Islamaphobia Legislation (UK)

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
28,203
Location
London
You're equating his distrust of Islam the ideology with distrust of individual Muslims. They aren't the same thing.

But they used people in their example?
Put a White Western person who has "discovered Islam" and is now a devout worshipper, I find it unsettling.....

Is is the person's action of converting the unsettling bit or because they are devout (or both)?
I think the legislation is probably in response to the accusations from the left that the conservative party are Islamophobic. I'd seek asylum in the US, they seem to actually care about individual freedoms more so than any other country

Can you explain this more? As America tends not to care much about individual rights when it comes to voting, healthcare, consumer protections or rights relating to incarceration. They do care about gun and reproductive rights; yet the former is politically and financially motivated and they care more about taking away the latter. As for religious rights - they care too much by mixing religion and politics which is a terrible idea in any country.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
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?
 
Last edited:

B&W

B&W

Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2003
Posts
7,657
Location
Birmingham
AHH yes well perhaps when the Jews demanded special laws for it self you should not have gave them.

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

And there is islamaphobia present, part of the opening post presents it quite clearly.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
14,411
Location
5 degrees starboard
I would like to see legislation outlawing 'Bikerphobia'. When we roar onto your pub or restaurant forecourt we are immediately subjected to it. Walking into the lounge bar we hear the cry, 'You cannot come in here dressed like that! Go sit in the public bar or beer garden.' Furtive whispers hidden behind hands and quick glances away from non bikers show our status in their minds. When grudgingly served with our ale and waiting a long time for our sausage and chips in a basket, the only dish not 'off' on the menu, a look out of the window shows a local bobby calling in the registrations on the steeds outside. He does not check the cars nearby.

This is a clear instance of institutionalised 'Bikerphobia' - an irrational fear or hatred of bikers, their dress, their customs, their partners. This phenomena has been reported and known about for years and it is about time that it was legislated against. A clear definition is possible and can be codified in law.

I rest my case my lord.:rolleyes:
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
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:
LGBTQ-Gulag.png


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.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Apr 2007
Posts
13,766
I always end up coming across wrong in these type of posts but i have a big hate for those that turn a religion into a reason for fighting.
I travel to a fair few muslim countries and one in particular is famous for having a Muslim church and Christian church opposite each other and has done for a very long time. The people there are amongst the nicest people i have ever met.

So what it all boils down to is it's not the religion that's evil it's just evil people that use it as justification.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Feb 2006
Posts
4,908
Location
No longer riding an Italian
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?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,610
Location
Surrey
The current discrimi ation laws are sufficient. This is just made to control peoples opinions and give a special status to one favoured group. I oppose this strongly.
 
Back
Top Bottom