Sport England: Tackling Racism

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of Sport England in tackling racism in sport.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to have been granted this debate, because this is an issue I have been dealing with for over seven years now. We know that racism exists within sports across the country, but what we do not talk about enough is when it impacts at a grassroots level—in local clubs that work and are situated in marginalised communities. This is not an issue exclusive to my constituency of Bradford West.

Although I will make mention of wider racism in sport, my focus today is Onna Ju-Jitsu, a multi-award-winning martial arts club based in my constituency. For several years, I have had the privilege of supporting the club, which delivers self-defence and ju-jitsu training to children and adults from all backgrounds, ethnicities and faiths. Its membership includes students and individuals from disadvantaged communities, and I have witnessed at first hand the dedication and excellence this club brings, not just to the sport of ju-jitsu, but to our diverse communities.

Impressively, the club has achieved a 50:50 male-to-female participation ratio and is led by a strong, accomplished female coaching team under Sensei Mumtaz Khan, a 7th degree black belt with over 32 years of experience. I would not want to get on the wrong side of Mumtaz.

Almost seven years since I raised this issue directly with Sport England—it was on 29 November 2018, to be exact—I am raising this matter in Parliament because, despite Mumtaz’s best efforts to seek justice for her students who have been wronged, Sport England has failed. It has not only failed the club and those individuals; it has failed to uphold its own policies, and has engaged in what I can clearly see are—and I am clear in calling out as—textbook attempts to cover up that failure.

The tragedy is that the very students who Mumtaz tried to seek justice for have now left British ju-jitsu without the justice they deserved. Any ambition they may have had for a future in sport ended the moment that accountability and justice were not provided by the very organisations that could have taken action.

During a competition bout at the British Ju-Jitsu Association National Championships in Birmingham on 1 September 2018, a competitor from Onna Ju-Jitsu was injured by a kick to the face and head. The impact was significant; it was caught on video, and required attention from the event’s first aider and qualified paramedic. According to the accident report, the paramedic advised the competitor not to carry on the round due to the pain. The competitor accepted this reluctantly. That instruction was clearly conveyed on the accident report and verbally to the competitor and to Mumtaz. Despite this being directly attributed to an uncontrolled kick to the head—a move that would ordinarily receive a red card and disqualification—the bout was then awarded to the opponent.

At the same championships, Ruqayyah Latif was moved up a weight category and missed out on a guaranteed gold or silver. Safa Zahid clearly won her match, but had her win go to another opponent. In fact, in one BJJ competition—not the championships—Safa Zahid was entered into a category to fight boys. She still managed to win a bronze, fighting boys with her two long plaits.

Ismail Ghani fought someone whose dad refereed the final. He was told that he lost by one point to make him feel better, even though referees are not allowed to disclose scores. His brother, Eessa also suffered the same fate, losing his match by, again, apparently one single point. At the 2017 nationals, Eessa clearly won his final match. Even his competitor and the competitor’s father apologised to him, because they believed he had won. That match is all on video and recorded, by the way. Between them, those two brothers missed out on three gold medals.

Another boy at the club was moved to a higher weight category and fought boys weighing up to 10 kg more than him, which was a serious safeguarding risk. The Minister responded yesterday in the main Chamber to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) regarding Alex Eastwood’s tragic death, and the same safety issues apply in this case.

Going back to Onna Ju-Jitsu, when Halah, a young girl at the club, clearly won her match but was still handed a loss, that was when things erupted. This was not just one student fighting in one competition alone; the club competed for the first time at the British Ju-Jitsu Association national championships in 2014. During that competition, and subsequently at the championships of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the club experienced numerous questionable decisions that denied its competitors gold medals and national championship status.

We arrive here today as the result of literally years of systemic discrimination and bias faced by these competitors of ethnic minority backgrounds. Many of these students decided to leave the sport and never competed again, due to the blatant bias and discrimination that they faced. For that reason, Mumtaz lodged an official complaint with Martin Dickson, chairperson of the BJJA, regarding the award in one fight.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady; she has outlined a number of very serious issues and will deliberate upon them shortly. Does she agree that sports are a real equaliser and that we must use this tool effectively with our children to bring friendships and other bonds into a natural setting? It is not just about having regulation to ensure that these things do not happen again; it is about ensuring the essential funding to help clubs to become attractive to people of all classes, all creeds and all cultures.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he is absolutely right. I will come on to the role that sport plays in bringing communities together and why it is so important.

Just as its institutional nature was to pass off bias and discriminatory results in tournaments, so the BJJA dismissed Mumtaz’s requests, using improper processes and technical committees made up of the very same people who are embedded in the very same institutional culture—people marking their own homework, so to speak. It is an organisation that lacks constitutional clarity, organisational transparency and democratic credibility. No information about its governance structures or democratic procedures is publicly available, and there are no minutes of annual general meetings, committee meetings or executive meetings publicly available.

To top things off, Mumtaz’s complaints were never going to be heard, because the very person overseeing the process and in control of the BJJA, the chairperson Martin Dixon, and the BJJA’s secretary were themselves promoting openly racist, Islamophobic and homophobic content online on their social media pages. I was going to quote some of it, but I thought it best to leave people to see it for themselves.

Having no confidence in the BJJA, I supported Mumtaz to raise her complaint formally with Sport England, an organisation funded by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport that exists to help to bridge the gap between under-represented communities and sport. It is meant to help to remove barriers and increase participation. Sport England does not directly fund the BJJA, but it provides it with recognition, and as such holds the power to de-recognise it and ensure accountability.

This evidence of racism was forwarded to Sport England on 29 November 2018. It is worth noting that, despite Onna Ju-Jitsu having previously won Sport England’s Satellite Club of the Year award, Sport England, instead of looking into the complaint, proceeded to engage in a phishing expedition and decided to

“chase up Sensei Mumtaz Khan’s coaching qualifications”,

claiming that was standard procedure for high-risk sports. I note that Sport England did not do that when it awarded Onna Ju-Jitsu its Satellite Club of the Year award, and the same yardstick is not applied to other clubs across the country. Sport England subsequently deemed that Mumtaz Khan’s coaching was invalid, to quash her complaint about the BJJA. That is a textbook example of trying to cover things up.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case about the racism that exists in the sport, which of course none of us should tolerate. For me, tackling this racism in sport must also mean improving representation in decision making, which is important. Does she agree?

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I absolutely agree, because often sporting bodies do not reflect the diversity of those playing sport within their structures and systems. That is absolutely the case at senior management levels, and that must be addressed as well.

Coming back to qualifications, in comparison, sportscotland, Sport Wales and Sport Northern Ireland all confirmed—I have go this in writing—that they do not chase up qualifications.

Let me address the issue of Mumtaz Khan’s qualification allegedly being invalid, with these important details. In September 2018, a complaint was raised with the BJJA. In November 2018, a complaint was raised with Sport England. In March 2019, less than four months later, the BJJA did not send Onna Ju-Jitsu the annual forms to renew membership, bearing in mind that it has been a member since 2013.

In June 2019, Sport England makes an offer of mediation with Mumtaz, which she accepts. In July 2019, the following month, Sport England tells Mumtaz Khan that the need for mediation is being removed, because the BJJA said Mumtaz Khan had resigned her position as the diversity engagement officer, which she had never sent in. Sport England accepted, and recorded with its permission, a meeting at which the BJJA chair confessed that that did not happen. Mumtaz never resigned her position as the diversity engagement officer. It was said someone else had been appointed, but that was not true. That is a catalogue of BJJA telling Sport England: “This isn’t true,” “This isn’t right,” “These are confessions,” and that something that was clearly homophobic and racist is now just offensive. The list goes on.

In October 2019, Sport England decided to chase qualifications, which include being a member of a national body. That is where the contradictions start. Where I come from in Yorkshire, someone is either pregnant or not. No one can be both or a bit pregnant. No one can pick and choose measuring yardsticks when it suits, as Sport England has done. Sport England has said to Mumtaz, “Well, because you’re not a member of this organisation, you can’t make a formal complaint,” yet she can run a ju-jitsu club, and she needs to have all these qualifications, she needs to be insured and she needs to meet all these criteria. But when it comes to a complaint about racism and homophobia: “D’you know what? You don’t meet the criteria.” Which is it? Sport England needs to get its head round this. It needs to sort itself out and get its house in order. When Mumtaz raised a formal complaint against the BJJA, it removed her as a diversity officer.

I agree with Mumtaz Khan that she was targeted and victimised by Sport England for whistleblowing and raising concerns. It was only after my intervention as an MP that Sport England committed to even looking at the conduct of the BJJA. At first, when Mumtaz presented evidence of openly racist and homophobic slurs, they were judged merely just offensive. Someone put up a post saying, “I have found a cure for lesbians…Trycoxagain.” That is the kind of post we are talking about; they were homophobic and not just offensive. I am sorry, but I do not agree with that judgment.

Later, despite recognising clearly racist evidence, an attempt was made to squash the issue by asking the chair to send a letter of apology to Mumtaz, rather than taking action to hold people to account. Evidence of the BJJA breaching all seven examples listed in section 64 of the sports council’s recognition review policy of 2017 was sent by Mumtaz to Sport England in October 2022. Again, it was left to Mumtaz to point out to Sport England how to do its job.

Combined with the previous admission of racism, Mumtaz felt that that led to Sport England finally agreeing to take the matter to the other sports councils to gain agreement to derecognise the BJJA. After huge pressure, Sport England started a process to derecognise the BJJA, but never did; it gave the BJJA time to meet the criteria to get continued recognition. The BJJA did not meet the criteria in another six months, but Sport England did not go on derecognise it.

When Sport England made a statement, it was reviewing the information submitted by the BJJA, so any decision about derecognition never happened. On 21 May 2024, Sport England released a statement suggesting it was continuing the association’s recognition, subject to a number of conditions, despite the deadline of meeting the original conditions being eight months earlier. In my eyes, Sport England was clearly taking action to avoid derecognising or implementing serious changes in the BJJA.

Losing all hope in Sport England, Mumtaz Khan asked it to provide all the data. It was not just a cover up—it gets better! Sport England has accepted that it had, on her last attempt to make a subject access request and a freedom of information request, 4,763 emails, letters and documents relating to Sensei Mumtaz Khan and her club, but it will not give her any of them. I have even been to the Information Commissioner and we have done subject access requests. What is Sport England hiding? What is it trying to cover up? Why is it not releasing that information? That is an alarmingly high number of mentions for one individual and a small, local club, but we still do not have the information.

I ask the Minister: how can these students or others expect fairness through the BJJA when the issues are institutional and directly linked to the chairman, Martin Dixon, who promotes homophobia and racism, and when there is no accountability? We do not know what is in those papers; it reminds me of the Azeem Rafiq case all over again.

Martin Dixon has served as the chairman of the BJJA since 1992, a tenure spanning more than 33 years and counting. Although he has no doubt made many positive contributions to the BJJA over the years, this is a national governing body for a recognised sport in this country, not a fiefdom. If we do not get institutional change, including for those at the very top of the organisation, how can these students or others have any faith in competing in British jiu-jitsu?

Let me summarise the issue: an award-winning, British jiu-jitsu sensei, Mumtaz Khan, who competed and was an asset to the BJJA, established a club and allowed younger generations, many of whom were from ethnic minority backgrounds, to break barriers and enter the sport. Despite years of direct discrimination and bias against students in her club, all she wanted to do was ensure a fair playing field for all competitors in the sport. No one was asking for special treatment—just fairness and equality. After all, fair play, transparency and good competition are the nature of sporting success. Instead, the governing body and established national entities that were supposed to step in and take action to ensure that real accountability was in place resorted to denial, inaction and a cover-up.

This issue is about not just racism, racist sentiments or poor choices of words, but young people who face barriers to entry into sport due to the colour of their skin, their gender, their faith or their sexual orientation. When that happens, we are all worse off. This is an issue not just with the BJJA, but across all sports and across this country. I know at first hand the level of discrimination and racism faced by grassroots football clubs in my constituency.

We are regularly told by Sport England, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and every major sporting body that there is “No room for racism”, that we must “Kick it out” and that we must “Change the game”. These are all commendable slogans, but that is the problem—they remain slogans. In this House, we know that it is not slogans but consistent, deliberate action that brings about real and lasting change in sports and in society. The only way to ensure ethical practice in sports is through accountability and transparency. Those are not optional extras; they are essential principles.

In 2021, ex-cricketer Azeem Rafiq gave evidence to the then Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee detailing his experiences after a report found that he was a victim of racial harassment and bullying. From that case, we know the level of institutional racism in a sport such as cricket where we would expect better. The Minister will also be aware that, in 2023, Prince William wrote to Alpha United Juniors, a junior football club in my constituency, with concerns about almost 60 cases of racism that those juniors had faced in grassroots football. Children as young as seven years old had been the victim of racial slurs and threats of violence.

The challenge, as we witnessed with Azeem Rafiq and now Sensei Mumtaz Khan, is that those who speak out about the evidence of bias, discrimination and racism are often subject to attacks themselves for merely raising the issue. When we look at those representing Britain at a global level in sports—Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury or the likes of Amir Khan in boxing; Mo Farah, Kelly Holmes and others in the Olympics; Adil Rashid from Bradford or Moeen Ali in the England cricket team; and the likes of Marcus Rashford, Saka and others in football—we should recognise that allowing barriers to be broken enables the very best of us to compete and represent Britain at the highest level, which helps us to be the very best at sport across the globe.

[Afzal Khan]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I want to share an example from the Greater Manchester combined authority, which has, in partnership, launched a cricket strategy aimed at creating inclusive cricket, from encouraging young people to play cricket to creating a network of south Asian women to widen the reach of cricket in our community. Does my hon. Friend agree that such initiatives play a vital role in tackling inequality and racism and in strengthening community cohesion throughout the sport?

[Naz Shah]

I know how passionate my hon. Friend is about this issue in his constituency. I absolutely agree that we need such opportunities, because that is what it leads to. When we fail at the grassroots level due to institutional issues, we fail at success.

There is growing concern that Sport England continues to fund and legitimise governing bodies that are consistently weak on equality, diversity and inclusion. What is being done to move beyond policy paperwork and enforce meaningful standards for inclusion, not just box ticking? It is time for Sport England to explain how it holds funded organisations accountable on issues of equality and diversity, because recognition without results undermines trust.

What safeguards does Sport England have in place when repeated concerns about racism or exclusion are raised not just in jiu-jitsu but in other governing bodies? Has Sport England commissioned an independent review into ensuring transparency and accountability where patterns of exclusion emerge? We need to ensure that Sport England’s inclusion policies do not just exist on paper, but deliver a measurable change at every level of the sport. Although Sport England supports equality and diversity on paper, how is it measuring the real world impact across sport, particularly for marginalised communities? If we take the issue at the club I am talking about, it is clearly failing drastically.

Grassroots and ethnically diverse-led organisations often feel under-looked. How will Sport England ensure that their voices shape future priorities? Ultimately it is taxpayers’ money that funds the institution. I am grateful to the Minister for taking time out and meeting me when I raised concerns with her Department. I would like the Government to act to ensure that Sport England immediately derecognises the BJJA. I want the Government to conduct a full independent investigation into the leading national governing body and ensure the establishment of a new body that can provide confidence in the sport.

The Government should also arrange a full independent inquiry into Sport England’s handling of Mumtaz Khan’s complaint regarding the BJJA national governing body, and instruct Sport England to immediately release all the data held, unredacted, to Mumtaz Khan regarding her and her club from 29 November 2018 to date. I urge the Minister to take those matters seriously—no doubt she will. I also urge her to meet Mumtaz Khan and to hold Sport England and the BJJA to account. If we want British sport to reflect the values of fairness, respect and inclusion, we must ensure that those words are backed with real action.

Gaza: BBC Coverage

Naz Shah Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

Yes, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his careful and considered words on this. In the last year I met with the British families of some of the children in Gaza and the stories are absolutely horrifying. We have a duty to ensure that those stories are told, and that people can have confidence in what they are being told.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for getting to grips with this issue so quickly and acknowledging that what happened on 7 October and what happened subsequently in Gaza is of huge significance; her understanding gives me hope. Will she commit to coming back to this Chamber and updating us on the outcome of whatever happens with the BBC investigation?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am happy to say to my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest and has been a real champion for children in Gaza for many years, that I will be more than happy to keep colleagues updated as this progresses and to update the whole House at the earliest opportunity.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his engagement already on this issue and I appreciate the conversations we have had. We will publish the consultation responses tomorrow. As I said, we have a whole package of information that hon. Members will no doubt scrutinise and hold us to account for, but I hope that they will also welcome it, because this is a series of important reforms. This is fundamentally about growing and sustaining our fantastic creative sector to the benefit not only of audiences but of the small businesses he cites. One thing we are keen to secure is a creative dividend to deal with the challenges that companies are actually talking to me about, which are the skills required for the booming production sector we have in this country.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Ampere Analysis says that privatisation would put independent production companies out of business. As the Member of Parliament for Bradford West, Channel 4 in Leeds makes a real difference to diversity, especially in news channels and in journalism as a whole. Can the Minister assure me that if we go down that road and they privatise it, the buyer will be required to maintain the presence and trajectory of workforce growth in Channel 4’s regional offices in Leeds, Glasgow, Bristol and Manchester?

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the great investment that Channel 4 has made in Leeds, which was actually at the encouragement of previous Secretaries of State when we previously looked at the question of privatisation. In our relationship with Channel 4, we have encouraged it to seek to increase what it does in the regions and nations of our country, and we think it has done a great job of that. We value the contribution it has made to regions and cities, and we will very much seek to preserve that in any sale process.

Racism in Cricket

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I agree that the normalisation of racism is something that we all have to fight. Each and every one of us has a duty and an ability to do that. As far as cricket is concerned, as I have said, I have enormous confidence in Cindy Butts—a highly respected anti-racism campaigner—to lead the independent commission for equity in cricket and sort out the problems that evidently exist there. Across society more widely the Government have a hate crime strategy, we have done a race disparity audit and we have a race disparity unit. We will shortly be bringing forward an online safety Bill, which is designed to clean up the sewer online where so much of that hatred is often spread.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this question and I thank Azeem Rafiq for his bravery. Not only was he exposed to racism and suffered from that, but he was denied an inquiry, and only yesterday was it acknowledged that what he did was whistleblowing. Much of the racism he faced at Yorkshire county cricket club was blatant racism and Islamophobia, and he has said as much. I recognise that the Minister and other members of the Government have stood in solidarity with colleagues across party in challenging the racism in this specific case, and I welcome the appointment of my fellow Bradfordian Lord Kamlesh Patel, but it cannot be left to him to fix this culture on his own.

I appreciate that the essence of this debate is about cross-party unity, but the truth is that for two and a half years we have been waiting for a definition of Islamophobia. No Government advisers have been appointed in two and a half years and the definition provided by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, which the Muslim community stood behind, has been denied by the Government. Given the collegiate nature of this debate, will the Minister and the Government meet with the all-party parliamentary group so that we can reach a definition of Islamophobia? Without that, how do we understand that Islamophobia is rooted in racism, and what do we do to address it?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I repeat my admiration for Azeem Rafiq’s courage in standing up to the appalling racism he suffered at Yorkshire county cricket club. I understand that that is by no means an isolated example. Root and branch change is needed at that club; I hope that the recent appointment of Lord Patel of Bradford is an important first step, but it is only a first step. Root and branch change is needed. Across cricket more widely, the independent commission for equity in cricket, chaired by Cindy Butts, has that mission in mind.

On the more general question, of course we need to create a culture in this country where racism is fought at every step and every stage. That is why we have a race disparity unit. That is why we have a hate crime strategy. That is why we are bringing forward the online safety Bill. In relation to the hon. Lady’s particular question about the definition, the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), is working on that. I will convey the question to my hon. Friend and ask her to make contact urgently with the hon. Lady to discuss that issue.

World Press Freedom Day

Naz Shah Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I welcome this debate called by the hon. Member on world press freedom. We should be proud to live in a democracy where the press exercises a high level of freedom to highlight the truth and hold the Government to account. That does not mean we do not still face challenges in relation to the press in the UK and their reporting, in particular towards Muslims and minority communities.

Thankfully, we do not live in a nation where the regime in Government blows to smithereens the towers housing internationally renowned journalists such as in the AP building. Yes, I am speaking about the callous and totalitarian attack by the Israeli military a week or so ago in the tower housing both AP and al-Jazeera journalists. Much will be said in this debate about world press freedom relating to China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea or Iran, for instance, all of which our nation and I too share concerns about in regards to press freedom. However, just over a week ago, we watched the Israeli military blow up a mainstream media outlet, which the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he had he seen no evidence for. Despite such a devastating attack on press freedom, given the scale of the attack, the response by the so-called defenders of free speech was deafening in its silence, and the outright condemnation by our Government seemed to be written in invisible ink.

The latest siege on Gaza and targeted Israeli air force attacks have destroyed the premises of 23 Palestinian and international media outlets, according to some reports, in a single week. A statement by the nine experts to the United Nations Human Rights office stated:

“The indiscriminate or deliberate bombardment of civilians and towers housing civilians in Gaza and Israel, as well as media organizations and refugee camps in Gaza, are war crimes that are, prima facie, not justified by the requirements of proportionality and necessity under international law. All parties who engage in such attacks must bear individual and State responsibility as appropriate.”

Let me state just one example. At approximately 4.30 am on Wednesday 19 May, Israeli war planes targeted with three successive rockets, without prior warning, the fourth and fifth floors of the home of Muhammed Abdul Qadr Muhammed Abu Hussein, 63, consisting of five floors over an area of 120 square metres and located on Al-Gala Street near Sheikh Radwan junction north of Gaza City. Yousef Muhammed Abdul Qadr Abu Hussein, 32, a journalist who worked as a broadcaster for the local Voice of Al-Aqsa radio station, a husband and a father of three, was killed in that attack.

All that I have stated is a reality of Israeli regime in only the last few weeks. Even after the ceasefire, AP reported that 17 journalists in Gaza had confirmed their WhatsApp accounts had been blocked. When 23 media houses are obliterated, journalists killed and social media networks blocked, where is press freedom? The question is whether the Government will still support the International Criminal Court investigation into the situation in Palestine, given Israel’s repeated attacks on media outlets and journalists. I also remind the Minister of a statement from his colleague Lord Ahmad on the matter of press freedom. He said:

“Ultimately, we need every country to recognise that attacks on media freedom are beyond the pale. And just like any assault on human rights, and I speak as the UK Human Rights Minister, we must hold abusers accountable, both legally and financially.”

I agree that we need every country to recognise that attacks on media freedom will not be tolerated and legal and financial accountability will be the consequences. I say to the Minister that the mounting evidence of the Israel’s alleged crimes is before him. If the Government truly want to support press freedom worldwide, they should support the investigation by the International Criminal Court into Israel’s actions. At the very least, they should use today’s debate on world press freedom as an opportunity to condemn the totalitarian actions by Israel and to support journalists within the region.

Online Anonymity and Anonymous Abuse

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]]

With the advent of the online world, our experiences have changed and our networks have transformed. Although we have revolutionised our lives by connecting with people across the globe in ways that were unknown before, we have also sadly neglected the dangers and challenges that come with this online revolution. Let us be real. We all know how hurtful abuse can be, and yet for years we have allowed bucketsful of online abuse to go on by.

The online space has allowed some individuals to mask their characters and express hate in ways that would be utterly unacceptable in the real world. I know at first hand the level of abuse, hate and online threats that I have faced over the years, and it is happening online today. I know at first hand how a single tweet—which was up for less than eight minutes—can be misrepresented and exaggerated to wrongfully define an individual and cause an avalanche of hate and abuse. Due to that one single tweet, an individual was sent to prison for threats that he made to my life and Leave.EU was sued for misrepresenting me.

But what will happen to the hundreds of anonymous accounts whose Islamophobic, racist, misogynistic and hate-filled threats are left unchallenged on social media—the tweets of me wearing a hijab, falsely labelling me as an Islamist paedophile admirer, those describing me as a cancer that will lead to my destruction, and the hundreds of others that are still online today? In the real world we have hate crime laws and defamation laws, but for the anonymous trolls the online space has become a free-for-all.

This debate is not just about my experiences, or those of fellow parliamentarians, of the online abuse that we face daily; it is also about the experiences of ordinary people whose stories we never hear. We have the privilege of sharing our experiences in places such as Parliament, yet we still face this abuse, which is without any consequences. What hope do my constituents have?

The online harms Bill is meant to be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to legislate for the online world, so that we can protect freedom of expression without allowing hate, misinformation, and bullying to go unchecked. However, the Government have failed to deliver such legislation, and have watered down the contents of the Bill, leaving it with little effect. The very prejudices that we have fought to tackle over years have resurfaced online. It is almost as if the racism that was once expressed on the street has just moved anonymously online.

Parliament’s primary role might not be to change the moral conscience of those in society, but it is definitely to legislate against harm, and to protect all citizens of this country. I will end with this quote from the great Dr Martin Luther King which, sadly, I believe is still relevant today:

“Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.”