Christians concerned about Starmer’s latest social cohesion policy

Christians and free speech campaigners have criticised a recently announced government policy aimed toward improving social cohesion.

In a foreword to the policy, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer took aim at “digital grifters, hostile states, [and] politicians of grievance”, who he said had a “vested interest in division”. Starmer’s comment appears to be aimed toward Nigel Farage and Reform UK, who he has previously accused of grievance politics and sowing division. 

For almost a yr now Reform has been ahead in British opinion polls, although their numbers have dropped recently, with increasing support apparently going to the Green Party and Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain.

Writing for Christian Concern, Carys Moseley, questioned the considering behind the federal government’s latest social cohesion policy, noting the “British values” appears to essentially mean liberalism and acceptance of all of the rights claims made by LGBT activists.

Moseley writes, “How will the choice be made as to what’s an ‘intolerant world view’? Gender self-identification is an intolerant world view. It is just not tolerant of people that want single-sex spaces for specific functions … Having preached tolerance, the federal government shows increasing intolerance in relation to speech. The report accommodates some latest rhetoric that can little doubt turn into socially, politically and legally significant within the near future.”

The Free Speech Union, raised similar concerns, saying that the brand new policy, combined with the controversial latest Islamophobia definition “will only entrench already fragile community tensions by offering one religion, Islam, greater protections than others”.

“It can even stifle free speech by silencing legitimate criticism of Islam and discouraging individuals from speaking out in regards to the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism,” she said. 

Moseley expressed concern that the policy will entrench liberal views by denouncing dissent as “extremism”.

“The definition [of ‘extremism’] uses the Human Rights Act as its legal instrument. This is essential because there may be a long-standing debate on whether the UK should leave the European Convention on Human Rights, which is enshrined within the act … So is a politician who argues that the UK should leave the ECHR an extremist?” she said.

The definition, Moseley, identified, could lead on to pro-lifers being branded “extremists” for denying the “right” to have an abortion.

A crackdown on charities promoting “extremism” can also be a cause for concern, based on Moseley, as many churches are registered charities.

Despite the numerous concerns cited, Moseley argued there have been some positives to the policy. For the primary time the federal government said it will be cracking down on far left groups, relatively than simply Islamist and much right groups. Additionally the policy says it can not tolerate attempts to silence people via blasphemy allegations.

While welcoming the sentiment, Moseley noted that the federal government’s proposals on this front are “frustratingly thin on the practicalities”.