Rishi Sunak has declared he is “living proof” that Britain is not a racist country as he sought to contain a growing row over Islamophobia.
The prime minister warned that all politicians had an obligation to be “careful” and not “unnecessarily inflame” tensions after the former deputy Tory chairman, Lee Anderson, was accused of stoking anti-Muslim hate.
But he denied the Conservatives had a problem with Islamophobia despite claims by two of the UK’s most senior Muslim politicians that he was failing to take the issue seriously.
“My priority is to try and take the heat out of this situation and that’s what everyone wants to see,” Sunak said.
• Apologise to Sadiq Khan, says James Cleverly
Advertisement
“I’ve been really clear that it’s important that people are careful with the words they use, particularly elected politicians, and particularly at a time when tensions are already running high and we don’t want to unnecessarily inflame things further.”
Sunak made his comments after Anderson again refused to apologise for claiming that Islamists had “got control” of the London mayor Sadiq Khan.
While the party withdrew the whip for Anderson, the move has divided Tory MPs with some claiming that the suspension of the high-profile MP would result in a backlash from the party’s supporters.
On Monday night the former home secretary Suella Braverman described the reaction to Anderson’s comments as “hysteria”.
“We need to urgently focus now on the big problem: how to tackle Islamist extremism in the UK,” she said. “The hysteria in response to those calling out the crisis is one of the reasons why we’re not making progress.”
Advertisement
Reform UK, which is attempting to challenge the Tories from the right, said Anderson’s sentiments were “supported by millions of British citizens” suggesting he would be welcome if he were to defect from the Conservative Party.
Amid signs that the row was having knock-on effects in other areas Paul Scully, the former Tory minister for London, claimed that parts of the capital and Birmingham had become “no-go areas”.
“If you look at parts of Tower Hamlets, for example, there are no-go areas. Parts of Birmingham … are no-go areas, mainly because of doctrine, mainly because of people using, abusing in many ways, their religion,” he said. “That, I think, is the concern that needs to be addressed.”
But the Tory mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, described his comments as “nonsense”.
“The idea that Birmingham has a ‘no-go’ zone is news to me,” he said. “It really is time for those in Westminster to stop the nonsense slurs and experience the real world.”
Advertisement
In an attempt to close down the row over Anderson’s comments, Sunak repeatedly refused to say whether he believed he had been guilty of Islamophobia but said the words had not been “acceptable”.
“In a situation like this it’s important that we maintain high standards and, unfortunately, the words that Lee chose weren’t acceptable,” he told Channel Five news.
“My priority is to try and take the heat out of this situation and that’s what everyone wants to see. And that’s why words matter and his words weren’t acceptable and we’re wrong and that’s why the whip was suspended.”
Sunak added that “any form of prejudice or racism” was completely and utterly unacceptable as that was not who “we are as a country”.
“We’re a proud multi-ethnic democracy, one of the most successful anywhere in the world,” he said.
Advertisement
“I am standing here as living proof of that and it’s important that we work hard to protect that, because that’s one of the things that makes our country incredibly special.”
But two of the most senior Muslim politicians in Britain accused Sunak of failing to take anti-Muslim hatred seriously.
Khan said that the prime minister’s refusal to describe Anderson’s comments as racist was “a tacit endorsement of anti-Muslim hatred and can only lead to the conclusion that anti-Muslim bigotry and racism are not taken seriously”.
Anderson had “poured petrol on the fire of this hatred”, Khan wrote in the Evening Standard as he accused the Tories of “a strategy to weaponise anti-Muslim prejudice for electoral gain”.
• Will Sadiq Khan win? The mayoral election race explained
Advertisement
Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s first minister, accused the government of prioritising tackling antisemitism over Islamophobia. The SNP leader said it “certainly looks like” there is a disparity between how the Tories treat the two issues, accusing the Conservatives of being “riddled with Islamophobia”.
Baroness Warsi, the former Conservative cabinet minister, added that there has been “blatant anti-Muslim racism” in the Tory party, saying: “I will not stand by whilst some of my colleagues poison my party and my country for personal gain.”
Anderson himself admitted that his words might have been “clumsy” but were not racist. He added that he was not going to apologise directly to Khan “while I’ve got a breath in my body”.
“They keep banding this word ‘Islamophobia’ about, nobody can explain what it really means.”
But while Sunak refused to directly accuse Anderson of Islamophobia, other senior Tories were more explicit. Tom Tugendhat, the security minister, said Anderson had had the whip removed “because anti-Muslim hatred is wrong”.
The transport secretary, Mark Harper, said there were enough criticisms of Khan without having to “make things up” about him.
• Profile: Who is ‘30p Lee’ Anderson?
Meanwhile, Anderson’s comments have put a spotlight on the ongoing dispute over the classification of Islamophobia.
Labour said that the government needed to accept a recognised definition of Islamophobia but this was rejected by the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch. “The definition of ‘Islamophobia’ creates a blasphemy law via the back door,” she said.
“We use the term ‘anti-Muslim hatred’. It makes clear the law protects Muslims. In this country, we have a proud tradition of religious freedom and the freedom to criticise religion.”
But Warsi, a former Tory party chairman, described this as “nonsense”.
“I met you alongside other colleagues over a year and a half ago and the definition was explained to you in detail,” she said. “You were asked to detail your concerns. You did not follow up. Instead all work on Islamophobia (or whatever you feel we are allowed to call our racism) has stopped.
“No new initiatives, no engagement with communities, no definition. Instead culture wars, othering and blatant anti-Muslim racism.”
Definition of Islamophobia is disputed
Rishi Sunak’s refusal to call MP Lee Anderson’s comments about London mayor Sadiq Khan “Islamophobic” come amid concerns about what the term means (James Beal, Social Affairs Editor, writes).
The prime minister said Anderson’s remarks — that Islamists had achieved control over London and that Khan had given away the city “to his mates” — were “wrong” but would not be drawn on Islamophobia.
Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister, earlier outlined the party’s position to Labour’s Anneliese Dodds, who accused the Conservatives of refusing to adopt the definition of Islamophobia used by others.
Badenoch said they preferred the term “anti-Muslim hatred” and claimed that the definition of Islamophobia used by the Labour Party created “a blasphemy law via the back door”.
She wrote on social media on Sunday: “In this country, we have a proud tradition of religious freedom and the freedom to criticise religion.”
Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the mayor of London have all adopted the definition of Islamophobia from the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims. The 2018 APPG definition stated that “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
But there are concerns that such a form of words could curb freedom of speech. Civitas, the think tank, previously said accusations of Islamophobia were being used to shield Islamic beliefs and even extremists from criticism.
It suggested that formalising it in a definition was “something of a backdoor blasphemy law” and called the APPG definition “vague and expansive”.
In an open letter, signed by the historian, Tom Holland, and Baroness D’Souza, Civitas said: “The definition will also undermine social cohesion — fuelling the very bigotry against Muslims which it is designed to prevent.”
But it’s not just free speech concerns. In 2019, Martin Hewitt, then-chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said that if the government adopted the APPG’s definition it risked undermining counter-terrorist policing powers and tactics.
Hewitt said that the definition posed a threat to terror laws, stop-and-search at ports, the outlawing of terrorist groups and the ban on possessing or distributing extremist material.
It could also undermine the Prevent duty, which requires schools, universities, councils and the NHS to protect people vulnerable to extremism, he said in a letter to the then prime minister, Theresa May.
The Conservative peer, Baroness Warsi, said in response that Hewitt’s concerns amounted to “irresponsible scaremongering”.
However, a report by the Policy Exchange think tank said that Islamist groups have in the past used allegations of “Islamophobia” to shield themselves from criticism. It argued that a focus on “Muslimness” turned religious affiliation or cultural background “into a new form of constraining identity, to be given privileged status”.
