Angela Rayner’s department has launched an investigation after admitting that it deleted all responses to the Islamophobia definition consultation. This is a truly shocking admission. Not only does it appear to breach the Government’s own data policy — which requires data to be retained for at least two years, and for 20 years if it is of historical importance — it raises serious questions about what the department is trying to hide. Did extremists have the opportunity to influence the drafting of the Islamophobia definition? All the arrows point in that direction. Will Garton, the chief civil servant at MHCLG, has finally written to the Shadow Justice Secretary confirming that “further work” will be undertaken to investigate these concerns and provide a comprehensive response. Mr Garton also said that ministers were not involved in the decision to delete the consultation responses. But if ministers did not instruct officials to delete them, who on earth did? The definition has already been weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of Islam, its practices and its history. Angela Rayner has some serious questions to answer. She must come clean to the British public. Read more from FSU Campaigns Officer @MaxHThompson 👇

Labour’s controversial Islamophobia definition — and the process by which it came to be — stinks more and more of a cover-up every day. It was bad enough that Angela Rayner appointed five individuals to the Working Group tasked with drafting the definition, all of whom had troubling links to Islamist organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND. Now, thanks to a Freedom of Information request by Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy, it has emerged that every submission to the Working Group’s consultation was deleted — apparently in breach of the Government’s own data policy. At every turn, Labour ministers have refused to answer straightforward questions from parliamentarians and key stakeholders such as the Free Speech Union. Who submitted evidence to the consultation? Did extremists have an opportunity to influence the drafting of the definition? Did ministers instruct officials to delete every response? It has also been revealed that the Government pressed the Equality and Human Rights Commission to accept the proposed definition, despite the EHRC’s objections. The EHRC and the Free Speech Union repeatedly warned that the definition was unnecessary and would have a chilling effect on free speech. Laws already exist to protect people from religious hatred and discrimination. If Labour genuinely cared about tackling actual instances of anti-Muslim hatred, it would focus on enforcing those laws. Instead, it is sacrificing free speech on the altar of electoral ambition. Writing in The Critic, Nick Timothy says: “This pernicious definition is being used exactly as we said it would — to conflate religion and race and silence discussion of Islam.” When Nick criticised a mass Muslim public prayer event in Trafalgar Square, he was branded Islamophobic, reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and even faced calls to resign from then Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. As he writes: “Time and again, those of us who have raised concerns that this definition — which the Government is formally recommending all public and private organisations adopt — may restrict free speech have been ignored.” Ministers insist the definition will not chill free speech. Yet Bridget Phillipson used the dispatch box to call Nick racist, then refused to correct the record or apologise. Labour must come clean about who helped draft this new Islamic blasphemy law — and why it went ahead with it. Read more from @NJ_Timothy 👇