Peer in Manchester airport row wrongly accused police of Islamophobia

[deleted]

It does appear that the definition we get for “islamophobia” will for all intents and purposes be a blasphemy law by the back door. If we are going back to 1922 (the last successful prosecution for blasphemy), make it a blanket law so when Muslim preachers criticize Judaism or Christianity they can be prosecuted as well.

Seems pretty fair to me we either have blasphemy laws or we don’t one religion shouldn’t benefit over the others

Why are they so quick to speak up and look foolish and ignorant. They have the information at their fingertips.

She is a Peer appointed to the working group seeking to define Islamophobia for the Government. She calls out the wrong police force, the officers were cleared of wrong doing.

Knee jerk reaction like this shows clear bias when the working group is meant to be unbiased and working to fact, not uninformed opinion

Is this the police they said may still be sacked? Don’t you think the manner of the initial arrest attempt seemed odd?

Islamophobia is the new battle cry to call their community for support. It is far reaching and more powerful. If I remember correctly there was a rally after the incident against the police demanding justice for those two idiots… until the full video was “leaked”. The Muslim Brummie wannabe politician suddenly dropped them as clients.

There’s no such thing as islamophobia it’s a conspiracy theory. 

How did this muppet get to be a peer?

We are fast tracking people into positions of authority based off nothing more than immutable characteristics.

How’s about we go back to merit?

Muslim defends Islamic violence and attacks police stopping it. What a shock.

I really don’t see how this is going to be legal tbh. I engaged with one of the people that sit on the board. And from speaking to him he seems to be suggesting that people should accept the narrative of Islam. But that is telling people what to think. For example Islam might present some of Muhammad actions as moral because of the time etc etc a bit like when people try a claim that colonialism was a good thing because it brought education to the region. But the narrative is an opinion. Some people might not share that that opinion.

A perfect example is Muhammed marriage/relationship with his concubine. Maryam the whole story is insane. The narrative is that she later became a Muslim so it should be seen as a good thing. Okay but no one will accept the narrative if it was some Texas slave owner having sexual relations with their slave. But it will be Islamophobia to find Muhammed relationship with his Coptic concubine morally questionable. Religious Scholar have no right to dictate to us what we should think about their religious ideas. We should be free to make moral judgements about any text or ideas that we read.

I mean if the government goes down this road will they tell Muslims not misrepresent other religions and they should accept the Christian scholar interpretation of their text.

This will drive a wedge in society as it will be seen to give one group of people favourable treatments over others.

My last point people that want to practice their relation on peace should be protected and respected. But there is a political side of Islam that should be rejected in the same way that we should reject Christian nationalism.

If people start getting arrested for Islamophobia it’s going to cause havoc.

This is a authoritarian law banning speaking about a certain subject. British people are renowned for attacking and undermining authoritarian laws.

This will probably lead to more arrested, and the spiral continues.

The character of a group is often reflected from it’s leader.

Starmer, in my opinion, has no morals. He’s never held any position before changing his mind. He’s like the manchurian candidate, as though someone else is telling him what to say.

I refuse to believe anyone actually believes what they comment here. The level of delusion is crazy.