Summary: A counter-extremism analysis has warned Labour’s planned definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” could risk unlawful discrimination against other faith groups and chill legitimate speech, arguing existing equality and hate-crime laws already cover protection for everyone.
Labour’s Islamophobia definition faces fresh legal warning
Sir Keir Starmer’s Government is facing a new row over plans to publish an official, non-statutory definition of Islamophobia, rebranded as “anti-Muslim hostility”.
A report by the Counter Extremism Group (CEG) warns the move risks “going beyond the law” in a way that could unlawfully discriminate against other religious communities.
What the Counter Extremism Group claims
The analysis, written by Dr Daniel Allington of King’s College London and backed by a panel including legislators and police, argues the UK already has a robust legal framework.
It says existing equality, hate and human rights laws protect individuals across all faiths, while still safeguarding the right to criticise religions and religious practices.
“Members of all faith groups in the UK are protected by several interlocking pieces of legislation, which were formulated in such a way as to protect all citizens from harm, and to provide all citizens with equal rights.”
The report cautions that creating special guidance for one group risks distortions on the ground, especially when public bodies treat “guidance” like enforceable law.
“Attempts to ‘go beyond the law’ in protecting the sensibilities of any one faith group could potentially constitute unlawful discrimination towards members of other faith groups.”
Why critics fear a “two-tier” effect in councils, schools and policing
Even if the definition is non-statutory, the report warns it may be applied as if it is binding by councils, schools, universities, employers and police forces.
That creates a predictable risk: uneven enforcement, complaints-driven bureaucracy, and a wider “keep your head down” culture around legitimate commentary.
“Other minority faith groups, including Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’is, and Christians (especially in the African diaspora), would be likely to perceive an official definition of anti-Muslim hate as evidence of favouritism…”
The report argues that in “super diverse” towns and cities, perceived favouritism can worsen already strained community relations, rather than improve them.
Free speech concerns and the EHRC warning
The CEG’s criticism echoes earlier concerns raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which warned a new definition could chill protected political speech.
Put bluntly: Britain already has laws to punish harassment, discrimination and incitement. The danger is officials start treating lawful debate as “hate” because a new label tells them to.
Government response: hate is rising, speech must still be protected
Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, is finalising the definition based on a draft submitted in October by an advisory group chaired by Dominic Grieve.
Ministers say the goal is guidance that helps organisations tackle prejudice, not a back-door blasphemy rule.
“With all hate crime on the rise and anti-Muslim hate and anti-Semitism incidents at a record high, we are committed to tackling hatred wherever it may occur.
“We will always defend freedom of speech, and this remains at the front of our minds as we carefully consider the recommendations.”
The political sting for Starmer
This is the wider problem for Labour: if you create special definitions for one group, you invite demands for more definitions for others, and you risk turning public bodies into speech referees.
For voters already worried about two-tier policing, institutional bias, and creeping restrictions, the optics are dreadful and the legal risks look very real.
China’s ‘Secret Embassy Room’ Built Beside City Data Cables as Starmer Poised to Approve
The Telegraph says it has obtained unredacted plans showing a concealed underground chamber in China’s proposed London “super-embassy” sitting alongside fibre-optic cables carrying sensitive City financial data. Critics warn the site could become a platform for economic espionage, while the Government says security risks have been identified and addressed.
Telegraph: “secret room” planned beside City data cables
The Telegraph reports that China’s planned embassy complex on the former Royal Mint site includes a network of underground spaces, including what it describes as a concealed chamber built directly alongside fibre-optic cables carrying sensitive financial and communications traffic.
The newspaper says publicly available planning documents were heavily redacted, but it has obtained unredacted versions that show the location, layout and infrastructure of the underground areas.
Why the location matters: Britain’s “critical national infrastructure”
According to the report, the chamber sits beside routes used by major telecoms providers, carrying traffic linked to the City of London and Canary Wharf, and connecting into the wider London Internet Exchange ecosystem.
The concern is simple: physical proximity during demolition and construction can create opportunities for interference, and the alleged inclusion of air extraction systems raises questions about what equipment may be installed underground.
“The unredacted plans reveal a concealed room running immediately alongside the fibre-optic cables critical to the City and Canary Wharf.”
— Alicia Kearns, Shadow National Security Minister
Starmer expected to approve before China visit, report claims
The Telegraph says Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve the embassy project ahead of a planned visit to China later this month, where he is due to meet Xi Jinping.
For a Labour government that talks tough on “security” while pushing ever closer to international entanglements, the optics are grim: a major foreign power building next to the “plumbing” of Britain’s financial data network.
Experts: legitimate use or a “red flag” for spying
Security specialists quoted in the report note that some underground infrastructure could be legitimate, such as secure communications systems for diplomatic use.
But the same experts warn those explanations can also provide cover for more aggressive intelligence collection, especially when designs include features consistent with high-heat computing.
“China won’t say what the basement is for. It could be legitimate classified communications equipment – but that can hide a multitude of sins.”
— Prof Alan Woodward, University of Surrey
“If they wanted to tap the cables… they wouldn’t need to go far. You wouldn’t know what was happening down there.”
— Prof Alan Woodward, University of Surrey
208 underground rooms, flats, generators and hidden facilities
The Telegraph says the unredacted plans show extensive underground infrastructure across the site, including lifts, power systems, water supply, emergency generators, and a tunnel linking buildings to a large underground car park.
It also reports accommodation plans for diplomats, plus underground showers and toilets that could allow personnel to stay below ground for long periods.
Government response: security experts involved “throughout”
A Government spokesman said security specialists have been involved and that implications have been “identified and addressed” as part of the planning process.
That may be the official line, but the political question remains: why is Labour prepared to risk even the perception of exposure around Britain’s most sensitive commercial data routes?
“National security is our first duty and government security experts have been involved throughout the process so far.”
— Government spokesman
“As the Home Office and Foreign Office have previously set out, all the security implications of the planning application have been identified and addressed.”
— Government spokesman
The bigger issue: sovereignty, resilience and who Britain trusts
Brexit was meant to restore control. That includes control over critical infrastructure, not just borders and laws.
Labour’s instinct is to “manage” risk with process, committees and vague assurances. A serious government puts sovereignty and resilience first, and avoids creating obvious temptations around cables that underpin the City’s global role.
If ministers wave this through, they will own the consequences and the public will remember exactly who signed off on it.
Lee Anderson brands Starmer “dead man walking” and predicts exit by May
- Reform UK MP predicts Starmer will be ousted after May elections
- Labour’s net approval slumps to minus 59 in latest polling
- Leadership rivals circle as internal pressure grows
Reform UK MP Lee Anderson has delivered one of the most savage predictions yet about Sir Keir Starmer’s future, branding the Prime Minister a “dead man walking” and warning his time in Downing Street is almost up.
Speaking on GB News, Anderson said he believes Starmer will be forced out after the May elections if Labour suffers heavy losses. His remarks come as YouGov polling shows Labour’s net popularity rating has sunk to minus 59, a historic low for a sitting government.
“I can’t see anybody replacing him to be honest,” Anderson said, before listing potential successors and dismissing them one by one. Angela Rayner, once tipped as a challenger, has “gone missing,” while Wes Streeting was described as “slithering about in the background” waiting for the right moment.
Anderson went further, claiming Starmer is “the most despised Prime Minister in history,” accusing him of cowardice, constant U-turns, and bending to backbench pressure purely to survive. “Everywhere I go, people despise him,” he said.
The comments land amid growing unrest inside Labour ranks ahead of crucial May elections, widely viewed as a referendum on Starmer’s leadership. A disastrous result could ignite a leadership contest that many MPs have quietly been preparing for.
Starmer, however, has publicly dismissed the speculation. Speaking earlier this week, he insisted he would still be Prime Minister in 2027, arguing that leadership changes cause “utter chaos” and damage national stability.
Drawing comparisons with the Conservatives’ recent leadership turmoil, Starmer warned against repeating what he described as a failed model of constant change. “Nobody wants to go back to that,” he said.
Despite those assurances, critics argue that collapsing public support and open dissent within Labour make Starmer’s position increasingly fragile, with May now seen as a decisive moment for his political survival.
