Simon Jordan defends John Terry amid backlash over burqa comments
Outspoken broadcaster Simon Jordan has mounted a robust defence of former England captain John Terry following a fierce social media backlash over the Chelsea legend’s apparent support for Rupert Lowe and his controversial stance on a proposed burqa ban, reports BritPanorama.
The row erupted after Lowe reiterated his support for restrictions on face coverings in public, a position that has sparked intense debate across political and cultural lines.
Terry entered the fray online, appearing to back elements of Lowe’s argument—a move that quickly drew criticism, with some accusing the former defender of endorsing divisive rhetoric.
But speaking on the White & Jordan Show on talkSPORT, Jordan was unequivocal in his defence, insisting that Terry’s comments had been mischaracterised and unfairly attacked. “Some of Rupert Lowe’s views, I concur with. Some of the other views I don’t concur with,” Jordan explained. “And if John Terry concurs with the idea that, in this country, there’s a degree of discomfort around facial coverings, that is not racism. That is an alternative view.”
Jordan’s remarks cut to the heart of what he sees as a growing intolerance in public discourse, a theme he returned to repeatedly as he criticised the reaction to Terry’s comments. “You are allowed to have that view!” he said emphatically. “But because we live in this stupid, binary world, where if you don’t agree with something, you are a racist, or a misogynist, or an Islamophobe.”
In a typically forthright intervention, Jordan suggested that labels are increasingly being weaponised to shut down debate rather than engage with it. “You are whatever people want to be to discredit your argument,” he added, arguing that such tactics undermine meaningful discussion on complex issues. Jordan stopped short of fully endorsing Lowe’s position but highlighted the broader principle at stake: freedom of expression—particularly for public figures like Terry, who often find themselves under intense scrutiny.
Jordan also ventured into wider cultural territory, expressing personal discomfort with certain aspects of modern Britain. “I am not comfortable going around London and seeing train stations written in Bengali. I don’t know why it needs to be done. Nowhere else in the world does this,” he said.
For supporters of Terry, Jordan’s intervention will be seen as a necessary pushback against what they perceive as an overreaction. Critics, however, are likely to argue that such comments risk legitimising views they consider exclusionary.
The episode underscores the increasingly blurred lines between sport, politics, and cultural identity, with high-profile figures like Terry drawn into debates far removed from the football pitch. Yet for Jordan, the principle remains clear: disagreement should not automatically lead to condemnation.
In defending Terry, he has once again positioned himself as a vocal opponent of what he perceives as a narrowing space for open debate in modern Britain—a stance that will no doubt continue to divide opinion.
