Zac Goldsmith

Every political campaign gets accusations of fibbing from either side. But how low Zac Goldsmith is willing to go to be Mayor of London has taken even us by surprise.

Zac Goldsmith claims his rival Sadiq Khan is guilty of “giving cover to extremists” like Babar Ahmad by campaigning on their behalf. This is one of the key accusations of his campaign, and he made them again this week.

At a hustings organised by City AM newspaper on Tuesday 12th April, Goldsmith said:

To say that because I campaigned for my constituent and for Gary McKinnon, both of whose cases I felt were entirely unjust, to suggest that that means I was campaigning on behalf of Babar Ahmad, who I had never heard of until quite recently, I think is an extraordinary thing to say.

Sadiq Khan says he has evidence of Goldsmith speaking out on Ahmad’s behalf, which Zac Goldsmith challenges him to present.

Goldsmith also says

On Boris Johnson I have no idea, but I very much doubt he would have been campaigning for someone like Babar Ahmad, a convicted terrorist…

Actually, both Boris and Goldsmith spoke out in favour of Babar Ahmad being put on trial in the UK instead of being extradited to the US.

And here is the video we made to prove it.


Goldsmith is shown in the video as saying
I just want to echo the comments that have already been made… this isn’t just about Babar Ahmad, there are many examples of people who have been chewed up as a result of our lopsided extradition arrangements with other countries.

Babar Ahmad is a story which has caught people’s imagination I have been bombarded with letters from my local constituents. I forget. I’ve lost track of how many. I’ve had so many letters [on Babar Ahmad’s case]

Yet, Goldsmith pretends he hadn’t heard of Babar Ahmad nor spoken on his behalf (hat-tip Adam Bienkov)

Can you trust a man who fibs so blatantly?

  1. Will Khan says if he agrees with this?
    Source: “Annual Report 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”
    Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

  2. In response to A Lancaster (previous commenter): It is one thing to condemn a regime which is based on Sharia law (or claims to base itself on Sharia law) and another to say that Sharia law should be used in a country like the UK (which is based on democratic principles). In the case of the U.K., any Sharia law applied would be subject to the Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights. In other words, only aspects that are compatible with our fundamental democratic principles could be applied and used. This is already done today (by the way) by agreement between two parties, within contract law. Any Sharia provisions that two parties contract to are only applicable in as much as they are compatible with our broader legislative framework.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


Comments are limited to 1000 characters.