was chilling,” and that for supporters of Israel, “it must be unimaginably painful.” In other words, conservative pundits have decided that campus safe spaces where speech is banned to protect the feelings of listeners are good, depending on the issue. Would Paul (no relation!) favor bans on pro-Taiwan or pro-Armenia demonstrations because they could offend Chinese and Turkish students?
And for Michael Oren, a prominent Israeli politico, Columbia students hadn’t suffered enough. He said of Columbia in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (4/19/24):
Missing was an admission of the university’s failure to enforce the measures it had enacted to protect its Jewish community. [Shafik] didn’t address how, under the banner of free speech, Columbia became inhospitable to Jews. She didn’t acknowledge how incendiary demonstrations such as the encampment were the product of the university’s inaction.
Shafik had assured her congressional interrogators that Columbia had already suspended 15 students for speaking out for Palestinian human rights, suspended two student groups—Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 11/10/23)—and had even terminated an instructor (New York Times, 4/17/24).
The hearing was bizarre, to say the least; a Georgia Republican asked the president if she wanted her campus to be “cursed by God” (New York Times, 4/18/24). (“Definitely not,” was her response.)
The former World Bank economist had clearly been shaken after seeing how congressional McCarthyism ousted two other female Ivy League presidents (FAIR.org, 12/12/23; Al Jazeera, 1/2/24).
‘Protected from having to hear’
Twenty-three Jewish faculty members at Columbia published a joint op-ed (Columbia Spectator, 4/10/24) reminding President Shafik that “labeling pro-Palestinian expression as anti-Jewish hate speech requires a dangerous and false conflation of Zionism with Jewishness, of political ideology with identity.”
“What happened at those hearings yesterday should be of grave concern to everybody, regardless of their feelings on Palestine, regardless of their politics,” Barnard College women’s studies professor Rebecca Jordan-Young told Democracy Now! (4/18/24). “What happened yesterday was a demonstration of the growing and intensifying attack on liberal education writ large.”
Her colleague, historian Nara Milanich, said in the same interview:
This is not about antisemitism so much as attacking areas of inquiry and teaching, whether it’s about voting rights or vaccine safety or climate change — right?—arenas of inquiry that are uncomfortable or inconvenient or controversial for certain groups. And so, this is essentially what we’re seeing, antisemitism being weaponized in a broad attack on the university.
Jewish faculty at Columbia spoke out against the callous misuse of antisemitism to silence students, but those in power aren’t listening (Columbia Spectator, 4/10/24).
Shafik justified authorizing the mass arrests, which many said hadn’t been seen on campus since the anti-Vietnam War protests of 1968. “The individuals who established the encampment violated a long list of rules and policies,” she said (BBC, 4/18/24). “Through direct conversations and in writing, the university provided multiple notices of these violations.”
One policy suggested by the university’s “antisemitism task force,” according to a university trustee who also testified (New York Times, 4/18/24): “If you are going to chant, it should only be in a certain place, so that people who don’t want to hear it are protected from having to hear it.”
Cross-country rollback
USC valedictorian Asna Tabassum says the school did not tell her what the security threats were, but said that the precautions that would be necessary to allow her to speak were “not what the university wants to ‘present as an image’” (Reuters, 4/18/24).
Meanwhile, the University of Southern California canceled the planned graduation speech by valedictorian Asna Tabassum—a Muslim woman who had spoken out for Palestine (Reuters, 4/18/24). The university cited unnamed “security risks”; The Hill (4/16/24) noted that “she had links to pro-Palestinian sites on her social media.” Andrew T. Guzman, the provost and senior vice president for academic affairs, said in a statement that cancelation was “consistent with the fundamental legal obligation—including the expectations of federal regulators—that universities act to protect students and keep our campus community safe” (USC Annenberg Media, 4/15/24).
This is happening as academic freedom is being rolled back across the country. Republicans in Indiana recently passed a law to allow a politically appointed board to deny or even revoke university professors’ tenure if the board feels their classes lack “intellectual diversity”—at the same time that it threatens them if they seem “likely” to “subject students to political or ideological views and opinions” deemed unrelated to their courses (Inside Higher Ed, 2/21/24).
Benjamin Balthaser, associate professor of English at Indiana University South Bend, told FAIR in regard to the congressional hearing:
There is no other definition of bigotry or racism that equates criticism of a state, even withering, hostile criticism, with an entire ethnic or religious group, especially a state engaging in ongoing, documented war crimes and crimes against humanity. Added to this absurdity is the fact that many of the accused are not only Jewish, but have strong ties to their Jewish communities. To make such an equation assumes a collective or group homogeneity which is itself a form of essentialism, even racism itself: People are not reducible to the crimes of their state, let alone a state thousands of miles away to which most Jews are not citizens.
Of course, witch hunts against leftists in US society are often motivated by antisemitism. Balthaser again:
The far right has long deployed antisemitism as a weapon of censorship and repression, associating Jewishness with Communism and subversion during the First and Second Red Scares. Not only did earlier forms of McCarthyism overwhelmingly target Jews (Jews were two-thirds of the “defendants” called before HUAC in 1952, despite being less than 2% of the US population), it did so while cynically pretending to protect Jews from Communism. Something very similar is occurring now: Mobilizing a racist trope of Jewish adherence to Israel, far-right politicians are using accusations of antisemitism to both silence criticism of Israel and, in doing so, promote their antisemitic ideas of Jewishness in the world.
Silencing for ‘free speech’
The darker blue states have passed restrictions aimed at Critical Race Theory; in the lighter blue states, proposed restrictions have not been adopted (CRT Forward).
These universities are not simply clamping down on free speech because the administrators dislike this particular speech, or out of fear that pro-Palestine demonstrations or vocal faculty members could scare donors from writing big checks. This is a result of state actors—congressional Republicans, in particular—who are using their committee power and sycophants in the media to demand more firings, more suspensions, more censorship.
I have written for years (FAIR.org, 10/23/20, 11/17/21, 3/25/22), as have many others, that Republican complaints about “cancel culture” on campus suppressing free speech are exaggerated. One of the biggest hypocrisies is that so-called free-speech conservatives claim that campus activists are silencing conservatives, but have little to say about blatant censorship and political firings when it comes to Palestine.
This isn’t a mere moral inconsistency. This is the anti-woke agenda at work: When criticism of the right is deemed to be the major threat to free speech, it’s a short step to enlisting the state to “protect” free speech by silencing the critics—in this case, dissenters against US support for Israeli militarism.
But this isn’t just about Palestine; crackdowns against pro-Palestine protests are part of a broader war against discourse and thought. The right has already paved the way for assaults on educational freedom with bans aimed at Critical Race Theory adopted in 29 states.
If the state can now stifle and punish speech against the murder of civilians in Gaza, what’s next? With another congressional committee investigating so-called infiltration by China’s Communist Party, will Chinese political scholars be targeted next (Reuters, 2/28/24)? With state laws against environmental protests proliferating (Sierra, 9/17/23), will there be a new McCarthyism against climate scientists? (Author Will Potter raised the alarm about a “green scare” more than a decade ago—People’s World, 9/26/11; CounterSpin, 2/1/13.)
Universities and the press are supposed to be places where we can freely discuss the issues of the day, even if that means having to hear opinions that might be hard for some to digest. Without those arenas for free thought, our First Amendment rights mean very little. If anyone who claims to be a free speech absolutist isn’t citing a government-led war against free speech and assembly on campuses as their No. 1 concern in the United States right now, they’re a fraud.
SOLIDARITY: Charlotte Church (right) takes part in a pro-Palestine march in central London during a national demonstration for ceasefire in Gaza
My name was traduced and my safety threatened after irresponsible reporting by the Establishment media when I sang for charity to help Palestinians with socialist choir, Cor Cochion, writes CHARLOTTE CHURCH
I WISH I didn’t have to write this — I am an artist, not a politician, and would rather speak through creative action than explanatory text — but I find that for several reasons, I must respond to accusations and smears made against me these last couple of weeks.
At the weekend I participated in the 10th national march for Palestine in London, in solidarity with our siblings in Palestine, as well as those at home, and for doing so I was called all manner of ungodly things online, often violent, misogynistic and racist. Some of those people had phrases like “whites will not be replaced” on their profiles, and images of iron eagles as banners. And I’m the extremist?!
Since footage was shared online of a Sing For Palestine event I took part in to raise money for a new ambulance for the al-Awda hospital through the Middle East Childrens’ Alliance, I’ve been continuously dragged in the press and on social media as an anti-semite (which I am not) and need to respond to those accusations fully.
My attempts to protest the atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank, and the West’s complicity in them, have been ridiculed by powerful men in the media in conversations that I have not been asked to contribute to, including a discussion as to whether or not I should be arrested for my activism, and so I must respond.
My safety and the safety of my family has been threatened by some pretty scary people, emboldened by the rhetoric of front-line politicians, as well as cravenly irresponsible coverage by liberal legacy media outlets, including BBC News, and so I must respond. But perhaps most urgently I have to take the opportunity to speak out because since the start of the genocide very little of the campaign that calls for an end to Israeli aggression in Palestine has been covered by the press, except when it is being denounced as “hateful” or “Islamist” by some of the most notorious racists in the Western world.
‘From The River To The Sea…’
I am not, and have never been, and will never be an anti-semite. I hold the Jewish people in my life very dearly, and have always kept great reverence for Judaism and Jewish culture, since travelling around Israel and Palestine as a teenager. It makes my stomach turn to know that due to the double-speak and whataboutery of bad faith actors in the media, some Jews today think that I am anti-semitic. I hope that my words here can reassure them that I am not, and make it clear that I have deep compassion for what Jewish people all over the world are experiencing right now, due to the rise of genuine anti-semitism.
I do not believe that the phrase “From the river to the sea…” is in any way a call for the ethnic cleansing or genocide of Israelis, and certainly when I have used it or heard it used by other people, it has always been as a call for the liberation of Palestine (ie the most face-value interpretation). Often it is accompanied by the phrase “…we are all Palestinians.”
A call for one group’s liberation does not imply another’s destruction, and those suggesting that it does when it is in fact that first group who are currently being murdered in their thousands, are leveraging a grotesque irony. I will not have my rhetoric around resistance and solidarity redefined by those who most violently oppose my democratic engagement.
Palestinians living all over historic Palestine are living under an apartheid system. Those who live in Israel (one fifth of the population) are treated as second-class citizens and the Palestinians living in Palestine are under military occupation. “From the river to the sea” is a call for Palestinians to live with equal rights and to end the illegal apartheid system they have been living under. It is widely accepted all over there world that no group of people should have supremacy over another, so why is it called “genocidal” when this is demanded by and on the behalf of Palestinians?
What I hope will be inferred from the phrase is a demand for a conversation about the future of Israel and Palestine — one that includes Palestinian voices, and acknowledges and attempts to rectify the many crimes that have been inflicted upon Palestinians over the last 75 years. This is the only path to peace and has to begin with an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
At this point it becomes necessary for me to state that I do not support Hamas and condemn them for the attack on October 7. While it is difficult to know the full truth of what happened that day, and hopefully with the fullness of time we will have a better perspective on this, there were undoubtedly war crimes committed, appalling acts, including the massacre of innocent civilians and hostage-taking. My heart goes out to the victims of that attack, the hostages, and their families.
None of that justifies the horrors that have been inflicted upon the Palestinian people since that day.
‘She’s just a naive idiot’
Nigel Farage has spoken at length over many years about “Cultural Marxism,” “Soros-funded organisations,” “unelected globalists” and innumerable other anti-semitic dog-whistles. Often this has been in conversation with people like Alex Jones of InfoWars or Rick Wiles of TruNews — known and self-avowed anti-semites. He is also notorious for sowing division, particularly along racial lines. But apparently none of that disqualifies him from being interviewed by the BBC’s Nick Robinson about what should and shouldn’t be done about “extremists” in Britain today. When Robinson asked Farage whether I should be arrested (!) for singing “From the river to the sea…” Farage called me a “naive idiot” and said that I should be “given a severe warning” and “made to see the error of [my] ways.”
David Baddiel is a man whose checkered history with racism needs no commentary from me, but who has notably repositioned himself as an expert on racism in recent years. On his new podcast with Tory peer Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Baddiel laughed theatrically at my activism, before deigning to correct me for not understanding the meaning of my own words. (It’s worth noting that Warsi went on to say that for “a whole load of people” the phrase “from the river to the sea…” means “equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis in the lands from the river to the sea.”)
Perhaps the superiority of being a self-proclaimed “public intellectual” has gone to his head, but Baddiel, as with Farage, is an all-too-common example of a professional opinion-monger who resorts to tactics made to silence voices that dissent from his own. I am not the right sort of person to be discussing this in the eyes of Baddiel, Farage, Robinson, or any of the others, and the condescending manner in which my charitable work is being spoken of reeks of misogyny. I am incredibly familiar with the “shush, silly girl” strategy. It is used to discredit me and my message of solidarity without engaging me in debate. I truly am sick to the back teeth of men like these.
‘Charlotte Church denies anti-semitism’
This was the headline on the BBC News website. The Guardian ran the same one. There were many, many more news outlets that ran even more alarming headlines and stories, but I’ll focus on the BBC and Guardian stories. Making the story about my denial of anti-semitism is pure clickbait designed to accentuate the perceived scandal and obscure the reality of the situation — I sang a protest song in Bedwas Workmen’s Hall, and yet it sounds like I committed a hate crime.
An article from the BBC News last Sunday (March 3), entitled “Nuance is being lost” seemingly without irony, said: “Charlotte Church sang the controversial pro-Palestinian chant ‘From the river to the sea’ at a concert. (She denied she was anti-semitic).”
No more context was given — not the fact that this was a charity event, specifically to raise money for an ambulance in Gaza — not even the fact that it was an event in solidarity with Palestine, calling for a ceasefire. Not that it was an interfaith, intergenerational choir singing freedom songs from all over the world, No mention of the actual history of the usage of the phrase. Just incredibly irresponsible “journalism.”
At a time when democratic norms in the House of Commons are being overturned, supposedly due to fears for MPs safety, I have to ask the BBC and The Guardian, among others: what about my safety?
I have been called many things in my time, but not until this week have I received so much imaginative and violent hate. I’ve never before been called “traitor.” The threats to my safety have resulted in the police coming round to check in on us. And the BBC continues to publish articles, with extremely inflammatory language that does not accurately represent the reality of the situation. I’m pretty sure it has broken its own guidelines about being “accurate and fair.”
And then Nick Robinson’s question to Nigel Farage: “Do you think Charlotte Church should be arrested?” I mean, are you real? To think that this was not only broadcast across multiple BBC platforms in a pre-recorded interview, but also that someone made an editorial decision to clip that bit up and toss it into the maelstrom of social media to promote the show, at a time of such febrile debate… how is that contributing to social cohesion, let alone considering my safety?!
Almost as irresponsible is MP Andrew Percy who said that I should “hang my head in shame,” before doing the news round talking of MPs safety and how pro-Palestine activists are “dictating the terms of the debate.” Considering this was in the same news cycle that three prominent Conservatives (Lee Anderson, Suella Braverman and Liz Truss) were all banging the drum for Islamophobia, the PM following with his deranged speech about extremism on Friday evening, I have personally never felt less safe. I feel caught up in a political parlour game played by lunatics, with incredibly high stakes, that I do not consent to being a part of.
Singing for freedom
In the late 1980s, the Estonian people brought about a liberating revolution from the failing USSR, not with weapons, but with voices. The civil rights struggle in America has a glorious history of singing woven through it. Music was a major part of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in South Africa, not least with the Specials hit, Free Nelson Mandela. Jamaica, Estonia, Iceland, Zimbabwe, the feminist movement, the LGBTQ movement, I could go on and on. There has never been a liberation movement that hasn’t had music and song at its heart. Heart being the most powerful word here, because singing together brings us into a place of feeling, of emotions, and unity and love. Disconnection and separation cannot survive in this environment. In my opinion it is the most powerful tool of togetherness that we have.
This is why I was so delighted to work with Cor Cochion, the socialist choir first formed in Cardiff during the miners’ strikes in the 1980s, who have used singing to tirelessly protest against apartheid, the BNP, the invasion of Iraq, and many other injustices. Their director, Wendy Lewis (incidentally one of many Jewish people who is opposed to the Israeli occupation), is a wonderful genius of community action. Her rewrite of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah in Cymraeg about Palestinian liberation is just about the most beautiful thing I’ve heard in years.
My heart breaks every day witnessing the atrocities that are being enacted — the hell on Earth that is being wreaked by Israel and its allies — but more than anything, what breaks my heart as open as the sky is the love I’m witnessing between the Palestinian people. Those orphaned children who hold each other close after having to endure painful surgeries, have limbs amputated or maybe their faces or chests stitched back together after being purposefully targeted by an IDF sniper. Those desperate, bereaved grandparents who’ve just seen the last of their grandchildren killed; those beautiful teenage boys, that remind me so much of my own son, full body hugging the shrouds of their beloved mothers. And the pain and love and tenderness of the mothers and fathers … I will do everything in my power to help. I despair for anyone who would tell me I am wrong for doing so.
I am not alone. What is being allowed to happen in Palestine by Western governments is waking people up to the violent reality of what the West is built upon: inequality, exploitation, colonisation. A line has been crossed and the majority of the people of the world are rising up against this most grotesque show of power and domination. We will never forget what has been allowed to happen.
I think we need to bring to the forefront of this conversation weapons. As one human race, we must understand that if we had to murder thousands of children with our bare hands we would massively lose the taste for war. Our fetishisation of increasingly efficient impersonal killing machines makes slaughter very easy.
My dream is that we can with love, care, grief, deep mutual understanding, dismantle every weapon on Earth.
And if my voice can bring us any closer to that, then no matter what you call me, I will keep singing.
This Mother’s Day I call to all mothers, all grandmothers, in fact all those who have mothers, to hold in our hearts all those who had mothers in Gaza and now do not, all those mothers whose children have been murdered, and the families whose every member has been brutalised and wiped out. Let us listen to our bones, our great-great-grandmothers’ instincts that live within us, and reject the fallacy of Western patriarchal moral authority. Feel and trust your feelings. Let us consciously bring about the coming of the deep maternal healing that must come.
Parody remarks attributed to Sadiq Khan highlights the hypocrisy and double standard applied to Antisemitism and Islamaphobia.
Based on Rishi Sunak’s recent ‘mob rule’ comments, his extremism speech and Lee Anderson’s comments – which are universally not recognised as Islamaphobia or anti-Muslim racism – I expect Rishi Sunak and the UK Conservative Party to engage in a dirty racist general election campaign. They’ve started how they intend to continue. I suggest that the response to it should be to insist that the police prosecute cases of anti-Muslim racism as they should.
