THE SINGH INVESTIGATION

The Singh Investigation into alleged Islamophobia in the Tory Party was launched following the last Tory leadership campaign, when one of the candidates, Rajid Savid, a Muslim, in a live television debate demanded such an investigation and all the other candidates followed suit. Shame on them.

The person conducting the investigation is Professor Swaran Singh, who stated that he had lived in the United Kingdom for over thirty years, after arriving during the first Gulf War. He claimed to have ‘experienced first-hand the pernicious manifestations of racism within certain parts of British society’. A colleague had even told him to ‘go home’ if he did not like it in the UK (one wonders why a colleague would say that?). As a psychiatrist, Professor Singh claimed to have ‘witnessed the damage done to people’s health and lives by racism, discrimination, bullying and harassment’. Although he conceded that ‘much has changed for the better’, even so ‘perhaps not enough has changed, and not everywhere’. Professor Singh is a former equality and human rights commissioner.

The Tories had set up the investigation ‘following discussions with the Equality and Human Rights Commission’ (EHRC). The EHRC had approved the terms of reference.

The investigation revealed: ‘Over the six years 2015 to 2020 (inclusive of both years), the Party’s central database recorded 1,418 complaints concerning 727 incidents of alleged discrimination; i.e. an average of 237 complaints relating to 122 incidents per year in a party with 200,000 members (latest CCHQ figure).’

For most normal people, that would have been the end of the matter. Out of a 200,000 membership, there were ‘122 incidents per year’. Around two-thirds of these incidents related to allegations of Islamophobia, and around three quarters of the incidents related to activity on social media. This is an infinitely small number (the incidents being around 0.0006% of the membership).

The investigation listed four items as ‘specific cases’. One was a statement that ‘There were examples of anti-Muslim discrimination by individuals and groups at local association level’. Two was that the investigation had uncovered ‘one serious allegation of direct discrimination at local association level whose investigation showed serious failings in the complaints process’. Three was a statement that there had been ‘a perception among some respondents’ that there had been incidents that ‘suggest[ed’ the Tories were ‘insensitive to Muslim communities’. A previous London mayoral campaign was cited and comments made by Boris Johnson. Four was a general comment about the investigation having ‘heard powerful testimonies about the adverse impact of perceived or actual discrimination on a victim’s wellbeing and self-confidence, and concerns that making a complaint may lead to negative consequences such as being seen as a “troublemaker”’. None of those making these ‘testimonies’ ‘were willing to be identified’.

This is the best the investigation could come up with.

There had been a public call for evidence about which Professor Singh said:

‘The Independent Investigation is reaching the end of its initial examination of the Conservative Party’s handling of past complaints of discrimination. We are now calling for further evidence that we may not already have seen to ensure that we are aware, as far as realistically possible, of all evidence relating to alleged discrimination within the Party. We need to determine whether all important evidence of discrimination has been considered in the framework of the Party’s existing complaints process.’

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) was not very cooperative, although it did make a submission. This is after the MCB had written to the EHRC to ‘to formally request an EHRC Investigation into whether the Conservative Party had breached its obligations under the Equality Act 2010’. Put simply, the MCB was trying to use the Equality Act 2010 to bully others.

In a letter to the investigation, the MCB made a number of demands, including: ‘Deny membership to those with a history of far right and extreme views: There is evidence of Party membership from individuals from bodies that are known to be hostile towards ethnic minorities and especially Muslims. A real policy of change, coupled with improved due diligence, will reduce risk of those with racists views entering the Party.’

The Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) organisation also made a submission, as did Hope Not Hate, which published and submitted a ‘dossier’: ‘The submission included an analysis of the Party’s disciplinary processes and recommendations for improving procedural and cultural issues related to anti-Muslim discrimination in the Party. Hope Not Hate also included the results of its own survey of Party members’ views on Muslims, and included 40 case studies of Conservative councillors, MPs and activists accused of anti-Muslim acts.’

This exercise was merely an invitation for those who are anti-Conservative and politically correct to make allegations against the Tory Party, and the making of those allegations constitutes evidence that the Tories are Islamophobic. The investigation drew attention to the definition of Islamophobia: ‘On 27 November 2018, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims published its working definition of Islamophobia, namely: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expression of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. This definition was adopted by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and many local councils but it was rejected by the Conservative Government.’ This definition had encountered much criticism, not least as any criticism of an ‘expression of Mulsimness’ (eg halal slaughter) would constitute Islamophobia.

The investigation also stated: ‘Theresa May, former Conservative Prime Minster, said in her 2002 Conference speech: “Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us – the Nasty Party.”’ In other words, the investigation is hinting that the Tories are too Conservative and need to be much more woke.

The investigation focused on the supposed failings of the Tory Party’s procedures for handling complaints. It recommended a number of measures the party should take, and laid out timetables (of weeks and months) to be adhered to:

‘We recommend that the Party publishes an Action Plan within six weeks of the publication of this report. This Action Plan should clearly set out the Party’s actions, timescales for implementation and measures of success for each of the recommendations accepted by the Party. Should the Party choose not to accept any particular recommendations, it should give clear reasons for its non-acceptance. The Party should follow up the Action Plan by publishing a six-month Progress Report prepared by the Party, followed by a One-year Review prepared by the Investigation or some other appropriate body, to determine the extent to which the recommendations have been implemented.’

Furthermore: ‘The Investigation recommends that all major political parties consider, in discussion with the EHRC, the creation of a cross-party, non-partisan, and independent mechanism for handling complaints of discrimination against their parties or party members on the basis of Protected Characteristics. This could be similar to the current Parliamentary Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme for Sexual Misconduct.’ In fact, there is no comparison to the parliamentary scheme regarding sexual misconduct, as sexual misconduct is not a matter of ideological contention – how to react to the scale and consequences of Muslim immigration is.

As can be seen from the bullying ‘recommendations’ there is a move to subordinate the Tory Party to unelected, unaccountable, politically-correct pressure groups. Once a country has adopted a regime whereby only politically-correct people are allowed to stand in elections, then that country ceases to be a democracy.

The Muslim Baroness Warsi, who has been making allegations of Islamophobia against the Tories for years, despite being a member of the Tory Party, said that the report’s recommendations were ‘good and should be implemented’ but also said: ‘I think we now need an independent Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation because there are flaws to this report.’ The investigation concluded that although ‘anti-Muslim sentiment’ remained ‘a problem within the party’, there was ‘no evidence’ that the party was institutionally racist. Warsi insisted it was.

MEND dismissed the report as a ‘whitewash’. The MCB criticised that the investigation did not acknowledge ‘the root causes of this bigotry’ and demanded an EHRC investigation to ‘determine whether any breaches of law have taken place’.

Conservative co-chairman Amanda Milling said the party accepted all the recommendations:

‘On behalf of the Conservative Party I would like to apologise to anyone who has been hurt by discriminatory behaviour of others or failed by our system. We held this investigation to address these allegations to make sure that any instances of discrimination are isolated and to look at how we can improve and strengthen our complaints process. The Conservative Party will continue to take a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination of any kind and take immediate action to improve our handling of complaints. It is clear that there have been failings in our complaints process and we will begin work on implementing the recommendations set out by the investigation.’

Sajid Javid also wanted the recommendations to be implemented in full.

Handing over the running of the Tory Party, including the vetting of party membership and candidates, to a collection of politically-correct, Labour supporting race zealots is the last thing the Tory Party should be doing.