Labour considers controversial Islamophobia definition despite free speech warnings
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/08/labour-controversial-islamophobia-definition-free-speech/
Posted by honkballs
Labour considers controversial Islamophobia definition despite free speech warnings
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/08/labour-controversial-islamophobia-definition-free-speech/
Posted by honkballs
28 Comments
Never thought I would see blasphemy laws being considered again in the UK!
Criticising religion is something I would be willing to go to prison for, I have no interest in participating in a society that tells me I can’t be critical of someone’s imaginary friend.
Man labour are a mess. I can’t believe I voted for this
The islamaphobia definition in contention:
> “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Discuss.
Literal blasphemy law to protect Bronze Age zealots.
That headline doesn’t reflect what’s in the article.
Starmer clearly busy working on all the key critical issues we are facing needing urgent attention.
You know, fuck healthcare, child poverty etc etc
John Spartan you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality code
[removed]
>The definition states: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Hmmmmm.
Islam was founded as a real world political project that was based round enslavement of captives, mass executions of tribes who were accused of disloyalty, it was one of the largest empires in history, before splitting into multiple different imperial and colonial projects such as Tamerlane and the later Mughal conquests of the Indian subcontinent. At points in the recent past it had imperial and settler colonist projects across a large portion of Europe.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#/media/File:Ottoman_Empire_(1609).png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#/media/File:Ottoman_Empire_(1609).png)
Islam should be as open to reevaluation and deconstruction of its history and theology as any other religion.
We should also be free to critically examine the motivations and methods of modern Islamism, the project of increasing Islams political influence on societies. There would be outrage if a sect of Christianity had the broad political stances of Islamism and its rising speed of influence in European countries. It’s on a par with the more atavistic US evangelical movement and it does not take a genius to see that that is not a positive for US society.
People can take a dim view and a very critical look at the history of organisations like the Orange Order, the Mormon Church and the various incarnations of the Catholic Church. People can see a rising power of evangelical Christianity as something to be very concerned with. That goes for other religions with political goals.
And it is a huge source of terrorism in the west. There is no argument it has been the source of most of the non state political atrocity violence across Europe and most of the world for the last 25 years.
New Labour and authoritarianism have always walked hand-in-hand
Deary me. The two tiers chat is never going to go away under Labour.
Can see why they were absolutely begging for the Muslim vote. That clip in the mosque of Angela Reyner was a disgrace.
There should be a clear difference in law between speaking critically of religion and promoting hate or intolerance of its adherents.
This is critical for not just the protection of free speech, but to shut down openly promoting hatred of Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc.
Still lots of telegraph and daily fail shite on here. Not worth reading IMO.
Good. Targetted hatred is clearly not good for this country, we dont need people feeling free to be openly hostile to a group of people.
We know that attacking synagogues is clearly anti-semetism but criticising the fact that all ‘kosher meat is not stunned’ isn’t. Surely we can recognise a difference for other religions? Its not banning blasphemy to recognise attacking mosques and destroying gravestones as a hate crime.
A very click bait headline for an article that admits this would not be legally binding but more guidelines to indicate if a behaviour could be considered Islamophobic – surely this would be taken in context and most people are able to tell the difference for it reaching the test for hate speech.
People forget that in this country you’re free to say what you want but you’ll be arrested if it’s illegal. If there are guidelines about it, perhaps a lot of people will think twice about how they might say something and if it reduces crime and protects groups of people, that isn’t a bad thing.
Using guidelines that will help law enforcement define if something is or isn’t able to be constituted a crime is a long way from using law to prevent people from saying things and prosecuting everyone. We have guidelines for lots of differing things that aren’t legally binding.
I think if it protects people it’s not always a bad thing.
not off to the best start for labour, but i think people complaining already that labour doesnt care about all other issues or whatever are going overboard just a bit. starmer is just over a month(?) into the job now, in the grand scheme of things thats not a lot of time at all, im sure once this has been controlled other “mainstream” issues will start being confronted again.
tldr the govt has had a lot to deal with with this and the prison system not helping the situation at all, and they havent had the time to soothe many peoples complaints. i dont want to sound like im a labour mega fan because i certainly am not but i am still hopeful they will do more than the tories
There is a good Humanists UK write up about this.
> The definition proposed by the APPG for British Muslims states that ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’
> However, Humanists UK believes that this definition (and in particular the tests proposed alongside it) requires improvement because it does not sufficiently differentiate between
> (i) prejudice and discriminatory actions against people who identify or are identified as Muslim, and
> (ii) criticism of the beliefs, ideas, and practices that might fall under the umbrella of Islam.
> **It poses a risk to legitimate freedom of speech and thought and of religion or belief and it also threatens to give inadvertent succour to extreme Islamic groups abroad, including some Islamic states at the UN who use accusations of Islamophobia to silence criticisms of the human rights abuses they perpetrate.**
> It also fails to consider the impact upon former Muslims, for whom being able to question, criticise, and openly oppose Quranic teachings and expressions of Muslimness can be an important aspect of their identity, help them to come to terms with religious abuse they may have experienced, and is a legitimate expression of their new religion or belief.
> ### Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson said:
> > ‘It’s crucial that any definitions around prejudice based on religion protect individuals from discrimination while preserving the right to critique harmful beliefs and practices. We don’t believe the proposed definition achieves that.’
https://humanists.uk/2024/04/23/concerns-over-proposed-islamophobia-definition/
A lot of people either haven’t read the article or are deliberately misunderstanding it. In either case they are deliberately misunderstanding Islamophobia as criticism of religion rather than a group of people who follow a religion.
They murder, torture and jail gay people under the name of Islam in some countries. Am I supposed to like Islam now?
That said, there’s a clear difference between being critical of a religion and hate speech. Problem is where do you draw the line?
Can someone explain to me why people are so dismissive of this, but not dismissive of anti-semitism? The same logic applies. But apparently, one group is free from any form of criticism (and criticising even a state tied to Judaism is considered anti-Semitic by many) and has legal repercussions, and the other should criticised non-stop, free from any legal ramifications according to people on here.
Don’t get comfortable labour councillors , the party seems to want to speed run midterm election obliteration
The Telegraph failed to actually detail the guidelines, leaving it up to the interpretation of the reader based on the comments of critics. [This is a direct link to a PDF of the government’s extensive report](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c3d2febbd1a90cffdd8a9/t/5bfd1ea3352f531a6170ceee/1543315109493/Islamophobia+Defined.pdf) which is mentioned in the article as a *potential influence* on the defintion.
The “APPG on British Muslims” report made no concrete definition of Islamophobia. However they did recommend a series of nine *potential* guidelines which are listed below (note – I’ve removed the examples from a few to reduce the length of this comment):
1. Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion
2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims or of Muslims as a collective group.
3. Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.
4. Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.
5. Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of
Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
6. Denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination (claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine is a terrorist endeavour, for example)
7. Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, eg loyalty tests.
8. Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.
9. Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state.
They also list several examples of actual incidents (crimes and discrimination) which *could* be described as Islamophobic under these guidelines.
I make no comment here on whether these guidelines are restrictive or not, or if they amount to “blasphemy” as alleged in the article. The government doesn’t need to accept these guidelines, in whole or in part and it’s also not clear if any definition would even be legally-binding. A lot of what-ifs and speculation.
There are 5 Muslim independent mps that got in power because of the pro-Palestine movement, it’s going to grow more over time so I imagine this is the new normal?
The boot is slowly coming down on our necks.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/06/wes-streeting-people-abuse-nhs-staff-should-denied-help/
Is this just a better way of saying this
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-councillor-cut-throats-speech-walthamstow-protest-b2593240.html
Got to keep the racists and facists under control.
Islamophobia is a ridiculous term, criticising religion isn’t phobic, it’s part of what has made western societies the best places to live on this planet.
Why should the most backwards of the Abrahamic religions be free of criticism whilst Christianity and Judaism are fair game?
I’m really regretting voting for Labour, Starmer is going to cause even greater division with blasphemy laws that elevate Islam above all else.
The existing anti-Semitism definition effectively bars criticism of Israel …will the islamophobia one be on the side of Iran and KSA?
Honestly I would do without both of them. We should strive to allow free speech whilst policing racist actions
When can we expect public stonings for blasphemers?
It’s been open slather to openly criticise and make fun of Christianity. Let’s be honest, the other major religion is basically untouchable. Protests generally follow any criticism whatsoever. I’m not sure a new bill is needed because it self polices itself already. Helped in no end (bizarrely )by the atheist mob.
Starmer is out of his depth. Blasphemy laws in Britain yea nothing to see here no two tier whatsoever.