Zoe Williams is correct: those on the far right do not care about Sadiq Khan’s record as mayor (Is Sadiq Khan a good mayor of London? Let’s not pretend the far right cares, 26 February). In fact, they don’t really care about Khan. He is simply a man whose religion is easily demonised, whose political allegiance is anathema, and whose minority-ethnic identity they know can be exploited to arouse prejudice. He is, in other words, an instrument through which to galvanise those they hope will grasp at these straws as an explanation for their impoverishment over the past two decades.
But he is also a gift to prejudice at a time when racism is experiencing renewed buoyancy from a wave of populist political refuseniks pining for a lost Eden, which once preserved a right to speak one’s mind regardless of its harmful consequences. So Lee Anderson and his supporters want to focus on intentions, a manoeuvre they hope distances the man from his actions such that offence becomes a matter of perception rather than fact.
This has long been the ploy of those who deny any legitimacy to claims of racism and it is wheeled out with dismal regularity. The strategy has found a new front in needless attempts to interrogate the term Islamophobia in order to renegotiate space within which to be spiteful rather than hateful. Thus, while the Tory party rejects the common definition to try to distance itself from racism (Editorial, 26 February), its far-right cabal does so in order to luxuriate in it.
Paul McGilchrist
Cromer, Norfolk
• I read Archie Bland’s article on Lee Anderson with interest, in particular the comments on Paul Marshall, the founder of UnHerd and co-owner of GB News (Sunak, his media allies – maybe even Lee Anderson – know Sadiq Khan is no Islamist. This is tactical racism, 26 February). Bland did not mention Marshall’s role in founding Ark (Absolute Return for Kids), an organisation that runs 39 state-funded schools in the UK.
He might also have noted Suella Braverman’s previous role as chair of governors at Michaela community school in north-west London, whose head, Katharine Birbalsingh, is no stranger to controversy regarding Islam herself. I wonder whether we should be concerned that figures such as Marshall, Braverman and Birbalsingh have managed to exert as strong an influence on our schools over the past decade.
George Duoblys
London
• I agree with Tasnim Nazeer’s article (The anti-Muslim rhetoric of rightwing politicians is fuelling hate crime – I’ve experienced it myself, 26 February). The point that is really only being picked up on now is how popular opinions such as those expressed by Suella Braverman, Paul Scully and Lee Anderson actually are, and the danger that this poses for parties that oppose these views.
Labour’s rebuttal has been on the back foot. There is a perception that deep-seated issues such as Islamophobia are being tackled with kid gloves to avoid general upset. Good examples are the Labour executive committee member Mish Rahman’s call for an internal inquiry on Islamophobia, and Keir Starmer’s controversial visit to the South Wales Islamic Centre in Cardiff last year.
The framing of the rightful criticism of Lee Anderson’s comments being tacked on to (again rightfully) criticising Rishi Sunak as weak gives the impression that Labour is using this as a political device, rather than something it actively stands against.
Toby Roddham
London
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
