Senior UK Conservative urges party to get tough on Islamophobia 

Sajid Javid said he was blocked from standing in safe Tory seat because constituents would not vote for Muslim. (File/AFP)
Short Url
Updated 26 May 2021
Follow

Senior UK Conservative urges party to get tough on Islamophobia 

  • Sajid Javid said he was blocked from standing in safe Tory seat because constituents would not vote for Muslim
  • Ex-chancellor: Party must act ‘without delay’ and ‘set example’ for others to follow

Former British Chancellor Sajid Javid has urged the governing Conservative Party to act tough on Islamophobia, as he revealed that he was blocked from standing in a safe Tory seat on the basis that its constituents would not vote for a Muslim MP.

Writing in The Times, he urged the party to implement the recommendations of an independent report that investigated internal incidents of Islamophobia and other forms of discrimination. Javid said the party must act “without delay” and “set an example” for others to follow.

The inquiry, led by Prof. Swaran Singh, a former commissioner of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), found that anti-Muslim sentiment “remains a problem” in the party.

Javid, who called for the inquiry while running for the party leadership in the summer of 2019, said anti-Muslim sentiment is “unquestionably a problem,” and welcomed Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s move to fully adopt the report’s recommendations.

The review called for the party to produce a mandatory code of conduct within a year. Amanda Milling, the party’s co-chair, said all the recommendations would be enacted, and committed to publishing an action plan within the next six weeks.

While the inquiry found that there was widespread Islamophobic sentiment, it said there was no evidence of systematic or institutional bigotry because the party did not treat complaints about Islamophobia differently from other forms of discrimination.

The inquiry found that two-thirds of complaints sent to the party were Islamophobia-related, and that there was “anti-Muslim sentiment” at local levels and among the party grassroots.

“While the party leadership claims a ‘zero-tolerance approach’ to all forms of discrimination, our findings show that discriminatory behaviours occur, especially in relation to people of Islamic faith,” the report concluded.

Lord Sheikh, founder and president of the Conservative Muslim Forum, welcomed the report. But former Cabinet Minister and Conservative Party Chairwoman Baroness Warsi — who has vocally campaigned against Islamophobia within the party — said there is an “obvious” racism issue among the Conservatives, and called for the EHRC to investigate. The EHRC said it will respond after evaluating the report’s conclusions.


Court ruling jeopardizes freedom for pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil

Updated 15 January 2026
Follow

Court ruling jeopardizes freedom for pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil

  • The panel ruled a federal judge in New Jersey didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time
  • The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added

WASHINGTON: A federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower court decision that released former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.
The three-judge panel of the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the US over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.
But in its 2-1 decision, the panel ruled a federal judge in New Jersey didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time. Federal law requires the case to fully move through the immigration courts first, before Khalil can challenge the decision, they wrote.
“That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple — not zero or two,” the panel wrote. “But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct.”
The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added.
Ruling won’t result in immediate detention
It was not clear whether the government would seek to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his legal challenges continue.
Thursday’s decision marked a major win for the Trump administration’s sweeping campaign to detain and deport noncitizens who joined protests against Israel.
In a statement distributed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Khalil said the appeals ruling was “deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve.”
He added: “The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability. I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”
Baher Azmy, one of Khalil’s lawyers, said the ruling was “contrary to rulings of other federal courts.” He noted the panel’s finding concerned a “hypertechnical jurisdictional matter,” rather than the legality of the Trump administration’s policy.
“Our legal options are by no means concluded, and we will fight with every available avenue,” he added, saying Khalil would remain free pending the full resolution of all appeals, which could take months or longer.
The ACLU said the Trump administration cannot lawfully re-detain Khalil until the order takes formal effect, which won’t happen while he can still immediately appeal.
Khalil has multiple options to appeal
Khalil’s lawyers can request the active judges on the 3rd Circuit hear an appeal, or they can go to the US Supreme Court.
An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested on March 8, 2025. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his firstborn.
Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They have also accused Khalil, 30, of failing to disclose information on his green card application.
The government has justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to US foreign policy interests.
In June, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.
President Donald Trump’s administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court.
Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”
Dissenting judge says Khalil has right to fight detention

Judge Arianna Freeman dissented Thursday, writing that her colleagues were holding Khalil to the wrong legal standard. Khalil, she wrote, is raising “now-or-never claims” that can be handled at the district court level. He does not have a final order of removal, which would permit a challenge in an appellate court, she wrote.
Both judges who ruled against Khalil, Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, were Republican appointees. President George W. Bush appointed Hardiman to the 3rd Circuit, while Trump appointed Bibas. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, appointed Freeman.
The majority opinion noted Freeman worried the ruling would leave Khalil with no remedy for unconstitutional immigration detention, even if he later can appeal.
“But our legal system routinely forces petitioners — even those with meritorious claims — to wait to raise their arguments, the judges wrote. “To be sure, the immigration judge’s order of removal is not yet final; the Board has not affirmed her ruling and has held the parties’ briefing deadlines in abeyance pending this opinion. But if the Board ultimately affirms, Khalil can get meaningful review.”
The decision comes as an appeals board in the immigration court system weighs a previous order that found Khalil could be deported. His attorneys have argued that the federal order should take precedence.
That judge has suggested Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family.
His attorneys have said he faces mortal danger if forced to return to either country.