Britain’s Labour government, like leftists everywhere, is working hard to curtail the freedoms of its citizens, and to destroy the common culture and national character of the country it is supposed to be protecting and defending. A chief element of the socialist wrecking ball that Labour is taking to the once-proud nation is the destruction of the freedom of speech by means of a long-debated new law criminalizing “Islamophobia.” Labour, however, is discovering that when it comes to the imposition of an Islamic blasphemy at a time of rising jihad violence, many Britons are unwilling to go gentle into that good night.

The Telegraph reported Thursday that “Labour’s new definition of Islamophobia is not wanted by the majority of the public in any form, a poll has found.” The poll found that four out of five Britons surveyed recognize that to give “Islamophobia” an official definition and prosecute it accordingly amounts to a Trojan horse bringing the destruction of the freedom of speech: “Only one fifth of the public backs creating either a new definition of Islamophobia or of anti-Muslim hate, according to the survey of 1,500 adults.”

Recognizing how unpopular its march toward pro-Sharia totalitarianism really is, Labour “has tried to shift the emphasis of the definition from Islamophobia to ‘anti-Muslim hatred’ in face of a major backlash, with critics having warned that it will threaten free speech.” No kidding, really? Of course it will.

The idea that the public might accept criminalization of “anti-Muslim hatred” even as it rejects the criminalization of “Islamophobia” shows how out of touch the leftist government really is. Has “anti-Christian hatred,” or the dislike of any other belief system, ever been criminalized? No. Has any other belief system ever mandated the conquest and subjugation of the native population, such that this criminalization would render the public unable to speak about a major and growing threat? No.

Nevertheless, the totalitarians of Labour have affected a stiff upper lip and are pressing on with their stratagem: “The change in tone was evident in the Commons on Wednesday at Prime Minister’s Questions when Sir Keir Starmer chose to use the term ‘anti-Muslim hatred’ rather than Islamophobia.” He did not, however, address the question of whether honest analysis of the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism would be considered “anti-Muslim hatred.” Judging from the recent behavior of the British police as they swoop down upon anyone and everyone who dares utter a negative word regarding Islam, the answer is clear.

And the British people are beginning to realize this: “However, the survey by pollsters JL Partners found that around a third opposed both definitions and only a fifth supported either of them, indicating that any change in terminology will make no difference to public opinion. Some 36 per cent said that a new definition of Islamophobia was a wholly or somewhat ‘bad’ thing, while 20 per cent said it was wholly or somewhat a ‘good’ thing.” The numbers of those saying that such a definition was “bad” were far too low, but at least they were enough to register the popular disapproval of the new totalitarianism.

That totalitarianism does, however, have its fans: “Meanwhile, 31 per cent said that a new definition using the term anti-Muslim hatred was a wholly or somewhat ‘bad’ thing, while one in five (20 per cent) said it was wholly or somewhat a ‘good’ thing.”

Nevertheless, the British government is still trying to cover its tracks: “A working group was originally set up to draw up an official definition of Islamophobia. However it has reportedly removed all references to Islamophobia or Muslimness in its final report, which is now before ministers. Instead, it is said to have opted to use the term ‘anti-Muslim hate’ in an attempt to counter fears that the use of Islamophobia could restrict free speech.”

James Johnson, who is that rare thing, a defender of freedom in Britain, said: “Whichever way the proponents of a definition try to spin this, it remains toxic with the British public. Whether framed as anti-Muslim hatred or Islamophobia, semantics are not going to save the prospect of a new definition from sinking badly with the British public.”

Yet a Labour MP, Afzal Khan, claimed that the new law was needed: “Given anti-Muslim hate is at a record level in the UK, can the Prime Minister outline the steps this Government will take to tackle the rising level of racism and xenophobia against Muslims in Britain?” Khan, like every other Muslim spokesman who has ever said anything in any Western country, failed to provide any solid evidence for this alleged rise in “anti-Muslim hate,” and of course did not acknowledge how a dislike of jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women may have contributed to it.

And so as once-great Britain continues its movement toward totalitarianism, all the while congratulating itself about how it is eliminating “hatred.” The jihadi overlords who will take power and rule the country in the coming decades will not be so circumspect about their hatreds.