I am stunned and speechless. Why we have to argue over freedom of expression and extremism? We have racists on one side and antisemites on the other. Whenever it comes to whichever election in the UK there are accusations and apologies for antisemitism and racism from every party. Now the government wants to pillory legal but extremist organizations – and is reaping criticism from its own ranks.

What else is it allowed to say publicly in view of the virulent debates on identity politics?

The two most frequent questions currently being discussed more intensively which both have been for a long time – which is as much a consequence of the tensions surrounding the Gaza war as a harbinger of the upcoming general election on 4th July 2024:

• When is a statement antisemitic, Islamophobic or racist?
• Who decides what is acceptable and in line with British values?

Hardly a week goes by without a politician or weighty sympathizer of a party having to apologize for an untenable statement.

At the centre of the latest media whirlwind is Frank Hester, an entrepreneur and important donor to the Conservative Party. Hester had made defamatory remarks about the dark-skinned Labour MP Diane Abbott in a private conversation in 2019.

Abbott should be shot, Hester is said to have said, she tempts you to "hate all black women". The businessman did not deny the statements, but that they had been racist. Rishi Sunak's government also manoeuvred at first until the black trade minister and representative of the right wing of the party, Kemi Badenoch, spoke plainly. Then Sunak also brought himself to speak of a racist statement - rejecting the demand for the return of Hester's donations of £10m.

As unacceptable as the verbal attacks against Abbott are, the London MP and supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has already made problematic statements herself.

For example, a guest article she wrote a year ago in the Observer recalls the anti-Semitic tendencies that the Labour opposition is still grappling with today. Abbott wrote at the time that Irish and Jews could not become victims of racism because they were white. The parliamentarian apologized. Nevertheless, Labour leader Keir Starmer suspended Abbott's parliamentary group membership because of antisemitism, which is why she has to sit in the House of Commons as a single mask.

The turbulence around Hester and Abbott is not an isolated case: Before the House of Commons by-election in the Rochdale constituency in February, Labour had to part ways with the official candidate Azhar Ali because he had spread antisemitic conspiracy theories. On an audio recording of an internal meeting, the candidate said that Israel had deliberately allowed Hamas' terror attack on October 7 to take tough action against the Palestinians afterwards. Starmer, who boasts of having eradicated antisemitism in the Labour Party, hesitated for days before dropping Azhar Ali.

A short time later, Lee Anderson, then a Conservative MP, claimed on camera that the Muslim Labour mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was controlled by Islamists. Sunak shied away from calling the completely baseless statement Islamophobic for a long time but excluded Anderson from the parliamentary group. To Sunak's horror, he has now defected to the right-wing party Reform UK - and accuses the Conservatives of restricting freedom of expression.

The inquisitorial tone with which the Conservatives and Labour make accusations against the other side contrasts with the hesitation with which they react to problematic statements from their own ranks.

Albie Amankona, Tory politician and presenter at the right-wing broadcaster GB News, recommended a simple test to his party colleagues: A statement about a Muslim or dark-skinned person should be rejected as Islamophobic or racist if an analogous statement about a Jew is condemned.

In the midst of the heated atmosphere, Michael Gove MP (Conservative party), who was responsible for communal coexistence as minister, presented a new official definition of extremism.

With this extremism label, the government wants to brand right-wing radical and Islamist organizations in the future that operate within the limits of the rule of law, but whose ideology is based on "violence, hatred or intolerance" and that want to "negate the fundamental rights of others" or undermine parliamentary democracy.

A "centre of excellence" of the administration is now to take a close look at groups such as the British National Socialist Movement or the Muslim Association of Britain, which Gove described as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. The new definition of extremism is not a law, but merely an official directive. Therefore, the legal basis for the controversial pro-Palestinian demonstrations does not change. Those who end up on the blacklist of civil servants will not be banned, but they will be publicly pilloried and will no longer be allowed to cooperate with government agencies.

While Labour Vice President Angela Rayner said in the House of Commons that it would be necessary to wait and see how the blacklist would be handled in practice, a striking number of Conservatives from the right wing of the party expressed fundamental reservations. Mariam Cates explained that the definition of extremism is so vague that it could one day also cover gender-critical feminists or devout Christians.

Former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick added that the measure did not go far enough to combat "real extremists". At the same time, citizens and organizations threatened to be targeted by the state and its officials, who merely expressed uncomfortable and contrary opinions as antisemitic.

People should and must understand a few major issues of which law, democracy and history should be in every people's mind. Watching these "marches" as Suella Bravement the Conservative MP (former Home Secretary) named the protest for Gaza-Palestine was not even badly categorized.

I am even more speechless now, where some politicians or country leaders to get some attention are going with the suggestion to recognise Palestine as an independent state. 

How wrong some countries doing this were and how wrong the others who attempted to do the same would be. 

Not solely that officially recognised Palestine as an independent state at present is incorrect, is also harmful!

I cannot agree more or deny a very tricky if not severe situation in Gaza, but to confirm and admit Palestine at a time when conditions under international law are not fulfilled (eg. release of hostages) is completely absurd. 

Make no mistake, this is and would further encourage the Hamas terrorist organization and lend it legitimacy. This would be "green light to all other such or similar groups and terrorist around the world to do the same as Hamas did.

I checked all the countries whose intention is recognising Palestine. They are all far left and burdened with corruption. I cross checked several financial lines and I find a very intriguing connection between the countries who might in recent weeks recognise Palestine as well as countries who made and recognised Palestine already. Few are currently involved as "mediators".

The consequences of war propaganda produce results. No lessons being learned and we can see this in recognition eg. of Kosovo as an independent country on the soil of Serbia! There are still tensions and will soon or later escalate in another conflict.

How naive all this is, to recognise and give autonomy to whoever without considering all the facts?!

Why do none of these countries ever urge Hamas to release the hostages and surrender?  

What are these “marches” and protest all about if not urging Hamas as well to release the hostages.

It is shameful that protesters are also students who should be the ones who know a bit about history and law. People who know neither history nor the actual relationship protest on the streets or who are having their personal opinions about whatever issue. Antisemitism is on the rise.

I am not "enthusiastic" that British, European, American and other countries universities declare their support with protest for Palestine (Read for Hamas). Giving legitimacy to people who kidnapped, tortured, killed more than 1400 innocent people - mostly girls, and caused a global security problem and risks in which countries such as Iran, China, Russia, US and many other countries have now become actively involved, is completely out of order. This mass conflict can now erupt at the end to something catastrophic.

These are tough and serious times, where serious people are needed to solve them on legal and democratic way as much as possible. What is needed is mutual understanding, helping each other and removing all threads that aspire and lead to extremism or antisemitism.