As of last weekend, I am apparently an “Islamist apologist”. I’ve “lost the plot”. I am, of course, “controlled opposition”.

How did this transformation happen? After all, when Islamist threats of violence forced Speaker Lindsay Hoyle to abandon parliamentary convention last Wednesday, I wrote this article for the Free Press, detailing the seriousness of the situation.

In the piece, I called for the harsh prosecution of people who threaten violence, especially against members of parliament, and their deportation wherever possible (the violent mobs that is, not the MPs, no matter how popular that might be with the public).

But by Saturday afternoon, according to my critics, I revealed myself to be a “supporter” of London Mayor Sadiq Khan, “weak”, “wet”, “slimey”, “subversive” etc. What did I say to trigger suspicions that I had taken the “green pill”?

In the wake of Wednesday’s outrageous scenes in Parliament, a number of MPs and commentators described their shock and outrage at the way our democracy had been subverted. Suella Braverman argued that “Islamists are now in charge of Britain”, Nigel Farage claimed that “by the 2029 general election, we will have a radical Islamic party represented in Westminster” and Conservative MP Andrew Percy explained that he felt safer on a recent visit to Israel than he did in his own country. These are all strong statements that many will agree with. Others may feel that while they are directionally accurate, they are nonetheless hyperbolic. Naturally, the woke left screamed racism and Islamophobia.

Personally, I have no issue with any of these claims. It may not be the case that Islamists are now in charge of fixing potholes outside your house or setting tax rates, but it is a fact that on Wednesday we saw that on some issues fear of Islamist violence is increasingly determining how our elected representatives behave. In his apology, the Speaker admitted as much.

We may or may not see a radical Islamic party at the election after next and only Andrew Percy can know how safe he feels in the UK. I do know that his concerns are widely shared by several MPs I’ve spoken to, and prominent British Jews are increasingly worried about venturing into central London on the weekends.

However, speaking to GB News on Friday, then Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson claimed that while he disagreed with Suella Braverman that Islamists were in charge of Britain, he did think that Islamists have “got control of Khan” who has “given our capital city to his mates.”

It was my disagreement with this statement that prompted fury on social media. I called his comments “stupid and extremely unhelpful” because they’ve given the media and political class exactly the story they wanted, changing the narrative away from what happened on Wednesday and distracting us with the “Is the Tory Party racist?” conversation for the 73rd time in a month. But, worse still – Islamist apologist that I am – I called on Anderson to apologise to Khan.

“Right after Sadiq Khan apologises to all Londoners for taking the knee to the mob,” replied Martin Daubney, on whose programme Anderson made the comments in question, before listing a number of other things for which Khan should apologise in his view. “As none of that will ever happen, why should Lee apologise?” he went on to add.

Comedian and GB News presenter Nick Dixon, explained that we must “Never, ever apologise to Sadiq Khan under any circumstances. To do so would imply that he is a good faith actor (he is not), or that there is some impartial adjudicator one can appeal to who will put things right (there is not)”.

“Your courage failed at the first fence. I had hoped for better from you. Very sad,” came another popular response. “He did nothing wrong” said another. One man even claimed to have unsubscribed from this Substack because I was “just after clicks and subscribers” (how pissing off a large number of people who follow you helps you get clicks and subscribers went unexplained).