Islamaphobia Legislation (UK)

[h4rm0ny]

Upcoming thought-crime, speech crime legislation on criticising Islam.

This isn't getting a lot of press but it is moving forward behind the scenes. The Times has covered it. Other media not so much.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-definition-of-islamophobia-risks-helping-terrorists-xffnj2rbr
https://www.conservativehome.com/pl...ters-pose-problems-for-national-security.html

The tack taken by both is that adopting definitions of Islamophobia put forward by the All Party Parliamentarty Group on British Muslims would hinder anti-terrorism work and police work in some cases. Which is probably true. But personally I don't need to seek any justification for opposing this other than it would criminalise my speaking of my views.

Firstly, they declare that Islamaphobia is racism.

"Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets
expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness."

This is false. I have a deep distrust of Islam and major issues with the religion. It's little to do with race. Put an apostate Muslim in front of me (such as a friend of mine is), I don't give a damn about their skin colour. Put a White Western person who has "discovered Islam" and is now a devout worshipper, I find it unsettling and their skin colour again, doesn't change that one bit. It's clear that dislike of Islam is not racism but again and again and again, that charge is made. Because if it's racism, then it's wrong.

"Muslims harbour grave misgivings about their
acceptance in society with three in five (63%) Muslims
saying they think there is more prejudice against
Muslims than against other religious groups, a
perception that is especially widespread among
young Muslims and graduates"

Throughout, the report takes as a given that any dislike of Islam is prejudice, rather than something well-founded. Yes, you can compare religions even though modern post-modernists think everything must be subjective. Two core beliefs of Islam are that the Koran is the literal word of God, and that Mohammed is to be emulated as an example of how to behave. Most Christians don't even believe the Bible is literal truth let alone that God wrote it. Nor does emulation of Jesus (who is largely mythologised if he even existed) equate to a 6th Century warlord who killed people, slave-traded and molested children. I reject entirely the idea that all religions must be treated equally but this idea runs throughout this report and its supporters. Freedom of belief must be universal. That does not equate to all beliefs being of equal value.

“a baseless hostility and fear vis-à-vis Islam,"

And

“an irrational or very powerful fear or dislike of Islam
and the feeling as if the Muslims are under siege and
attack. Islamophobia however goes much beyond this
and incorporates racial hatred, intolerance, prejudice,
discrimination and stereotyping. The phenomenon
of Islamophobia in its essence is a religion-based
resentment.”

The implicit assumption that fear of Islam is baseless runs through all of this. And if this basis is adopted for legal purposes what you get is a criminalisation of thought and expression. This is an attempt to outlaw criminalisation of Islam, to be applied to anyone visible enough and popular enough who does so.

this definition introduces the intersectional nature of Islamophobia by incorporating ‘racial hatred’ as a defining feature of anti-Muslim hostility.

And of course... "Intersectionality". That all-purpose word to shut down rational thinking.

Now the report anticipates that many will call this an attack on Free Speech (which it is). So it spends a few paragraphs dancing around the subject without ever actually refuting it, and then concludes that the definition of Islamaphobia is too useful to give up just because it has an impact on Free Speech:

"As such,giving up the term Islamophobia – and with it the
possibility of creating legal instruments to tackle it
– simply because of the perceived risk that may limit
free speech would be highly misguided. “Freedom of
speech comes with a responsibility”, contends Sariya
Cheruvallil-Contractor, as she emphasises the need to
“protect the dignity and rights of everyday Muslims”
because the consequences of harmful, Islamophobic
speech are real and acutely felt by the victims."

This is dangerous. And this is where we are heading.

(If anyone wants to read the cross-party group report, link is here:
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...70ceee/1543315109493/Islamophobia+Defined.pdf)

 

[h4rm0ny]

Kind of sounds like you're religiously discriminating at best and racist at worst.

I've said nothing racist. Indeed, being able to separate race and culture (which some "anti-racists" seem incapable of doing) is the exact opposite of that. Unless you can find an example of my actually being racist (you wont), you owe me an apology. Nor does being opposed to a religion necessarily mean discriminating against its adherents. I have had Muslim friends and colleagues I got on fine with and who were good people. I can still consider the religion itself harmful. Or any religion.

Tories in shock motivation to play to their base by creating the outrage for their base to froth over.

What part of "All Party" was overly-complex for you? Scottish Conservative Party has already formally adopted this. And shouldn't people be outraged about laws forbidding criticism of a religion? Rhetorical question - the answer is yes.

Is this any different to laws and protections for Jewish/Israel people?

No - it's the exact same problem. UK courts have previously used the IHRA definition of anti-semitism and in the USA courts were explicitly instructed to use that definition. A definition that states criticism of Israel and / or it's foreign policy, is racism. That's another thing I've spoken against. It is logically false that criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. I've even been called antisemitic one time for arguing that Jewish people aren't any different genetically from Western Europeans. Race is mostly nonsense, doubly-so when you interpret it as culture.

Religion is a lifestyle choice, and as such is open to criticism and a free topic to be discussed.
People are free to comment on how i live my life, i am free to do the same.

As it should be.

What's wrong with discriminating if it's done on a rational basis? the problem with this law is its ultimately going to penalise all attempts at rational debate as the crime of irrational hate.

What's wrong with it is that you pose the question in such a way that it negates itself for practical purposes. With such a large and diverse group as "muslims", it's almost useless to use it as a tool for disrciminating in any area other than is directly impacted by beliefs. I'd certainly never use it as a basis for employing someone or not, whether I think someone is a good person or not, and so on. You can only supported use it for things directly tied to the belief system. The issue with this legislation isn't about actual discrimination per se. That's a bad thing. It's that it declares something to be discrimination that isn't. And it equates race and culture, which is a lie. And it does it as a political power move.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Be very careful when discussing this topic and seeing Muslims as Muslims. There like in many religions are a wide variety of views within them and go from extreme views to those who are Muslim by birth but do little if anything to practice the religion. In the same way as many in the UK Jewish community criticise the actions of the state of Israel the same is true for UK Muslims for those in other countries.

I recognise this. And I hope you'll find that personally at least, I *am* very careful in discussing the topic. Specifically you'll find my criticism levelled at Islam, not Muslims en masse.

If you look at the Irish troubles catholic’s and Protestants often lived in segregated communities which had great hostility to each other but now due to great sacrifice and hard work a generation has grown up on both sides of the border without this and benefited greatly. Just be careful to judge the actions and not condemn a whole community in the UK wholesale for the actions of others, this breeds intolerance, racism and makes the 3,000,000+ Muslims in the UK face the same unwarranted prejudice the Jewish and other communities currently do.

Which brings us to the subject of integration. I had friends growing up who were entirely Western in their attitudes, but their parents (typically Pakistani background) were strict and punished them for "talking with boys" or forced them to wear hijab. If this definition is adopted then whilst I'm unlikely to be punished for criticising such things in casual conversation (though it's possible if someone takes offence or it was at work), it has the chilling effect of anyone in the public eye doing so facing a very real risk of it.

 

[h4rm0ny]

If anyone is interested, here are the parliamentary members of the group responsible:
https://appgbritishmuslims.org/members

A couple of leading Conservatives in there which will no doubt astonish StriderX and provoke further use of the word "frothing".

 

[h4rm0ny]

No, and nor did I imply that.

Didn't say you did. Just observing that under this definition that's proposed, their comment could be Islamophobia.

 

[h4rm0ny]

The thing is, how far and wide does your distrust go? I understand people having issues with religion (I do myself or at least how some have twisted to their own end)? Are you prejudging people on their religion? What makes one Muslim untrustworthy compared to the next?

What makes any person untrustworthy compared to the next? People are individuals. You can group some people by traits when it's self-selecting. I'm always going to have points of disagreement with someone who is a muslim. Halaal slaughtering practices I have big problems with. Homophobia. Lack of separation between church and state. Misogyny. Veneration of a slave-trading racist warlord who molested a nine year old girl. The list goes on. But that doesn't mean I'm going to not get along with any given Muslim. Especially the ones that are pretty lax about the whole thing. And certainly not based on someone's skin colour. What I object to is what this new proposal does, and what I feel to an extent you have done, which is to conflate criticism of someone based on self-selected beliefs with criticism on some arbitrary (and irrelevant) characteristic like skin colour. And also to presume that if you have issues with certain beliefs someone may hold that you must also think they are a bad person generally or discriminate against them in ways that have nothing to do with their beliefs.

You say skin colour has nothing to do with it yet but reference it.

Well I'm criticising a document that deliberately sets out to equate skin colour with religion. Hard to say what my problem is with it without being allowed to mention that. Or is there some other context where you think I've been racist. I mean, you called me racist, I'm not. I'm still waiting for that apology. I'll settle for a retraction.

Or is it simply down to when someone 'discovers' their religion?

Born again types tend to be the most fundamental and extreme. Caracus mentioned the founder of that Islamist party. A convert to Islam who wanted gay people arrested, etc. A friend of mine who was converted at University became very strict almost out of nowhere. Her parents (who left Pakistan to get away from Islam) were horrified when their entirely Westernised daughter suddenly started wearing hijab and praying five times a day and talking about Allah the whole time. It came completely out of nowhere. But by descent she was Pakistani and the Islamic Society at University basically honed in on her with a lot of "you should learn about your culture" and took it from there. So yes, the sudden converts tend to be the most extreme. But nothing I've said is limited to that. What it comes down to is I should have the freedom to criticise the religion and no government policy should have the right to say if I do so that I am therefore discriminating against others. It is the religion I have a great distaste for. And this document says that people are not intelligent enough to dislike the religion for its own sake. It says anyone who does so must be a bigot. I know you don't agree with that. So why did you immediately go to accusations of racism when I warn about this?

 

[h4rm0ny]

After this legislation passes it will be!

The point well-stated.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Quoted the wrong guy there chap.

Very sorry about that - I had a quote left in the reply box from a previous thread and didn't notice. I cut and paste the quote part to break up what I'm replying to.

I've corrected the post.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Will this not cause a legislative deadlock between LGBTQ groups and Islam?

Doubtful. Queer no longer equates to homosexual people, it's a political orientation more than a sexual one. Couldn't tell you how many "bi" and "queer" people I know in heterosexual relationships, whose dating history is entirely heterosexual, and whose main claim to being other than Straight is dyed blue hair or a particular fashion sense. Groups like Stonewall prioritise political advantage and trans ideology way over lesbians. The NUS actually disallowed gay men from being leaders of their LGBT groups because gay men 'weren't oppressed enough'. This is a University LGBTQ+ group's typical ideology these days:

The big LGB groups have largely been co-opted by Progressives and therefore conflict with Islamic homophobia is usually solved by just looking the other way. Occasionally it can't entirely be avoided because it's just too public, like with the school protests in Birmingham, but it's dropped as soon as possible by sites like Pink News. Gay rights advocates who are actively working on such things just don't get the attention or funding.

Sure - it'll come to a head one day. But the longer that open conflict is postponed, the more likely LGB people will be the ones to come off worst from it.

 

[h4rm0ny]

AHH yes well perhaps when the Jews demanded special laws for it self you should not have gave them.

I've long been opposed to the IHRA definition of anti-semitism which equates zionism and Jewish legally and have spoken against that as well. Why would you presume I'm not against other egregious failures of logic being enshrined in law as well as this one? Because you think everything must be some partisan power play?

Now that you have and do not do the same for Muslims a sinister truth appears.

If you want to claim there's a double-standard, well there are two ways to rectify that. And the good way is not to make the same mistake twice but to undo the first. But they're not quite the same mistake. The IHRA antisemitism definition problem is to define criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. This document's problem is to equate religion with race. Neither makes sense but they're not quite the same thing. Both tools of politically silencing opponents though.

And there is islamaphobia present, part of the opening post presents it quite clearly.

If you mean I dislike Islam well, I don't know how you could think that's any kind of resolution. I've been actively saying I don't like Islam. My problem is that some people and this documentation, tries to define that as racism and criminalise expressing my dislike.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Will Christianity get the same sort of protection through legislation? Will Buddhism, Scientology, Jedi, and whatever else people follow as their chosen religion? If not, then why not - shouldn't all these followers of imaginary friends and made up rules, be offered the same protection by our laws?

I hope none of them do, frankly.

 

[h4rm0ny]

It makes no sense. Islam is pretty far right when you look at the rules it wants people to follow. Yet the far left defend it above social issues, which they also supposedly support.

The current Left is almost wholly aligned with Globalism these days. It doesn't need to be and hasn't always been in the past. But the current Left / Globalist de facto alliance makes support for Islam (itself a globalist doctrine) a logical outcome. Plus there's a lot of money and support that comes with getting in bed with Turkish imams, etc. The goal of the Far Left is power. Fascism has always been an ideology of pragmatism. There's a globalist v. nationalist split in the Right as well but in the Right the nationalists are in the majority though perhaps not in control (see Trump's support base vs. the neocon-Zionist leadership in the Republican party and its talking heads). But in the Left it's overwhelmingly globalist and I can't remember the last time I had a real conversation with a non-globalist Leftists. Maybe a year ago at least. They're like hen's teeth.

 

[h4rm0ny]

You're right he's under no obligation to undermine his own efforts at Propoganda and I'm under no obligation to continue to stop calling him a fascist hypocritical weasle

But if this definition is formally adopted, one party will be criminalised for expressing themselves. Which you may be fine with as that party wont be you.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Being suspicious of or disapproving of Islam ≠ hating all Muslims.

We're in totally retarded territory here.

Which is the point. Any one of us who is vocally critical of Islam is told we DO hate Muslims and gets called racist. And this definition that is being proposed states it too. Retarded or not, this has a very credible chance of going forward. In Scotland it already has.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I remember this hitting the news about the china pigs, this was a big big win for the Muslims against the Infidel.

What happened to a English Mans Home is his Castle.

 

[h4rm0ny]

All or a majority of the world's Muslims actively support that? Proof?


"Probably a vast majority"...you would say/guess. Unreality? Look in the mirror.

A survey of UK muslims found that a majority were in favour of criminalising homosexuality. I had a co-worker tell me to my face that gay people were an abomination and should be got rid of. She had no problem saying so. I think it a great deal less likely she'd have said that without consequence if it hadn't been part of her religion or if it had been a different religion. I suggest if you think strong hatred of homosexuality isn't predominant in Islam, you need to broaden your social circles to include a few more believers.

 

[h4rm0ny]

So to be clear, you'd be in favour of prosecuting some of the people in here for some of the views they've expressed. Can you share which ones you'd lock up if you were supreme leader?

Yep - I very much want to hear this. Amp should back up what they just said by picking out a post in this thread as an example of the ones they think are prosecution-worthy. Bonus points if it's one of mine.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I would say it’s about context.

The pigs alone aren’t offensive, and I’ll be the first to say that anyone complaining about them is being overly sensitive.

Having a passage of the Koran on display is a bit odd if you’re not Muslim, but I can’t imagine it would be regarded as offensive.

However, you’d have to be pretty naive to not realise that conflating the two would be antagonistic, especially given the location of the house.

Unless it genuinely is a case of Hanlon‘s Razor, the only reason for doing so was to get a negative reaction, and then act surprised and outraged when said reaction inevitably occurs.

It seems to me that the whole thing was a complete waste of police time and their response was heavy handed, but it wouldn’t have happened if the woman wasn’t being a bit of a **** in the first place.

Person has porcelain pigs in their window. Person gets grief from Muslims for doing so. Person puts up quote from the Koran about how you should show tolerance to non-believers. Person comes home to find police breaking into their house.

I mean it goes in all directions. If I'm woken up by noise pollution (call to prayer) early in the morning from the mosque across the road, isn't that offensive? Offence is a bad basis for most law. And nobody should pretend that in the UK the law isn't being used as an activist tool to bully and enforce particular points of view.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Time to go down the rabbit hole, i highly recommend everyone here see this 3-part documentary of what could happen when you let the inmates take over the asylum:

The point where Bret Weinstein was accused of racism, then told not only he can't defend himself, but asking for evidence itself is racism was just jaw dropping.


The thought police is coming for most of us, make no doubt about it, they want to completely control our thinking, we've already have thin end of the wedge with transphobic hate speech being targeted, and propaganda being peddled in schools. They see how well it's going so now they are expanding it to other areas. Before long it's be dangerous to hold any opinon at all

Watched these as they came out. Terrifying.

 

[h4rm0ny]

A fine example of the distinction between Islam and Muslim. She seems a reasonable person, decent and friendly. She's been put on the spot and being pushed to try and reconcile her modern decency with the written texts in Islam. Something she probably seldom does on her own initiative. And something which when she does do it she can put on a preferred interpretation without being forced to evidence that it's the right interpretation. Passages about "scourging your wife" she'd likely either not pay much attention to or say "it means something else". Which is a reasonable thing to do if you are a decent person but want to call yourself a Muslim. You avoid it. The problem is that in Islam the Koran is regarded as the literal word of God and Mohammed explicitly a figure to emulate. These are core tenets of Islam. You can't skip them and be a Muslim. You can't say like a Christian might "Oh, Exodus is just some old Jewish myths. I think it has some basis in truth but it's not literal". And Mohammed isn't some semi-mythological figure from two-thousand years ago. He's a historical figure with a lot of documented details of his life. If you move away from any part of the Koran being the true word of God as dictated by an angel, and think it's human composition, you are no longer believing it's dictated by God. So when push comes to the shove, you end up in the situation this woman is put in where she's trying to find ways to justify the unjustifiable because she's a reasonable person forced to defend a group identity she belongs to. Whereas outside of having Tommy Robinson in your face, she'd probably never talk about why "scourging your wife" is probably an alright thing to say, she'd just ignore that part.

Which is why you can criticise Islam without disliking Muslims and why this document is wrong to say you can't. This document says that if I criticise Islam, I'm prejudiced against this woman. How can that be right?