“Hindu community leaders have warned Sir Keir Starmer that Labour’s new Islamophobia definition will have a “significant chilling effect” on freedom of speech.
They say it conflates hostility towards Muslims with criticism of the religion of Islam, which would mean Hindus speaking about their historical persecution under Islamic empires in South Asia would fall foul of the definition.
Last week, the Hindu Council UK wrote a letter to Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, saying there was a “serious” risk that the definition could suppress legitimate criticism of contemporary Islamist ideology out of fear of breaching a “poorly defined standard of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’”.
It also claimed that it could also lead to the backdoor reintroduction of a blasphemy law that would protect Islam without according the same rights to other religions.
“By granting heightened protection to a religion-linked identity through concepts such as ‘racialisation’ and ‘collective stereotyping’, the proposed definition continues to risk shielding Islamic beliefs and practices from scrutiny in practice, if not in law,” the council said.
“This is especially troubling given that the UK deliberately abolished blasphemy laws to ensure that no belief system is beyond challenge.”
[deleted] on
[removed]
pubemaster_uno on
It is entirely rational to be fearful of Islam. The idea of making it illegal to express this fear is insane.
Electricbell20 on
The last one full definition I saw.
>Anti-Muslim hostility is engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their religion, ethnicity or appearance.
I can understand why some Hindu groups would have issues.
[deleted] on
[removed]
LifeMasterpiece6475 on
There should be no laws criticising religion whatsoever.
[deleted] on
[removed]
Cersei-Lannisterr on
I thought punishing people for criticising aspects of a religion was something we got rid of?
[deleted] on
[removed]
[deleted] on
[removed]
Horror_Extension4355 on
I think this is all wild in the context of what happened to the Batley school teacher and the immediate reaction at that time of the local politicians.
[deleted] on
[removed]
[deleted] on
[removed]
[deleted] on
[removed]
MediocreWitness726 on
This should never happen – no religion especially this one should have this law
Personal_Lab_484 on
I mean off the bat it’s just guidelines. Not law.
And secondly the wording is pretty chill. You can still say whatever you want about Islam.
Go check the BBC article for a less biased source. I’m not especially worried.
Also fuck Islam as a religion. Along with all religions.
SunMoonSnake on
As an anecdote, I heard a story where a Kashmiri Hindu in the UK was prevented from talking about her family’s ethnic cleansing by Islamists due to threats of “Islamophobia”.
Competitive_Pen7192 on
I’d sooner the UK goes entirely secular.
Leave your religion at the door and enter a society where people focus on doing the right thing for each other.
But that’s a laughable prospect sadly.
octohussy on
Does anyone have any sources regarding the proposals in relation to criticism of Islam?
All of the information I’ve seen about the new definition imply that it will be centred around discriminating against Muslims due to their religious identity, but I haven’t heard anything which relates to the criticism of doctoral principles or the political aspects of Islam. Non-paywalled links would be appreciated!
hitanthrope on
I am shouting in the void but stopping with “everythingophobia” would be a sensible idea. Phobias are about people being afraid of things with no rational reason. It doesn’t even mean “without a good reason”, it means with no reason. If the spider is poisonous or even if you believe it is poisonous, then it isn’t arachnophobia. It isn’t a phobia, it is you assessing a situation and reacting to it.
I can rationalise why I don’t like Islam. The supernatural claims are as unsupported as any other, and the political system is atrociously authoritarian, anti-pluralistic, and based primarily on those supernatural stories that are plainly untrue. It’s not a phobia. I am worried about it gaining increasing political influence, but I will fight you to the death over that being an *irrational* fear.
Adam-West on
I despise the idea of a legal definition of Islamophobia. Every personal freedom in this country should be held sacred and there should be no need to make a special rule for a particular religion or even religion as a whole. Even the term Islamophobia winds me up. It’s not a race. It’s more akin to a political group. Why shouldn’t somebody legally be allowed to say it’s a dumb belief just like you would about Britain first or whatever else you don’t like.
Brigid-Tenenbaum on
All your make-believe nonce gods living on clouds, or collective ‘we are people due to inbreeding’ or this book over a thousand years ago says marrying a child is normal, all of that can get ta fuck.
22 Comments
“Hindu community leaders have warned Sir Keir Starmer that Labour’s new Islamophobia definition will have a “significant chilling effect” on freedom of speech.
They say it conflates hostility towards Muslims with criticism of the religion of Islam, which would mean Hindus speaking about their historical persecution under Islamic empires in South Asia would fall foul of the definition.
Last week, the Hindu Council UK wrote a letter to Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, saying there was a “serious” risk that the definition could suppress legitimate criticism of contemporary Islamist ideology out of fear of breaching a “poorly defined standard of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’”.
It also claimed that it could also lead to the backdoor reintroduction of a blasphemy law that would protect Islam without according the same rights to other religions.
“By granting heightened protection to a religion-linked identity through concepts such as ‘racialisation’ and ‘collective stereotyping’, the proposed definition continues to risk shielding Islamic beliefs and practices from scrutiny in practice, if not in law,” the council said.
“This is especially troubling given that the UK deliberately abolished blasphemy laws to ensure that no belief system is beyond challenge.”
[removed]
It is entirely rational to be fearful of Islam. The idea of making it illegal to express this fear is insane.
The last one full definition I saw.
>Anti-Muslim hostility is engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their religion, ethnicity or appearance.
I can understand why some Hindu groups would have issues.
[removed]
There should be no laws criticising religion whatsoever.
[removed]
I thought punishing people for criticising aspects of a religion was something we got rid of?
[removed]
[removed]
I think this is all wild in the context of what happened to the Batley school teacher and the immediate reaction at that time of the local politicians.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
This should never happen – no religion especially this one should have this law
I mean off the bat it’s just guidelines. Not law.
And secondly the wording is pretty chill. You can still say whatever you want about Islam.
Go check the BBC article for a less biased source. I’m not especially worried.
Also fuck Islam as a religion. Along with all religions.
As an anecdote, I heard a story where a Kashmiri Hindu in the UK was prevented from talking about her family’s ethnic cleansing by Islamists due to threats of “Islamophobia”.
I’d sooner the UK goes entirely secular.
Leave your religion at the door and enter a society where people focus on doing the right thing for each other.
But that’s a laughable prospect sadly.
Does anyone have any sources regarding the proposals in relation to criticism of Islam?
All of the information I’ve seen about the new definition imply that it will be centred around discriminating against Muslims due to their religious identity, but I haven’t heard anything which relates to the criticism of doctoral principles or the political aspects of Islam. Non-paywalled links would be appreciated!
I am shouting in the void but stopping with “everythingophobia” would be a sensible idea. Phobias are about people being afraid of things with no rational reason. It doesn’t even mean “without a good reason”, it means with no reason. If the spider is poisonous or even if you believe it is poisonous, then it isn’t arachnophobia. It isn’t a phobia, it is you assessing a situation and reacting to it.
I can rationalise why I don’t like Islam. The supernatural claims are as unsupported as any other, and the political system is atrociously authoritarian, anti-pluralistic, and based primarily on those supernatural stories that are plainly untrue. It’s not a phobia. I am worried about it gaining increasing political influence, but I will fight you to the death over that being an *irrational* fear.
I despise the idea of a legal definition of Islamophobia. Every personal freedom in this country should be held sacred and there should be no need to make a special rule for a particular religion or even religion as a whole. Even the term Islamophobia winds me up. It’s not a race. It’s more akin to a political group. Why shouldn’t somebody legally be allowed to say it’s a dumb belief just like you would about Britain first or whatever else you don’t like.
All your make-believe nonce gods living on clouds, or collective ‘we are people due to inbreeding’ or this book over a thousand years ago says marrying a child is normal, all of that can get ta fuck.