The Power of Conversation: Why Engaging with Opposing Views Matters

We sadly live in a time where disagreement is often seen as a threat rather than an opportunity. Social and political divisions have grown deeper, and with them, a tendency to retreat into echo chambers—spaces where our views are reinforced, never challenged, and where those who think differently are dismissed or vilified.

I’m a strong advocate for doing the opposite. I believe deeply in the value of engaging with opposing views, especially when that engagement is grounded in genuine curiosity and empathy. It’s not easy. It requires humility, patience, and a willingness to sit with discomfort. But it’s one of the most effective tools we have to challenge our assumptions, humanise the other, and uncover the deeper roots of fear, anger, and hate.

Understanding the “Why” Behind the Belief
When someone expresses a belief that feels offensive, extreme, or flat-out wrong, it’s natural to recoil. But if we stop at rejection, we miss the opportunity to ask a more meaningful question: Why do they believe this?

People don’t adopt harmful ideologies in a vacuum. Often, these views are shaped by layers of personal experience—trauma, fear, isolation, misinformation, or a deep yearning to belong. It’s not an excuse for bigotry or hate, but it is a starting point for understanding what drives it.

Listening doesn’t mean agreement. It doesn’t mean compromising your values or accepting harm. But listening with empathy—truly seeking to understand—can help us see the human behind the headline or the hashtag. And in that space, something remarkable can happen: compassion. Even for people we profoundly disagree with.

The Role of Productive Conversation
Be prepared that not every conversation will lead to change. Some may be frustrating, even painful. But the goal isn’t always to persuade—it’s to connect. A productive conversation is one in which both people feel heard, even if no one changes their mind. It’s about creating a space where ideas can be explored, rather than weaponised. Where listening matters more than winning.

In these spaces, transformation is possible. Not just for the person you’re engaging with, but for yourself. Your own beliefs become sharper, your thinking more resilient. You begin to see the world through a wider lens.

This doesn’t mean tolerating abuse or opening yourself up to harm. Boundaries are essential. It’s okay to disengage when a conversation turns toxic or unsafe. But when the opportunity for real dialogue arises—when someone is open to being heard, and perhaps hearing you in return—that’s a door worth stepping through.

Resisting the Urge to Dehumanise
There’s a paradox at the heart of polarisation: in opposing dehumanisation, we sometimes dehumanise in return. We see those on “the other side” as ignorant, evil, or beyond redemption. We write them off, ridicule them, or cut them out of our lives entirely.

And yet, that very act mirrors the problem we’re trying to confront. Dehumanisation, even in response to harmful beliefs, only deepens the divide. It makes meaningful change less likely, not more.

To resist hate without becoming hateful ourselves is a quiet kind of courage. It means holding both compassion and accountability. It means seeing the humanity in others, even when they can’t see it in you.

A Personal Commitment
This approach isn’t theoretical for me—it’s personal. I’ve had conversations that challenged me to my core. I’ve listened to people express beliefs I found abhorrent, and I’ve asked questions rather than shutting them down. Sometimes the conversation led nowhere. Sometimes, it led to connection. Occasionally, it sparked reflection on both sides. But it always reminded me of one thing: people are more than their worst opinions.

I don’t believe we can shout or shame our way to a better world. But I do believe we can talk our way there—slowly, imperfectly, and with compassion as our guide.

Call to Action
So here’s my challenge: the next time you encounter a viewpoint that angers or confuses you, resist the urge to immediately argue or disengage. Instead, pause. Take a breath. Ask a question.

“What brought you to that belief?”
“How do you see the world through that lens?”
“Would you be open to hearing how I see it?”

Not everyone will respond with openness. Some won’t be ready. That’s okay. But some will. And in those moments, you’re not just having a conversation—you’re building a bridge.

Let’s choose dialogue over division. Curiosity over certainty. Humanity over hate. One conversation at a time, we can begin to reshape how we see each other—and what’s possible when we truly listen.

The Quiet Return of ISIS Fighters Demands Legal Reform and Public Accountability

More than 400 individuals who left the UK to fight for ISIS in Syria and Iraq are believed to have returned—many re-entering British society without facing prosecution. This is not merely a legal loophole; it represents a national security blind spot. A new report is calling for urgent changes to the law—and rightly so. The question is, why has it taken so long for alarm bells to ring?

The return of ISIS fighters to Britain is not a hypothetical threat. These are individuals who actively joined one of the most violent extremist groups in modern history—a group responsible for mass executions, sexual slavery, and terrorism across the globe. The UK government’s approach—revoking citizenship in some high-profile cases, passively monitoring others, and prosecuting very few—has been inconsistent and, some would argue, dangerously lenient.

The root of the issue lies in the current legal framework. The burden of proof required to prosecute returning fighters under existing terrorism laws is high, particularly when much of the evidence lies in war zones beyond the reach of British investigators. As a result, many returnees are subject to limited surveillance or de-radicalisation programmes, which may not be sufficient to assess or neutralise potential risks.

What is needed is not a knee-jerk crackdown but a smart recalibration of our laws to address the complexities of modern terrorism. Legislation should be updated to make it a clear criminal offence to support or train with designated terrorist groups abroad, regardless of whether a specific act of violence can be proven. There should also be greater investment in international intelligence cooperation and the documentation of war crimes.

Beyond the legal gaps, there is a moral question: what message does this send to victims of ISIS, to communities radicalised by their propaganda, and to those who believe in justice? Turning a blind eye undermines public trust and emboldens extremist networks who interpret the lack of consequences as a green light.

This is not about vengeance. It is about safeguarding democracy, ensuring justice, and closing the door on impunity. If we do not act decisively now, we risk allowing history to repeat itself—only next time, the consequences could be far deadlier.

@newdaystarts

An Island of Strangers: Echoes of the Past in Today’s Politics

In 1968, Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech cast a long, toxic shadow over British political discourse. His claim that Britons would become “strangers in their own country” was rooted in a fear of immigration that veiled racial anxiety as cultural concern. Fifty-seven years later, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has echoed similar language, warning that we “risk becoming an island of strangers.”

The comparison is as uncomfortable as it is revealing. While Starmer’s words lack Powell’s incendiary tone and historical baggage, the resonance is unmistakable. Both frame the nation in terms of alienation—a fracturing of communal identity—and both raise the question: who, exactly, is being made a stranger, and by whom?

In Powell’s time, it was clear: non-white immigrants were the perceived outsiders, and the speech served as a clarion call to nativism. His rhetoric helped define the outer edge of acceptable public discourse on race and migration for a generation. For Starmer, the terrain is subtler, but no less fraught. His remark comes at a time when Britain is grappling with cultural fragmentation, economic disparity, and a chronic crisis of political trust. The “strangers” he refers to may not be immigrants alone—they may be the economically dispossessed, the digitally isolated, the politically disillusioned.

Still, language matters. When national leaders frame the present in terms of strangers and estrangement, they risk validating the idea that belonging is a fragile, exclusionary privilege—rather than a shared, evolving identity. In doing so, they echo a historical reflex that sees social change not as an opportunity for enrichment, but as a threat to cohesion.

But who makes a stranger? Is it the migrant who moves to contribute to a new society? The young Briton priced out of their hometown? The minority Briton asked again and again, “Where are you really from?” Strangership, we must recognise, is often imposed—not chosen. The danger lies not in our growing diversity, but in the politics of division that treat cultural difference as a zero-sum game.

If Starmer wishes to lead a truly inclusive Britain, he must move beyond cautious nods to national unease and instead articulate a hopeful, generous vision of belonging. One that doesn’t merely mourn a perceived loss of identity, but builds a future around shared values—fairness, dignity, opportunity—for all who call this country home.

Otherwise, we risk more than becoming an island of strangers. We risk becoming a nation afraid of its own reflection.

@newdaystarts

The Arrogance That Holds Back the “Experts”

There is a persistent, and frankly damaging, mindset that continues to afflict certain journalists and self-styled “anti-racism experts”. It is the quiet but unmistakable presumption of intellectual superiority: the belief that they are, by default, more enlightened than the rest of us.

This assumption is not only arrogant, but deeply counterproductive. It fosters a sense of detachment from the very communities and conversations they purport to champion. Rather than building bridges, it erects walls. It alienates those who are engaged in this work not for professional advancement, but out of genuine interest, lived experience, or moral commitment.

While some are busy polishing their credentials and cultivating their personal brands, others, often unpaid, unrecognised, and excluded from the institutional spotlight are pushing the discourse forward. These are the individuals who identify emerging patterns, challenge comfortable assumptions, and take intellectual risks without the cushion of a salary or an academic title. More often than not, they are years ahead in thought, unconstrained by professional orthodoxy or performative posturing.

It is ironic that those most invested in the appearance of progressiveness are often the least willing to be challenged. The work of dismantling systemic inequality demands humility, not hierarchy. It requires listening more than lecturing, especially to those who are doing the hard thinking, unencumbered by the need to be seen as “the expert”.

The future of this work does not belong to those who believe they have already arrived. It belongs to those who remain open, curious, and willing to evolve. Perhaps it is time the so-called experts stopped looking down from their pedestals, and started looking around.

@newdaystarts

The Media’s Role in Radicalisation and Public Discourse

When will mainstream media, major newspapers, and influential organisations take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves a difficult question: what role have we played in radicalising individuals?

It’s a question that demands urgent attention—not just in the wake of each violent act or surge of online extremism, but as part of a continuous cultural self-examination. More than a decade ago, I was involved in the English Defence League (EDL), and even then, I noticed a troubling contradiction that still lingers today. People who express views—often drawn directly from reputable media sources—are frequently met with hostility, dismissed outright as racists, or branded far-right. But if those same opinions appear in a polished opinion piece or are voiced by a columnist with the right credentials, they are considered part of “respectable debate”.

This double standard is not just frustrating—it’s dangerous.

Mainstream media has long operated under a powerful paradox. On one hand, they serve as gatekeepers of legitimate discourse. On the other, they amplify divisive narratives—about immigration, crime, identity, and religion—often in ways that blur the line between reporting and provocation. Tabloid headlines stoke fear. Think tanks with ideological agendas are quoted as neutral experts. Dog-whistles are sanitised and published under the guise of concern for “integration” or “security”.

And yet, when readers absorb this language, respond to it emotionally, and express it—sometimes clumsily, sometimes passionately—they’re told they’ve crossed a line. But who drew that line in the first place? And why is it that people repeating media-sanctioned talking points are excluded from civil discourse?

This dissonance can breed resentment and alienation. For some—especially those already on the fringes—it creates a fertile ground for radicalisation. They begin to distrust institutions that appear hypocritical or elitist. They turn to alternative platforms that claim to say “what the mainstream won’t”. These platforms often exploit genuine grievances but distort them into dangerous ideologies.

Of course, individuals are responsible for their actions. But institutions—especially those with the power to shape public perception—must also take responsibility for the broader consequences of their messaging.

Several terrorism-related incidents have occurred in the UK since January 1, 2025. Here’s a summary:

1. Northumberland Teenager Charged with Terrorism Offences – February 27, 2025

A 15-year-old male from Northumberland appeared in court charged with engaging in conduct in preparation for committing acts of terrorism and membership of a proscribed organisation. Reporting suggests that the individual was a member of The Base, a predominantly US-based white supremacist group.
https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/latest-news/

2. Gateshead Man Sentenced for Inciting Racial Hatred – March 10, 2025

A 48-year-old man from Gateshead was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, after posting a series of racist messages on social media. The case was handled by Counter Terrorism Policing North East.
https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/latest-news/

3. Leeds Man Charged with Possessing and Disseminating Terrorist Material – March 10, 2025

A 21-year-old man from Leeds was charged with eight offences following an investigation by Counter Terrorism Policing North East. The charges relate to the possession and dissemination of terrorist material.
https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/latest-news/

4. Sentencing of Mohammad Farooq – March 21, 2025

Mohammad Farooq was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 37 years for planning to bomb St James’s Hospital in Leeds and targeting an RAF base. While the sentencing occurred in March, it was reported in April.

5. Hashem Abedi’s Prison Attack – April 12, 2025

Hashem Abedi, convicted for aiding the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, attacked three prison officers at HMP Frankland in County Durham. While working in the prison kitchen, he threw boiling oil and stabbed the officers with improvised weapons, causing severe injuries. This led to heightened security measures and his subsequent transfer to Belmarsh Prison.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/34883274/southport-monster-attack-prison-guard/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/12/manchester-arena-bomb-plotter-attacks-three-prison-officers

6. Foiled Iranian-Linked Terror Plot – April 2025

In late April, British counterterrorism officers arrested five Iranian nationals across Swindon, London, Stockport, Rochdale, and Manchester. The suspects were allegedly planning an imminent terrorist attack, possibly targeting the Israeli Embassy in London. Authorities believe the plot was just hours away from execution and may have connections to the Iranian regime. This operation is considered one of the most significant counterterrorism actions in recent years.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/34805535/iran-terror-suspect-regime-uk-attack/
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/14743954/iranian-terror-attack-hours-away-imminent/

7. Prison Violence at HMP Frankland – Late April 2025

Following Abedi’s attack, further violence erupted at HMP Frankland. Inmates, reportedly mostly Muslims, used weights to assault others in the prison gym. Additionally, gangster John Henry Sayers had his throat slashed by a group of inmates, believed to be a demonstration of dominance within the prison.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/15130631/violence-hmp-frankland-manchester-terrorist-hashem-abedi/

8. Crossbow Attack in Leeds – April 29, 2025

In Leeds, a man armed with a crossbow injured two women at a pub before taking his own life. He had released a manifesto expressing misogynistic views and hatred towards feminism. Authorities are treating this as a possible right-wing terrorist incident.
Counter-terror cops probe crossbow carnage in Leeds: Two women are rushed to hospital along with male suspect, 38, who suffered ‘self-inflicted injury’ in terrifying rampage | Daily Mail Online
Leeds crossbow attacker’s chilling ‘manifesto’ as he ‘targeted students on pub crawl’ – The Mirror

These incidents highlight ongoing concerns about various forms of extremism in the UK.

Newdaystarts – Solutions, Not Scaremongering,