Soldato
Isn't it all just bigotry and prejudice? I'm not sure why there needs to be explicit noun for an explicit set of people. People and their boxes.
Islamaphobia Legislation (UK)
- Thread starter h4rm0ny
- Start date
It'll be accepted as soon as the next Labour government gets in and it'll be fast tracked with any defination that the Council of Islam wants.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 747
There is a difference between the international anti-Semitism destination and this. anti-Semitism is the certain perception (detailed as hatred) of Jews which manifests in rhetorical or physical manifestation against individuals (both Jewish & non-Jewish) property, community institutions and religious facilities. No mention of the state of Israel or Israelis.
The Islamohobia definition states that any negative perception of "Muslimness" is racism, whatever "Muslimness" means. Basically the Islamohobia definition wants to ban any criticism or negative perception of literally any facet of Muslim culture, anywhere.
The anti-Semitism definition clearly defines that it is manifestations of actions which constitute it, not opinion. The Islamohobia one wants opinion or personal thought to immediately equate to racism.
The Islamohobia definition states that any negative perception of "Muslimness" is racism, whatever "Muslimness" means. Basically the Islamohobia definition wants to ban any criticism or negative perception of literally any facet of Muslim culture, anywhere.
The anti-Semitism definition clearly defines that it is manifestations of actions which constitute it, not opinion. The Islamohobia one wants opinion or personal thought to immediately equate to racism.
Soldato
I think its dangerous having all these definitions.
They are all already covered by current laws we have on the books. There now seems to be this ego driven obsession to actually name every form of discrimination.
I think when people are going down this path of thinking they have to be very careful. This is primarily a Christian country in both religion and way of life, i.e. you might not be a Christian but you are living in a Christian culture.
When giving all these unique named laws of discrimination there is a danger that the only religion that can be slagged off is Christianity. This will have a cascade effect and I believe will change the direction of society away from the culture we have today.
If people want a diffrent but more religious authoritarian based society then fair enough.
They are all already covered by current laws we have on the books. There now seems to be this ego driven obsession to actually name every form of discrimination.
I think when people are going down this path of thinking they have to be very careful. This is primarily a Christian country in both religion and way of life, i.e. you might not be a Christian but you are living in a Christian culture.
When giving all these unique named laws of discrimination there is a danger that the only religion that can be slagged off is Christianity. This will have a cascade effect and I believe will change the direction of society away from the culture we have today.
If people want a diffrent but more religious authoritarian based society then fair enough.
Also worth noting that this is only for England. It's already been approved by the Scottish parliament. So if you criticise Islam in Scotland and you or your comment are public enough to hit the awareness threshold, guidelines for any sentencing now say you're a racist and it's a hate crime.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,109
Sickening.
Caporegime
Scotistan?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,109
Seems this is relevant here as apparently his charge has been changed to causing anxiety (and implied Islamophobia I'm sure) to the accused paedophiles as they entered court, not really followed this but honestly, I remember seeing snippets of the live stream before the depersoning and deplatforming and I remember the guys barging past him into court shouting "I'll **** your mother" while doing slit motions on their throats, seems like real anxious behaviour! I guess for you guys in Scotland it's best not to comment on these threads anymore.
It’s quite incredible, given Islam is not a race and I could take up the religion tomorrow. This use of ‘racism’ is purely intended to shut down any criticism of Islam. We are going backwards.
Islam isn’t but it’s usually used as vehicle to attack one particular group of people who do happen to be a race, Arabs/Persians/Turks primarily.
Because of that ambiguity, it’s not going to go away. You can gaslight all you want.
Firstly, not in my experience. Most criticism of Islam I come across is... criticism of Islam. Secondly, that's three races which kind of illustrates the point we're all making.
Here's a simple test we can apply. Take someone you stereotype as racist. That can be me if you like Strider - I'm nationalist, I'm mildly right-wing, White and I'm highly critical of Islam. I even believe Tommy Robinson has a point (oh no!). I'm exactly the sort of person you would and have dismissed as racist. Now, having found or imagined such a person, ask them who is going to upset them most - an ordinary, British-sounding, Westernised person who shares your values but happens to be non-White. They're either an ex-muslim or so lapsed it doesn't matter. Or do they have more issue with a White convert who believes zealously in Islam, has changed their garb to some sort of "Islamic" fashion and goes on about Infidels all the time and how Islam is the future? I guarantee you every time that the "racist" will be more hostile to the latter. Every. Time.
I've had numerous friends from Islamic backgrounds. It was their fathers I had a problem with, who didn't want their daughters hanging around with us and picking up Western values. The difference isn't race because they share that. Now you make this oft-repeated claim that criticism of Islam is a fig-leaf for racism "usually". I don't think it is. And no matter how many times that assertion is repeated, it's not the usual case I see. Ditto with criticism of Israel usually being... criticism of Israel. Can you point at people who do use it as a fig-leaf? Sure - I've known a few of them as well. But to assert as you do that this is the majority of cases, and further to use that assertion as an argument to shut down criticism of Islam generally which is what this document tries to do - no, enough of that! You only exclude yourself from reasonable discussion further by holding to it.
It may be three ethnic groups, but youd be hard pressed to tell them apart without living there for awhile.
Which is not something racists care about as ‘there all the same’.
The fact is if anti Zionist language is a ‘fig-leaf’ according to... Zionist’s in replacement of actually anti Semitic statements, then this is surely literally the same. Either we get rid of Semitic specific legislation/definitions and you can be as much of a ****** **** as people want or we continue to adopt this, as right now it looks like one group is above everyone else.
Not really. Especially Turkish. most of whom I've known are blonde for a start. You're talking crap and without a point. And your arguing against people who are criticising this document shows exactly why it would be harmful to have. With it, you'd have the basis to silence nearly everyone in this thread. It wouldn't even need prosecution - just enough risk for OCUK to feel they had to shut it down because it was critical of Islam.
"They're". And if your strawmen get any bigger we'll be able to burn Edward Woodward to death in one.
Yes. Which is what I wrote in the post you are replying to and which I've also criticised earlier in this thread a couple of times and elsewhere. It's amusing to see you agree with me, even if it's by accident.
Anyway, you don't really have a leg to stand on in this discussion. Logically and demonstrably criticism of Islam is not inherently racism which is what this guidance makes a case for. You can't support that in any meaningful way which is why you're figuratively running round grabbing any tangential subject you can to try and use as a counter-argument. Not defending the document but trying to discredit its critics. Seriously - what is the point of you, you sad, pitiful creature? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Meh it’s going to happen at some point and I’ll enjoy the anger it creates, in a super ironic way ofc.
Oh and turkey is only ‘4% blond’ (admittedly from a single source, it’s also unfortunately in Turkish, when I have the time I’ll cite), so wtf are you on with this anecdote.
I’ll be a sad creature TIL the end times.
Last edited:
He's just a depressed contrarian. If the majority view was pro Islam woop woop, he'd be fighting your side. He cares more about picking tiny holes in reason rather than arguing sentiment. It's really not worth the time.
Agreed. I argue a case so far as I feel is useful for others reading. There's little point in attempting persuade those whose goal is only to argue.
What’s wrong with constant argumentation? Isn’t that the crux of progress, because frankly I find complacency to be the single most dangerous act people can commit.
It doesn’t matter if this gets added to the judiciary books, I still feel there’s a not small minority who look at brown people in their cultural dress and use Islam as a front loader for their bigotry. It doesn’t need to be accurate, cause they don’t care.
I hate Islam as well, don’t confuse me for someone who enjoys theocracies that enjoy murdering the gayer folk. I simply can’t ignore for my own benefit (something far too many people do) their natural opponents - other bigots, I won’t substitute one evil for another.
Ultimate recruiting tool and very smart. Maybe the CoE should do the same to counter dwindling numbers, the fools.