Terror police warn against new rules on Muslim hate

[Technics 1210]

Anti-terrorist operations would be hampered if Theresa May bows to pressure to create an official definition of Islamophobia, the leader of Britain’s police chiefs has warned.

Martin Hewitt, chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said that the reform, proposed by backbench MPs and peers, risked exacerbating community tensions and undermining counterterrorist policing powers and tactics. His intervention comes in a letter to the prime minister, seen by The Times.

Ministers will respond in parliament tomorrow to a backbench debate on the definition. It states: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

The wording has been accepted by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London.

The Commons debate was proposed by the Labour MP Wes Streeting and the Change UK MP Anna Soubry who chair the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims. The group proposed the definition and has been concerned about rising hostility towards Muslims, including violent attacks on mosques.

The adoption of the definition, which could, in effect, make it racist to criticise Islam or “Muslimness”, would clash with existing equality law, which defines racism more narrowly in terms of colour and ethnicity. Critics fear that the reform would amount to a blasphemy law by the back door.

Anti-Islamophobia campaigners believe that, armed with a government-approved definition, they could bring complaints of discrimination to court.

Public authorities could be expected to follow the definition or risk judicial review, under which judges could be asked to rule on whether their actions amount to unlawful discrimination.

Mr Hewitt wrote to the prime minister on Friday detailing police concerns about the damage that could be caused by the definition.

He told Mrs May that he and Neil Basu, the assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard who speaks for police chiefs on terror, were concerned about the potential to “undermine many elements of counterterrorism powers and policies”.

Mr Hewitt said that the definition posed a threat to terror laws, stop-and-search at ports, the outlawing of terrorist groups, and the ban on possessing or distributing extremist material. It could also undermine the Prevent duty, which requires schools, universities, councils and the NHS to protect people vulnerable to extremism.

Mr Hewitt wrote that the term Islamophobic was “perhaps misleading in the context of hate crime . . . hate crime seeks to protect Muslims and not Islam.” A leaked Whitehall memo reveals that the government’s equality advisers believe the proposed new definition is “not in line with the Equality Act”.

Officials from the Equalities Office have advised ministers that the law “defines ‘race’ as comprising colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins, none of which would encompass a Muslim or an Islamic practice.”

On Islamophobia, a report by the Policy Exchange think tank said that criticism of Sharia and Islamic traditions could be forbidden in Britain under the definition. Its lead author is Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It says the definition might have prevented the government investigating allegations of an intolerant Islamic ethos in some Birmingham schools.

“Any criticism of standard Sharia rulings which are at odds with our laws and customs . . . will become unexaminable,” it says.

The authors call for the term Islamophobia to be replaced by “Bias against Muslims” as used by the Office for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

A government spokesman said: “This matter needs careful consideration.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...rn-against-new-rules-on-muslim-hate-p2pfzbqhx

Well it's already racist - by law - to criticize Judaism, Jews, Zionism, and Israel! If there is a law punishing antisemitism, then there should be no problem with having a law which makes Islamophobia a crime.

 

[Tubs]

Ridiculous, all religions can be criticised, including Judaism.

I believe anti-Semitisim is to do with the Jewish race rather than religion, but I agree that it is very much exaggerated. Criticism of Israel shouldn't be labelled 'anti-Semitic' nor should it be controversial in anyway (in my opinion, at least).

However, if someone criticises the jizya, for example, and states that it's wrong that you must belong to an Abrahamic faith to be safe under Shariah law, they should be criminalised? Ridiculous. I also think it's ridiculous if any legal action has been taken for anti-Semitism or being anti-Israel.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Ridiculous, all religions can be criticised, including Judaism.

I believe anti-Semitisim is to do with the Jewish race rather than religion, but I agree that it is very much exaggerated. Criticism of Israel shouldn't be labelled 'anti-Semitic' nor should it be controversial in anyway (in my opinion, at least).

However, if someone criticises the jizya, for example, and states that it's wrong that you must belong to an Abrahamic faith to be safe under Shariah law, they should be criminalised? Ridiculous. I also think it's ridiculous if any legal action has been taken for anti-Semitism or being anti-Israel.

I think this is just semantics, if you can use anti-semitic to refer to Jews, then why not Islamophobia for Muslims? Arabs are also semites after all, but no one is dumb enough to think anti-semitic applies to them.

 

[Tubs]

I think this is just semantics, if you can use anti-semitic to refer to Jews, then why not Islamophobia for Muslims? Arabs are also semites after all, but no one is dumb enough to think anti-semitic applies to them.

I think the term is usually for the Jewish ethnicity. I'm unsure why it doesn't relate to Arabs, maybe it was just historically used towards Jews (there has been some historic, well-documented hatred towards Jews, so it may have stuck from them). I am not too sure about the etymology of the word. People do criticise Judeo-Christian scripture/philosophy without reproach so I don't think the Jewish religion is untouchable, I just think the when it comes to ethnicity, it is treated in the same vein as prejudice against other ethnicities. If it is true that anti-Semitism has a special place in the law, then I do think it's wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest it is true. If you know any legislation, please do let me know.

With regard to 'Islamaphobia', I don't think it's a good idea to conflate the criticism of scripture with hatred of Muslims. One is an ideology, and the others are people.

 

[MenInG]

The government has rejected a definition of Islamophobia created by a cross-party group of MPs.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims wanted to define it to tackle what it called a "social evil".

But a government spokesman said the wording needed "further careful consideration" and had "not been broadly accepted".

The secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Harun Khan, called the decision "truly extraordinary".

MPs will debate the definition in Parliament on Thursday. It says: "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness."

The wording has the support of a number of political parties - including Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Conservatives - and several Muslim groups.

'Irresponsible scaremongering'
But concerns have been raised that the definition is too vague and could undermine efforts to tackle extremism.

In a letter to Prime Minister Theresa May - seen by the Times - Martin Hewitt, who chairs the National Police Chiefs' Council, said it could cause confusion among officers and hamper the fight against terrorism.

Former Conservative chair Baroness Warsi - who became the first Muslim woman to attend cabinet, in 2010 - said the letter was "irresponsible scaremongering".

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that "a non-legally binding working definition" would not affect the work of the police and urged the government to back it.

The APPG announced its definition in December, saying the fact Islamophobia had "surpassed the dinner table test" - a term used by Baroness Warsi in 2011 to describe how being Islamophobic had become socially acceptable - still needed addressing.

In its report, the group said: "More than 20 years since the term Islamophobia entered our political and policy lexicon, and almost a decade since its 'passing the dinner table test' was raised, this is a good time to stop and survey the progress that has been made in challenging this social evil.

"It is with this intent, and to deter a further 20 years before substantive progress is made in tackling its blight on our British Muslim citizens, that the APPG on British Muslims opened its inquiry into a working definition of Islamophobia.

"No amount of documentation of the evidence of discriminatory outcomes faced by Muslims... can satisfy our desire to reverse these results if we cannot begin from the point of an agreed definition."

'Community tensions'
Critics have questioned whether the definition could lead to issues with freedom of speech.

An open letter signed by over 40 academics, writers and campaigners said it was "unfit for purpose", warning its "uncritical and hasty adoption" would "aggravate community tensions" and "inhibit free speech about matters of fundamental importance".

But the MCB's Mr Khan said the conclusion was "deeply disingenuous" and the government appeared to be "wilfully misreading of the definition and aligned to a number of bad faith actors whose views - rather than those of Muslim communities - appear to be influencing this decision".

"Being critical of Islam or any religion does not make you an Islamophobe," he added. "You are only an Islamophobe if you use the language of racism targeting expressions of Muslimness."

'Denial flows'
Ms Shah, Labour's shadow minister for Women and Equalities, backs the definition and accused the government of being "in denial".

She said: "The Conservative Party is in denial about Islamophobia and other forms of racism in its ranks and that denial flows from the very top.

"If Theresa May refuses to adopt the definition of Islamophobia, the message she sends to the Muslim community will be heard loud and clear."

A government spokesman said: "Any hatred directed against British Muslims and others because of their faith or heritage is utterly unacceptable.

"We are conscious that the APPG's proposed definition has not been broadly accepted - unlike the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism before it was adopted by the UK government and other international organisations and governments.

"This is a matter that needs further careful consideration."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48283337

 

[KingKhanWC]

No surprise it has been rejected by the racist government we have in charge.

All communities should get fair treatment which isn't the case for this government. If Corbyn ever gets in this will change.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Why not use anti Muslim bigotry - it's an accurate term and something which is sadly on the rise in the UK and elsewhere?

 

[James]

I would like the government to accept a definition of Islamophobia - I can’t help feeling though that the current proposal is a bit of a mouthful and “Muslimness” meanwhile is a word that sounds like it was made up by a teenager. Just needs to be reworded and should then be written into law.

 

[Gilly]

No surprise it has been rejected by the racist government we have in charge.

All communities should get fair treatment which isn't the case for this government. If Corbyn ever gets in this will change.

How are they racist, can you point to some racist policies or is it just racist to not recognize muslims as special.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why not use anti Muslim bigotry - it's an accurate term and something which is sadly on the rise in the UK and elsewhere?

Do you think Jewish people would prefer to have anti-Jewish bigotry replace the less accurate anti-Semitism as the official term? I think not, and I think for the same reasons Muslims would prefer some protection under Islamophobia implemented the same way.

 

[Tubs]

Why not use anti Muslim bigotry - it's an accurate term and something which is sadly on the rise in the UK and elsewhere?

100%, I agree. It's wrong to conflate criticism of ideology to hatred towards people.

How are they racist, can you point to some racist policies or is it just racist to not recognize muslims as special.

Don't listen to him, he's always acting the victim and blaming the white man for everything.

Do you think Jewish people would prefer to have anti-Jewish bigotry replace the less accurate anti-Semitism as the official term? I think not, and I think for the same reasons Muslims would prefer some protection under Islamophobia implemented the same way.

Come on man, I've told you a few times now that it's due to Jews being an ethnicity, too. Not that I necessarily agree with the whole anti-Semitic thing fully (blown much out of proportion). People can convert to and leave Islam as they want (well, in the West at least), so you're making a false equivalency. Calling it anti-Muslim bigotry as opposed to Islamaphobia doesn't diminish the intolerance.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes, Islamophobia is a type of racism. Here’s why

Contrary to myth, the definition I helped devise isn’t a threat to free speech. Theresa May’s government must adopt it

Wes Streeting

On 15 March, a gunman walked into the Al Noor mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand and opened fire. During the course of his killing spree there, and at the Linwood Islamic Centre, 51 people were slaughtered in their place of worship for no other reason than their killer had decided that their faith meant that they deserved to die.

Hatred against Muslims does not begin with the sound of gunfire breaking through the peaceful calm of a place of prayer. It begins with simple prejudice in our schools, our workplaces and our communities. More than 20 years since the Runnymede Trust published its seminal report, Islamophobia: a challenge for us all, it is on the rise.

The all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, which I lead with Anna Soubry, is determined to meet this challenge. That’s why we have produced a report establishing, for the first time, a working definition of Islamophobia. It was clear from the evidence we gathered, including powerful testimony from the victims of Islamophobia, that what we’re up against goes wider than anti-Muslim hatred. It is structural, often unconscious, bias.

So we argue that “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. We’ve produce a series of examples, modelled on the IHRA definition of antisemitism, to help people understand how this manifests: the attempted murder of a Muslim woman and her 12-year-old daughter as “revenge” for the Parsons Green terror attack; the torture of a Muslim convert by two women in Guisborough, while they shouted “We don’t like Muslims over here”; the Muslim mother attacked for wearing a hijab on the way to collect her children from primary school in London; the “punish a Muslim day” letters sent to Muslim institutions, and prominent Muslim figures; the racists in Northern Ireland who left a pig’s head on the door of the mosque they had graffitied; the motorists forking out £1,000 more to insure their car if their name is Muhammad; the Social Mobility Commission’s findings of conscious and unconscious bias against Muslims in the employment market; the Islamophobic abuse hurled at people who aren’t even Muslim, because their abusers couldn’t tell the difference between, for example, a Sikh wearing a turban and a Muslim man; the men who tied bacon to the door handles of a mosque in Bristol.

We toured the length and breadth of the country, engaging in extensive consultation with Muslim communities, academics, lawyers, police officers, public services, civil society leaders and politicians. As a result of this, our definition already has widespread backing, including from more than 750 British Muslim organisations – including the Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Women’s Network and British Muslims for Secular Democracy – as well as the first minister of Scotland, the mayor of London and local authorities across the country.

So it is particularly disappointing to see a noisy chorus of vocal opposition making arguments in bad faith that accuse us of trying to use the term Islamophobia to shut down criticism of Islam and introduce blasphemy laws by the back door. In fact, our report makes it crystal clear that our definition does not preclude criticism of Islam or Islamic theology. God, if you believe in such a thing, doesn’t need protection from criticism.

I have watched, with some amazement and even greater despair, the Conservative party making exactly the same mistakes over Islamophobia within their own party as the Labour party has with antisemitism: the dismissal, denial and delegitimisation of serious concerns raised by prominent Muslims about racism within their ranks. Theresa May could have followed the lead of the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, in backing this definition, and by so doing left a powerful legacy to detoxify her party and improve the lives of Muslims across the country. Instead, with a remarkable lack of self-awareness and humility, the party that has so spectacularly failed British Muslims now intends to produce a government definition. Its abject failure to understand and tackle Islamophobia within its own ranks suggests it has neither the wisdom nor the credibility to do so.

Given that, just over a year ago, government ministers denied that there was a need for any definition at all, I suppose we might consider this latest development some sign of progress. But it is too slow and will not be tolerated. British Muslims deserve better and this is, as the Runnymede Trust said again last year, a challenge for us all.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...bia-racism-definition-free-speech-theresa-may

I think this article explains very well why Islamophobia is about protecting communities not ideologies. Ideologies don't get threatened with violence, but they can be used as a rallying point by racists to inflict violence on the followers of Islam.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

How are they racist, can you point to some racist policies or is it just racist to not recognize muslims as special.

Google baroness warsi


As for the institutionally racist police force, sadly they are the equivalent of the army in Pakistan and just can’t stay out of politics
Although with the cuts et al it’s not entirely their fault

 

[KingKhanWC]

100%, I agree. It's wrong to conflate criticism of ideology to hatred towards people.



Don't listen to him, he's always acting the victim and blaming the white man for everything.



Come on man, I've told you a few times now that it's due to Jews being an ethnicity, too. Not that I necessarily agree with the whole anti-Semitic thing fully (blown much out of proportion). People can convert to and leave Islam as they want (well, in the West at least), so you're making a false equivalency. Calling it anti-Muslim bigotry as opposed to Islamaphobia doesn't diminish the intolerance.

Genine question. Are you John Bolton?

Because your post is something he would write. He would miss the part where I wrote suggesting Corbyn would make a different decision and unless you're colour blind, he does look white?

 

[KingKhanWC]

How are they racist, can you point to some racist policies or is it just racist to not recognize muslims as special.

Muslims should get the same protection as Jews. Why do you think they shouldnt?

Theresa May accused of 'racism' over Windrush

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/22/theresa-may-accused-racism-windrush/

I agree.

We also have Boris who is tipped to be the next leader of the party, he has spouted racist comments.

Baroness Warsi has confirmed the Islamaphobia in the party.

Is this sufficient?

 

[Gilly]

Muslims should get the same protection as Jews. Why do you think they shouldnt?



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/22/theresa-may-accused-racism-windrush/

I agree.

We also have Boris who is tipped to be the next leader of the party, he has spouted racist comments.

Baroness Warsi has confirmed the Islamaphobia in the party.

Is this sufficient?

No where near, which policy is racist. I asked you to point to a policy that is racist.

 

[KingKhanWC]

No where near, which policy is racist. I asked you to point to a policy that is racist.

The Windrush policy , read the link.

Of crouse you wont agree but many here do. Ill prove it, do you think the invaders who wiped out the native people of what is now Australia were racists?

 

[Robert]

Muslims should get the same protection as Jews. Why do you think they shouldnt?

Surely they do under the Equality Act 2010. Not sure that the Antisemitism definition confers any protection beyond this.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Surely they do under the Equality Act 2010. Not sure that the Antisemitism definition confers any protection beyond this.

Can you openly insult Judaism in the UK without prosecution?

 

[Gilly]

The Windrush policy , read the link.

Of crouse you wont agree but many here do. Ill prove it, do you think the invaders who wiped out the native people of what is now Australia were racists?

Do you think that the invaders that killed hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi's and whose religion issued a fatwa that they could rape Bangladesh women as they pleased are anything but racist.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

I think this article explains very well why Islamophobia is about protecting communities not ideologies. Ideologies don't get threatened with violence, but they can be used as a rallying point by racists to inflict violence on the followers of Islam.

Good post

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Do you think that the invaders that killed hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi's and whose religion issued a fatwa that they could rape Bangladesh women as they pleased are anything but racist.

Racism is racism whether it's inflicted by Australians or Pakistanis. One isn't going to cancel out the other.

 

[Robert]

Can you openly insult Judaism in the UK without prosecution?

Of course because Judaism isn’t a person. Only people can be insulted. We have no blasphemy law in the U.K.

 

[Technics 1210]

Of course because Judaism isn’t a person. Only people can be insulted. We have no blasphemy law in the U.K.

Tell that to the Labour party members.

 

[Technics 1210]

Can you openly insult Judaism in the UK without prosecution?

Short answer no.

Cannot critisize Jews (even as individuals).
Cannot critisize Jewish faith.
Cannot critisize Jewish history.
Cannot critisize Jewish territory.

Without being accused of antisemitism ofcourse.

But it's OK to be Islamophobic according to the same people who cry antisemitism!

 

[mani1]

Short answer no.

Cannot critisize Jews (even as individuals).
Cannot critisize Jewish faith.
Cannot critisize Jewish history.
Cannot critisize Jewish territory.

Without being accused of antisemitism ofcourse.

But it's OK to be Islamophobic according to the same people who cry antisemitism!

Not just Jews Sikhs also get special treatment via the race laws.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Of course because Judaism isn’t a person. Only people can be insulted. We have no blasphemy law in the U.K.

Please go stand on a corner, read verses from the Talmud and say their are extermist, you not be arrested I assume?

There is no law in the UK denying the holocaust yet people have been convincted.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Do you think that the invaders that killed hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi's and whose religion issued a fatwa that they could rape Bangladesh women as they pleased are anything but racist.

Bangladesh has never been invaded. If you referring to 1971 Pakistani troops entered their own country which was seeing a militant sepratist movement backed by a third nation. Not only your history is poor, your analogy is way off. Australia and NZ(now) were invaded by people from thousands of miles away, different ethnic background only to take over, brining over convicts to populate the land.

The problem with the Tories is the same with some people from Australia, they have a pre-determined ingrained hatred/prejudice of some communities, Muslims who folow Islam in this case.

Please dont quote me again, this is getting embarrasing, go to the library and learn.

 

[Tubs]

Genine question. Are you John Bolton?

Because your post is something he would write. He would miss the part where I wrote suggesting Corbyn would make a different decision and unless you're colour blind, he does look white?

I don't know who that is, so I'm going to have to say no.

In numerous posts I've seen you express anti-West sentiment, and explicitly mention white people. Of course, it's your freedom of speech, so carry on.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I don't know who that is, so I'm going to have to say no.

In numerous posts I've seen you express anti-West sentiment, and explicitly mention white people. Of course, it's your freedom of speech, so carry on.

Shows the level of your ignorance if you are unware of John Bolton.

Everyone should be against foriegn policies of western governments, Iraq should give you a hint. Ive never wrote anything anti-white , against white people. Either you lying or have issues understanding a simple pov and link it to racism.

But again, I wrote I support Jeremy Corbyn, he's as white as you come. Yet you foolishly responsed, dont bother next time.

 

[Tubs]

lol. I dont even recall your posts, probably because they poor as this one is. Nothing to do with bitnerness, in fact Im advising you to educate yourself before attempting to start a debate.

You want to dicsuss western foriegn policy but dont know who John Bolton is, this is hillarious

Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party which has thousands of white members and also inc myself. When you dont have the ability to debate, resorting to 'oh you blame white people' is pathetic. Dont quote me again, you dont have the ability or knowledge for a debate.

I don't want to debate or discuss anything, and my sincerest apologies for being ignorant of US politics, oh wise one.

I know who Corbyn is, supported him for a while (still kind of do). And Labour is the popular party for minorities too, don't forget to mention that part. You just act the victim, play the 'everyone hates Muslims' card all to often, and probably the race card too. I bet you also think people who vote to leave the EU are racist (I voted to remain, before you start), too! It's a shame that so many Paksitanis have such a victim mentality, it is really embarrassing.

 

[Robert]

Please go stand on a corner, read verses from the Talmud and say their are extermist, you not be arrested I assume?

Not as far as I know. Unless there is a public order issue. But that would be unrelated to the reading because there is no blasphemy law.

There is no law in the UK denying the holocaust yet people have been convincted.

One cannot be convicted of an offence which does not exist.

 

[Robert]

Not just Jews Sikhs also get special treatment via the race laws.

Not in the way you infer. Turban-wearing Sikhs are exempt from the head protection laws on construction sites and while riding motorcycles, but much accept a greater level responsibility in the event of an accident.

Jews have no more or less protection under law than any other religious or ethnic minority.

 

[Robert]

Shows the level of your ignorance if you are unware of John Bolton.

I have not heard of him either.

 

[Robert]

Tell that to the Labour party members.

Ok.

What do you think they will reply?

 

[KingKhanWC]

I don't want to debate or discuss anything, and my sincerest apologies for being ignorant of US politics, oh wise one.

I know who Corbyn is, supported him for a while (still kind of do). And Labour is the popular party for minorities too, don't forget to mention that part. You just act the victim, play the 'everyone hates Muslims' card all to often, and probably the race card too. I bet you also think people who vote to leave the EU are racist (I voted to remain, before you start), too! It's a shame that so many Paksitanis have such a victim mentality, it is really embarrassing.

Typical idiotic soundbites. What is victim mentality? Can you define this? You should focus on embarrasing yourself with not knowing basic world affairs and then claim others are playing a victim card.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Not as far as I know. Unless there is a public order issue. But that would be unrelated to the reading because there is no blasphemy law.



One cannot be convicted of an offence which does not exist.

London court upholds Holocaust denial conviction against singer

https://www.euronews.com/2019/02/13/london-court-upholds-holocaust-denial-conviction-against-singer

In theory yes but in practice no. If this doesn't prove Jews are protected more than other minotiries, not sure what does.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I have not heard of him either.

Very surprised Robert. National Security Advisor of the United States. A cheif propagandist in the lie of WMDs in Iraq and a Neo-Con who constantly has been calling for war with Iran. Now in power he is telling Trump what to do and the puppet just follows.

 

[Tubs]

Typical idiotic soundbites. What is victim mentality? Can you define this? You should focus on embarrasing yourself with not knowing basic world affairs and then claim others are playing a victim card.

Well, seeing as Robert, who I'm sure is far more well-versed in politics than I, didn't know who John Bolton is either, you can retract that point. Regardless, I am very busy with uni so I admittedly haven't been keeping up with politics, especially politics of a nation which I don't live in (as if knowledge of current US politics is needed for any points I made).

Victim mentality is quite self explanatory, seeing oneself (or one's group in this case) as a victim, and any negative thing that happens to the individual or group is blamed on others, therefore acting a victim. I suggest you try and rectify it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Well, seeing as Robert, who I'm sure is far more well-versed in politics than I, didn't know who John Bolton is either, you can retract that point. Regardless, I am very busy with uni so I admittedly haven't been keeping up with politics, especially politics of a nation which I don't live in (as if knowledge of current US politics is needed for any points I made).

Victim mentality is quite self explanatory, seeing oneself (or one's group in this case) as a victim, and any negative thing that happens to the individual or group is blamed on others, therefore acting a victim. I suggest you try and rectify it.

Im sure Robert will recall who he is.

Muslims are victims of terrorist state policies, illegal invasions, occuptions and spreading of Islamaphobia. You must have been asleep the last 15 years.

 

[Tubs]

Im sure Robert will recall who he is.

Muslims are victims of terrorist state policies, illegal invasions, occuptions and spreading of Islamaphobia. You must have been asleep the last 15 years.

Muslims have far more rights in the West than non-Muslims (especially atheists and polytheists) do in Muslim countries.

Using that made up word again, laughable.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Muslims have far more rights in the West than non-Muslims (especially atheists and polytheists) do in Muslim countries.

Using that made up word again, laughable.

Every word is made up by someone. Words dont fall of a tree. You think there is no Islamaphobia?

What has Muslim rights in the UK have to do with western foriegn policy? Do you think those affected are not victims?

 

[Tubs]

Every word is made up by someone. Words dont fall of a tree. You think there is no Islamaphobia?

What has Muslim rights in the UK have to do with western foriegn policy? Do you think those affected are not victims?

I think 'Islamaphobia' is a bad term. It conflates criticism of an idea to discrimination against people.

I also said that there are definitely issues with Western foreign policy. That is more of a geopolitical problem than a religious one. What I am on about is people acting like they're oppressed when they really aren't. My argument stems from a UK standpoint because the article the OP linked is in the context of the UK.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I think 'Islamaphobia' is a bad term. It conflates criticism of an idea to discrimination against people.

I also said that there are definitely issues with Western foreign policy. That is more of a geopolitical problem than a religious one. What I am on about is people acting like they're oppressed when they really aren't. My argument stems from a UK standpoint because the article the OP linked is in the context of the UK.

What term would you prefer to describe the discrimation of Muslims and the fear/hater mongering spread about them following a certain religion?

The UK government policy has also been Islamaphobic in many ways since Tony Bliar came into power. Various authorities and many politicians have also been involved. Muslims are also victims in the UK, not most and not all but may have been. Muslims dont get the same protection as Jews, this is one area of discimrination.

 

[Tubs]

What term would you prefer to describe the discrimation of Muslims and the fear/hater mongering spread about them following a certain religion?

The UK government policy has also been Islamaphobic in many ways since Tony Bliar came into power. Various authorities and many politicians have also been involved. Muslims are also victims in the UK, not most and not all but may have been. Muslims dont get the same protection as Jews, this is one area of discimrination.

Definitely would call it Anti-Muslim sentiment/bigotry. It highlights that it's against people, not an ideology.

Should have made it clear, I mean within the UK. I don't think it's quite as bad as you're making out. Regarding the Jewish thing, I don't think they should have special privilege. Even when it comes to the race issue, I think people should be allowed to say all the racist stuff they want (aside from inciting violence, which isn't speech and is rightly a crime), as it's better to know a person's true nature than for them to hide it (that goes for all races, black, Jewish, Asian, etc). So I think all facets of Jewish heritage (ethnicity and religion) should be no more protected than anyone else.

Also, people have been arrested in the UK for anti-Muslim tweets, and anti-transgender tweets.

(Oh, and for the record, I am against 'homophobia' and 'transphobia' as terms too).

 

[KingKhanWC]

Definitely would call it Anti-Muslim sentiment/bigotry. It highlights that it's against people, not an ideology.

Should have made it clear, I mean within the UK. I don't think it's quite as bad as you're making out. Regarding the Jewish thing, I don't think they should have special privilege. Even when it comes to the race issue, I think people should be allowed to say all the racist stuff they want (aside from inciting violence, which isn't speech and is rightly a crime), as it's better to know a person's true nature than for them to hide it (that goes for all races, black, Jewish, Asian, etc). So I think all facets of Jewish heritage (ethnicity and religion) should be no more protected than anyone else.

Also, people have been arrested in the UK for anti-Muslim tweets, and anti-transgender tweets.

(Oh, and for the record, I am against 'homophobia' and 'transphobia' as terms too).

Spreading hate against the beliefs of a person is often spreading hate against them. Legitimate criticism or debate is fine. Islamaphobia is a simple term which defines the hate to both the people and the faith they follow.

Yes people have been prosecuted but only a few. All Muslims are asking for is to be treated and protected the same as other minorities which isnt the case .Jews and Sikhs are classed as races which is false because there are Black Jews and a Jew is someone who follows Judaism. So why not also allow Muslims to be protected under the same race laws?

 

[James]

[MENTION=146370]Tubs[/MENTION] you are advocating freedom of speech but without the need to exercise responsibility. This doesn’t work. Human interactions are fragile at the best of times, due to facets of our collective nature and the way that society is structured, hence why these laws have been created.

Also Islamophobia is real, and it is wrong. Ditto antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia and so forth.

 

[Tubs]

Spreading hate against the beliefs of a person is often spreading hate against them. Legitimate criticism or debate is fine. Islamaphobia is a simple term which defines the hate to both the people and the faith they follow.

Yes people have been prosecuted but only a few. All Muslims are asking for is to be treated and protected the same as other minorities which isnt the case .Jews and Sikhs are classed as races which is false because there are Black Jews and a Jew is someone who follows Judaism. So why not also allow Muslims to be protected under the same race laws?

I've heard about genetic studies regarding Jews, but regardless, I said that they shouldn't be given special treatment if they are indeed given so. Muslims aren't a race because Indonesians are different to Somalis. Everyone has the same rights under UK law. If there are indeed any glaring inconsistencies, then there would surely be uproar and would be rectified.

 

[Tubs]

[MENTION=146370]Tubs[/MENTION] you are advocating freedom of speech but without the need to exercise responsibility. This doesn’t work. Human interactions are fragile at the best of times, due to facets of our collective nature and the way that society is structured, hence why these laws have been created.

Also Islamophobia is real, and it is wrong. Ditto antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia and so forth.

You used a lot of words to say not much at all. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Responsibility comes from accepting that provocative statements can have negative consequences (not violence, as that is illegal, I mean stuff like possibly losing your job or negative media attention).

I agree that 'Islamaphobia' happens, just that it's the wrong word to use.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I've heard about genetic studies regarding Jews, but regardless, I said that they shouldn't be given special treatment if they are indeed given so. Muslims aren't a race because Indonesians are different to Somalis. Everyone has the same rights under UK law. If there are indeed any glaring inconsistencies, then there would surely be uproar and would be rectified.

Sikhs and Jews arent a race but are protected via race laws. Either scrap this or use the same laws to protect Muslims too. Not too much to ask.

 

[Technics 1210]

Ok.

What do you think they will reply?

Something along the lines of free speech and that they are not antisemitic for criticising, questioning, and having views which are deemed controversial because the Jewish establishment do not agree.

One cannot deny the fact that the term antisemitism is the stock response to critisim of everything that is associated with Jews.

Heck, even when Corbyn questioned the funding of ChangeUK party he was accused of antisemitism!

 

[Technics 1210]

I'm shocked by the fact that people do not know who John Bolton is. What news are they reading? He is main stream news.

 

[Technics 1210]

The simple fact is antisemitism is considered racist, thus is protected by laws against racism. This is how Judaism is protected by law, through stealth.

Whether or not Jews are a race (I don't agree since most Jews in UK are Ashkenazi Jews and not direct descendents of Israel) is a topic for perhaps another day, but there is no hiding from the fact that Judaism is protected by laws against racism. No other religion shares this privilege in the UK.

 

[Robert]

https://www.euronews.com/2019/02/13/london-court-upholds-holocaust-denial-conviction-against-singer

In theory yes but in practice no. If this doesn't prove Jews are protected more than other minotiries, not sure what does.

This was not a conviction for Holocaust denial as there is no such law on the statute. This perpetrator was convicted under the Communications Act 2003 which protects you and I as much as it does Jews.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Sikhs and Jews arent a race but are protected via race laws. Either scrap this or use the same laws to protect Muslims too. Not too much to ask.

I think this is the best solution.

 

[Robert]

Judaism is protected by laws against racism. No other religion shares this privilege in the UK.

Yes, they all do under the Equality Act 2010. Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Rastas and Christians are all protected by this law against religious discrimination as much as are Jews.

 

[James]

Yes, they all do under the Equality Act 2010. Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Rastas and Christians are all protected by this law against religious discrimination as much as are Jews.

Obviously these are all religions and the Equality Act covers all of those. That’s accepted and agreed upon, reasonable and correct.

What’s being discussed here is a different point: that Sikhs and Jews are deemed a race as well as a religion, when this is highly disputable, and makes Sikhs and Jews unequalised (holding additional rights) in relation to any other religious group.

So, under the law, one can be viewed as acting both racist and religiously discriminatory towards a Jew or a Sikh, but only religiously discriminatory towards any other religious person. This is totally wrong.

To make this fair, either every religious group is also to be classed as a race, or none are. Simple.

 

[Tubs]

Sikhs and Jews arent a race but are protected via race laws. Either scrap this or use the same laws to protect Muslims too. Not too much to ask.

Tbh, I’m not 100% convinced about the Jews being a race thing, there just has been evidence to support that, apparently. Regardless, if it is the case that it is determined that Jews aren’t a race, then I definitely agree. I also haven’t seen any evidence regarding what you said about Sikhs being considered a race by law, but that is definitely wrong. I 100% support faiths not getting special treatment.

 

[KingKhanWC]

This was not a conviction for Holocaust denial as there is no such law on the statute. This perpetrator was convicted under the Communications Act 2003 which protects you and I as much as it does Jews.

Essentially it is because it was questioning a historical event. Read the judges summary. If she questioned any other genocide she woulnd't even be arrested.

 

[Robert]

Essentially it is because it was questioning a historical event. Read the judges summary. If she questioned any other genocide she woulnd't even be arrested.

Well, what other historical event has been used as a stick to beat a minority with for the last 70 years? There is none.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Well, what other historical event has been used as a stick to beat a minority with for the last 70 years? There is none.

Israel where half of the worlds Jews live is the most protected and helped nation on the planet. This is not relevant.

Eg You dont accept Churchill being responsible for the famine in India which you are entitled to. You dont deserve to be prosectuted for this in any nation of the world. Again everyone should be treated equally.

 

[Technics 1210]

Well, what other historical event has been used as a stick to beat a minority with for the last 70 years? There is none.

Not the point though is it?

You are basically saying it was antisemitic which proves the point, Jews are protected at another level.

You will not receive this treatment if you question Islamic history, in fact, events in the last 20 years are used to smear Islam and Muslims - I see no equal protection by the law.

 

[Technics 1210]

Israel where half of the worlds Jews live is the most protected and helped nation on the planet. This is not relevant.

Eg You dont accept Churchill being responsible for the famine in India which you are entitled to. You dont deserve to be prosectuted for this in any nation of the world. Again everyone should be treated equally.

Amazing isn't it? We are all equal but some are more equal than others (George Orwell).

Meanwhile the IHRA are forcing people/group/governments to accept their definition of Antisemtisim, the latest being the Labour Party :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/04/labour-adopts-ihra-antisemitism-definition-in-full

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Replace the word Jews with Muslims and you have the definition of Islamophobia! But of course, this will not happen.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Amazing isn't it? We are all equal but some are more equal than others (George Orwell).

Meanwhile the IHRA are forcing people/group/governments to accept their definition of Antisemtisim, the latest being the Labour Party :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/04/labour-adopts-ihra-antisemitism-definition-in-full

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism



Replace the word Jews with Muslims and you have the definition of Islamophobia! But of course, this will not happen.

The irony is throughout the centuries Muslims have protected Jews from Christians. Christians then oppressed and killed many Jews in Europe(before and during WW2) and now have become the protectors.

What is the real story at play here?

 

[Robert]

Not the point though is it?

You are basically saying it was antisemitic which proves the point, Jews are protected at another level.

You will not receive this treatment if you question Islamic history, in fact, events in the last 20 years are used to smear Islam and Muslims - I see no equal protection by the law.

It is exactly the point - nobody questions the Armenian Genocide or the mass murder of Muslims in Bosnia. But racists lie and lie and lie about the Holocaust.

I honestly don’t understand why you are asserting victimhood here. Everyone has the same protection under law in the UK.

 

[Robert]

Im sure Robert will recall who he is.

Muslims are victims of terrorist state policies, illegal invasions, occuptions and spreading of Islamaphobia. You must have been asleep the last 15 years.

I didn’t. I had to look him up.

Quite shocking that such a person was appointed Anbassador.

 

[Robert]

The irony is throughout the centuries Muslims have protected Jews from Christians. Christians then oppressed and killed many Jews in Europe(before and during WW2) and now have become the protectors.

What is the real story at play here?

Well, protected them by giving them second class citizenship under dhimmi, perhaps.

Christians are not the protectors, there are very few practicing Christians these days - the post-WW2 European liberal democratic order is.

 

[Technics 1210]

It is exactly the point - nobody questions the Armenian Genocide or the mass murder of Muslims in Bosnia. But racists lie and lie and lie about the Holocaust.

I honestly don’t understand why you are asserting victimhood here. Everyone has the same protection under law in the UK.

I'm not asserting victimhood. Just pointing out that even questioning Jewish history can get one arrested, but all else is game in the name of free speech.

Everyone does not have the same protection, as proven by the fact that even questioning Jewish history gets you arrested.

Racists lie about Islam too. Not just Judaism.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Replace the word Jews with Muslims and you have the definition of Islamophobia! But of course, this will not happen.

That sounds like a perfectly sensible reason for the use of the term Anti-semitism, I assume it has been applied in the spirit of law. Well mostly, I don't want to get into the debate whether Jews are using it to shut down criticism of Israel, that is clearly not what it was meant for.

You could equally use Islamophobia to protect Muslims from abuse, especially as there is probably far more call for it today. The law isn't fixed in Britain, there is room for judges to apply it according to the spirit it was intended. Not really sure what the fuss is about.

 

[Robert]

I'm not asserting victimhood. Just pointing out that even questioning Jewish history can get one arrested, but all else is game in the name of free speech.

Everyone does not have the same protection, as proven by the fact that even questioning Jewish history gets you arrested.

Racists lie about Islam too. Not just Judaism.

Questing Jewish history did not get that perpetrator arrested. A pattern of hateful communications did.

 

[Technics 1210]

Questing Jewish history did not get that perpetrator arrested. A pattern of hateful communications did.

You are still not getting it. When Jews are criticized, it is deemed racist because Jews are considered a race and thus protected by anti racism laws. This does not apply to other faiths. This is why the perpetrator was arrested, because he was accused of antisemitism - ala racism! In other words, ANY communication against Jews is considered unlawful hence the arrest!

For example, on PP, questioning and criticizing Jewish history is considered AS/hatred (we have seen this on PP in the "Are Jews to blame for Antisemitism" thread for example).

As James pointed out, religious folk are protected by the Equality Act BUT Jews are also protected by anti-racism laws.

Now you should be explaining why Jews are considered a race, and whether it is fair and just for other religious to be at the receiving end without any fear or hindrance, but Jews get the special privilege to pull out the AS card (racist card).

It is this sheer fact when Jews exploit this privilege it leads to the rise of antisemitism! When you stop people from criticizing and threaten them with the law, people will resent.

 

[Robert]

You are still not getting it. When Jews are criticized, it is deemed racist because Jews are considered a race and thus protected by anti racism laws. This does not apply to other faiths. This is why the perpetrator was arrested, because he was accused of antisemitism - ala racism! In other words, ANY communication against Jews is considered unlawful hence the arrest!

For example, on PP, questioning and criticizing Jewish history is considered AS/hatred (we have seen this on PP in the "Are Jews to blame for Antisemitism" thread for example).

As James pointed out, religious folk are protected by the Equality Act BUT Jews are also protected by anti-racism laws.

Now you should be explaining why Jews are considered a race, and whether it is fair and just for other religious to be at the receiving end without any fear or hindrance, but Jews get the special privilege to pull out the AS card (racist card).

It is this sheer fact when Jews exploit this privilege it leads to the rise of antisemitism! When you stop people from criticizing and threaten them with the law, people will resent.

I don’t resent them. They are subject to abuses that I never will be. I am the privileged one, not them.

Pakistans Muslims are protected by the Equality Act, both as Pakistanis and Muslims. Have a read of it. If they are disabled Pakistani Muslims they will be protected as disabled as well. If they are gay disabled elderly Pakistani Muslims they will be protected as gay and as elders too.

 

[Technics 1210]

I don’t resent them. They are subject to abuses that I never will be. I am the privileged one, not them.

Pakistans Muslims are protected by the Equality Act, both as Pakistanis and Muslims. Have a read of it. If they are disabled Pakistani Muslims they will be protected as disabled as well. If they are gay disabled elderly Pakistani Muslims they will be protected as gay and as elders too.

I do not think you read my post properly. If you shout antisemitism very time a Jews are criticized, people will resent you for suppressing free speech, hence the rise of antisemitism.

Who said Pakistani Muslims are NOT protected by equality law? This is not about the equality law though, this is about anti racist laws which protect religious people, and only Jews have the privileged because Islam is NOT considered a race, and neither are Muslims. You are missing this point deliberately I feel.

Bottom line, if anti racist/hate laws protect Jews under the guise of antisemitism, said laws must protect every religion. Don't confuse equality law with anti racist laws.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Im sure Robert will recall who he is.

Muslims are victims of terrorist state policies, illegal invasions, occuptions and spreading of Islamaphobia. You must have been asleep the last 15 years.

Yes, in Western countries Muslims are not allowed in some cities, Muslims are killed for blasphemy, young Muslim girls are forcefully converted, and constitution dictates that no Muslim can be the head of the state.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I didn’t. I had to look him up.

Quite shocking that such a person was appointed Anbassador.

Well, protected them by giving them second class citizenship under dhimmi, perhaps.

Christians are not the protectors, there are very few practicing Christians these days - the post-WW2 European liberal democratic order is.

You should really find out who these people are because they are the ones who make plans and have more influence in reality than the President. You criticise Russia so its important to know who are those making up propaganda.

Very poor post Robert, something which comes out of the mouths of the likes of Tommy Robinson and uneducated Islamaphobes. You have no idea with a dhimmi is but if you want to debate this , feel free. Islam is more liberating to people than any modern western secular nation. Please think before offending with your ignorant comments on religion. Thanks.

 

[Robert]

Very poor post Robert, something which comes out of the mouths of the likes of Tommy Robinson and uneducated Islamaphobes. You have no idea with a dhimmi is but if you want to debate this , feel free. Islam is more liberating to people than any modern western secular nation. Please think before offending with your ignorant comments on religion. Thanks.

Looks like I touched a nerve.

Protecting Jews and Christians in return for taxation, loyalty to the state and acceptance of inequalities is not liberation, it is imposition of second class citizenship. This system was done away with by Muslim reformers influenced by the European Enlightenment.[/b].

There’s a parallel here with the Raj where the British Army protected Indians from the Imperial Japanese. Yet the Indians remained oppressed, albeit by the lesser evil of the British Empire. See, I can think critically about my culture’s history. Can you?

 

[Robert]

I do not think you read my post properly. If you shout antisemitism very time a Jews are criticized, people will resent you for suppressing free speech, hence the rise of antisemitism.

Who said Pakistani Muslims are NOT protected by equality law? This is not about the equality law though, this is about anti racist laws which protect religious people, and only Jews have the privileged because Islam is NOT considered a race, and neither are Muslims. You are missing this point deliberately I feel.

Bottom line, if anti racist/hate laws protect Jews under the guise of antisemitism, said laws must protect every religion. Don't confuse equality law with anti racist laws.

The law I referred to protects every religion equally. The equality law is the same law as the anti-racist law.

 

[Technics 1210]

The law I referred to protects every religion equally. The equality law is the same law as the anti-racist law.

It's not. The equality law summary :

The Equality Act 2010[1] is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom with the primary purpose of consolidating, updating and supplementing the numerous prior Acts and Regulations, that formed the basis of anti-discrimination law in Great Britain. These consisted, primarily, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and three major statutory instruments protecting discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age.[2]

The act has broadly the same goals as the four major EU Equal Treatment Directives, whose provisions it mirrors and implements[3]. However, the act also offers protection beyond the EU directives, protecting against discrimination based on a person's nationality and citizenship[4][5] and also extending individuals' rights in areas of life beyond the workplace in religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. [6][7]

There is no law that prevents hate towards a particular religion in the UK. Judaism however is protected by the equality act because Judaism is considered a race, unlike other religions.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Looks like I touched a nerve.

Protecting Jews and Christians in return for taxation, loyalty to the state and acceptance of inequalities is not liberation, it is imposition of second class citizenship. This system was done away with by Muslim reformers influenced by the European Enlightenment.[/b].

There’s a parallel here with the Raj where the British Army protected Indians from the Imperial Japanese. Yet the Indians remained oppressed, albeit by the lesser evil of the British Empire. See, I can think critically about my culture’s history. Can you?

I reply according to the posts.

You're not even close. Every citizen pays taxes, the Muslims under the system payed more than the minorities. The Jews and Christians were also expemt from fighting if there was a war. The rich paid more and the poor were often expemt from paying. If the state failed to protect them, they would refund their taxes. If the UK was to offer Muslims such a deal ,they would all take it up. Islam is far more just in this regard than any secular system in history.

 

[Tubs]

I reply according to the posts.

You're not even close. Every citizen pays taxes, the Muslims under the system payed more than the minorities. The Jews and Christians were also expemt from fighting if there was a war. The rich paid more and the poor were often expemt from paying. If the state failed to protect them, they would refund their taxes. If the UK was to offer Muslims such a deal ,they would all take it up. Islam is far more just in this regard than any secular system in history.

It's not only about the tax, it's about who's eligible to live under a Shariah state and be protected. Classically, this only referred to Christians, Jews and Sabians. And many people only take this view, since they don't want to commit bid'ah by accepting any reforms. How is this fair? If you genuinely believe theocracy is more just than a secular state, then I have no words.