Dame Sara Khan, the government’s adviser on social cohesion, has produced a powerful and brave report with some stark findings which should make for seriously uncomfortable reading among political and public sector leaders. The report describes how politicians, academics, artists and journalists are self-censoring because of severe levels of harassment and abuse, which Khan calls ‘freedom restricting harassment’, a finding mirroring the survey Policy Exchange commissioned from teachers last year in the report Blasphemy in Schools.

The University of Bradford abandoned plans for a School for the Study of Political Islam

The case studies are harrowing, in particular the plight of the Batley Grammar School teacher whose life was threatened – and who remains in hiding three years on – following a lesson in which he used a picture of the Prophet Mohammed to illustrate issues around blasphemy. The report details the total failure of Kirklees Council, West Yorkshire Police and the Batley Multi Academy Trust in disturbing terms – even more so given that all three continue to deny they failed in their responsibilities in any way.

There is a similarly shocking revelation of how the University of Bradford caved in the face of local lobbying and threats to individuals concerned and abandoned plans for a School for the Study of Political Islam.

The report describes the impact of a whole range of ideologies from Islamism to other forms of sectarian extremism, and the bitter conflict over women’s rights. It details a breakdown in courage and leadership, both professional and political. It shows leadership can make a difference, not least in the case of a vice chancellor who pushed back at pressure for cancellation and made it clear students do not have the right not to be offended, for example.

The recommendations, however, represent a real sting in the tail. The report calls for the Committee for Standards in Public Life to review the Nolan Principles to include some kind of a duty to uphold social cohesion. This is discussed in the context of severe criticism of politicians engaged in ‘culture war’.

There seems huge scope for any such duty to be weaponised to restrict the field of what politicians can say. You can like or loath George Galloway’s views on Israel and the Middle East, but he currently has a clear mandate to express them. Accusations of engaging in ‘culture war’ can mean anything – they are routinely levelled at politicians like Kemi Badenoch or Rosie Duffield. Future Labour ministers can expect similar attacks from one side or the other once they venture into the most divisive issues, as they will not be able to avoid doing.

The report calls for a new regulatory bureaucracy at the centre, including an independent Office for Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience, which is to ‘establish a communications unit to support local authorities and respond to dangerous and harmful conspiracy theories and disinformation that are attempting to undermine social cohesion’ – a unit ‘independent of Ministers’.

Naturally this involves a new analytical framework; performance management and an annual report. The more social problems get centralised this way, the more opportunity for those facing challenges to skip their responsibilities, citing an absence of, or ambiguity in, official guidance.

Sara Khan is putting trust in a completely unaccountable body to navigate some of the most complex and contentious issues, identifying and acting against ‘dangerous and harmful conspiracy theories and disinformation that are attempting to undermine social cohesion’. These are inherently political judgements, even if you shared Khan’s surprising confidence in official capability to tackle them. The idea of local agencies tracking and authoritatively rebutting conspiracy theories which might be based on centuries old intercommunal disputes is remarkable.

The report places similar faith in training. The government has just completed a report admitting that, in a growing number of cases, EDI (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion) training has been ‘counterproductive or even unlawful’ – the same providers, no doubt, who would be asked to produce this new training too.

As for policing, any number of the incidents outlined in this report look to be criminal behaviour by any interpretation. The report recommends a common approach among forces to use the Communications Act to clamp down on harassment. It describes a general lack of police interest, with complainants told action is impossible because of free speech. This contrasts startlingly with police readiness to use the same legislation against gender critical tweeters, like Marion Millar or Kellie-Jay Keen.

Finally, the report is oddly constrained in its discussion of the reasons for declining social cohesion. It cites the financial crash, Brexit and the cost-of-living crisis. It is rather dismissive of the relevance to the UK of powerful US evidence, for example from the liberal Harvard professor Robert Putnam, about how growing diversity in neighbourhoods correlates to declining social trust. A repeated failure on the part of Conservative governments to deliver their manifesto commitments and the small boats crisis must have made an impact. Indeed the report specifically notes asylum accommodation as a contributor to local tensions, demand for which has obviously massively increased.

Over the years, accepting reports like this in full and setting up new bodies has been seen as an easy way for governments to show they are doing something. On this occasion, perhaps they should reflect on the many things that are good about the report and junk the rest, recognising that tackling this is a political challenge for elected representatives, local and national.