Labour has made former Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve the boss of a review to determine a new definition of Islamophobia. The work sits in the in-tray of a renowned theological expert, none other than the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner…
The Tories rejected defining Islamophobia while they were in office. Labour has promised to bring forward a definition. That knotty problem now falls to arch-remain legal beagle Mr Grieve…
Eyebrows are sky-high, though, over Grieve’s previous work. Grieve was asked to conduct an independent investigation into Islamic Relief Worldwide in 2021 which concluded the organisation is “a highly effective charity”. Guido is told that his review was assisted by a former employee of Islamic Relief, Kalin Padberg, who returned to the organisation after it had concluded…
Moreover, beginning in 2015, Grieve also chaired a Commission into Islam for Citizens UK that listed members of MEND and the MCB as committee members or advisors – groups Labour has ruled that its ministers cannot engage with. Dr Taj Hargey, from the Oxford Institute For British Islam, said: “Without a record of genuine objectivity, it calls into question his potential role in defining Islamophobia.” Fiyaz Mughal, Founder and Director of Faith Matters and Tell MAMA said: “Dominic Grieve seems to have a blind spot to whom he works with and associates with on issues affecting British Muslim communities. Maybe he should leave the work to Muslims who really understand some of the toxic groups around.” Yikes…
For his part, Mr Grieve told the BBC: “We know Islamophobia is as challenging to define as its existence is undoubted. We need to balance addressing the lived experience of those who are victims of it and the right of British Muslims to feel heard and protected as equal citizens of our country, with the unwavering requirement to maintain freedom of thought and expression under law for all.” This one will run and run…
Statement by Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers Limited, following Harry’s loss in court today:
“Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and, in cringe-making detail, how he lost his virginity. There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin. Poor Harry. I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case. The bitter irony is that his mother, Diana, liked the Mail. We were her paper. We took her side in her acrimonious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and meet. The Mail’s superb royal reporter was her friend and confidante. The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50 million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time – should never have been brought to trial. That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession. Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists – several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but a free press generally. Make no mistake. This was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper. Financed by the orgy-loving, racist Max Mosley and involving the actor Hugh Grant, it was also a sinister bid to resuscitate Leveson Two and impose statutory regulation on the press which, even now, is rearing its ugly head in Labour’s Media Green Paper.”