Braverman’s article: a catalyst for Islamaphobia

In my previous blog post, I delved into the concerning issue of escalating Islamophobia, a problem that appears to persist despite efforts for progress

The Telegraph, a prominent newspaper, boldly declares on its front page (£), “Islamists are now in control, says Braverman amid speakers row.

This headline raises a critical question: What defines an Islamist, and how does one distinguish them from an average Muslim? Many Muslims grapple with this challenge daily as they seek to integrate into modern Britain, only to face fear weaponisation by politicians like Suella Braverman.

Reflecting on Sir Lindsay Hoyle, I perceive him as a good man who perhaps erred in the SNP’s opposition day. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge the constant threats faced by MPs, exemplified by the tragic murders of Sir David Amess and Jo Cox, both victims of extremism regardless of their ideological alignment. The Conservative Party seems to be on shaky ground, with Rishi Sunak’s declining popularity and the realisation that a return to power may take a generation. Suella Braverman’s potential leadership bid hints at a shift towards the right, a move that, as a Muslim, fills me with apprehension.

Why must my faith be manipulated as a political pawn? As a liberal, I believe my views align with common sense, aiming for what’s best for the country. However, certain segments of the political elite persist in perpetuating the theatricality of identity politics. After reading Braverman’s article, I can’t escape the feeling that people sharing my faith are unfairly perceived as less British, their loyalties questioned. It’s disheartening to witness my religion become a casualty in the ongoing political drama.

* Mo Waqas is a member in Middlesbrough and the PPC for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • Nigel Jones 23rd Feb '24 - 1:47pm

    There are always people who will condemn a particular group simply because a few individuals who are or appear to be part of that group behave badly. Suella Braverman thrives on this, making generalised statements that cannot be backed up by proper evidence. This recent one about Islamists follows the one she made about the Church simply because one person who claimed to be converted to Christianity committed an evil act. In any case how can she accuse Islamists when the killer of Jo Cox had nothing to do with that so-called group. She is the kind of person who is totally unfit for government office, acting entirely out of person prejudice and feeding on people’s fears.
    It is one of the greatest sins of humankind to say that you are either with us or against us simply on the basis of your political allegiance, group identity or belief label.

  • It is difficult to imagine Braverman holding down a job that came with a proper job description. Unfortunately within the current government there seem to be a number of ministers who see the job as exercising power in a way that offers license to say or do whatever they like and simply do not understand why any institution (e.g. the law, national or international) should get in the way.

  • Jenny Barnes 23rd Feb '24 - 5:08pm

    The right wing of the tory party and Reform need someone to blame. Brussels will no longer do, since Brexit, so now there’s refugees, Muslims, rough sleepers (a lifestyle choice!) trans prople, single mums, disabled people skiving off work, woke lefties, lefty lawyers, judges, the “deep state” :))) and so on. They’ll be really angry when they discover who has been in government for the last 14 years.

  • Phillip Bennion 24th Feb '24 - 10:09am

    The Telegraph came through my door yesterday, probably because the FT had failed to supply my newsagent. What a terrible paper! The Braverman article was clearly Islamophobic, but it was in tune with the rest of the newspaper, which was geared towards stoking a hysterical fear in its readers that their very fabric of life is under attack.

  • >” They’ll be really angry when they discover who has been in government for the last 14 years.”
    Well, step back a little and effectively we’ve had Conservative governments since 1979; 45 years.
    Yes New Labour were in power 1997-2010, but their tenure was very much “conservative lite” with little real change in economic policy.

  • Jenny Barnes 24th Feb '24 - 5:10pm

    ” effectively we’ve had Conservative governments since 1979; 45 years.”
    Yes. Whoever you vote for, global neo-liberalism gets in. Aka. we’ve got to vote for our lizards, or else the wrong lizards might get in.

  • Roland,

    New Labour were in power 1997-2010, but their tenure was very much “conservative lite” with little real change in economic policy

    We once had a different economic policy but since 2010 we haven’t.

    The question that needs answering is how do we change our economic policy? And once we have done so, how do we make it acceptable to the public?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

This post has pre moderation enabled, please be patient whilst waiting for it to be manually reviewed. Liberal Democrat Voice is made up of volunteers who keep the site running in their free time.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Alex B
    It was good to see two Lib Dem MPs raising highly pertinent matters relevant to their own constituents and the wider population, even if they were largely fobbe...
  • Simon R
    Since I wrote the above comment, the LibDem manifesto for London has been published ( so to be fair I...
  • Phil Wainewright
    Instead of restricting individual freedom, surely we should simply tax at 100% all profits made from nicotine addiction?...
  • James Moore
    @David Raw Temperance was about individuals voluntarily agreeing to give up alcohol, not the central state banning people from drinking it. At the end of ...
  • Peter Davies
    Either that is a completely unreasonable administrative fee with no relation to the cost of finding and emailing the data or the administration of our court sys...