Trevor Philips, Racial Equality Campaigner has been Suspended from the Labour Party

[Aexodus]

I meant to make a thread on this at the time, but to be honest I just couldn’t be bothered. Well better late than never.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-51797316
https://amp.theguardian.com/commenti...phobia-muslims
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...earnt-nothing/
Premium Article:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The first time I heard the word “Islamophobic” was when it was attached to my name in a public document. The date was 1997 – the main year in our history (Tony Blair Year 1) when political correctness appeared to be carrying all before it.

The document was a pamphlet sponsored by the Runnymede Trust, the vehicle of the elite Left in public policy. The then chairman of the trust was Trevor Phillips, a towering figure in the race relations “industry”. Now his suspension from the Labour Party has just been announced. His alleged crime is that he is “Islamophobic”.

Mr Phillips’s story could be seen as a classic example of how the revolution eats its own, but this is not really true in his case. Even in the era when he was slandering me (I’m afraid that, nearly a quarter of a century later, I forget my precise alleged offence), I noticed in him, whenever we met, disturbing evidence of being a real, humorous and independent-minded individual. Even when he was talking New Labour rot, I always liked him. I felt he was in the wrong place, and I guessed that he sort of knew it.

In the intervening years, Mr Phillips has become an increasingly outspoken critic of the very concept of “Islamophobia”. While militantly opposed to anti-Muslim hatred, he rejects the idea that criticism of current aspects of Islam is racist.

It is insulting to any great proselytising religion – the two greatest being Islam and Christianity – to suggest that it belongs to any race. They are global belief systems, not genetic inheritances.

He also understands that to proclaim Islam as different from surrounding Western society – which Labour says is his crime – is to state an observable fact.

It is also, at least in some respects, to compliment it. Again like Christianity, Islam takes pride in not automatically accepting the secular world at its own valuation. If Muslims were not, in this sense, different, why do many of their self-proclaimed leaders lobby so constantly for differences – dietary and dress rules, for example – to be recognised and respected?

As is well set out in Policy Exchange’s new paper about the Phillips case, the current attempt to define Islamophobia in law and turn it into an offence is profoundly against freedom. It is a backdoor effort to impose the blasphemy laws which crush freedom in the more extreme Muslim countries. It is wholly unacceptable in a free society.

The fact that the Labour Party has chosen this moment to, in George Orwell’s phrase, “unperson” Trevor Phillips is evidence that it has learnt nothing from its recent defeat.

The party’s problem is not only its anti-Semitism. It is also the related fact that it is far too close to the more sectarian and extreme Muslim leaders who promote the definition of Islamophobia in law.

Sir Keir Starmer is the favourite for the Labour leadership. Only if he takes this opportunity to back his old comrade-in-arms Mr Phillips against the Corbynista zealots trying to expel him will we know that things might really change.

Labour clearly are either clueless and out of touch, or this is an attempt to draw attention away from scrutiny and is essentially whataboutery. The idea that stating independently verifiable facts is enough to get chucked out of Labour shows that it is no longer an open forum for debate, but a dogmatic politically correct party that is intolerant and shuts down debate. Do you agree with me?

[mishkin]

Fragments from your first source, BBC (for the lazy people)

A spokeswoman added: "[The complaints] are fully investigated in line with our rules and procedures, and any appropriate disciplinary action is taken."

Mr Phillips was among 24 public figures who wrote to the Guardian last year declaring their refusal to vote for Labour because of its association with anti-Semitism.

He could be expelled from the party for alleged prejudice against Muslims.

Mr Phillips has been suspended pending investigation over remarks, including expressing concerns about Pakistani Muslim men sexually abusing children in northern British towns, according to the Times.

It says the complaint also covers his comments about the failure of some Muslims to wear poppies for Remembrance Sunday and the sympathy shown by some in an opinion poll towards the "motives" of the Charlie Hebdo attackers.

The paper said many of his statements are years-old but that Labour's general secretary Jennie Formby suspended him as a matter of urgency to "protect the party's reputation".

[...]

The Muslim Council of Britain accused Mr Phillips of making "incendiary statements about Muslims that would be unacceptable for any other minority".

A spokesman for the organisation said: "The impact of Mr Phillips' claims from a privileged vantage point is dangerous, providing licence to far-right ideologues such as Tommy Robinson who have seized upon these remarks.

"Mr Phillips would have us believe that he is a martyr for free speech and tolerance. But the fact remains that the deployment of these sweeping generalisations and tropes would not be acceptable for any other community."

Mr Phillips was the founding chair of the EHRC, which is currently investigating anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, when it launched in 2006.

He has previously made documentaries about race and multiculturalism, and now chairs Index on Censorship - a group that campaigns for freedom of expression.

I have seen this bs before, People obsessed with behavior and crimes committed by muslims in great britain. People bent on highlighting specific episodes to show that an entire community (Muslims in Great Britain in this case) are barbarians who will never adapt to the fantastic British society in which horrible crimes had never been committed. And when you accuse them of racists or xenophobes they say that they limit themselves to exposing stories or data (always the same), as saying, look, these data confirm that it is logical and reasonable to be racist. Nor is it a novelty to try to victimize yourself by claiming that freedom of expression is being ended.

[Cope]

The Islamic vote is key for the Labour Party. Along with large swathes of the neoliberal establishment (whose economic priorities rely on the mass migration of South Asians), the party is willing to throw anyone under the bus to protect the perceived sensibilities of the Islamic constituency. What Dawkins recently referred to as liberal cowardice in the face of Islamic conservatism has been exacerbated in the Labour Party by Corbyn's anti-Israel, anti-Western attitudes. No one should be surprised that a party whose leader cavorts with Hamas and fires ministers trying to expose the truth of the grooming gangs crisis would also want to silence Phillips. His suspension was a predictable political hit job which confirms (if any further confirmation was required) how thoroughly unelectable the Labour has become over the last 15 years.

[Aexodus]

Fragments from your first source, BBC (for the lazy people)



I have seen this bs before, People obsessed with behavior and crimes committed by muslims in great britain. People bent on highlighting specific episodes to show that an entire community (Muslims in Great Britain in this case) are barbarians who will never adapt to the fantastic British society in which horrible crimes had never been committed. And when you accuse them of racists or xenophobes they say that they limit themselves to exposing stories or data (always the same), as saying, look, these data confirm that it is logical and reasonable to be racist. Nor is it a novelty to try to victimize yourself by claiming that freedom of expression is being ended.

What makes you think this is Trevor’s intention?

[Cope]

What makes you think this is Trevor’s intention?

He has no evidence that this is/was Phillips' intention; it's the same conspiratorial, knee-jerk response which you got from leftists in the grooming gangs thread.

[Abdülmecid I]

I don't see any grave controversy here. Trevor Philips has made several absurd comments of a negative nature against an entire segment of the British population, based on logical fallacies, cherry-picked data, xenophobic stereotypes and probably a genuine inability to understand how science works, probably due to being heavily influenced by the intellectual colonisation of Great Britain by the United States. I guess his gaffes could have been normally tolerated, if he was just a simple party member, but his position inside the racial equality campaign rendered them even more embarrassing. Should the Labour leadership have left him alone for the sake of right-wing political correctness and to prevent some nationalists obsessed with crescent from getting triggered? That sounds quite unethical, to be frank, but, even from a cynical perspective, that particular demographic would never vote for anything more moderate than the Tories anyway, so no serious loss here, I presume.

I would have perhaps felt sorry for Trevor Philips, because some of his remarks, such as those concerning the sexual abuse scandals, reveal more about him being sincerely incapable of differentiating between causation and correlation than his alleged bigotry. However, he's also a coward, as he's now trying to defend his career, by arguing that Muslims are not a race (itself a term so ambiguous that cannot be properly defined in an objective manner), despite gaining notoriety and Yaxley-Lennon's endorsement exactly for treating the Muslim community like a monolithic and homogeneous group, whose culture is incompatible with the perceived principles of the British identity. I don't appreciate hypocrisy, so I suppose that Philips got what he deserved. He would have probably maintained his prestige largely intact, if he was mature enough to discern the not exceptionally nuanced gap between criticising Islam and targeting Muslims.

[mishkin]

What makes you think this is Trevor’s intention?

Well if I see a guy talking continuously about ducks, only and exclusively about ducks, ignoring geese, turkeys and other birds, I conclude that this person has a problem with ducks. Do you know if Mr. Philips has ever pointed out how different the Jews are ("Muslims are different")? Has he ever related the criminality of the eastern mafias operating in UK to the Orthodox religion? Has he campaigned regarding an alleged problem of pedophilia among Christians? The guy has a problem with muslims.

[Aexodus]

Are you seriously saying the actual Trevor Philips is prejudiced against Muslims? Because that along with Labour's 'reputation' are the alleged reasons. I'm not even going to go into how troublesome it is to suspend the rights of party members to have free debate to protect a political party's 'reputation'. Very overbearing.

I don't see any grave controversy here. Trevor Philips has made several absurd comments of a negative nature against an entire segment of the British population, based on logical fallacies, cherry-picked data, xenophobic stereotypes and probably a genuine inability to understand how science works

So:

Mr Phillips has been suspended pending investigation over remarks, including expressing concerns about Pakistani Muslim men sexually abusing children in northern British towns, according to the Times.

It says the complaint also covers his comments about the failure of some Muslims to wear poppies for Remembrance Sunday and the sympathy shown by some in an opinion poll towards the "motives" of the Charlie Hebdo attackers.

Are these comments absurd? Are they incorrect?

[Heathen Hammer]

Fragments from your first source, BBC (for the lazy people)



I have seen this bs before, People obsessed with behavior and crimes committed by muslims in great britain. People bent on highlighting specific episodes to show that an entire community (Muslims in Great Britain in this case) are barbarians who will never adapt to the fantastic British society in which horrible crimes had never been committed. And when you accuse them of racists or xenophobes they say that they limit themselves to exposing stories or data (always the same), as saying, look, these data confirm that it is logical and reasonable to be racist. Nor is it a novelty to try to victimize yourself by claiming that freedom of expression is being ended.

Um, you do realize that Islam is a religion and not a race, right?

[Cope]

I don't see any grave controversy here.

I suppose by comparison to the rest of Labour's scandals, this isn't particularly noteworthy.

Trevor Philips has made several absurd comments of a negative nature against an entire segment of the British population, based on logical fallacies, cherry-picked data, xenophobic stereotypes and probably a genuine inability to understand how science works, probably due to being heavily influenced by the intellectual colonisation of Great Britain by the United States.

The obligatory, evidence-free sniping at the United States (an example of an anti-Western, Corbynite sentiment as mentioned above).

I guess his gaffes could have been normally tolerated, if he was just a simple party member, but his position inside the racial equality campaign rendered them even more embarrassing. Should the Labour leadership have left him alone for the sake of right-wing political correctness and to prevent some nationalists obsessed with crescent from getting triggered?

The obligatory failed attempt to flip the right's "political correctness" and "triggered" script.

That sounds quite unethical, to be frank, but, even from a cynical perspective, that particular demographic would never vote for anything more moderate than the Tories anyway, so no serious loss here, I presume.

Unfortunately for Labour, many swing voters are not to impressed with leftist grievance grifting; even Blair has warned the party about venturing into the electoral cul-de-sac of identity politics. Then again, what do I know? It's not as if Labour has just suffered one of its most crushing defeats in history.

I would have perhaps felt sorry for Trevor Philips, because some of his remarks, such as those concerning the sexual abuse scandals, reveal more about him being sincerely incapable of differentiating between causation and correlation than his alleged bigotry. However, he's also a coward, as he's now trying to defend his career, by arguing that Muslims are not a race (itself a term so ambiguous that cannot be properly defined in an objective manner), despite gaining notoriety and Yaxley-Lennon's endorsement exactly for treating the Muslim community like a monolithic and homogeneous group, whose culture is incompatible with the perceived principles of the British identity. I don't appreciate hypocrisy, so I suppose that Philips got what he deserved. He would have probably maintained his prestige largely intact, if he was mature enough to discern the not exceptionally nuanced gap between criticising Islam and targeting Muslims.

Congratulations on regurgitating Warsi's identity grifting almost word for word. I'm sure you'll remind us of the "hypocrisy you don't appreciate" next time certain authoritarian regimes/sectarian organizations which have a history of brutalizing and/or ethnically cleansing Muslims *cough* USSR, China, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah *cough* need defending against the Great Satan and its allies.

[Abdülmecid I]

Are these comments absurd? Are they incorrect?

They are cowardly sophistries, because they are either meaningless observations or insinuated attacks against a specific group of British citizens. Philips is welcome to argue how the Muslim credentials of the perpetrators are relevant to their crimes or whether his anecdotal evidence about poppy badges reflects an incompatibility between British patriotism and Islam. Ironically, the same research Philips used to portray the Muslim community of the United Kingdom as incapable of integration seems to point towards a radically different conclusion. How productive and useful would be for me to state that the sexual abuse was committed exclusively by males and that men were more reluctant than women to wear poppies in remembrance for World War I? Are these statements an innocent attestation of facts or do they imply something more sinister? Shouldn't I be more severely criticised for these remarks, if I also happened to chair the committee for gender equality?

Unfortunately for Labour, many swing voters are not to impressed with leftist grievance grifting; even Blair has warned the party about venturing into the electoral cul-de-sac of identity politics. Then again, what do I know? It's not as if Labour has just suffered one of its most crushing defeats in history.

I'm not sure how successful this appeal on authority and deprived of actual statistical evidence fallacy is, considering Blair's long history of unpopularity. If he excelled in understanding the desires of the voters, I'd expect a solidly better performance on that department. However, I don't disagree with him urging the Labour Party to ditch identity politics. Consequently, firing Trevor Philips is a step towards the right direction, as his ignorant attempts to create division among British based on religious lines is the epitome of identity politics. Hopefully both the Tories and the opposition will cease to pander to insecure nationalists who get triggered by anyone doubting their dogma and gradually endorse a more consistent agenda, focused on their ideological principles. As I mentioned above, the obsession with race in Britain is an import from the culturally dominant United States, so it will hopefully fade out as quickly as it emerged. In the meantime, Trevor Philips is free to study and judge the brooch habits of his neighbors, while simultaneously trying to figure out the difference between correlation and causation.

[Heathen Hammer]

Attacking a specific group of citizens based on their personal choice of belief is fine in Western societies. We don't really have anything against criticizing people for their political, social or religious beliefs. I don't really see why islamic belief should be an exception, given how it holds same intellectual merit as evangelicals, anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers, except it also has a violent streak to it.
Not to mention the muslim immigrants tend to create their own paralleled societies instead of integrating.
But it is quite amusing to see Labor's auto-cannibalism. British society would benefit a lot if that party collapsed entirely and replaced with party that actually promotes interests of working class, instead of catering to unintelligent woke urbanites.

[Aexodus]

They are cowardly sophistries, because they are either meaningless observations or insinuated attacks against a specific group of British citizens.

Why is the disproportionate percentage of Muslims within rape gangs meaningless, or the preponderance to not commemorate British soldiers on remembrance day meaningless? Do you not think relevant questions around integration could be answered here?

If they were attacks, Trevor would need to have a dislike or prejudice towards Muslims. This is not the case.

Philips is welcome to argue how the Muslim credentials of the perpetrators are relevant to their crimes or whether his anecdotal evidence about poppy badges reflects an incompatibility between British patriotism and Islam.

No he’s not, this is why Labour suspended him.

Ironically, the same research Philips used to portray the Muslim community of the United Kingdom as incapable of integration seems to point towards a radically different conclusion.

He has NEVER said Muslims are incapable of integration. I like that you have posted that link, it shows you want to debate this issue.

How can Labour debate this issue if they ban anyone on Philips’ side of the argument?

How productive and useful would be for me to state that the sexual abuse was committed exclusively by males and that men were more reluctant than women to wear poppies in remembrance for World War I? Are these statements an innocent attestation of facts or do they imply something more sinister?

It’s not about being productive and useful. This is irrelevant to him being suspended. You have the right to make unproductive and useless statements in the Labour Party.

Men and women aren’t comparable categories to Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, male and female communities and belief systems don’t exist, whereas Muslim communities and belief systems do. In addition, there is the factor of first and second generation migrants too.

Men absolutely do commit most rapes and sexual assaults. Feminists in the Labour party surely have attested this before, as is their right.

For the latter to be true, men would need to wear poppies at a much reduced rate than women, which I doubt to be true. A better comparison would be Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, which is a meaningful comparison from which we can hypothesise certain conclusions.

Why do Muslims tend not to wear poppies? Why do Catholics tend not to wear poppies? These are perfectly innocent and valid questions Abdul, pertaining to social cohesion and in the case of Muslims most of whom are first or second generation, their integration into British society.

If you think there is something sinister behind Philips’ comments you’ll come out and honestly tell us what they are won’t you?

Shouldn't I be more severely criticised for these remarks, if I also happened to chair the committee for gender equality?

I don’t think so. Men are the ones almost exclusively committing type 1 paedophilia. Chairing the comittee for gender equality would surely necessitate recognising that most rape victims are women and most perpetrators are men.

[Cope]

I'm not sure how successful this appeal on authority and deprived of actual statistical evidence fallacy is, considering Blair's long history of unpopularity. If he excelled in understanding the desires of the voters, I'd expect a solidly better performance on that department.

Do you want the statistical evidence of his electoral success? He's the only Labour leader to have won a general election in fifty years (he won three of them convincingly).

However, I don't disagree with him urging the Labour Party to ditch identity politics. Consequently, firing Trevor Philips is a step towards the right direction, as his ignorant attempts to create division among British based on religious lines is the epitome of identity politics.

Ah, so it's not Labour's institutional appeasement strategy which is the problem here. No sir. No anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. No attempts to brush certain cultural conflicts under the rug. The real "epitome of identity politics" comes from those members who refuse to tow the party line.

Hopefully both the Tories and the opposition will cease to pander to insecure nationalists who get triggered by anyone doubting their dogma and gradually endorse a more consistent agenda, focused on their ideological principles.

The obligatory attempt to appropriate right-wing rhetoric aside, if Labour's "ideological principles" continue to include the endless denigration of western/British civilization and its institutions (NATO, the US the monarchy etc.), I'd prefer if the we continued to avoid them.

As I mentioned above, the obsession with race in Britain is an import from the culturally dominant United States so it will hopefully fade out as quickly as it emerged. In the meantime, Trevor Philips is free to study and judge the brooch habits of his neighbors, while simultaneously trying to figure out the difference between correlation and causation.

Almost all of the people who "obsess" about race in the UK are from the left: they tend to be either liberals seeking to distract voters from wealth inequality, radicals seeking to denigrate and demoralize the native society/culture, critics of Israel and the Jewish community and/or identity grifters in parliament, the media or pressure groups.

[Abdülmecid I]

I thought the revolutionary leftists were into defining society along class and not ethnic lines or skin pigmentation. Perhaps I'm an old school chap, but I suspect that your perceptions are influenced by the American dogma, which has unfortunately also expanded and perhaps currently dominates the political discourse in the United Kingdom. That's the intellectual colonisation I mentioned above, which is not a jab at the United States. Quite the contrary, in fact, I would personally gloat a lot if my country enjoyed such an ideological preponderance, but unfortunately that's the case only in sub-Saharan Africa and that's because we control their currency and money supply. Trevor Philips also seems to endorse the obsession with identity politics, except when he's criticised for it, when he immediately throws the "Islam is not a race" card, despite never having addressed the Islamic doctrine and always treating Muslims as a separate culture-ethnic group.

You have the right to make unproductive and useless statements in the Labour Party.

Why is the disproportionate percentage of Muslims within rape gangs meaningless, or the preponderance to not commemorate British soldiers on remembrance day meaningless? Do you not think relevant questions around integration could be answered here?

It is completely meaningless, as long as Philips or any other does not explain how it is related to their culture or religion? Perhaps he's right, but without further elaboration,how am I supposed to treat his comments as anything more than inflammatory hysteria? The same applies for the poppies, although, just to clarify, Philips' based that pretty bold claim on his personal experience, presumably during a promenade, when the anniversary was celebrated. I wonder how he recognized them. Maybe skin complexion does play a role, after all? Seriously, that's the level of stupidity and irresponsibility we're talking about. Philips has every right to rant about brooches as a private individual and nobody has violated said right. However, he's not at all entitled to his precious job, regardless of how many gaffes he has made. His administrative position in the campaign against racism rendered his tirades completely inappropriate and a liability for the Labour party, which is why his firing was completely justified.

Perhaps next time, he should concentrate more on statistical trends and the background context, instead of arbitrarily generalising his anecdotal experience, randomly choosing a common trait and failing to differentiate between correlation and causation. I don't think there's anything particularly sinister about Philips' beliefs. He's probably somewhat negatively predisposed towards alien customs, with which he's not familiar, but, in my opinion, the main factor behind his numerous gaffes is genuinely limited intellectual capacity, which is why he was unsuitable for the job. Say what you want about capitalism, but everyone is awarded not according to his needs, but according to his abilities and Philips' never seemed particularly exceptional.

[Aexodus]

Abdülmecid, you are fundamentally misinformed on the topic. I hate to be that blunt, and I don’t mean it as a personal criticism of you because I respect you, but here is what you seem to be missing:

- Of course he has related the integration problems to religion and culture. What did you think he was basing it on? He has elaborated on these points. He presented an entire documentary on the issue in 2016. It is not hysteria.

- I have also been mistaken on the poppy comments. They were actually about a select group of Islamic Scholars that refused to wear poppies on Remembrance day. I must criticise the BBC for misrepresenting Phillips on this.

- “However, he's not at all entitled to his precious job”. He is not employed by the Labour Party. Look, I’m not quite sure where you got that idea. He has not been fired from an professional position, which at this time would be the National Equality Standard, which is an apolitical private organisation. Trevor Philips was a party member the same as you or me would be. He does not currently hold an administrative role in the general campaign against racism within Labour. I don’t think he has ever been employed by the Labour Party, but I may be incorrect on that.

- He’s not basing these observations on anecdotal experience. He is a competent man, and was once at the forefront of campaigns against racism.

I’d like to copy across what the Labour Party Shadow Europe Minister Khalid Mahmood, the single longest serving Muslim MP has to say.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/ar...revor-phillips

Shadow Europe minister Khalid Mahmood said the move to discipline the former head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission had brought "disrepute" on the party, while ex-Cabinet minister Lord Falconer andsenior backbencher Ben Bradshaw also hit out.

The move has also drawn anger from several Labour firgures, with Mr Mahmood saying: "It was with no small measure of astonishment that I learnt that my own party, the Labour Party, had initiated proceedings against Trevor Phillips on grounds of ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’."

Writing for the Policy Exchange think tank, he said: "The charges are so outlandish as to bring disrepute on all involved in making them; and I fear they further add to the sense that we, as a party, have badly lost our way."

"I cannot speak to the internal politics that may be involved in the decision to launch this case, but I want to underline my own dismay at how this case seems to represent the final deformation of attempts to define ‘Islamophobia’."

'STARK CONTRAST'

Mr Mahmood, Britain's longest-serving Muslim member of Parliament, has been critical of the definiition of Islamophobia drawn up by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims.

The definition - which says Islamophobia is a "type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness" - has been rejected for use by the Government, but accepted by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the mayor of London.

Urging Labour to drop the "fundamentally flawed" definition from its rule book, Mr Mahmood said: "The Labour Party, having adopted the APPG definition on Islamophobia, seems to be intent on wielding it as a for rooting out ‘difficult’ voices."

What do you know about Trevor that Khalid doesn’t? Genuine question, not rhetorical.

Lord Falconer and Ben Bradshaw.

The decision to suspend Mr Phillips, who sits on the board of the Index on Censorship campaign group, meanwhile prompted an outcry from from two Labour former Cabinet ministers.

Ex-justice secretary Lord Falconer said Mr Phillips had been suspended on "laughable grounds", and drew parallels with the expulsion of Tony Blair's ex-communications chief Alastair Campbell, a fellow critic of Jeremy Corbyn.

The Labour peer tweeted: "Faith completely gone in a disciplinary process that targets the leadership’s critics and fails to fight anti-semitism."

And former secretary Ben Bradshaw said: "This swift action against Trevor Phillips is in stark contrast to the complete lack of action against anti-semites I and many other Labour MPs have reported repeatedly to [general secretary] Jennie Formby."

Here’s some more exact descriptions of what Phillips has actually said.

They include claims by Mr Phillip that the "integration of Muslims will probably be the hardest task we’ve ever faced"; criticism of a group of Muslim scholars for not wearing Remembrance Day poppies; and a warning of the "collision between majority norms and the behaviours of some Muslim groups".

and the exact charge that was leveled to him.

A charge sheet issued to the campaigner says he may have "engaged in conduct prejudicial and/or grossly detrimental" to the party , and which may "reasonably be seen to involve Islamophobic actions, stereotypes and sentiments".

The letter also flags statements it says could undermine "the Party's ability to campaign against racism".

And finally, here is one of the things Phillips himself has had to say. I recommend everyone listens to his BBC Radio 4 interview if they can find it.

Writing in The Times, Mr Phillips said he believed the move was linked to his past association with the EHRC, which is investigating claims of Labour anti-semitism, and his previous criticism of the party leadership.

[Heathen Hammer]

We know that Saudis do fund jihadist mosques in Europe. Wouldn't be surprised if journos and politicians that spread hysteria about "islamophobia" receive their funding from the same source.

[Aexodus]

We know that Saudis do fund jihadist mosques in Europe. Wouldn't be surprised if journos and politicians that spread hysteria about "islamophobia" receive their funding from the same source.

Unless you have some credible evidence, please leave your conspiracy theories at the door.

[irontaino]

For a second, I thought the GTA V character was somehow making headlines. I am sorely disappointed.

[Abdülmecid I]

It is true that Saudi Arabia is partially responsible for the prosperity of Wahhabi extremist in the United Kingdom. Thankfully the British government has taken the appropriate measures to improve this deplorable situation.

- Of course he has related the integration problems to religion and culture. What did you think he was basing it on? He has elaborated on these points. He presented an entire documentary on the issue in 2016. It is not hysteria.

Presenting a documentary doesn't mean you are an authority worthy of respect. By that logic, we should take the word of Yaxley-Lennon and Carl Benjamin as absolute gospels. I'm happy to be corrected for the poppy controversy, although I would like to read the actual quote, but the fact remains that Trevor Phillips has made several inane comments, which confirm his genuine inability to even remotely comprehend the issue. Apart from the dog-whistling I mentioned earlier, he treats Muslims as a monolithic group and assumes group responsibility for their actions, which is something that is considered legally and morally unacceptable since the collapse of the Third Reich. It's also completely absurd and indicates a total ignorance of the basic principles of reality on the ground, as I am sure our ginger Salafist can confirm most wholeheartedly. I wonder how the press would have reacted if the conservatives were identified with the actions of Nigel Farage and those of the Christians with the Quakers.

Not very positively, I suspect. His approach is unscientific, misleading and divisive, which ultimately renders him a liability for the Labour Party. Perhaps his membership was indeed suspended because of internal intrigues, but honestly he should have been booted way earlier. Frankly, I don't care at all about the opinion of Tony Blair or Khalid Mahmood. That's a logical fallacy (appeal on authority), which also relies on the subjective opinion of a partial source. Anyway, I doubt there's an actual conspiracy here, Trevor Phillips political career is disintegrating, because of his inability to understand basic logic and social trends, but not everything is lost. The centrist faction is already using him as a martyr, in order to gain some cookies for the upcoming leadership struggle, so if the moderates win, chances are that he will be reintegrated into an at least superficially prominent position.