Yesterday, former government Counter-Extremism Commissioner, and Independent Adviser for Social Cohesion and Resilience, Dame Sara Khan, released a report about Islamophobia, conspiracy theories and political division.
But Sara Khan’s career, and the sources she cites, show she is not to be trusted.
Khan claimed
- the UK is almost as 'divided' as the US;
- ‘The percentage of people who view Muslims has having “completely different” values has increased from 38% to 44% following the Southport violence’
- ‘80% of British Jews feel less safe in Britain than before the October 7 attacks’
However, if you examine her sources, she cites Leftist activist group HOPE Not Hate no less than 22 times.
HOPE Not Hate have been infamous this year, for:
- Hiring former Nazi, now member of the Communist Party, Matthew Collins as its Head of Intelligence. In 2013, Collins praised Stalin's Red Army at a HOPE Not Hate event.
- Their employee, Harry Shukman, using a fraudulent passport to pose as an alias to subjects of their documentary, EXPOSED. How Shukman came by this convincing forgery remains a mystery.
- Founder, Nick Lowles spreading a hoax about an acid attack by the "Far Right" on Muslim women -- which was cited by a member of a Muslim militia on camera during the riots after the Southport massacre.
She also cites the Centre for Countering Digital Hate four times. This organisation was founded by Keir Starmer's new chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, and worked with the Biden administration to "Kill Musk's Twitter" (
@elonmusk) during the US election.
So, Khan uses partisan Leftist sources to argue the government should take action against her political opponents.
In an interview with The Guardian (see below), Khan argues that elected politicians should be censored for raising awareness of the unequal application of the law, with the phrase "two-tier policing". The Guardian name Nigel Farage (
@Nigel_Farage) as their prime target.
Khan has given this report to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. In it, she recommends:
- the government adopt Michael Gove’s definition of ‘Extremism’, proposed in March 2024;
- the Cabinet Office create a new unit to monitor ‘divisive and dangerous beliefs’ which aren’t crimes;
- the Department for Education create a new body ‘aimed at under-18s who display extremist beliefs but who fall short of being radicalised into terrorism.’
As for the 'Extremism' definition:
No wonder she wants the government to adopt it: she wrote it.
Her co-author was Metropolitan Police Commissioner and fellow former Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group member, Sir Mark Rowley.
(Reminder: Rowley suggested he might demand the US extradite Elon Musk, because X users posted videos of the riots after the Southport massacre; and Rowley slapped a microphone out of a reporter’s hand for asking, “Are we going to end two-tier policing, sir?”)
Sara Khan's sister, Sabina Khan, was the deputy head of RICU -- the Home Office's propaganda department.
After British aid worker Alan Henning was beheaded on video by ISIS in 2014, The Sun newspaper ran a front page with a photo of a woman in a Union Jack hijab. This had been produced by Breakthrough Media, a Home Office outfit. RICU monitored public reactions, calling the photo "our product".
A month prior, they had also monitored Sara Khan's
#MakingAStand campaign. A 2015 government document, titled “Prevent Strategy: Local delivery best practice catalogue”, referred to the campaign as a “RICU Product”. Again, this was while Khan's sister ran RICU.
RICU is the parent body of counter-extremism programme Prevent, which a 2023 review found had neglected to monitor Islamist terrorists, while putting excessive resources into monitoring the "Far Right" -- which it had defined as reading Douglas Murray, George Orwell, and The Lord of the Rings.
William Shawcross, who wrote the review, said: ‘When discussing Islamism, Prevent staff frequently came back to issues relating to mental health concerns and ‘vulnerabilities’. Ideology, if acknowledged at all, was treated as a secondary factor and a derivative of a wider psychological or social issue. Put simply, ideology was not seen as an essential part of the trajectory towards terrorism, instead it was viewed as one of many potential radicalising factors.’
So the Home Office ignored the threat of Islamic terrorism, despite 80% of the Counter Terrorism Police network’s live investigations being Islamist, while 10% are extreme right-wing.
This year, RICU produced a report, revealed by
@StevenEdginton, which listed “Cultural Nationalism” and “Claims of 'two-tier' policing," as “extreme right-wing” views. It also claimed that grooming gangs are used as a “grievance narrative” by “right-wing extremists”. Even the Labour government distanced themselves from the paper.
As I detailed in my report for
@CourageMedia___ last month: RICU dictated the government response to the 2017 London Bridge attack, 2017 Manchester Arena attack, and appear to have had a hand in the vigil following the 2022 Nottingham stabbings by Valdo Calocane.
Any time a (even suspected) Islamist commits a terror attack, RICU transports Imams out to the site of the attack for photo ops, and runs prefabricated newspaper front pages and hashtag campaigns to create positive PR for Muslims.
Perhaps this is influenced by the 700-member Home Office Islamic Network: which aims to "promote the recruitment, retention and progression of Muslim staff in the Home Office" and “influence policymakers so that policy is more inclusive of Muslim needs”.
A Home Office whistleblower told GB News in April: “Having an Islamic lobby group inside the Home Office represents a serious threat to the Government’s aims in combating Islamic extremism and granting asylum to those fleeing Islamic countries over religious persecution.”
This happened while both Khan sisters worked at the Home Office. Their leadership led to Islamist terrorists like Ali Harbi Ali, who murdered Sir David Amess MP, to slip through the net. How is Sara Khan a credible voice on anti-extremism?
And which beliefs is she targeting?
Among the conspiracy theories she cites are: the Great Reset, the Great Replacement, and 'Cultural Marxism'.
Khan alleges the Great Replacement is 'an anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim theory stipulating that white European populations are being deliberately replaced at an ethnic and cultural level through mass migration and minority communities at the hands of the elites.’
Khan defines 'Cultural Marxism' as: 'A theory alleging that those subscribing to Far Left ideologies are embedded in cultural and political institutions, and are working to undermine Western culture. Often posits that Jewish people have disproportionate influence within cultural institutions.’
Khan does not cite any work by Renaud Camus (
@VaubanBooks), who coined the term, when defining the Great Replacement. If she had, she would know that Camus said the following in 2012:
'I might, speaking as I am before the France- Israel Association, appeal to an example that should finally convey my meaning: the Great Replacement is what would happen to Israel if, God forbid, we were to accede to the Palestinian demand for the so-called right of return. Under such conditions, could Israel remain a Jewish State, as one says?’
So, no, the Great Replacement is not antisemitic.
When citing Cultural Marxism, Khan does not cite any of the Frankfurt School thinkers, such as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, or Antonio Gramsci, responsible for formulating Critical Theory -- a well documented school of Marxist thought, designed to criticise culture rather than economics.
When mentioning the Great Reset, Khan does not cite any works by Klaus Schwab or the World Economic Forum. She simply states that it is 'an initiative by World Economic Forum (WEF) in June 2020 that called for ‘fairer outcomes’ in order to revive the world’s economic performance following the pandemic. Conspiracy theorists interpreted this initiative as a plot to destroy capitalism and enact a one-world government under the cover of Covid-19.'
So Khan's evidence cited is narrow in scope, ideologically biased, and clearly designed to put political opponents in the crosshairs of the state.
One such figure is Andrew Tate.
Khan mentions Andrew Tate (
@Cobratate) 10 times in the report, expressing concern that ‘45% of young men having a positive view of misogynistic influencer Andrew Tate’
She links Tate to 'incel' ideology, despite Tate's content being closer to pick-up artistry; and makes no mention of Tate's Muslim faith in connection with his 'misogyny'.
Presumably, this is the figure Khan has in mind for the Cabinet Office to monitor, and for the Department of Education to develop programs targeting under-18s (mainly boys) about.
To conclude, then, this paper was written by Sara Khan:
- whose work for the government has made the country a less safe place;
- whose sister ran a Home Office department which let Islamist terrorists go undetected, while spending taxpayers' money on pro-Islam PR campaigns in the aftermath of terror attacks;
- who cites disreputable communist organisations like HOPE Not Hate as reliable sources
- who failed to read sufficiently into beliefs she dismisses as 'conspiracy theories'
- who wants the government given additional powers to censor elected MPs, spy on law-abiding citizens who disagree with her politics, and lecture schoolboys about "toxic masculinity" because she finds Andrew Tate offensive
This report should be dismissed. A sane society would shun Sara Khan for the damage that her pro-Islam activism has done to the security and social fabric of this county.
But it at least illustrates that the government and Home Office have, for years, allowed far-Left and Muslim activists to set the policy agenda.