His phone had long stopped ringing and the invitations to the top table had ceased. So when Angela Rayner called Dominic Grieve, a former Tory Attorney General more at home among Lib-Dems, to head up a commission to define Islamophobia he jumped at the chance.
'Being relevant' can have been his only motivation, since I cannot find in his political or legal history any previous sign of interest in the Muslim community.
And I imagine Ms Rayner - brilliantly described by Douglas Murray in a Telegraph piece as the "noted theologian" - only wanted a Tory figleaf to hide her party’s disgraceful ambition of keeping Islam onside by giving worshippers 'unique protection' to avoid the Muslim voting boycott of ’24 being replicated in ’29.
So, my first question is why do Muslims need such protection? Ask the Batley teacher who lost his job and his name when the Muslim community protested outside his school. That was four years ago, he’s still in hiding. He and his family lost.
There are plenty of laws to protect followers of Islam. They are the same laws which protect, Catholics, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians. Attempt to burn down a mosque and you will be in the same trouble as trying to do the same with, say, an Anglican church.
Kelvin MacKenzie (inset), Dominic Grieve and Angela Rayner
GB News/Getty Images
The idea of Hinduphobia would never get off the ground. The only reason there is any possible 'special' issue with Islam is that some extremist followers, every so often, try and kill innocent Britons. You tend to dislike people who try to bomb you. Quite normal.
The answer, rather than a new law which would have the most damaging effects on free speech, would be if these Muslim fanatics would obey the old law - don’t commit violence. A lot of the angst would go away.
Supposing, quite madly, Grieve and his chums were to come up with a definition. I’m worried that journalists, especially editors, would back away from being critical of any bad Muslim behaviour for fear of either ending up in court or having Batley-style protests outside their offices or homes.
Supposing a columnist took to task the 27% of British Muslims who said they had "some sympathy" for the motives of the jihadists who carried out the slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo staff. Would they be committing a crime? Very possibly.
Some 27% of British Muslims said they had "some sympathy" for the motives of the Charlie Hebdo attackers.
Getty Images
The Muslim community wants to be treated as uniquely special. That should be never be allowed.
As Douglas Murray rightly points out, it already has too many protections created by custom and fear.
