Where Unity Is Strength
Header

Author Archives: admin

NSO Crowdfunder: Your support required

April 21st, 2026 | Posted by admin in Current Issues | Sikhism - (0 Comments)

To protect the right of Sikhs to follow Sikh teachings

Dear Fellow Sikhs

We at the Network of Sikh Organisations UK (NSO) are writing to you at a critical juncture for freedom of religion and belief in the United Kingdom.

The Threat

In an undisguised attempt to gain Muslim electoral support, the government has introduced a definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ that could prevent Sikhs from living true to Sikh teachings with unequal treatment between faith groups and far-reaching implications for free speech, religious expression, and equality under the law.

Background 

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for British Muslims, co-chaired by Baroness Warsi, previously tried to impose a rigid definition of ‘Islamophobia’ that we felt would made it difficult for UK Sikhs to practice their faith and speak about historical truths. In evidence to the APPG, we argued that such a definition would be against the law and discriminate against other communities. Baroness Warsi did not respond to our cogent arguments during oral evidence, but instead promised to send us a copy of her book – which we never received. 

Despite widespread objections, the present government considered the introduction of the APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’ that they would endorse but would be non-statutory. In the debate, we argued that such a definition would be against freedom of speech and the right of other communities to follow their religions. The then minister Lord Khan reluctantly wrote to us and agreed that the proposed definition of ‘Islamophobia’, was ‘not in line’ with existing legislation and the proposal was withdrawn.

The government then, under former Deputy-Prime Minister – Angela Rayner, appointed a Working Group largely composed of Muslims, to put forward a more acceptable definition of what they called ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. The proposed definition is sadly looser and more discriminatory than the earlier concept of ‘Islamophobia’ and would virtually bar the discussion of essential aspects of Sikh teachings and history on the grounds that these might offend Muslims. The definition risks infringing freedom of religion and speech for other faiths and philosophical beliefs too.

An example of existing pressures on Sikhs to dilute the Gurus’ teachings:

In 2019, the BBC tried to stop a talk on BBC – Thought for the Day – about the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, who was beheaded for defending the right of Hindus in Kashmir to practice their own religion against attempts at forced conversion by the then Mughal ruler, on the grounds that the Guru’s stand could be seen as a criticism of Islam. It was successfully resisted at the cost of a broadcasting career.

The proposed definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ would make it even harder to talk about the tolerant teachings of our Gurus.

Pressure in schools to change or soften Sikh teachings

  • A religious education teacher explaining the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur may hesitate to fully explain the historical context involving Mughal rule, fearing complaints or disciplinary scrutiny.
  • Teaching passages from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, such as Babur Vani, which describe historical invasions and injustice, may be misinterpreted as ‘negative stereotyping,’ leading to complaints.
  • Teachers may begin to self-censor Sikh history, avoiding key events central to Sikh identity to reduce perceived risk. Classroom discussions may be restricted, with teachers avoiding answering student questions on historical religious conflicts.

Result: dilution of religious education and loss of historical accuracy

Pressure in the workplace

  • A Sikh employee raising concerns about halal meat or non-stun slaughter (based on Sikh beliefs and animal welfare principles) could face a complaint, requiring HR to assess whether this constitutes ‘prejudicial stereotyping.’
  • Employees expressing religious viewpoints in discussions may face internal investigations, even where no law has been broken.
  • Staff may feel pressured to remain silent about their beliefs to avoid risk to their career or reputation.

The challenge to Sikh teachings of equality and respect

Sikhism teaches respect for other faiths, emphasizing that no one faith has a monopoly on truth. The Gurus included writings of Hindu and Muslim saints in the Guru Granth Sahib, where these lead us to more responsible living In the same spirit, Guru Arjan invited a Muslim saint, Mia Mir, to lay the foundation stone of the Darbar Sahib or Golden Temple (Amritsar), which has a door at each of its four sides to signify a welcome to all from any geographic or spiritual direction.

At the same time, our Gurus bravely criticised rituals and practices found in other faiths that take us away from religious imperatives. Importantly, even at the cost of their own lives, they opposed forced conversion and the unequal treatment of women. Voicing these uplifting teachings, would risk capture under the new government backed definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. If bigots and vote-seekers wish to challenge these teachings, they should do so in open debate, not in shabby back-door definitions.  

Summary and call for action

The government attempt to secure the electoral support off Muslims by riding roughshod over the right of freedom of speech and the rights of other religions, breaks many international conventions and laws including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The proposed definition would have a chilling effect on open discussion of history, belief, theology, and ethical viewpoints.

Action being taken by the NSO with your support

The NSO has joined other concerned groups, (led by the Free Speech Union) to take legal action to preserve the right to freedom of belief and freedom of speech. We have setup a fundraiser via Crowdfunder with a target of £25,000, which will contribute to the legal fund for this action. We need your help to meet it. Please donate generously.

Together, we can ensure there is one law for all.

Yours sincerely,

Lord Singh of Wimbledon, Director, Network of Sikh Organisations UK

Link to Crowdfunder and QR code below:

The Free Speech Union’s pre-action letter:

, , , , ,

The government definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’

March 11th, 2026 | Posted by admin in Current Issues | Press Releases | Sikhism - (0 Comments)

The government definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ and the appointment of an ‘Islamophobia’ tsar will foster resentment and marginalise other faiths

All faiths and beliefs should be treated equally

Steve Reed MP (communities secretary)

At the beginning of the week the government announced their repackaged definition of ‘Islamophobia’, replacing it with the term ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. The accompanying guidance refers to the UK’s, ‘values of freedom, fairness, tolerance, and respect.’ But the guidance and the definition itself raise serious concerns about ‘fairness’ to Britain’s mosaic of faith groups, including when it comes to equal treatment and parity between such groups in public policy. The obvious questions arise, if government have a special Working Group for one faith, what about the others? If a special ‘Tsar’ is appointed to protect the interests of one faith, why the exclusivity? The government guidance refers to Sikhs. They inform us that Sikhs, Hindus and ‘those who have left Islam’, suffer ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. Although a superficial mention, Sikh suffering is at least acknowledged, and rightly so, given the backlash Sikhs[i] and gurdwaras have received following 9/11 (the threat comes from both Neo-Nazi’s and Islamic extremists). But why was no Sikh, or Hindu, or indeed representative of any other faith, appointed onto the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Definition? 

Another serious question is what is the point of this all? The existing legal framework provides sufficient protection for all faiths from discrimination as outlined in the Equality Act 2010. Criminal law also provides protection for all religious groups. For example, some crimes proven to be motivated by hostility towards race and religion receive a sentence uplift under s.66 of the Sentencing Act 2020. So, criminal offences motivated by hostility based on religion and belief are already treated as hate crimes. So, why do we even need a non-statutory definition for ‘Anti-Muslim hostility’[ii] in the first place? 

The non-statutory definition of ‘Anti-Muslim hostility’ covers behaviours which are already unlawful and criminal and includes victims ‘who are perceived to be Muslim’ – speaking to concerns amongst British Sikhs, Coptic Christians and Rastafarians. The guidance surprisingly uses the term ‘racialisation’, which serves to conflate race and religion, a major source of controversy with the now defunct all-party-parliamentary group (APPG) definition of ‘Islamophobia’. However, the guidance also uses vague terminology to describe what does and does not engage the definition of ‘hostility’, including: ‘prejudicial stereotyping’ and ‘negative characteristics’. Who is the arbiter of what is ‘hostile’, ‘prejudicial’ or ‘negative’?  Such terms are loaded with subjectivity and open to inconsistent interpretation. For example, could the Sikh objection to halal slaughter of animals be considered ‘negative’ or interpreted as ‘hostility’? Or could an honest recounting of Sikh history under Mughal persecution, like the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur (our ninth Guru), be reported to a public body as being ‘hostile’ to Muslims? The lack of clarity in the guidance opens the door to such application.

More worryingly still, the government is promoting the application of this definition throughout the public, private, and charity sectors. This will sow confusion to the extent that the definition and guidance confuses the application of existing practices and standards for combatting discrimination. The application could lead to employers in all sectors taking action to censor or limit discussion about important matters of public interest, such as ‘grooming gangs’, violent extremism, animal rights, cultural history, religious belief, and consanguinity. 

Although the government asserts the new definition is not about giving ‘preferential treatment’, it is crystal clear that this will be the outcome. It does exactly that. Unless all faiths and beliefs are given equal treatment and proportionate funding to report and tackle hate crime, there is simply no other conclusion to come to – this is two-tier public policy and an amplification of the bias we first objected to in Action Against Hate back in 2016.

Last year we sent a pre-action protocol letter to the government, with reference to the Working Group’s ‘call for evidence’ consultation exercise. We have been advised that the arguments set out then still apply now with the new definition.[iii] In relation to our freedom of thought, conscience and religion as British Sikhs, and our article 14 Rights, the definition and guidance pose serious dangers. The same arguments would apply to other faiths too, and also to those with non-faith philosophical beliefs. We believe, the government definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ and appointment of an ‘Islamophobia tsar’ will not only curtail free speech on matters of significant public concern, but it will also foster resentment and further marginalise other faith groups. 

ENDS

[i] A former Labour minister, who is of Sikh heritage had a pig’s head thrown in his driveway, and a there was an attempt to behead a Sikh dentist in Wales in a ‘revenge’ attack for Lee Rigby by a member of the now proscribed Neo-Nazi group – National Action. (The first person murdered in retribution for 9/11 was a Sikh in Mesa, Arizona – Balbir Singh Sodhi).

[ii] Anti-Muslim hostility is intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts – including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated – that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim, including where that perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance.

It is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.

It is engaging in unlawful discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.

[iii] NSO objects to the Communities Secretary’s decision to appoint the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Definition (“Working Group”), and challenges the lawfulness of any decision that has been made or will be made to accept any non-statutory definition of ‘Islamophobia’ on the following grounds:

i. Ground 1: Any definition of Islamophobia that interferes with the right of the Sikh community (and other communities) to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance, engages Article 9(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”);

ii. Ground 2: Any “non-statutory” definition of Islamophobia that engages Article 9(1) does not meet the requirement of being prescribed by law, and cannot therefore impose a justified limitation on Article 9(1) rights for the purpose of Article 9(2) of the ECHR;

iii. Ground 3: Any definition of Islamophobia will place Sikhs, as well as members of other faiths, at a disadvantage, and will therefore be discriminatory for the purpose of Article14 of the ECHR. [NSO pre-action letter 19th September 2025]

, , ,

Why British Sikhs welcome Esther McVey’s motion to bring in a bill on food labelling

February 27th, 2026 | Posted by admin in Current Issues | Sikhism - (0 Comments)

Image: Esther McVey MP

Clear labelling of ritually slaughtered meat be it halal or kosher is a common-sense approach and long overdue

Earlier this week Conservative MP Esther McVey put forward a motion for leave to bring in a bill to ensure halal and kosher meat are appropriately labelled so that the public have a choice in what they are buying from supermarkets and restaurants. The Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) welcomes the motion on grounds that clear labelling is absolutely essential for British Sikhs, who need to know exactly what they are buying as consumers, in order to adhere to the requirements of their own faith, which prohibits the consumption of any ritually slaughtered meat – with halal specifically highlighted as a prohibition in the Sikh Code of Conduct (the Sikh Rehat Maryada). This is on grounds of animal rights and preventing animal suffering, but also the belief that praying over an animal prior to its slaughter is an act of superstition. 

McVey said, ‘it is important that consumers have such information so that they can make an informed choice about what they are buying. Currently consumers do not have that information, and many are purchasing and consuming halal and kosher meat without their knowledge and agreement.’

We acknowledge that both stunned slaughter and non-stunned slaughter exists, when it comes to ritually slaughtered meat – be it kosher or halal. Most of the slaughter is stunned, and non-stun slaughter results in more suffering for the animal. Animal slaughter is regulated by assimilated EU regulation 1099/2009 and the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015. But as McVey acknowledges, ‘Under these laws, animals must be stunned before they are killed, but exemptions exist for killing without stunning in accordance with specific religious rites. Added to that, there are currently no requirements for such meat to be labelled’. 

We were not surprised to learn supermarkets like Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Marks and Spencer have sold kosher and halal without informing the consumer, but restaurants like Domino’s, Pizza Hut and KFC have done so to. Given our historical lobbying on the issue of having choice in schools, so Sikh children can have a non-halal option, we were also not surprised to learn that non-stunned meat is being used by 17 local councils in schools, many of these schools are not Islamic and parents have been none the wiser. Hospitals and local councils are also using non-stunned meat. By using such meat, the councils and public bodies in question are in breach of their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, and the Public Sector Equality Duty that stems from the Act.

In a response to our concerns raised about the lack of availability of non-halal meat in schools to cater for the needs of Sikh children (and others who choose not to eat it, like Hindus, and Christians) with the government back in 2018, we were informed by the then junior minister for Children and Families, Nadhim Zahawi, that the Schools Food Standards do not specify food requirements in terms of religious and cultural needs. This remains the case. 

Around the same time The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) told us: 

‘With regards to the availability of non-halal meat options in schools, this is a matter for the department of education..’ 

DEFRA, did, however, explain its policy in relation to ritually slaughtered animals, informing us that there were no domestic or EU regulations in place that require the labelling of halal or kosher meat, but where such information is voluntarily provided, it must be accurate for the consumer. 

The NSO therefore support McVey’s motion for leave to bring forward a bill so that labelling is not voluntary (as is the case under existing legislation), but mandatory – so that all consumers are informed and have a clear choice in what they are buying. 

Freedom of religion and conscience are important for all faiths and beliefs in Britain, and that includes the right for Sikhs (and others) as consumers, to have the right to know the meat that they are purchasing and consuming is non-halal or non-kosher.

[ENDS]

, , ,

The Sikh Messenger – Autumn-Winter 2025

January 30th, 2026 | Posted by admin in Sikh Messenger - (0 Comments)
SM Winter 25 THIRD REPROOFDownload

‘Islamophobia’/anti-Muslim hatred definition – transparency and public scrutiny

December 15th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Current Issues | Press Releases | Sikhism | Uncategorized - (0 Comments)

Our letter (15th Dec 2025) to Steve Reed OBE MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

Re: ‘Islamophobia’/anti-Muslim hatred definition – transparency and public scrutiny of Working Group definition/recommendations

Dear Secretary of State,

We follow up on our concerns with reference to the Working Group tasked to define ‘Islamophobia’/anti-Muslim hatred and our pre-action letter dated 19th September 2025.

We understand from media reports that the Working Group has devised a definition which has been shown to select groups external to the Working Group. We also understand that the government has dropped the word ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Muslimness’ from any definition and is instead choosing to define ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. Although we note the terms ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘anti-Muslim’ have been used interchangeable since the Working Group was set up, so this still risks censoring criticism of religion. The implications of this are serious, and in our previous correspondence, we highlighted the example of the Boston councillor denied Mayorship based on legitimate concerns.

‘Hostility’ is also vague, and the Crown Prosecution Service indicate it is not defined in law, so is interpreted via its ordinary meaning, which includes: ‘ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, and dislike.’  This is replacing two words open to subjective interpretation, with another and remains cause for concern. That is if, ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Muslimness’ have been dropped.

Any government endorsed definition will have serious social and legal implications on civil society, it may even impact social cohesion – pitting groups against one another. We therefore urge the government to be open and transparent about the definition decided upon, moreover explicitly commit that a non-statutory definition will not be adopted by public authorities, until it has faced wider public consultation, scrutiny and approval. 

We also request the government clarify what considerations have been given to the decision in the employment tribunal judgement – Lee vs Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (2025). This upholds free expression and the view that criticism of certain Islamic doctrines is valid and protected under the Equality Act 2010.

Sikh teachings promote equality for all. As we’ve previously outlined all faiths are already equally protected under law and special definitions for some groups, serves to marginalise others, perpetuating a hierarchical policy approach for different religious groups. If the government is defining ‘anti-Muslim hostility’, why is there no Working Group for Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and indeed those of no-faith?

Yours sincerely,

Network of Sikh Organisations 

[ENDS]

, , ,

NSO’s decision to send the government a pre-action protocol letter over ‘Islamophobia’

October 7th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Current Issues | Sikhism - (0 Comments)

Since 2018, the NSO has been engaged in the scrutiny of the all-party-parliamentary group (APPG) definition of ‘Islamophobia’. We gave evidence to the APPG on British Muslims and cited in their report Islamophobia Defined. Over the years we’ve been clear anti-Muslim discrimination must be tackled, like discrimination against any faith and those of no faith. The existing legal framework provides protection for all faiths from discrimination as outlined in the Equality Act 2010. Criminal law also provides protection for all religious groups. For example, some crimes proven to be motivated by hostility towards race and religion receive a sentence uplift under s.66 of the Sentencing Act 2020. This applies to all faiths. 

In short, our opposition to the vague word ‘Islamophobia’ is based on its subjectivity. It would be as absurd, for example, if Sikhs used the word ‘Sikhophobia’ to describe anti-Sikh discrimination. We consistently refer to events in 1984, as the anti-Sikh genocide. A phobia is an irrational fear, however, ‘Islamophobia’ encompasses not only anti-Muslim discrimination, but also legitimate criticism of Islam, the bad behaviour of some adherents of Islam, as well as, when non-Muslims – like Sikhs, Rastafarians or Coptic Christians face backlash following jihadist attacks. ‘Islamophobia’ has often been deployed to shut down free and open discussion about matters of significant public interest, like ‘grooming gangs’, extremism and issues such as polygamy, misogyny and doctrinal hatred of non-believers or kuffars. 

Last year, we outlined our concerns to the former Deputy-Prime Minister, Angela Rayner and the then faith minister, Lord Khan of Burnley. To his credit Lord Khan confirmed to us the APPG definition was ‘not in line’ with the Equality Act 2010, despite being adopted by Labour, The Mayor of London and many Labour led councils. However, neither Rayner or Khan addressed our central concerns that the word ‘Islamophobia’ itself would impact religious freedom for Sikhs and other faiths, thus creating a hierarchy of religions in England and Wales. When we later heard about Angela Rayner’s Working Group on ‘Islamophobia’/anti-Muslim hatred was being set up, we requested to be part of it, not least because Sikhs face the negative reverberations of Jihad both here and in the US, where the first murdered in retribution for 9/11 was a Sikh. 

On several occasions during our correspondence with government, we also expressed serious concerns that a broad, non-statutory definition of ‘Islamophobia’; will interfere with the ability of Sikhs to freely manifest their religion and beliefs. 

To provide context we illustrate with the following examples: (this is by no means an exhaustive list)

i. This year, Sikhs around the world will mark the 350th anniversary of the martyrdom of

the ninth Guru of Sikhism, Guru Tegh Bahadur, who gave his life defending the freedom

of belief of Hindus who were being forced to convert to Islam under the sword by one

of India’s Mughal rulers. Simply recounting this historical truth would be deemed

‘Islamophobic’ according to the APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’. The APPG

definition gave as an example of Islamophobia: ‘claims of Muslims spreading Islam by

the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule’. Sikhs revere their martyrs

or shaheeds, and we always commemorate martyrdom anniversaries or Shaheedi

Purabs, including those of two Sikh Gurus.

ii. The APPG ‘Islamophobia’ definition refers to targeting ‘expressions of Muslimness’.

One aspect of the term ‘Muslimness’ would surely involve dietary requirements. If so,

this would surely incorporate the Islamic requirement to consume only halal meat.

Sikhs are strictly forbidden to eat halal slaughtered meat (see Sikh Rehat Maryada –

code of conduct), because halal slaughter, especially non-stun slaughter, is

inhumane, and praying over an animal at the time of slaughter is an act of superstition.

Just asserting these facts and alternative beliefs, would, by virtue of the APPG

definition, be deemed to be targeting ‘expressions of Muslimness’.

Regrettably, we have not had a satisfactory response from the government to assuage our concerns that any non-statutory definition of ‘Islamophobia’ will impact our freedom as Sikhs (and that of other faiths) to practice our faith and talk freely about our history without fear of censorship or potentially risk criminal investigation into so called ‘hate’ crime. In short, any non-statutory definition of ‘Islamophobia’ breaches our right under law to practice and manifest our religion without interference or sanction – an inalienable human right.  

We therefore objected to the Communities Secretary’s decision to appoint the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Definition and are now challenging the lawfulness of any decision that has been made or will be made to accept any non-statutory definition of ‘Islamophobia’ on the following grounds:

i. Ground 1: Any definition of Islamophobia that interferes with the right of the Sikh

community (and other communities) to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,

either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest religion

or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance, engages Article 9(1) of the

European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”);

ii. Ground 2: Any “non-statutory” definition of Islamophobia that engages Article 9(1)

does not meet the requirement of being prescribed by law, and cannot therefore

impose a justified limitation on Article 9(1) rights for the purpose of Article 9(2) of the

ECHR;

iii. Ground 3: Any definition of Islamophobia will place Sikhs, as well as members of other faiths, at a

disadvantage, and will therefore be discriminatory for the purpose of Article 14 of the ECHR.

We hope to resolve this matter without lodging a claim. However, if British Sikhs’ rights to practise their religion, observe their cultural history, or express opposition to objectionable beliefs are challenged, pursuing legal action against the government will be considered a necessary course of action.

[ENDS]

, , ,

Our director raises UN report on Israel pointing to genocide in Gaza

September 19th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Current Issues | Human Rights - (0 Comments)

Earlier this week our Director Lord Singh of Wimbledon contributed to a debate on Israel: Royal College of Defence Studies, earlier this week. He said:

‘My Lords, a UN report has found clear evidence of Israeli genocide in Gaza. There is also a campaign of terror by Israelis in the West Bank against Palestinians. Would the Minister agree that the Government of a country that carries out such atrocities should be unequivocally condemned rather than supported in their mission?’

The Minister, Baroness Chapman of Darlington disagreed with the framing of Israel’s actions as genocide. However, The United Nations commission inquiry referred to by Lord Singh, is clear that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, suggesting there are reasonable grounds to conclude four out of five genocidal acts defined under international law have been carried out since Israel’s response to the October 7th massacre by Hamas. This comes in the wake of a letter earlier this month from the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy to the chair of the UK Parliament’s International Development Committee, in which the United Kingdom concluded Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza.

Jagjit Singh from the US recently wrote to the NSO on the matter, we share his words in full below:

The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy have disgraced themselves before history. By sending weapons to Israel, they have not only abandoned morality but actively abetted mass murder. Israel, morally bankrupt and intoxicated by impunity, is deliberately blocking massive humanitarian aid—food, water, medicine—while its bombs and bullets shatter Palestinian lives. This is not self-defense. This is the cold machinery of genocide.

How can Washington justify arming a regime that starves children in plain sight? How can Europe, scarred by the Nazi Holocaust, sanction crimes that so grotesquely echo its darkest past? The world swore “Never Again.” Yet, through American weapons and European complicity, “Never Again” is happening again—this time to Palestinians.

Every American must face this truth: silence is complicity, and complicity is guilt. Our government, in our name, is underwriting the murder of innocents. Enough is enough. Stop the weapons. Open the borders for food and medicine. End U.S. and European protection for Israel’s horrific crimes.

History will remember who stood against this horror and who allowed it to continue. The time to act is not tomorrow, not someday—but now.

ENDS

, , ,

The illiberal push to define ‘Islamophobia’ risks stifling our right to discuss religion and belief

July 15th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Current Issues - (0 Comments)

Anti-Muslim hatred like hatred towards any other group must be tackled. However, we have campaigned against defining the vague and problematic term ‘Islamophobia’, since a definition was formulated by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims (there are several in circulation). We warned ‘Islamophobia’ is a catch-all term – indeed, it captures anti-Muslim hatred, but also criticism of religion, the bad behaviour of some adherents, and when non-Muslims (like Sikhs, Coptic Christians) are subject to prejudice based on mistaken identity. We gave evidence to the APPG in 2018 and are referenced in the report that launched the contested definition Islamophobia Defined. 

Last year we wrote to the deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner indicating we would be forced to take legal action if the government adopted the disputed APPG definition. The definition defines ‘Islamophobia’ as ‘a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness’. We stated adoption would not only serve to create a hierarchy of religions in England and Wales, but risk censoring seminal moments in Sikh history – like the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, and the Sikh prohibition on consumption of ritually slaughtered meat like halal. Both would fall foul of the definition the Labour party, The Mayor of London and many Labour councils have already adopted. Lord Khan responded on behalf of Angela Rayner confirming the APPG definition was ‘not in line’ with The Equality Act 2010. 

In February this year, we wrote to Lord Khan on hearing about Angela Rayner’s Working Group to define ‘Islamophobia’ (a non-statutory definition). We requested inclusion of a Sikh representative on the group given:

‘Sikhs have faced a significant backlash following Islamic extremist attacks here and overseas. The first person killed in retribution for 9/11 was a Sikh. The first place of worship to be targeted after the 7/7 bombings was a gurdwara in Kent. A former Sikh heritage minister had a pig’s head thrown in his drive, and there was an attempted beheading of a Sikh dentist in Wales by a member of a now proscribed far-right organisation (National Action), in revenge for Lee Rigby. Sikh women have also been targeted with bigotry. Sikhs are targets for both far-right white nationalists and Islamic extremists.’

Lord Khan did not respond to our request, nor provide an explanation why Sikhs and others, should not be included. Earlier this month, we again wrote to Angela Rayner:

‘We have had no response to our letter [to Lord Khan] dated 14th February 2025, and were hoping your office would heed our request for a more inclusive faith approach. If not, please provide us with reasons why Sikhs and other victims of so-called ‘Islamophobia’, should not be included.’ 

Historical freedom of information data from the MET police, indicates non-Muslim victims (and those of no recorded faith), like Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and Buddhists are recorded as victims of ‘Islamophobic’ hate crime. We went on:

‘The government’s decision to conduct a national inquiry into grooming gangs must surely now be taken into consideration. We believe in justice for all victims. Sikh girls have also been targeted by Pakistani Muslim heritage men. The issue was highlighted in Baroness Casey’s national audit further to representations made by us. Given the importance of this issue, and censorious claims (from some quarters), suggesting merely discussing the heritage of perpetrators in ‘grooming gang’ cases amounts to ‘Islamophobia’, we need assurances that any definition the Working Group comes up with will protect Article 10 Rights. We believe it’s right, as had been suggested by others, to halt the work of the Working Group until completion of the national inquiry into ‘grooming gangs’. Victims and survivors of these horrendous crimes must surely come first, and any definition that risks stifling open discussion, will only serve to harm social cohesion, not enhance it.’

We urged the deputy prime minister to be inclusive of Sikhs within the Working Group, warning:

‘ongoing marginalisation of other communities will only reinforce the view that the government is perpetuating a hierarchical policy approach when it comes to Britain’s faith groups.’

Following pressure from the Free Speech Union (FSU), the government extended the consultation period (and widened consultees) for defining ‘Islamophobia’ to 20th July 2025. Prior to this, the consultation appeared to have been shared with select groups only, which risks creating an element of bias. At least one member of the Working Group, appears to support the concept of conflating race and religion, a central flaw in the APPG definition. Ascribing race, an immutable characteristic, onto a belief system through ‘expressions of Muslimness’, is clearly unworkable.

Last week our Director, Lord Singh of Wimbledon attended a meeting in parliament hosted by Dominic Grieve KC, who is chairing the ‘Islamophobia’ Working Group. Grieve provided a glowing foreword to the report which launched the contested APPG definition. Lord Singh emphasised the need for equal treatment for all groups as taught by the Sikh Gurus. 

In what were considered barbaric times, the Sikh Gurus bravely criticised rituals, superstitions and the denigration of women, taught by the religions of the day. At the same time, they incorporated some teachings of Hindu and Muslim saints in the Guru Granth Sahib (the Sikh scriptures) to emphasise uplifting ethical commonalities. They invited a Muslim saint to lay the foundation stone of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, which has doors at each of its four sides to signify a welcome to anyone from any geographic or spiritual direction. Today we should all follow their courageous and enlightened example. 

Earlier this week a group of 37 cross party peers wrote to Dominic Grieve KC, warning about the implications a non-statutory definition would have on free speech. Some of their recommendations, echo requests made in our correspondence with the government. 

The NSO is still awaiting a response from the deputy prime minister’s office. 

Network of Sikh Organisations

, , ,

RIP Fauja Singh

July 14th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Current Issues - (0 Comments)

We are saddened to hear about the passing of Fauja Singh In 2011, he became the world’s oldest person to run a full-length marathon at 100 – an inspiration to both young and old alike. Singh was a former poster boy for Adidas. We extend our heartfelt condolences to friends and family at this difficult time. #faujasingh

We’ve received the following message from Harmander Singh: ‘It is with the utmost sadness that I can confirm our icon of humanity and powerhouse of positivity Fauja Singh has passed away in India. He succumbed to injuries caused by a vehicle while crossing the road close to his home. His running club and charity Sikhs In The City will be devoting all of its events until the Fauja Singh Birthday Challenge on Sunday 29 March 2026 to celebrate his life of success and achievements and doubling the efforts to raise funds to building the Fauja Singh Clubhouse on the route in Ilford where he used to train. Please watch the video interview he gave before he went to India just before Covid lock down at http://sikhsinthecity.org clicking on the tab Clubhouse Appeal.’ Harmander Singh Fauja Singh’s Coach Info@sikhsinthecity.org

An Open Letter on the Government’s Proposed Definition of “Islamophobia”

July 3rd, 2025 | Posted by admin in Current Issues - (0 Comments)

We, organisations from across the moral, political and ideological spectrum, including faith groups and secular organisations, write to express serious concern about the UK Government’s ongoing efforts to adopt a non-statutory definition of “Islamophobia”. At a time of rising tensions, deepening mistrust, and urgent social challenges, this move risks fuelling division rather than fostering social cohesion.

We strongly oppose racism and discrimination in all their forms. We also recognise the many benefits of living in a multiethnic and multifaith society. But adopting an official definition of “Islamophobia” will do little to tackle prejudice and much to exacerbate problems by encouraging censorship, identity-based grievance, and the policing of speech.

The proposed definition blurs the crucial distinction between race and religion. Islam is a belief system that, like all others, must be open to scrutiny, criticism, mockery and even condemnation. Equating criticism of Islam with racism misrepresents the nature of both and undermines long-standing principles of free expression.

We have already seen the dangers of this confusion. The term “Islamophobia” has been used to silence legitimate concerns, particularly around issues such as grooming gangs, women’s rights, and religious influence in education. Former Bristol University professor Steven Greer faced life-threatening abuse following baseless accusations of Islamophobia. In Batley, a teacher remains in hiding after showing an image of the Prophet Muhammad during a lesson on free speech, with little institutional support or public defence. Acts of protest such as publicly burning the Qur’an are increasingly framed as “Islamophobic”, effectively reviving blasphemy norms in all but name. Yet blasphemy laws were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008, and in Scotland in 2021. Labelling religious offence as “hate” risks granting special protections to ideas and beliefs, in direct conflict with democratic principles of open debate.

Far from protecting Muslims from harm, definitions like this often empower self-appointed community gatekeepers and stifle the diverse range of views that exist within Muslim communities themselves. Reformist, liberal, ex-Muslim, and secular Muslim voices are particularly vulnerable to being labelled and excluded.

It also sets a precedent for the creation of similar definitions for other groups, turning public policy into a battleground of identity-based grievance and competing victimhood. This risks fragmenting society further and undermining equal treatment before the law.

For the reasons given above, we urge the government to abandon its endeavour to define Islamophobia; ‘anti-Muslim hatred’ is clear, sufficient and already covered in law.

The Equiano Project

Don’t Divide Us

National Secular Society

Fiyaz Mughal, Founder of Muslims Against Antisemitism

Academics for Academic Freedom

Christian Concern

Hardeep Singh, deputy-director, Network of Sikh Organisations

Free Speech Union

Oxford Institute for British Islam

Scottish Union for Education

,