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

Thats because most people dont really care about ritual slaughter, until such time as they learn they're eating meat slaughtered according to Halal rules at which time they suddenly go all PETA and pretend they're really, really concerned about animal welfare and in no way bigots.

Some people are actually fooled by this.
Hahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!
You must really believe the absolute piffle you have spouted on here!!!
 
I wonder how this video clip would be considered under the proposed new laws

Do you have to agree with all the chap says, thus making you a homophobe and a bit sexist, or if you disagree are you blaspheming against his religion and denying his culture?

Imagine the outcry if a crusty old Tory had come out with something similar? The airwaves would be full of righteous indignation and social media would prolapse.......
 
Utter dribbling rot.

You really are an apologist for certain sky pixie followers committing acts of savagery on animals.

Nassty little man.
Gollum Walt.
Except he was slim, and not so easily triggered.
 
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.
Anyway, before the newly zealous animal rights lot start singing protest songs, the subject under discussion is as above.

Feel free to spout your pretend concern for animal welfare elsewhere.
 
Yeah.

It's the only subject under discussion in the hidden chat room . . . .
Some people must have slightly sad lives if they're so perpetually triggered by a bloke they dont know, and have never worked with, doing something they haven't.
Oh well.
 
Hahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!
You must really believe the absolute piffle you have spouted on here!!!
Do you actually believe that the sudden concern of say, RoyalGreeJacket over Halal slaughter is actually due to his concern for animal welfare?

Seriously?
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
Unlike most.
Which really does annoy some, eh?
Do you actually believe that the sudden concern of say, RoyalGreeJacket over Halal slaughter is actually due to his concern for animal welfare?

Seriously?
Bravo, I will be in Pakistan next month, come with me. We can take a 'loud Hailer' and set up on a street corner and try to change some of their ancients methods, especially the ones that they insist on and impose on us! Our lives wouldn't last out the hour!
You spend hours of your day on here, defending the indefensible.
 
Last edited:
Listen to me Bravo! you need some counce

Bravo, I will be in Pakistan next month, come with me. We can take a 'loud Hailer' and set up on a street corner and try to change some of their ancients methods, especially the ones that they insist on and impose on us! Our lives wouldn't last out the hour!
You spend hours of your day on here, defending the indefensible.
I'm happy to crowd-fund this, well for one of you anyhow.
 
You spend hours of your day on here, defending the indefensible.
I don't defend the indefensible.

I have at no point defended an Islamist outrage. You'd have to be utterly stupid to think that.

The Bigottini will tell you I do, though.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top