Sir Keir Starmer has been urged by figures in his own party to tackle “head on” those pushing “Islamophobic talking points” in the debate on grooming gangs despite Labour fears of losing votes to Reform.

Writing exclusively for The i Paper, the leaders of the Labour Muslim Network, have urged the Prime Minister to show the “courage” to call out attacks such as Robert Jenrick’s call for a crackdown on immigration from countries with “alien cultures” and “medieval attitudes”.

They also sounded the alarm that the “poisoned discourse” would only get worse after Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to remove content controls from his social media platforms to make it more like the X platform owned by Donald Trump ally Elon Musk, who has revived the debate on grooming gangs in the UK in recent days.

The PM may take particular note of the intervention from Labour Muslims after his party’s performance in July’s general election suffered over its stance on Gaza.

Starmer on Wednesday again rejected calls from Conservatives, Reform and tech billionaire Musk to launch a national inquiry on grooming gangs of mainly South Asian heritage.

He also warned Tory leader Kemi Badenoch against the “lies and misinformation and slinging of mud” in the debate on grooming gangs and suggested he had “jumped on the bandwagon” with her calls for an inquiry.

Earlier this week, Starmer said Badenoch’s party was “amplifying what the far-right is saying” on grooming while failing in government to act on the landmark 2022 Alexis Jay report on child sex abuse.

At Prime Minister’s Questions, Badenoch however accused Starmer of “enabling those people who wish to smear all British Muslims based on the actions of a small minority” by refusing an inquiry.

She also suggested Labour politicians may be “complicit” in “one of the worst scandals in British history”, which has blown up since X boss Musk launched a barrage of attacks on Starmer and Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips on the issue, and voiced support for jailed far-right agitator Tommy Robinson.

But Labour Muslim Network chair author Ali Milani and vice-chair Samayya Afzal, said they had seen evidence of politicians using the row to employ political strategies “predicated on demonising Muslim communities, attacking Islam and targeting (mostly Muslim) migrants who come to this country in search of safety and asylum”.

They wrote: “Muslims have had to contend with being called ‘alien’, ‘backward’, ‘medieval’, ‘barbaric’, ‘extreme’ and so much more. We recognise those classic Islamophobic tropes that suggest Muslims have an inherent problem with women, that Muslims demean women, and that Muslims bring with them ‘medieval’ cultures to infect Britain. None of it is true. We know that. The reality is Musk, Jenrick and all their friends and colleagues know it too.”

Milani and Afzal urged Starmer to ensure that fears over losing votes to Reform does not temper Labour’s response to the claims.

They said: “We know many are fearful of (Nigel) Farage and the rise of Reform. We have heard it from Labour figures across the party.But the answer is not to cower to them or allow them to define the narrative of Britain’s past or future. That is not only a recipe for division and further hate, but also of political suicide. You cannot out-Farage, Farage. The answer is to challenge them head on. If they want to divide our communities, we will unite them. If they want to attack migrants and refugees, we will defend them. If they want to embrace the likes of Elon Musk, we will stand in their way. Do we have the courage to do that?”

Reform leader Nigel Farage has fallen out with Elon Musk after he said there was no place for Tommy Robinson in his party, following Musk’s support for the right-wing agitator, who is serving an 18-month prison sentence for contempt of court.

After the comment Musk tweeted that Farage should be replaced as Reform leader as he did not “have what it takes”.

Source: The i Paper

Article by Raja Abdulhaq

As soon as early election results pointed to a clear victory for former President Donald Trump, liberals took to social media to criticize American Muslims, Arabs and Latinos for not fully supporting Vice President Kamala Harris.

Social media posts ranged from calls to deport Muslims and Latinos to wishing for Trump to unleash more destruction on Gaza.

This backlash tactlessly showed the dynamics of how white liberals view the role of minorities, especially Muslims and Arabs, in American politics. In a classic display of the white savior complex, these communities were blamed for “not knowing what’s best for them”, as though Harris was running altruistically to protect them from the dangers of a second Trump presidency.

The fact that Harris’ presidential campaign centered on countering Trumpism showed a lack of genuine interest in tackling issues important to minority groups.

Democrats actually benefitted from Trump’s rise, which presented an opportunity for them to win votes freely by positioning themselves as the only alternative to outright fascism.

Yet, instead of looking inwards for answers on why Harris lost to a candidate as problematic as Trump, these liberal Democrats chose to reprimand minorities. Signaling a sense of superiority, they could not hide their racism, implying that it was incumbent upon these minority communities to vote within the guidelines provided by their liberal saviors.

By this logic, Arabs, Muslims and Latinos must vote for a Democrat no matter what. This viewpoint strips minority communities of their rights as equal citizens who can partake in the democratic process independently.

While the days of barring Black people and women from voting are behind us, this backlash brings to mind the same white supremacist logic: that non-whites are incapable of voting on their own and require guidance from their liberal saviors.

Arrogant disregard

In the months leading up to election day, Democrats ignored the cries of Muslims, Arabs and their allies to at least recognize the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. They arrogantly disregarded warnings about potentially losing the Arab vote in Michigan due to Israel’s war on Gaza despite desperately needing to win the swing state to have any hope of beating Trump.

To make matters worse, former President Bill Clinton was sent to Michigan to patronize the Arab community, justifying Israeli crimes in Gaza by saying Israel had to kill civilians in order to defend itself.

This attitude towards voters in Michigan stemmed from a racist and orientalist notion that Arabs and Muslims would eventually fall in line, fearing Trump’s presidency.

Blaming Arabs, Muslims and Latinos for Harris’ humiliating defeat highlights the Democrats’ sense of entitlement to the votes of these communities. The rage-filled, racist attacks on social media marked the resulting tantrum of these liberal saviors.

Ignoring the real issues that enabled Trump’s victory, Democrats instead chose to blame those desperately trying to stop the ongoing mass murder of their loved ones in Gaza and Lebanon. Giving nothing in return, these Democrats wanted the grieving masses to forget about the US-enabled genocide overseas in order to defeat Trump domestically.

Both Republicans and Democrats view Israel as a strategic partner in maintaining American interests and hegemony in the Middle East. Opposing their unconditional US support for Israel is therefore portrayed as a betrayal of American national interests that cannot be tolerated in the political discourse.

Despite the lack of major Arab and Muslim endorsements for Harris, the Democratic Party did not entertain any demands of ending the Gaza genocide, asserting instead that the reward for helping Harris get elected would be to prevent another Trump presidency – thus placing the burden of “saving” democracy on to suffering communities.

The Uncommitted National Movement provided a golden opportunity for the Democratic establishment to acknowledge the grievances of Arabs and Muslims without requiring any policy concessions on Israel, especially given how naively loyal the movement proved to be.

But the compromises of the Uncommitted movement, which lowered its demands from an arms embargo on Israel to simply allowing a Palestinian-American speaker at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), were met with rude dismissals.

Calculated strategy

The Democratic Party’s refusal to negotiate with the communities affected by the Gaza genocide was not an oversight. It was a calculated decision based on prioritizing other potential voters, particularly white anti-Trump Republicans, as represented by Harris’ decision to campaign alongside politician Liz Cheney.

If Democrats truly valued Arabs and Muslims, rather than seeing them as secured votes in the bag, they would have, at the very least, found a more empathic way to dismiss their protests instead of shouting over them, as Harris infamously did: “I’m speaking.”

There is no doubt that the collective rage among liberals over losing the election to Trump comes from a place of cognitive dissonance influenced by American exceptionalism. How could the US – a beacon of liberal values and justice – elect a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, convicted felon as its president?

Yet, rather than taking this opportunity to examine the many issues within American democracy and society – ranging from structural racism to economic inequality, monstrous foreign policies, and the malign influence of money and multinational corporations on politics – liberals are taking their frustrations out on disenfranchised communities.

Comments across social media following Trump’s victory showcase a serious resentment towards Arab and Muslim causes, especially the genocide in Gaza, displaying how superficial liberals’ past “support” for such causes actually was. Liberals are simply refusing to admit the Biden administration’s role in losing the Arab and Muslim vote.

This fallout puts Arab and Muslim communities at a critical juncture in terms of how they see themselves in relation to the US as a state and as an empire. The Gaza genocide has brought back discussions about the role of the US in destroying Arab and Muslim nations and the ethical responsibility of holding it accountable for these crimes.

Ultimately, the racism, orientalism and feeling of expendability that minority communities are experiencing after this election challenge the assumption that they can be integrated and included within American society and its supposed democracy. Is it even possible for Arabs and Muslims to be seen as equal citizens without compromising their social and political principles?

Source: Middle East Eye