Allah's Willing Executioners

Free speech campaigners have claimed atheists could be be silenced by Labour’s new definition of Islamophobia.

In a letter to the Government, the Free Speech Union (FSU) suggested the new definition would capture activities and speech that infringed upon people’s rights to freedom of thought and expression.

A new definition of Islamophobia is expected to be set out as part of guidance on anti-Muslim hatred.

However critics have argued the move could act as a backdoor “blasphemy law” and limit free speech, though the Government has said its focus is on protecting people from unacceptable treatment.

The FSU cited the controversial academic and author Richard Dawkins as someone who could be targeted under the plans, reports The Telegraph.

The letter said: “The philosophical beliefs of atheists such as Prof Richard Dawkins could also be captured and regulated by the definition and guidance, despite their unquestionable contribution to a free and democratic society.

“Dawkins, for example, regularly criticises Islam, including what he believes to be its oppressive qualities. Indeed, in 2013 Dawkins, referred to Islam as ‘the greatest force for evil in the world today’.

“[He] was quick to point out his statements were directed at Islamism, and those who use religion for political objectives, and not mere adherents of the faith, but his statements may be understood by some to be captured by the second element.”

The FSU added Sikhs could also be targeted by the rule, pointing to practices such as marking the anniversary of the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, a key figure in the faith who was executed in 1675 under the orders of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.

The letter said: “Simply recounting this historical matter could be deemed a form of anti-Muslim hostility, especially if it made, say, a Muslim person feel unsafe or unprotected in the workplace or while accessing public services.”

Women who criticise Islam could also be impacted by the new definition, according to the letter.

The FSU claimed the definition could have a “chilling effect” on the ability to “comment on, and critique, aspects of Islam and the acts of those that follow it that are deeply harmful for women in particular.”

The campaign group suggested individuals and organisations which highlight and criticise practices such as predatory grooming gangs and female genital mutilation (FGM) could be hit.

The FSU suggested plans to record cases of anti-Muslim hostility would draw police and other public authorities into the same legal issues they faced with non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs).

They added it could lead to “offensive” comments being logged as anti-Muslim hostility even though they could be defended as legitimate free speech.

The letter called it “An interference with freedom of expression and knowledge that such matters are being recorded and stored in a police database is likely to have a serious ‘chilling effect’ on public debate.”

An MHCLG spokesman told The Telegraph: “Our definition of anti-Muslim hostility gives a clear explanation of unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred targeting Muslims so we can take action to stop it, while protecting our fundamental right to freedom of speech.”

The latest Government figures, published in October, showed that religious hate crime recorded by police in England and Wales reached a record high in the year ending March 2025.

Not including the Metropolitan Police, due to changes in the crime recording system preventing direct year-on-year comparisons, hate crimes targeted at Muslims were up by almost a fifth, from 2,690 offences recorded in the 12 months to March last year to 3,199 offences in the year ending March 2025.

In that 12-month period there were 106 religious hate crimes per 10,000 population targeted at Jewish people, which was the highest rate for any religious group.

The second highest rate was for hate crimes targeted at Muslims, with 12 per 10,000 population.

Shadow communities minister Paul Holmes said the Islamophobia definition “raises serious questions”.

He added: “It risks undermining free speech within the law, it risks hindering legitimate criticism of Islamism, and it risks creating a backdoor blasphemy law.”

His Government counterpart Steve Reed rejected this, saying: “There is absolutely no question of blasphemy laws by the back door.

“But we will not do what they did and stand by and simply watch while Muslim communities face targeted abuse in ways that any decent country would consider to be absolutely intolerable.”

British Muslim Trust (BMT) chairman Shabir Randeree welcomed the new definition of anti-Muslim hostility, saying it “will help guide institutions that have too often been too slow or too weak in their responses to incidents a tolerant and respectful country like ours must never accept”

He added: “The BMT looks forward to seeing the impact and implementation of the definition and we will not be afraid to raise our voice if we don’t see the positive change needed to keep Muslim communities safe and protected, as well as all victims of anti-Muslim hate.”

gbnews

Rachel Reeves, Sadiq Khan and others have been claiming that Brexit was a disaster for the UK economy, damaging it by up to 8%. We bring together two economists, Julian Jessop and David Paton, to analyse the facts. What has Brexit REALLY done to the UK economy? You’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Keir Starmer is already bowing down to Brussels, saying yes to deals that are far from favourable for Britons, and betraying the most significant gains of Brexit. But senior Labour figures, like the leadership of the European Union, want him to go further.

The prime minister is, of course, susceptible to such calls, given that he campaigned against Brexit in the 2016 referendum and later fought for the vote to be overturned. His deputy, David Lammy, also called Tory Brexiteers ‘Nazis’ and pushed for a second referendum.

Now, Labour London Mayor Sadiq Khan says the government should give up on the idea referendums and “fight the next general election with a clear manifesto commitment,”

A vote for Labour means we would rejoin the European Union.

Khan told Italian daily la Repubblica that this outcome is “inevitable” because of the “damage” Brexit—as opposed to, say, the useless establishment parties—has done. He added that even before the next election, which will be held no later than August 2029, Starmer should take Britain back into the EU single market and customs union, whether voters desire this or not.

“The destiny of the United Kingdom and of London,” he stressed, “lies in the European Union.”

Reform councillor Mason Humberstone said the mayor “lives in a bubble,” since “people don’t want to rejoin the EU. They want Brexit actually delivered.”

Don’t blame the vision. Blame the cowardice of those who failed to deliver it. Britain needs backbone, not this recycled establishment nonsense.

The demand has received some pushback from Labour, too, with one MP, Josh Newbury, responding: “Absolutely not.”

But the prime minister is perhaps more likely to listen to other, more Brexit-sceptical voices. One, businessman Simon Nixon, who was fairly supportive of Starmer ahead of his 2024 election, this week wrote that the idea “Brexit was a monumental act of national self-harm is now barely contested,” adding:

The debate over how to deepen cooperation has taken on a new urgency amid the splintering of the global order and a widening transatlantic rift.

Labour minister Sir Chris Bryant on Thursday refused to rule out a ‘rejoin EU’ pledge at the next election, stressing that “we should be immensely ambitious about our relationship” with Brussels.

europeanconservative

Muslims in Britain have a more favourable view of Communist China, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and the theocratic Islamist regime in Iran than the United States, a poll has found.

According to a survey by JL Partners for the Policy Exchange Think Tank, which polled a nationally representative sample of 2,223 adults in Britain, as well as 1,031 Muslims living in the UK, found a stark difference in worldview.

The survey was conducted between March 2nd and 13th, during the outset of the American-Israeli joint military operation against Iran.

The survey found that Muslims in Britain were five times more likely to hold a positive opinion of the Iranian regime than the British public as a whole, with 39 per cent of Muslims having a favourable view of the mullahs in Tehran compared to just 8 per cent of all people in the UK.

Meanwhile, Muslim respondents also had a significantly better opinion of Russia, with 29 per cent of Muslims holding a positive view of the Putin regime compared to 8 per cent of average Britons. Similarly, 38 per cent of Muslims in Britain hold a favourable opinion of Communist China, compared to 15 per cent among the public as a whole.

“In both cases, the net favourability rating (‘favourable’ minus ‘unfavourable’) of British Muslims to Russia and China is positive, whereas for the general population it is strongly negative. This exposes a certain British Muslim scepticism of Western geopolitics, holding relatively favourable views towards countries which could be perceived as having hostile anti-West regimes,” Policy Exchange noted.

In contrast, Muslims in Britain have a net negative view of both Israel and the United States at -52 and -41, respectively. This is compared to a -22 view of Israel and -16 view of the United States by the British public overall.

Opinions were also divergent on the conflict in Iran, with 45 per cent of Muslims polled saying they did not believe that Iran posed a serious threat prior to the military operation against the regime, compared to just 14 per cent of the British public who felt the same.

Muslims in Britain were also more likely to say that the U.S-Israeli strikes were “definitely wrong” at 50 per cent, compared to just 17 per cent of the public as a whole. Four in ten Muslims respondents also said that they thought securing Iran’s oil reserves was the primary aim of the conflict, compared to just 15 per cent of the public.

The generally supportive view towards Iran comes despite the fact that the overwhelming majority, some 84 per cent, of Muslims in Britain identify as Sunni, while Iran and its leadership come from the Shia faction of the faith. Conversely, the Sunni theocracy in Saudi Arabia is held in lower regard than Iran by UK Muslims.

Policy Exchange noted that the findings are a further “illustration of geopolitical considerations trumping any sense of denominational tribalism (especially British Muslim disillusionment over Saudi Arabia’s previous willingness to entertain the normalisation of relations with Israel).”

Remarking on the overall results of the poll, the think tank concluded: “The degree to which the ongoing Iran conflict will spill over into ethno-religious tensions in modern Britain remains to be seen, but two in five members of the UK public believe that it has already made ethnic and religious relations worse in the UK.

“British politicians, policymakers, and practitioners are faced with the serious challenge of fostering a more cohesive and resilient society in a global environment defined by its volatility and uncertainty.”

breitbart

Italy is heading toward a referendum on justice reform that could reshape the country’s political balance.

The referendum will take place on March 22–23 and was proposed by the government to improve judicial organisation, efficiency and internal discipline.

Critics, though, see it as an attempt to curb the influence of magistrates who could block government actions on issues such as immigration and corruption.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her coalition are using the vote not only to advance reform but also to demonstrate their political strength ahead of the 2027 national elections.

Early surveys, though, suggest an uncertain outcome, raising the possibility of a defeat that could weaken the government and energise opposition calls for early elections.

The Italian judiciary has long faced criticism for slow procedures and inefficiencies, which affect both economic performance and public trust.

At the same time, it is frequently criticised for what is seen as the politicisation of magistrates, who are often perceived to lean Left.

A distinctive feature of the Italian judiciary is the system of informal factions — networks of judges and prosecutors sharing similar professional philosophies or ideological leanings, generally left‑leaning. These can influence assignments, promotions and administrative decisions.

Critics argue that judicial interventions have sometimes slowed or blocked the implementation of government decisions.

More recently, magistrates have opposed or delayed government policies on illegal immigration and the closure or management of reception centres for migrants in Albania. That fuelled accusations from the Right that judicial actors resist measures presented as demanded by citizens.

At the heart of the referendum is the proposed separation of careers between judges and prosecutors, who currently belong to the same judicial body and can move between roles.

The government argues that separating these paths would strengthen impartiality and reduce the influence of internal factions.

Career separation is common across Europe: In 20 out of the 27 European Union countries, judges and prosecutors follow distinct professional paths, with dedicated training, promotions and assignments that supporters say help protect judicial independence.

Critics on the Left, though, argue that the changes could weaken judicial independence and allow greater political influence over prosecutions.

The debate around the referendum has quickly become political and electoral.

The government’s objective is not only to secure the reform but also to show electoral strength on an issue — the judiciary — that has long been seen as a stronghold of the political Left.

If the referendum passes, Meloni’s leadership would be reinforced heading into the 2027 campaign.

Recent opinion polls show the right‑wing bloc maintaining a strong advantage over left‑of‑centre opposition forces in Italy, with Fratelli d’Italia — the party of Giorgia Meloni — as the largest party and other right‑leaning parties adding to its strength. Main opposition parties such as the Partito Democratico and Movimento 5 Stelle lag behind.

Polls specifically on the justice referendum present a more mixed picture. Some surveys indicate close competition between the Yes and No camps, with a slight lead for the No side in certain polls. There is a large share of undecided voters, suggesting that public opinion on the judicial reform question remains divided.

For international observers, the referendum represents more than a domestic policy debate. It is a high‑stakes political gamble: A victory would reinforce the government’s mandate and strengthen its position ahead of 2027, while a defeat could open a new phase of political uncertainty and potentially accelerate the timeline for the next general election.

brusselssignal

A German court has uncovered what it describes as a coordinated scheme in which Turkish asylum seekers obtain fabricated criminal cases to strengthen claims of political persecution and avoid deportation.

In a recent ruling, the Gelsenkirchen Administrative Court detailed how official-looking legal documents are allegedly being used to create the appearance of state prosecution. Judges concluded that such cases, when artificially constructed, do not meet the threshold for asylum.

As reported by German outlet Apollo News, the case centered on a Turkish applicant who claimed he had been targeted for political reasons, citing his Kurdish background, opposition ties, and alleged abuse by authorities. But German officials found major inconsistencies in his account.

In an attempt to support his claim, the man later submitted extracts from Turkey’s national judicial database showing charges for insulting the president and spreading terrorist propaganda. However, the posts cited in the case were dated after he had already arrived in Germany, raising immediate doubts.

Expert analysis presented to the court pointed to a wider pattern. According to the findings, a structured underground market has emerged in which individuals can obtain customized indictments and legal files designed to appear authentic within Turkey’s judicial system.

These documents often carry official case numbers and registration, but lack any real investigative process or follow-up prosecution. Courts concluded that such “purchased persecution” does not constitute a genuine risk upon return.

The ruling also aligns with mounting evidence from outside Germany that the practice has been developing for years.

On social media platforms, particularly TikTok, accounts have openly advertised services offering asylum seekers ready-made legal files. These include arrest warrants, police statements, and medical reports, all presented as officially registered in Turkey’s judicial system.

One such advertisement from 2024 explicitly offered “asylum files for all countries,” listing documents such as arrest warrants, police interrogation records, and political party membership papers, while inviting users to make contact privately.

The existence of such offers suggests that the production of tailored legal cases is not an isolated phenomenon in Germany, but part of a broader and increasingly visible marketplace.

Earlier reporting from Switzerland also pointed to the same pattern. In 2023, a recognized refugee from Turkey, identified as Ayaz, told Swiss media that fellow nationals had asked him to connect them with Turkish judicial officials to obtain forged arrest warrants.

According to the report by 20min, these individuals intended to use the documents to present themselves as political refugees, despite having primarily economic motivations. Although Ayaz refused, he later learned that others had succeeded through different channels and were ultimately granted asylum in Switzerland.

The German court’s findings now add judicial weight to those earlier warnings.

Unsurprisingly, the applicant’s claim in the German case was rejected.

rmx

 The House of Lords has confirmed the decriminalization of abortion in England and Wales, allowing women to kill their unborn children themselves up until birth.

The House of Lords voted to back the plans to decriminalize abortion for mothers up to birth, approved by the House of Commons last summer.

On Wednesday, peers in the House of Lords rejected an amendment brought by Conservative Baroness Sheila Lawlor by 185 to 148 votes that sought to remove the clause that allowed women to kill their unborn child up to birth.

For doctors and other healthcare workers, the 24-week abortion limit will remain in place, meaning they could still be charged if they perform an abortion after this point in a pregnancy. However, if a pregnant woman decides to carry out an abortion after 24 weeks, for instance, via abortion pills obtained illegally or otherwise, she cannot be prosecuted for that action under the new legislation.

Pro-life advocates argue that this will lead to more third-trimester abortions, which are also dangerous for the mother, in addition to killing the unborn child.

“If the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent, it will no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions, for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, and at any point up to and during birth,” Right to Life UK wrote.

“This change to the law would likely lead to a significant increase in the number of women performing late-term abortions at home, endangering the lives of many more women,” the pro-life group argued.

Right to Life UK cited the situation in New Zealand, where abortion was decriminalized in 2020, “and the country saw a 43% increase in late-term abortions” that year.

The group also noted that the abortion lobby’s goals are completely out of step with the general public opinion on the matter.

“As you may be aware, polling shows that 89% of the general population and 91% of women agree that gender-selective abortion should be explicitly banned by the law – and only 1% of women support introducing abortion up to birth,” Right to Life UK stated.

“The same polling shows that 60% of the general population and 70% of women want to see our abortion time limit lowered to 20 weeks or below,” the group added.

lifesitenews

For decades, the so-called “Western experts” had warned us that it was too risky to attack Tehran, that the Iranians had too many missiles, that their armed forces were too large, that their leadership was too cunning, that it was inevitable that Iran would build the atomic bomb and that there was nothing we could do except sign useless treaties that were not worth the paper they were written on.

Jacques Chirac theorized that the Iranian atomic bomb would not be “very dangerous.” In an essay that caused a sensation, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb,” published by Foreign Affairs, the famous political scientist Kenneth Waltz theorized that an Iranian bomb would be a “source of stability.”

Defeatism is the worn-out garment of decadent Western ruling classes.

The US-Israel military operations have so far been extraordinarily successful and, two weeks after the start of the conflict, the Islamic regime has been forced to attack ships, threaten to lay mines, bomb oil infrastructure and unleash economic terrorism in a last attempt to survive.

The leaders of the Islamic Republic, those who are still alive, that is, are underground. The regime has seen thousands of its sites reduced to rubble. It has suffered catastrophic losses. Its air defenses have been annihilated. Its air force is finished. Its navy lies at the bottom of Hormuz.

What remains is the work of dismantling the Iranian nuclear program and the liberation of Hormuz (regime change is more difficult).

And if we fail, all the revisionist regimes on the face of the earth will draw the appropriate conclusions. And many of our new Arab friends will also think that friendship with the “infidels” was not worth it.

Many, to tell the truth, already seem to have failed.

Many European countries have delighted the enemies of the West, discouraged our friends and humiliated themselves.

Just a single drone attack, without deaths or injuries, and the Italian contingent will be withdrawn from Iraqi Kurdistan, where we were training the heroic Kurds in the war against ISIS at a base named after the legionary fortress of Septimius Severus.

The “freezing” of the Italian military mission in Erbil is a sensational blow delivered by pro-Iranian militias in Iraq.

Is that all it takes to make us withdraw? Shame on my country.

Germany is also withdrawing its soldiers from Iraq while continuing to purchase weapons from Israel.

Spain is the great soft underbelly of Europe (sorry for the great politician José María Aznar).

Then there is England, which has just decided to remove the face of Winston Churchill from banknotes.

Who will replace him? Shakespeare? No – hedgehogs and badgers.

The glorious United Kingdom perhaps deserves to become the Islamic Kingdom.

A British Labour politician – speaking unofficially – said it bluntly: “Jordanians, Emiratis, Kuwaitis and even Canadians all ask: ‘What the hell are you doing? Whose side are you on?’”

While Iranians were being slaughtered in the streets, officials from the British Foreign Office were celebrating with regime leaders the anniversary of Khomeini’s revolution.

The key question was posed by former colonel Richard Kemp in the Telegraph: “How much longer will the United States and Israel fight for us?”.

First the Houthi terrorists in Yemen attacked one of the most important trade routes in the world, the Red Sea, slowing global supply chains.

And we Europeans yawned.

Now the collective pacifist – who on TV and in newspapers complains about the cost of filling up diesel and gasoline because of “Trump and Netanyahu’s war” – would like to let Tehran control a quarter of the world oil market.

If Europe truly existed today, we would see a maritime coalition under the EU flag helping the United States and Israel free the passage at Hormuz.

Instead, the “collective West” is dead: all that remains are two rock-solid leaders in Jerusalem and Washington. If it weren’t for them, Europe would already be learning the Shahada in Farsi.

israelnationalnews

A criminal Albanian migrant who infamously argued that he should not be deported due to his son disliking foreign chicken nuggets has won his appeal to stay in Britain.

Klevis Disha, 39, broke into Britain in February 2001, when he was a 15-year-old unaccompanied child.

When he entered the country, he used a fake name and falsely claimed to have been born in the former Yugoslavia.

While his asylum claim was rejected, he secured UK citizenship in 2007 after being granted exceptional leave to remain, and then indefinite leave to remain.

Disha was jailed for two years after being caught with £250,000 in cash, known to be the proceeds of crime.

Then-Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel ordered he should be deported to Albania and stripped the 39-year-old of his UK citizenship as it had been acquired through deception.

His case was held up in the appeal system after arguing that his son, referred to in proceedings as “C” has special needs and therefore, the family should remain in Britain.

His appeal was heard in 2019, when it was ruled the Albanian criminal should not be deported “on human rights grounds”.

However, following a Home Office appeal, the ruling was overturned by a tribunal.

It ruled: “We can only see in the decision a single example of why ‘C’ could not go to Albania – ‘C’ will not eat the type of chicken nuggets available abroad.”

But now, following a number of hearings, The Sun has revealed that Disha has won the right to remain in Britain after First Tier Tribunal Judge Linda Veloso ruled in his favour, citing Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

As part of her ruling, the judge accepted that C “has a limited diet” and “struggles with certain textures of foods”.

Judge Veloso also noted that C had received crucial support from his school and his improvement was a ­“delicate ongoing process”.

She also dismissed claims from the Home Office that C had not been formally diagnosed with autism and spoke Albanian as his first language.

“Disha’s deportation would be unduly harsh for C,” the judge ruled.

Following the ruling, the Home Office confirmed it was “actively considering this judgment”.

“We continue to explore all options in relation to an onward appeal,” a spokesman said.

Last year, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp fumed: “This case shows how bogus asylum seekers and foreign criminals are ruthlessly exploiting human rights laws and weak judges to stay in the UK when common sense clearly shows they should be kicked out.”

Meanwhile, then-Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick blasted the case as “mind-boggling” and that it was “ludicrous that a judge would entertain it”.

According to Ministry of Justice data, 80,333 asylum appeals were waiting to be heard in December 2025 – up more than double from the 41,987 figure reported at the same time in 2024.

gbnews

Historian Rafe Heydel-Mankoo on the growing threat posed by radical Islam and how the government’s backdoor blasphemy law could threaten our ability to speak out about it.