Open Discussions/ The Gulf Cultural Club
* Dr Reynaldo Ferreira Leao Neto
(General Secretary World Methodist Council)
**Murad Qureshi
(Community activist and former Labour politician)
***Julian Bond
(Interfaith activist)
In recent years there has been a rise in anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric by far right groups. It is in the interest of the British society to uphold the values of democracy, tolerance and justice in the modern world. Successive UK governments have asserted that Britian is a multicultural, multifaith and multiethnic society. How can these principles and values be safeguarded?
9th June, 2026
*Dr Reynaldo Ferreira Leao Neto : When we speak about democracy, tolerance, and justice, we are speaking about values that should be alive within our society. The question before us is how these principles can be safeguarded and nurtured. Religions, I believe, have a great responsibility in this regard.
I can only speak from my own background, which is Methodism, but ultimately these values are not the responsibility of any one tradition alone. Democracy, tolerance, and justice belong to all of us. Each of us has a responsibility to uphold them in our daily lives.
At the end of my remarks, I have been asked to sing a Brazilian song that I shared on a previous occasion. I promised I would do so, so I have kept it as a way of concluding my reflections today.
Before coming here, my family and I spent some time in Andalusia in southern Spain. This year marks thirty years since I arrived in the United Kingdom, and rather than hold a formal celebration, we chose to spend a few days in a place that has always fascinated me.
Andalusia is a remarkable example of what can happen when different faiths and cultures learn to live together. For centuries, Christians, Muslims, and Jews interacted, exchanged ideas, and built a vibrant civilisation. Philosophy, literature, medicine, mathematics, and translation flourished because people learned from one another. There was a spirit of coexistence and cooperation.
Of course, that history also ended tragically. In 1492, under Ferdinand and Isabella, Muslims and Jews were expelled, bringing an end to that remarkable period of conviviality.
Yet the lesson remains. When we see the other not as an enemy but as a fellow human being with whom we can walk side by side, societies flourish.
Reflecting on that experience led me to think about our own society today. Too often, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. We are becoming increasingly defined by our differences, especially political and ideological differences. We are witnessing a fragmentation of society along multiple lines.
Ideology has become a source of division. It breaks relationships and, at times, even families. There are topics that many people feel unable to discuss around the dinner table because disagreement can quickly lead to conflict. The fractures are real.
And religion is not immune from this. Religious communities themselves experience divisions over doctrine, authority, gender, sexuality, and countless other issues. Within Christianity alone, there are disagreements over who may preach, who may lead, and how various social questions should be addressed.
The result is that fellowship — what the Greeks called koinonia — is often weakened. Our sense of community and belonging suffers. I find that deeply troubling.
So how do we preserve the values of tolerance, democracy, justice, and openness?
Speaking from a Methodist perspective, one answer lies in a phrase often associated with our tradition: “Friends of all, enemies of none.”
This reflects the spirit of our founder, John Wesley. Wesley preached a famous sermon entitled Catholic Spirit, in which he asked a profound question:
“Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?”
His answer was unequivocal: of course we can.
That, to me, is the essence of tolerance. You do not have to think exactly as I do in order for me to respect you, care for you, or work alongside you. Nor do I expect you to adopt all of my opinions. We can disagree and still recognise one another’s humanity.
Behind Wesley’s words lies a practical guide for living with difference. And perhaps that is one of the greatest challenges facing Britain today: how do we live with people who are different from us?
For many people, difference itself has become threatening. A different opinion, a different accent, a different culture, or a different worldview is sometimes treated as a problem rather than an opportunity for dialogue.
As someone who speaks with an accent, I know that difference can sometimes lead to misunderstanding. Yet learning to live with difference is essential to any healthy democracy.
A traditional Christian saying captures this well:
In essentials, unity.
In non-essentials, liberty.
In all things, charity.
The challenge, of course, is determining what counts as essential.
There are issues on which society is deeply divided. We see disagreements within government, within political parties, and within churches themselves. We see disputes over public policy, defence, climate change, economics, and social values.
Recently my daughter asked me a simple question. Since I arrived in Britain thirty years ago, what has changed the most?
I thought about it for several days before answering.
Eventually I told her that when I first arrived, Britain seemed more empirical, more grounded in facts, and perhaps more willing to engage thoughtfully with evidence. People seemed better informed and more widely read.
Today, however, we often appear eager to embrace misinformation, conspiracy theories, and simplistic narratives. We seem increasingly drawn into worlds of fantasy and falsehood. The spread of fake news has made us poorer intellectually and, I would argue, poorer spiritually as well.
I remember the aftermath of Brexit. A friend from the Midlands telephoned me and said, “This has nothing to do with us. We love you. You belong here. You do not need to go anywhere. This vote does not represent us.”
That generosity of spirit stood in stark contrast to the fear and hostility that sometimes dominate public discourse.
Too often, we create enemies where none exist. Like Don Quixote fighting imaginary giants, we find ourselves battling threats that are largely of our own making.
If Britain is to remain a tolerant, democratic, and just society, we must relearn how to live with difference. This is not easy. Strong convictions matter. Principles matter. We should not abandon them.
But we must also leave room for others to think differently.
There are, however, situations where neutrality is impossible. When faced with injustice, oppression, or genocide, we cannot simply say that all views are equally valid. There are moments when our shared humanity requires us to take a stand.
The most fundamental principle is that every human being possesses dignity and worth. We must never lose sight of that.
So I return to the phrase I mentioned earlier:
In essentials, unity.
In non-essentials, liberty.
In all things, charity.
And if someone must be the first to extend a hand of friendship and understanding, let it be me. Or let it be you.
Now, as promised, I will conclude with the Brazilian song that someone asked me to sing.
[Fr Neto concluded with a song]Murad Qureshi: Unlike some of the previous speakers, I do not have any musical talents to offer this evening, nor will I be singing or performing. So I shall simply share a few thoughts.
When Karen first approached me to speak, I was intrigued by the title of this event: A New Agenda from Faith Communities. It is a thought-provoking theme, particularly given some of the challenges we face today.
Recently, in Westminster, we witnessed a far-right demonstration that was presented under the banner of “Uniting the Kingdom” and “Uniting the West.” It was organised by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and promoted as a counter-demonstration to other public protests taking place at the time. I found the title particularly striking because it bore little resemblance to reality.
On the very same day, we had recently seen elections in Scotland and Wales that demonstrated the diversity of political opinion across the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the Scottish National Party retained control of the Scottish Parliament, while in Wales nationalist politics continued to gain influence. The notion of a politically united kingdom seemed far removed from the actual state of affairs.
Likewise, the idea of “uniting the West” appeared disconnected from reality. At that moment, international politics was increasingly defined by economic competition and national interests rather than any coherent Western unity. Political leaders were pursuing trade deals and strategic partnerships according to their own priorities.
What was clear, however, was the underlying purpose of the demonstration. Its principal focus was hostility towards Muslims and, more broadly, opposition to the multicultural society that many of us regard as a normal and positive feature of modern Britain. Multiculturalism is something that has enriched our society, but it remains something that must continually be defended and justified against those who seek to undermine it.
The march was permitted to proceed through central London despite concerns arising from previous demonstrations. In the City of Westminster, around one in five residents is Muslim. Given the conduct of some participants at earlier events, there were legitimate concerns about public disorder, littering, and damage to the local environment.
The burden of dealing with the aftermath falls largely on local residents and councils. Streets must be cleaned, public spaces restored, and additional costs absorbed by local authorities. These are considerations that affect everyone, regardless of their views on the political issues involved.
I was therefore surprised by the extent of freedom initially granted to the organisers. Looking back, it would be worthwhile for the Metropolitan Police and local authorities to examine the number of arrests associated with different demonstrations and the costs imposed on local communities. Such assessments would provide a clearer picture of the true impact of these events.
One positive development was that several foreign speakers who had previously appeared at similar rallies were prevented from entering the country. Credit should be given where it is due. Certain individuals had used public platforms to spread divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, and it was right that action was taken. However, many would argue that such intervention should have happened much earlier.
The broader issue remains the persistence of hateful and discriminatory language. Public events in Britain must comply with laws and standards developed over decades to combat racism and discrimination. Those standards should be applied consistently and rigorously.
Listening to some of the slogans and speeches at these rallies, one is often struck not only by the hostility but by the sheer level of ignorance they reveal. For example, many participants use the word “Allah” as though it refers to something foreign or threatening, despite the fact that “Allah” simply means “God” in Arabic. Such basic misunderstandings point to a deeper problem.
This leads me to a question: what has happened to religious education in this country?
I should confess that I am not a religious scholar. My own religious education, whether at home or at school, was fairly limited. Yet even a basic understanding of the world’s faith traditions reveals how much they share in common.
Take Islam, for example. How many people know that Moses is mentioned more than any other prophet in the Qur’an? He appears well over a hundred times. How many know that Jesus is mentioned dozens of times and is referred to as the Messiah? These are not obscure facts. They are fundamental aspects of Islamic belief.
Understanding these connections helps people recognise the common ground between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. All three are Abrahamic faiths. They share many prophets, ethical teachings, and spiritual traditions. Yet large sections of the public remain unaware of these basic realities.
That is why I believe religious institutions, educators, and community leaders have a responsibility to promote greater understanding. Religious education should not simply be about learning facts for examinations. It should help people appreciate the beliefs of their neighbours and understand the values that different traditions share.
This is especially important at a time when minority communities often find themselves under pressure. We have seen examples of prejudice directed at Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, and others. In some cases, people have even been attacked because they were mistaken for members of another faith community.
History teaches us how dangerous such prejudice can become. I grew up in Britain during the 1970s and 1980s. At that time, Irish communities were frequently treated with suspicion because of the activities of the IRA. Entire neighbourhoods were affected by fear and mistrust. We should be careful not to repeat those mistakes with new communities today.
Some commentators have suggested that the current climate resembles not merely the tensions of the 1970s but, in some respects, the darker politics of earlier periods. Whether or not one agrees with that assessment, it should serve as a warning.
We live in a period of significant geopolitical change and uncertainty. In such times, it becomes even more important to strengthen understanding between different communities rather than deepen divisions.
My appeal is therefore quite simple. We need to improve public understanding of different faiths and their relationships with one another. We need to teach the shared history of the Abrahamic traditions and the values they hold in common. We need to ensure that future generations have the knowledge required to resist prejudice and misinformation.
Britain’s multicultural society remains one of its great strengths. It should not be taken for granted. It requires constant effort, vigilance, and commitment from all of us.
The demonstration I referred to earlier was smaller than previous events, which may be an encouraging sign. Nevertheless, we must continue to pay attention to these developments and respond appropriately when intolerance emerges.
Ultimately, the challenge is not simply how we react to isolated incidents. It is how we prepare future generations to understand one another and live together with respect.
That, in my view, is where faith communities, educators, and civic leaders all have a vital role to play.
With those thoughts, I will conclude. And once again, I apologise for not ending with a song, a dance, or any form of entertainment. I will leave that task to the next speaker.
Julian Bond: I was pleased to receive the invitation, as I’ve been following the Unite the Kingdom campaign for some time. I missed their first march last September because I was in Spain looking after my parents, but I remained curious about what the movement represented.
In mid‑December, I attended one of their gatherings to see for myself what they were about. It was an eye‑opening experience. I was struck by the sheer number of English and British flags—large ones—and by how many people refused to cross paths with others. I always feel a particular disappointment when I see Welsh flags in these contexts, because I hope the people of Wales are less inclined to respond to this kind of nationalism, which often emerges from a very English, kingdom‑oriented mindset. Yet the movement clearly has some appeal.
I noticed churchgoers there—people who looked as though they came from Methodist and other Christian traditions. I even met a former colleague who I’ve worked with at other events, and it was clear he now supports this movement. That in itself was unsettling. The campaign is deeply problematic: difficult, controversial, intolerant, and at times hateful.
Several men on the platform wore clerical collars—Reverends from different denominations or quasi‑denominations. Some were dressed as bishops, though I doubt most were officially recognised. The repeated shouts of “Christ the King!” were extremely loud. I’m not used to hearing that phrase in almost any context. I attend a Baptist church, and although I’m on my own spiritual journey, I know the Christian calendar well enough to say that the November celebration of Christ the King bears no resemblance to the aggressive public chanting I witnessed on a main road in the capital. The huge crosses, flags, and the general atmosphere felt loud and confrontational—not physically violent, but certainly forceful in tone.
The Methodist Church and others issued statements after the September march. One said:
“We are deeply concerned about the co‑opting of Christian symbols, particularly the cross, during Saturday’s event. Many individuals and communities felt anxious, unsettled, and even threatened by the march.”
They acknowledged that people have diverse motivations and legitimate frustrations—especially around feeling unheard in the democratic process—but they also warned that the event included racist, anti‑Muslim, and far‑right elements. As Christians from different theological and political backgrounds, they stood together against the misuse of Christian identity.
This isn’t the first time such concerns have been raised. When I was involved with the Christian Muslim Forum around 2013, we noticed how groups like the EDL and figures such as Tommy Robinson were trying to use St George’s Day and the English flag to promote racism and intolerance. We launched a campaign to reclaim St George, emphasising that he was Middle Eastern—Palestinian and Turkish—and a patron saint of multiple countries. We organised photo opportunities with diverse Christian communities and received some media coverage. Even then, we warned about the danger of Christianity being co‑opted by nationalist, far‑right movements. Now, that danger has become reality, perhaps inspired by figures like Donald Trump and the rise of populist politics.
I’ve engaged with some of these individuals on social media, mainly on Twitter/X. One of the musicians who performed on the platform has been willing to have respectful conversations with me. But I remain deeply concerned that ordained Christian leaders—whatever their denomination—are placing Christianity on a platform alongside Christian nationalism and the cry of “Christ the King.” I don’t understand how they reconcile this.
From my experience in church life and from following statistics, I know that only a small percentage of people in this country attend church—perhaps 5–10%, including those who only go at Christmas or Easter. The last census showed around 49% identifying as Christian, but that doesn’t mean they attend church, read the Bible, or pray. Cathedrals have seen increased attendance, but that doesn’t change the broader picture: this is not a “Christian society,” and most people do not identify with the church at all.
The Unite the Kingdom movement does not represent society. It represents a loud group expressing discontent. It does not speak for the non‑religious, the secular, the humanist, or for Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, or anyone else. It does not speak for the church, for Christianity, or for Jesus Christ.
In my day job, I work on funding proposals for church projects and new forms of church. I looked for any kind of manifesto from Unite the Kingdom, but they have none—no official text, no clear declaration. There are scattered statements, but nothing coherent. When I analysed what information does exist, the themes were clear: immigration as a threat, Islam as incompatible, multiculturalism as dangerous. They score nothing on inclusion or social cohesion. They increase fear and hostility toward minority communities.
Financially, they appear opaque. Their donation website seems to funnel money toward Tommy Robinson. They are not a charity, not a registered company, and they publish no accounts. Yet they have the funds for enormous screens and staging. Even during the march, the streets were left littered with rubbish. They had no marshals collecting waste or recycling. It doesn’t look like they want to build a better society—only to protest and object to the presence of people of other ethnicities or religions.
Some of their complaints are manufactured. They criticise public prayer events in Trafalgar Square, but these are mixed, open events. Faith communities have been worshipping there for years. Dialogue has always been central to interfaith work, but Unite the Kingdom shows no interest in dialogue.
Then there is the elevation of Tommy Robinson. He was treated almost like a saviour because he created an opportunity for mass evangelism in Whitehall. They spoke about the gospel, repentance, and the cross, but the message bore little resemblance to the Jesus of the Gospels. The cries of “Christ the King” in this context are troubling. Jesus lived under an oppressive imperial power, and his life and teachings challenged the very idea of earthly kingship—not the triumphalist nationalism on display.
Despite all this, I still believe in dialogue. I would speak with those involved in Unite the Kingdom if the opportunity arose. I even tweeted Ricky Doolittle recently, asking if he had any thoughts on what I should address, though he didn’t reply. Tommy Robinson blocked me years ago after I live‑tweeted a critical review of his book on the Qur’an.
Ultimately, they do not want genuine free speech. They want the freedom to provoke and cause harm without accountability. They reject dialogue, debate, and responsibility, yet they wield “free speech” as a weapon against anyone who challenges them.
*Revd. Dr. Reynaldo Ferreira Leão Neto is a Methodist minister originally from Brazil who served since 1996 at the Methodist Church in the UK. He first ministered in Methodist educational institutions and in churches in poor areas of big cities like São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. In his last post with the Methodist Church he was the Connexional Officer at the ecumenical and inter-religious desk and the Global Communities Officer for diverse languages and cultures groups in Britain.
**Murad Qureshi is a British Labour politician best known for his long service on the London Assembly. He represented Londoners across multiple terms and focused heavily on environmental justice, transport and housing. He holds a BA in Development Studies from the University of East Anglia and MSc in Environmental Economics from the University College London. Before entering the British wide politics he spent 15 years working in housing regeneration.
***Julian Bond is Funding Officer at The Methodist Church and was the former (founding) Director at Christian Muslim Forum. He studied Theology at Aberystwyth University (1986) and Post Graduate research at the University of Gloucestershire. Last year he adopted Islam but is still active within the Christian circles. He has spent many years as an interfaith activist bringing people of different faiths together.
