Politics: ignoring Muslim voters
By Richard North - July 10, 2024
If there is one thing I really dislike – from a very long list – it is immigrant stock media pundits lecturing us about how we should treat immigrants and those of recent immigrant heritage in this country.
Almost on top of that list, is Nesrine Malik, a Sudanese-born import from a wealthy family, now living out a comfortable life in London as a Guardian writer, untroubled physically by the conflict which is tearing her homeland apart.
It is in the Guardian that she presumes to instruct us that the pro-Palestinian votes – which sent five independent MPs to parliament in the general election – “aren’t sectarian”, then going on to warn that: “dismissing them would be a dangerous mistake for Labour”.
She complains that the success of the candidates who won seats in last week’s election “by harnessing frustrations” about Gaza is being treated “as a worrying sign of the emergence of sectarian politics” – as indeed it is.
By way of rebuttal, and the only argument Malik seems to be able to muster is the assertion that the defining characteristic of “sectarianism” in this case is “the implication is that it’s only Muslims who care about Gaza, and that they do so at the expense of their domestic concerns and loyalties”.
Crucial to the argument, though, is that fact that most of the Muslim communities in the UK – of Pakistani/Kashmeri or Bangladesh origin – have no blood relationship with the peoples of Gaza, and therefore have no geopolitical reason to elevate this war above others, such as the one in Sudan.
Interestingly, despite her origins, Malik writes very little about the Sudan conflict, writing more often and in more detail on Gaza-related issues.
Her last substantive piece on Sudan in the Guardian was last April – after another piece a year previously – despite the slaughter and deprivation continuing on an epic scale.
What makes Gaza so special, we are told, is that globally – according to a recent survey – Muslims are in agreement that “the assault on Gaza has awoken the Muslim spirit and united the ummah”.
Israel, after all, is the “sacred land” from which the prophet supposedly ascended to heaven from the site of the Masjid al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Thus, 70 percent of the sample believe that the “liberation” of Palestine is a religious issue.
Consequently, we learn that 93 percent believe that Palestine is “very” or “extremely” important to them personally and 97 percent believe its liberation is a high priority to the Muslim world, with 70 percent saying it is the highest priority for the Muslim world.
As such, for Muslims this is most definitely a faith-based issue, to which effect the communities are using their political weight in an attempt to secure a political course of action by the UK government, based entirely on religious imperatives. This, I would have thought, is the very essence of “sectarianism”.
It is typical of the Guardian, though, to turn reality on its head and, in so doing, is on the way towards converting the Muslim vote into a left-right issue, instead of what it is, an assault of a politicised Muslim community on the largely secular host community, perverting the democratic process for sectoral gain.
Sadly, the paper is unwittingly assisted by a crude analysis from Johnny-come-lately, Kelvin Mackenzie, former editor of The Sun, now writing for GB News, where he tells us that Muslims, acting as a single political party, “almost to a man and woman … voted collectively, based on the politics of a war more than 2,000 miles away”.
Of course, this was not the case. Much as TMV preaches the doctrine of “unity”, the Muslim community is fragmented and divided. Had Muslims voted collectively, “almost to a man and woman”, TMV would have performed far better, perhaps returning 50 or more independent candidates – deposing the likes of Wes Streeting, on which Nesrine Malik wrote at length.
Another thing Mackenzie gets wrong is in asserting that the Muslims “had no manifesto beyond Gaza”, which is palpably untrue. In the run-up to the election, TMV issued 18 demands to Starmer, which included a number of highly contentious domestic issues – incidentally, further making out Malik a liar in denying the sectarian nature of the Muslim vote.
Additionally, we had the Muslim Council of Britain launching its own ten political demands, pre-eminent amongst which was the adoption of the APPG definition of Islamophobia, which would effectively introduce a blasphemy law in the UK, applicable exclusively to Islam.
Then, TMV also adopted the MEND 2015 Muslim Manifesto, covering multiple domestic issues, including state support of Muslim religious teaching in schools, and the protection of minority rights “including rights to religious slaughter, circumcision and wearing of religious dress or symbols”.
Clearly, the Muslims are intent on carving out privileges and religious exemptions not shared with the rest of the population, further reinforcing the sectarian nature of TMV
What may be significant, though, is in his public utterances, Starmer seems equally intent on distancing himself from Muslim voters – even if, behind the scenes, his administration is making concessions to them.
But, with the “enemy within”, inside his own camp, he has Muslim Labour MP, Apsana Begum (pictured) accusing the new prime minister of “ignoring Muslim voters”.
In an extraordinary interview with ITV News yesterday morning – summarised by the Telegraph, Starmer was asked if he was concerned about losing support in areas with a high Muslim population, and whether he accepted that there was “a problem with the relationship between the Labour Party and British Muslims” at the moment.
He replied is his characteristically opaque manner, stating: “The first thing I’d say is this, that very many people voted Labour in that general election who have never voted Labour before, so we now hold seats in parts of the country that have never had a Labour MP. So this is an incredibly strong mandate”.
Continuing to evade the question, he went on to say, “Of course, wherever we weren’t able to secure votes I am concerned about that, but this is a clear mandate for change, for renewal, for a different way of doing politics and a return of politics to service. The days of self-entitlement and self-interest are over, and I’m really pleased to put a strong team on the pitch”.
Pressed on the issue of trust with British Muslims, all he could find in himself to say was: “Well, we’ve got a strong mandate, of course where we didn’t secure the votes we’ll address that. But I don’t think there’s any disputing the strength of the mandate that we have”.
Responding to the clip on social media, Begum accused Starmer of failing to acknowledge the problem at hand, writing: “This is an awful response from Keir and lacks any acknowledgement of the need to build trust amongst British Muslims who feel that Labour has let them down”.
She added: “[Labour’s] position on Gaza – especially Starmer’s infamous comments about Israel’s right to cut off electricity to Gaza – came up over and over again during the election across the country and clearly lost Labour votes.
“There is no doubt”, she continued, “that lots of voters have serious concerns about Starmer’s record on Gaza, Islamophobia and migration, amongst a number of other issues. This was an opportunity for Keir to assure British Muslims he was listening. An opportunity ignored”.
Begum, it seems, was not alone in her concerns. Mish Rahman, a member of Labour’s ruling NEC, also shared the clip, claiming that “Starmer doesn’t care about Muslims”.
To say that this is an odd situation might be something of an understatement. Clearly, despite having no appreciable mandate in terms of his 20 percent support of the electorate, Starmer believes that the accident of large majority of seats gives him an unfettered licence.
This hubris, though, may be dangerous. The Muslims, potentially, could be an especially tenacious electoral force, and Starmer will need allies if he is to take them on. The Malik attempt to make this a left-right issue needs to be rejected and, if the Muslims are uniting, we need to do the same across the board.
