'Islamophobia' - Parliamentary group's definition to 'Cripple anti-terror fight'?

#1
Policy Exchange, a leading UK think tank, has published this paper (link downloads PDF report):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjADegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3fCpquAZCPLMNVmxHazVvw

The paper is an in-depth discussion of proposals by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims to define Islamophobia as:

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

The Policy Exchange, and police, have expressed strong concern that this definition is so broad that it will allow any expression of concern about a Muslim, or the faith, or its history, to be seen as discrimination. This could directly and negatively impact the UK's anti terror strategy.

The Policy Exchange paper notes:

'Since publication, various prominent Members of Parliament and campaign groups have publicly called for the UK Government to accept and adopt the definition. This would in effect mean that all forms of criticism, abuse, hate and anti-Islamic/anti-Islamist sentiment could potentially be treated as a ‘racist’ aswell as a ‘hate’ crime. The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, the Mayor of London and a number of local authorities have since adopted the APPG definition.'

Here's the rub, however (from page 11 of the Policy Exchange paper):

' The recent surge in terrorist threats has placed increasing demands on the UK CT Rule of Law Model, resulting in MI5 and the National Counter Terrorism Policing Network engaged in unprecedented numbers of operations. The Director General of MI5, Andrew Parker, described the threat as follows:

“The scale at which we are operating is greater than ever before. We are now running well over 500 live operations involving around 3000 individuals known to be currently involved in extremist activity in some
way. As well as those we are looking at today, risk can also come from returnees from Syria and Iraq and also the growing pool of over 20,000 individuals that we have looked at in the past in our terrorism investigations. And there will be some violent extremists not yet known to us at all.”

The vast majority of these operations are against Islamists. Should the UK CONTEST strategy be judged through the prism of the APPG Islamophobia definition (‘…a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’) individuals currently involved in or previously investigated for
extremist activity will be afforded an opportunity to challenge and label any operational activity by the police service and intelligence agencies as 'Islamophobic targeting’ of ‘Muslimness’,
undermining without just cause the UK CT Rule of Law model and inherently damaging community confidence in it within Muslim communities.'

(my use of bold)

A Guardian article about this issue is here:

Police chiefs in row over definition of Islamophobia

The article contains an example of the way in which policing might be negatively impacted:

'One case study from the parliamentarians’ report into Islamophobia suggests the definition was drawn up in part to tackle possible police prejudice.

The anonymous respondent said: “I was stopped at Heathrow airport. The policeman said that they targeted me because of my attire. This has happened to me so many times. I cannot report it because the police do not see this as Islamophobic behaviour.” '

In some circumstances, a person's appearance and attire IS a key part of a threat assessment. Using a blunt example, a policeman sees a man in traditional Islamic attire, carrying a rucksack, entering a Synagogue. The officer's concerns will be based wholly on the person's appearance, manner and the context. If the policeman cannot act, for fear of being called racist, and the possible end of their career...?

The Times (pay-walled) reports that senior police officers have written to the PM to express concern and seek her support. Not holding my breath there.

If concern to avoid the perception that law enforcement is racist is allowed to hamstring anti-terror operations, that's a sign of a form of moral and intellectual bankruptcy - are someone's hurt feelings more important than stopping terror attacks? The deaths of people?

The Policy Exchange paper (which is incidentally endorsed by Lord Carlisle, the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation) concludes, inter alia:

'Acceptance by the UK Government of the proposed APPG definition ofI slamophobia would result in the effectiveness of its own counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) being seriously undermined, making the country less safe from all forms of terrorism.'

And:

' Adoption of the APPG definition of Islamophobia by the UK Government would potentially result in government departments, the police and intelligence agencies being branded and labelled ‘institutionally Islamophobic’ by Islamist campaign groups and others, an allegation that would be impossible to refute owing to the nebulous and expansive formulation of the APPG definition of Islamophobia.

The Pursue and Prevent strands of the UK CONTEST strategy would be the most adversely affected if the Government accepted the APPG definition of Islamophobia, in particular, police executive counter-terrorism powers to stop/search extremists travelling through ports and after terrorist attacks (for instance, returning ISIS fighters from Syria or travelling far right extremists).
Disruptive and investigatory powers used by Government Ministers to prevent and disrupt terrorist activity (e.g. powers relating to exclusion and revocation of nationality) would also be undermined. This would represent a particular risk in the case of individuals linked to ISIS or the far-right overseas who pose a serious
threat to national security and wish to return to the UK. The Prevent strand would be seriously undermined if the Government accepted the APPG definition of Islamophobia, in particular, the statutory duty of local authorities, schools, NHS trusts, universities, the police, prisons and the probation service to safeguard those at risk from being drawn into terrorism or supporting terrorism (Sec. 26 of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015), weakening the ability of the country to divert individuals away from all forms of extremism and terrorism.'

Edited to correct poor formatting.
 
Last edited:
#2
Unreadable formatting.

But it is a very serious issue. Islamist groups have managed to start the process of introducing blasphemy laws back into the UK with this definition.

Obviously, lots of Lefty journalists, groups & other entities have immediately & unquestioningly accepted the definition.
 
#3
Unreadable formatting.

But it is a very serious issue. Islamist groups have managed to start the process of introducing blasphemy laws back into the UK with this definition.

Obviously, lots of Lefty journalists, groups & other entities have immediately & unquestioningly accepted the definition.
Ouch. That's some serious targeting of perceived Muslimness right there.
 
#4
Ouch. That's some serious targeting of perceived Muslimness right there.
Good point as one of the issues causing concern is that any adverse comment about any adverse impact of Islam could fall within the proposed definition. For example, discussing some of the human rights violations that took place during the war in former Yugoslavia; the history of Moorish slave traders; the Armenian Genocide, etc. That is, it is a freedom of speech issue too.
 
#5
Why goodness me, the dragon's teeth of "It's a racist incident if someone thinks it is" has had unintended consequences?

Knock me down with a feather.

I am just surprised it took the red team so long to think of this new form of lawfare.
 
#6
Why goodness me, the dragon's teeth of "It's a racist incident if someone thinks it is" has had unintended consequences?

Knock me down with a feather.

I am just surprised it took the red team so long to think of this new form of lawfare.
Luckily, this will be a sole aberration. It's not like there's a history of badly-written laws in recent decades or anything.
 
#7
Why would anyone be surprised the infiltration of the Home Office is complete, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

I don’t envy the police taking this moon howling crap in front a judge.

Meanwhile enrichment continues; organised crime, child abuse, wife beating, segregation, homophobia, discrimination, antisemitism etc.

Oh wait no look over there !!!

YM
 
Last edited:
#8
Why would anyone be surprised the infiltration of the Home Office is complete, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

I don’t envy the police taking this moon howling crap in front a judge.

Meanwhile enrichment continues; organised crime, child abuse, wife bearing, segregation, homophobia, discrimination, antisemitism etc.

Oh wait no look over there !!!

YM
Is that structural or mechanical?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#9
I think the authorities in Rotherham have been using this definition for years, hence the abuse of young girls cases!
 
#11
Globalism dictates free movement of people and free movement of capital.. As such we are all in competition with each other, both inside the country and across the world. Islamophobia does not exist. It simply uses the theory as a stick to beat us with and keep us in line. The underlying story is this parliamentary group is one of many who want to change us and discourage free association, that is a threat to the new reality.

The hidden danger for this utopian fools is islam does not bend and one day that stick they beat us with, will bite the hand off that fed it.
 
#12
In late 2005 I was travelling on the Metropolitan Line out to Northwood and in my carriage there were two you men in Islamic attire, with backpacks, who started citing the Koran, complete with head bobbing. People moved away and at Harrow a lot got off and moved to adjacent carriages. Someone must have told one of the station staff because the train was held and a staff member entered the carriage and politely asked them to desist as it was causing concern to other passengers. To their credit they stopped, apologised and left the carriage. That was that.

Bearing in mind this wasn't that long after 7/7, I think it was well handled; if this definition was implemented the actions of the staff, and indeed fellow passengers, would be regarded as Islamophobia.
 
#13
Globalism dictates free movement of people and free movement of capital.. As such we are all in competition with each other, both inside the country and across the world. Islamophobia does not exist. It simply uses the theory as a stick to beat us with and keep us in line. The underlying story is this parliamentary group is one of many who want to change us and discourage free association, that is a threat to the new reality.

The hidden danger for this utopian fools is islam does not bend and one day that stick they beat us with, will bite the hand off that fed it.
Woah! Conflation.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#14
Agreed but let's not go there. There are enough threads, dominated by fights between Arrsers, about that issue.
I understand your wish not to have the knuckleheads infecting this thread but that is the issue. Nothing was done because the authorities did not wish to upset the Muslim community! This is what the crux of this definition put forward by parliament does, it legitimises the stance of Rotherham officials.
 
#15
I understand your wish not to have the knuckleheads infecting this thread but that is the issue. Nothing was done because the authorities did not wish to upset the Muslim community! This is what the crux of this definition put forward by parliament does, it legitimises the stance of Rotherham officials.
Completely agreed re. the causes of that issue.
I hope it can be avoided here as 1) it could tank the thread into a shouting match and, 2) this issue - the potential wrecking of our CT strategy - is deserving of debate.
 
#16
Policy Exchange, a leading UK think tank, has published this paper (link downloads PDF report):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjADegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3fCpquAZCPLMNVmxHazVvw

The paper is an in-depth discussion of proposals by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims to define Islamophobia as:

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

The Policy Exchange, and police, have expressed strong concern that this definition is so broad that it will allow any expression of concern about a Muslim, or the faith, or its history, to be seen as discrimination. This could directly and negatively impact the UK's anti terror strategy.

The Policy Exchange paper notes:

'Since publication, various prominent Members of Parliament and campaign groups have publicly called for the UK Government to accept and adopt the definition. This would in effect mean that all forms of criticism, abuse, hate and anti-Islamic/anti-Islamist sentiment could potentially be treated as a ‘racist’ aswell as a ‘hate’ crime. The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, the Mayor of London and a number of local authorities have since adopted the APPG definition.'

Here's the rub, however (from page 11 of the Policy Exchange paper):

' The recent surge in terrorist threats has placed increasing demands on the UK CT Rule of Law Model, resulting in MI5 and the National Counter Terrorism Policing Network engaged in unprecedented numbers of operations. The Director General of MI5, Andrew Parker, described the threat as follows:

“The scale at which we are operating is greater than ever before. We are now running well over 500 live operations involving around 3000 individuals known to be currently involved in extremist activity in some
way. As well as those we are looking at today, risk can also come from returnees from Syria and Iraq and also the growing pool of over 20,000 individuals that we have looked at in the past in our terrorism investigations. And there will be some violent extremists not yet known to us at all.”

The vast majority of these operations are against Islamists. Should the UK CONTEST strategy be judged through the prism of the APPG Islamophobia definition (‘…a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’) individuals currently involved in or previously investigated for
extremist activity will be afforded an opportunity to challenge and label any operational activity by the police service and intelligence agencies as 'Islamophobic targeting’ of ‘Muslimness’,
undermining without just cause the UK CT Rule of Law model and inherently damaging community confidence in it within Muslim communities.'

(my use of bold)

A Guardian article about this issue is here:

Police chiefs in row over definition of Islamophobia

The article contains an example of the way in which policing might be negatively impacted:

'One case study from the parliamentarians’ report into Islamophobia suggests the definition was drawn up in part to tackle possible police prejudice.

The anonymous respondent said: “I was stopped at Heathrow airport. The policeman said that they targeted me because of my attire. This has happened to me so many times. I cannot report it because the police do not see this as Islamophobic behaviour.” '

In some circumstances, a person's appearance and attire IS a key part of a threat assessment. Using a blunt example, a policeman sees a man in traditional Islamic attire, carrying a rucksack, entering a Synagogue. The officer's concerns will be based wholly on the person's appearance, manner and the context. If the policeman cannot act, for fear of being called racist, and the possible end of their career...?

The Times (pay-walled) reports that senior police officers have written to the PM to express concern and seek her support. Not holding my breath there.

If concern to avoid the perception that law enforcement is racist is allowed to hamstring anti-terror operations, that's a sign of a form of moral and intellectual bankruptcy - are someone's hurt feelings more important than stopping terror attacks? The deaths of people?

The Policy Exchange paper (which is incidentally endorsed by Lord Carlisle, the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation) concludes, inter alia:

'Acceptance by the UK Government of the proposed APPG definition ofI slamophobia would result in the effectiveness of its own counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) being seriously undermined, making the country less safe from all forms of terrorism.'

And:

' Adoption of the APPG definition of Islamophobia by the UK Government would potentially result in government departments, the police and intelligence agencies being branded and labelled ‘institutionally Islamophobic’ by Islamist campaign groups and others, an allegation that would be impossible to refute owing to the nebulous and expansive formulation of the APPG definition of Islamophobia.

The Pursue and Prevent strands of the UK CONTEST strategy would be the most adversely affected if the Government accepted the APPG definition of Islamophobia, in particular, police executive counter-terrorism powers to stop/search extremists travelling through ports and after terrorist attacks (for instance, returning ISIS fighters from Syria or travelling far right extremists).
Disruptive and investigatory powers used by Government Ministers to prevent and disrupt terrorist activity (e.g. powers relating to exclusion and revocation of nationality) would also be undermined. This would represent a particular risk in the case of individuals linked to ISIS or the far-right overseas who pose a serious
threat to national security and wish to return to the UK. The Prevent strand would be seriously undermined if the Government accepted the APPG definition of Islamophobia, in particular, the statutory duty of local authorities, schools, NHS trusts, universities, the police, prisons and the probation service to safeguard those at risk from being drawn into terrorism or supporting terrorism (Sec. 26 of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015), weakening the ability of the country to divert individuals away from all forms of extremism and terrorism.'

Edited to correct poor formatting.
Liberal Lefty Snowflakes (part of the "Islamist campaign groups and others") will have a lot to answer for by relentlessly banging the Islamophobia drum, and their continued abuse of the Race-Card when it comes back to bite us - as this definition is adopted to appease their virtue signalling, and it becomes a real threat to our security and hampers operations to protect us all.
 
Last edited:
#17
Unreadable formatting.

But it is a very serious issue. Islamist groups have managed to start the process of introducing blasphemy laws back into the UK with this definition.

Obviously, lots of Lefty journalists, groups & other entities have immediately & unquestioningly accepted the definition.
Oh you're such an islamaphobe, off to the gulag for you. If those morons sign off on this, there will be no legal criticism of Islam or its followers.

This about the most illiberal of proposals that i have seen yet
 
#18
Oh you're such an islamaphobe, off to the gulag for you. If those morons sign off on this, there will be no legal criticism of Islam or its followers.

This about the most illiberal of proposals that i have seen yet
Freedom of Speech well and truly muzzled.

How 'liberal' of all these lovely Lefty Liberals.

You'd think following events in Rotherham etc where crimes mostly committed by Muslims were allowed to continue because of fears of being branded racist in any attempt to stop them, that implementing a mechanism which will officially deem such investigations aimed at Muslims in particular as 'racist' would be avoided.

This will end badly as Islamist campaign groups and others cry "Islamophobia" in any effort to deter such sex crimes and terror attacks which are committed mostly by Muslims, leaving the Police and Security Forces vulnerable to false allegations of racism when they are investigating those of a particular religion - Islam.

If Councillors, Childrens Services, Police & Security Services, Joe Public and the local population were reluctant to report or investigate and deter the crimes mostly committed by Muslims before - then this will definitely ensure they keep their mouths shut.

Well done Lefty Liberals, good job.
 
#19
In late 2005 I was travelling on the Metropolitan Line out to Northwood and in my carriage there were two you men in Islamic attire, with backpacks, who started citing the Koran, complete with head bobbing. People moved away and at Harrow a lot got off and moved to adjacent carriages.

(Snip)

I kept thinking someone would do this, as a wind up, to the Climate Change protestors that glued themselves to the trains.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#20
Freedom of Speech well and truly muzzled.

How 'liberal' of all these lovely Lefty Liberals.

You'd think following events in Rotherham etc where crimes mostly committed by Muslims were allowed to continue because of fears of being branded racist in any attempt to stop them, that implementing a mechanism which will officially deem such investigations aimed at Muslims in particular as 'racist' would be avoided.

This will end badly as Islamist campaign groups and others cry "Islamophobia" in any effort to deter such sex crimes and terror attacks which are committed mostly by Muslims, leaving the Police and Security Forces vulnerable to false allegations of racism when they are investigating those of a particular religion - Islam.

If Councillors, Childrens Services, Police & Security Services, Joe Public and the local population were reluctant to report or investigate and deter the crimes mostly committed by Muslims before - then this will definitely ensure they keep their mouths shut.

Well done Lefty Liberals, good job.
Why not STFU and let the thread develop without your bile?

FYI - the Tories have been in power for about ten years now, so the tedious "its all the fault of the left" really doesn't wash.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top