Support truly
independent journalism
A peer has been accused of Islamophobia after giving a “disgusting and outrageous” speech in the House of Lords.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch claimed “radicals” plan to “take us over through the power of the womb and the ballot box” after discussing government plans to improve counterterrorism measures at public venues following the King’s Speech.
“The sharia allows Muslim men to have four wives at a time, most of whom are having at least two children, so the Muslim population is going up 10 times faster than our national average,” he told the House of Lords last Thursday.
“On past trends, Birmingham and nine other English local authorities will be majority Muslim by 2031. The radicals’ plan is to wait until they can take us over through the power of the womb and the ballot box.”
The 82-year-old, now a non-affiliated peer having formerly sat as a Conservative and briefly been the leader of Ukip, has been condemned for his comments.
Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Meral Hussein-Ece wrote on X: “Lord Pearson of Rannoch gave a disgusting anti-Muslim racist speech in the House of Lords today. He would’ve been loudly condemned if he spoke about other faiths in this way.”
The Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) say they are lodging formal complaints with the House of Lords commissioners for standards over Lord Pearson’s remarks.
Zara Mohammed, MCB secretary general, told The Independent: “Lord Pearson’s recent comments are outrageous and perpetuate classic Islamophobic tropes that demonise British Muslim communities. He appears indifferent to the impact of his words, despite the rise in Islamophobia-related hate crimes.
“As a member of the House of Lords, Lord Pearson should be held accountable for his conduct. We will be writing to the House of Lords commissioners for standards and hope they investigate and take appropriate action.”
Raghad Altikriti, chair of MAB, told The Independent: “It is crucial for public figures to promote unity and respect, rather than resort to racist dog whistles and Islamophobic tropes.
“His comments and behaviour fall far short of the expected standards of a member of the House of Lords, and we hope that the House of Lords Commissioners for Standards will look into this matter and take decisive action.”
Lord Pearson defended his speech, telling The Independent his points about the Muslim population are “simply factual, being a projection of Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures”.
“Islamists (...) are quite open about using the ‘power of the womb and the ballot box’ to help them take over Western civilisation; like communists before the wall came down, they are a world domination movement,” he added.
ONS figures show that 6.5 per cent (3.9m) of the population of England and Wales identified as Muslim in 2021, up by 1.6 per cent a decade earlier.
In March, London charity Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU) reported seeing a 365 per cent rise in Islamophobia-related hate crimes across England and Wales since the outbreak of the Gaza conflict in October.
Lord Pearson previously met with condemnation when he claimed that UK Muslim communities were home to “thousands of potential home-grown terrorists”. He claimed calls for violence were not just coming from a “few extremists”, saying: “These people hate us with frightening religious fervour and we are right to fear them.”
The peer previously organised a House of Lords screening of an anti-Muslim film and invited far-right campaigner Tommy Robinson to parliament.
Lord Pearson joined the Lords in 1990 as a Conservative peer before joining Ukip in 2007 and resigning to sit as a non-affiliated peer in 2019. He became leader of Ukip in 2009 but resigned a year later, saying he was not good enough at party politics to do the job.
A House of Lords spokesperson said: “The House of Lords commissioners for standards are responsible for the independent and impartial investigation of alleged breaches of the House of Lords Code of Conduct.
“The commissioners for standards would need to receive a complaint before undertaking a preliminary assessment to establish whether the complaint falls within their remit to investigate.
“However, it is worth noting paragraph 30(a) of the Code of Conduct, which states that in assessing, investigating and adjudicating allegations of non-compliance, the commissioners must ‘recognise as a primary consideration the constitutional principle of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings, including but not limited to the need for members to be able to express their views full and frankly in parliamentary proceedings’.”
