The Double Standards of Sadiq Khan

One hundred days of Britain under Keir Starmer’s stewardship, and the Labour Party’s dedication to scandal is nothing if not impressive. Thus far, the front benches are replete with allegations of cronyism, bribery, and a taste for rather obvious double standards. Political nicknames usually take some time to forge, but not for ‘two-tier Keir’—whose evident dislike of the plebs was so vehemently expressed during his mishandling of the Southport riots, and via the concomitant heavy-handed sentencing.

However, no matter how hard he tries to push his ‘son of a toolmaker’, ‘working-class’ credentials, as a white man Keir Starmer is not getting much bang for his identity politics buck. The PM may well insist ‘two-tier policing worries are a non-issue’, but he is neither convincing nor correct. London Mayor Sadiq Khan on the other hand, is another matter entirely.

Khan is a master deflector, evading responsibility for the most serious of accusations—often via excuses which would not pass muster in a kindergarten. Take 2022’s summer spate of stabbings, which culminated in a four-day bloodbath of six murders in the capital. As the mayoralty is charged with policing, Khan repeatedly took to the airwaves to quash allegations of negligence via the following arguments: climate change, school holidays, and the rise of expensive mobile phones were to blame; not him. I don’t know about you, but I was around in London during some pretty hot summers back in the 80s, 90s and 00s—stabbing as a pastime was largely unheard of.

Khan’s preferred get-out-of-jail-free-card of course, is ‘Islamophobia’. Criticised when calling for a Gaza ceasefire, Khan claimed it was because of his religion. Faced with the serious allegation that he was being ‘controlled by Islamists’, Khan accused Conservative MP (now Reform Party convert) Lee Anderson of ‘fuelling anti-Muslim hatred’. And naturally, Khan is an advocate of the all-party parliamentary group for British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia, which would effectively criminalise any criticism of Islam or Muslims:

Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.

It is undeniably in part thanks to this Islamic immunity, that Khan has been able to increase steadily the priority given to British Muslims during his three terms in office. He argues that, in terms of housing development, Muslims need to live near mosques and halal shops (surely, the opposite of integration?). Always keen to tone down or cancel Christmas festivities, Khan is nothing if not exuberant when opening London’s first Ramadan lights, or celebrating Eid in the Square. And despite the government’s £117 million to protect mosques and Muslim schools from hate, Khan has always found a way to channel extra funding to Muslims.

London’s Mayor has dismissed past accusations of extremist links as Islamophobia, but digging into the details makes that pretty hard to believe. Whether it’s defending Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan, being denied access to the US to defend a member of Al Qaeda, his friendship with convicted terrorist Babar Ahmed, sharing platforms with Islamic extremists, or his slur upon moderate Muslims as ‘Uncle Toms,’ making the case that Khan is both an associate and an enabler of Muslim extremists is entirely plausible.

Perhaps Khan is simply a misunderstood, moderate Muslim. But if he were not, we might expect his tolerance of Muslim extremism to ratchet up a notch once Labour were back in power. That certainly appears to be the case now. The latest news from City Hall is that Transport for London (TfL) is now advertising sharia finance ‘Wahed’ on tubes and buses. The Islamic finance startup promises ‘sharia compliant investments’, which forbid involvement with alcohol, tobacco, gambling and pornography. The outfit is headed up by ‘Mufti Menk’ (real name Ismail ibn Musa Menk), who can be seen amidst briefcases of burning dollars, and looking about as western as a daytrip to Khan’s London itself.

To say that Menk is a colourful character is putting it mildly. As the head of the fatwa department for the Council of Islamic Scholars of Zimbabwe, Menk has previously been denied access to Singapore on the grounds of his ‘segregationist and divisive teachings’, as well as being cancelled by six British universities after he described homosexuals as ‘filthy’.

This is a curious state of affairs, particularly considering Khan’s mantra (‘diversity is our strength’), alongside his well-advertised commitment to gay pride. As Chairman of TfL, Khan has also repeatedly vetoed advertising which he believes does not come up to the standards required of such a cosmopolitan city. Famously baulking at the advertising of attractive white women in bikinis, on the grounds of ‘objectification’ (obese black women were fine, naturally), hotdogs or, perish the thought, bacon, Khan’s distaste only ever seems to be provoked one way: white and British.

It was, after all, white families which Sadiq Khan’s website described as unrepresentative of real Londoners, the flag of St George which London cabbies were banned from displaying during the Euros (Hamas flags presumably still good to go), and ‘white men’ Khan once claimed there were too many of at TfL.

Judging from the mixed messages emanating from City Hall, this gross double standard is not something the Mayor expected to be questioned on. His spokesmen have come out with the usual word salad:

The Mayor is clear that there is no place for hate in London and he strongly condemns any language which divides London’s amazing diverse communities.

Yet they have also erroneously claimed that “The Mayor has no involvement in approving or deciding which ads run on the TfL network”—this is an utter lie.

Pressed on the issue of Wahed and Ismail ibn Musa Menk by Susan Hall—former mayoral candidate and Conservative member of the London Assembly—Khan initially promised to look into the matter. A week later, Khan has mysteriously reneged on that promise.

As a genuine Londoner born and raised, rather than an imported one, it is distressing to see what the capital has become on this man’s watch. From the skies, London remains the Mary Poppins landscape forged by centuries; on the ground however, it’s a third world ghetto deteriorating before our eyes. All the while this Mayor remains in power, I’m afraid nothing good will happen to our great city.

Sadiq Khan is emblematic, not just of a party but a movement in Britain, that is anti-white, anti-British, and anti-democratic; hiding behind the victimhood afforded by ‘Islamophobia’, and hell-bent on destroying what once was a great nation. While only Khan can truly know the extent of his extremist sympathies, his actions lead me to only one conclusion. This is the subversion of Britain in all but name, and at the very least, the British taxpayer should not be funding the privilege of his own destruction.

Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West, and writes a Substack here.

This piece was first published in The European Conservative, and is reproduced by kind permission.

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!

Please follow and like us: