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

It's not the religion per se it's the followers.
The religion is the followers. It was invented and is perpetuated and upheld by its followers. The rules and rituals were made by the followers. It ceases to exist or have any purpose without its followers.

It cannot be properly interpreted (or misinterpreted) because it is a fiction.

The only distinction between them is the level to which the followers are prepared to go to uphold their fiction.
 
It's not the religion per se it's the followers. A bit reminiscent of the way Catholics used to persecute other Christians - only that was hundreds of years ago.....


My bold very true, BUT & its a very big but, the Christian religions went through a reformation period, which in the vast majority of cases, moderated the extremist views which saw people being burnt to death for daring to disagree with the central view.
Islam, being based on the Koran, which is still held by all Muslims to be the immutable word of god, allegedly spoken directly to his No. 1 prophet Mo, can never be changed. So hence the dark ages beliefs & actions of all its followers to this day.
Strange how all these weird "sky pixie" type religions nearly all originated in the Middle East, must be something in the water/soil/air which makes people have these, what now would be called hallucinations & hearing voices from burning bushes etc and get them committed to a mental hospital for schizophrenia or other mental problems.
 
My bold very true, BUT & its a very big but, the Christian religions went through a reformation period, which in the vast majority of cases, moderated the extremist views which saw people being burnt to death for daring to disagree with the central view.
Islam, being based on the Koran, which is still held by all Muslims to be the immutable word of god, allegedly spoken directly to his No. 1 prophet Mo, can never be changed. So hence the dark ages beliefs & actions of all its followers to this day.
Strange how all these weird "sky pixie" type religions nearly all originated in the Middle East, must be something in the water/soil/air which makes people have these, what now would be called hallucinations & hearing voices from burning bushes etc and get them committed to a mental hospital for schizophrenia or other mental problems.
Jarrod Diamond's book, 'Guns Germs and Steel' goes some way to tell why.
There were probably hundreds of these religions, only 3 major ones succeeded.
And Zarathustrianism is only now a small religion in India but was/is the far better one.
 
Jarrod Diamond's book, 'Guns Germs and Steel' goes some way to tell why.
There were probably hundreds of these religions, only 3 major ones succeeded.
And Zarathustrianism is only now a small religion in India but was/is the far better one.
Pub quiz dynamite: Freddie Mercury was a Zoroastran (sp?).
 
[DRIFT]

Published by Katie Harris, The TELEGRAPH, on Saturday 16 February, 2019.

RSPCA calls for BAN on non-stun slaughter - ‘It causes UNNECESSARY SUFFERING’.

THE RSPCA is calling for a ban on non-stun slaughter to prevent “unnecessary suffering” for millions of animals.

The animal charity has teamed up with the British Veterinary Association (BVA) to campaign for a change in the law, which currently allows slaughter without pre-stunning for religious purposes. All kosher slaughter for Jews and some halal slaughter for Muslims involves cutting the animal’s throat while they are conscious and able to feel pain. The RSPCA and the BVA are demanding the Government outlaws the practice due to animal welfare fears.

And they are urging for other steps to be taken including labelling meat with the slaughter method so customers are clear about what they are buying.

RSPCA chief executive Chris Sherwood said: “We’re opposed to non-stun slaughter and we’re calling for an end to the practice as it seriously compromises animal welfare.

“Our concern does not relate to the expression of religious belief but the welfare of animals".

“Our concern does not relate to the expression of religious belief but the welfare of animals.

“Until there is a change in the law to end non-stun slaughter, there are several measures the UK Government could introduce to reduce the suffering involved in this practice.

“For example, by ensuring trade deals with other countries do not include non-stun meat or live animals for non-stun slaughter, clear labelling should be adopted to enable consumers to make an informed choice about the meat they buy and how it was slaughtered.”

Dr Marc Cooper of the RSPCA said: “The RSPCA is against any slaughter of farm animals without stunning as the scientific evidence, and the view from the UK Government’s own advisors, concludes this practice can cause unnecessary suffering.”

And BVA president Simon Doherty added there is “huge” public support for a change in the law.

It comes after the Flanders region of Belgium followed the lead of other European countries including Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland and Denmark by introducing a ban on slaughter without pre-stunning earlier this year.

Mr Doherty said: “The UK Government has repeatedly stated it would prefer to see all animals stunned before slaughter but has taken no action to address this critical welfare issue that affects millions of animals every year.

“There is a huge groundswell of support for a ban on non-stun slaughter, and recent developments in Belgium show that decisive change is possible where public support is matched by political will.”

New figures released by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) revealed that more than 94 million animals were slaughtered without stunning in 2018.

A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesman said: “We would prefer that all animals are stunned before slaughter, but we accept the rights of people who are Jewish or Muslim to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs.

“We do, however, expect industry to provide consumers with the information they need to make informed choices.

“This is an issue the Government is considering closely in the context of the UK’s exit from the EU.

“We will continue work with stakeholders on issues such as labelling, slaughter practices and transparency of demand for non-stunned meat.”
.
Sign the RSPCA and the BVA’s joint letter to environment secretary Michael Gove calling for an end to non-stun slaughter . . . . End non-stun slaughter in England | RSPCA.


[/DRIFT]
 
[DRIFT]

Published by Katie Harris, The TELEGRAPH, on Saturday 16 February, 2019.

RSPCA calls for BAN on non-stun slaughter - ‘It causes UNNECESSARY SUFFERING’.

THE RSPCA is calling for a ban on non-stun slaughter to prevent “unnecessary suffering” for millions of animals.

The animal charity has teamed up with the British Veterinary Association (BVA) to campaign for a change in the law, which currently allows slaughter without pre-stunning for religious purposes. All kosher slaughter for Jews and some halal slaughter for Muslims involves cutting the animal’s throat while they are conscious and able to feel pain. The RSPCA and the BVA are demanding the Government outlaws the practice due to animal welfare fears.

And they are urging for other steps to be taken including labelling meat with the slaughter method so customers are clear about what they are buying.

RSPCA chief executive Chris Sherwood said: “We’re opposed to non-stun slaughter and we’re calling for an end to the practice as it seriously compromises animal welfare.

“Our concern does not relate to the expression of religious belief but the welfare of animals".


.
Sign the RSPCA and the BVA’s joint letter to environment secretary Michael Gove calling for an end to non-stun slaughter . . . . End non-stun slaughter in England | RSPCA.


E2A: https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/denmark-bans-kosher-and-halal-slaughter.241420/

[/DRIFT]
Others have had bans in place for some time.

'The right to follow one's religion and support for animal rights are going head to head in Belgium. As of September 1st the region of Wallonia has joined the region of Flanders in effectively banning halal and kosher slaughter, a decision that has serious implications for butchers. Animal slaughter without prior stunning is already banned in several EU countries. Belgium the latest to test the legal lines. EU laws on animal welfare require stunning - but allow religious exceptions. Kosher and halal slaughter forbid stunning.'


'As the year 2018 came to a close Monday, it brought with it an end to kosher slaughter in the northern Flanders region of Belgium, home to half of the country’s Jewish population and a major supplier of meat for European Jewish communities. In June 2017, the parliament in the Flemish region, one of the five sectors that make up the country, unanimously passed a resolution banning ritual slaughter without stunning. The decision followed a similar one approved in May 2017 by the Walloon Parliament in the south, Belgium’s largest region. Both measures take effect in 2019.'


'Legislation targeting Muslims along with heavy Jewish emigration call into question the sustainability of ritually slaughtered meat on the continent.

'When Jerry Levy’s family opened one of the first gourmet kosher meat shops in France, they had some of the country’s best-laid business plans. But like other producers of kosher meat in Western Europe, the Levys are no longer certain of the viability of their business. In recent years they have been suffering both from declining revenues due to emigration from France by Jews fearful of jihadist violence and anti-Muslim measures targeting the ritual slaughter of animals.'

 
Last edited:
The religion is the followers. It was invented and is perpetuated and upheld by its followers. The rules and rituals were made by the followers. It ceases to exist or have any purpose without its followers.

It cannot be properly interpreted (or misinterpreted) because it is a fiction.

The only distinction between them is the level to which the followers are prepared to go to uphold their fiction.

Have a word with @Scarborough will you, I'm sure he will have something mind numbingly trite to say.
 
Now I do find that surprising.

'More white people were arrested over terror-related activity in Britain than any other ethnicity in 2019 – for the second year running. Of the 280 people arrested, 42% – 117 – were white, compared to 111 Asians, 21 black people and 11 recorded as ‘other’. The figures follow increasing concerns around far-right terror in the UK, with the number of prisoners classed as right-wing extremists behind bars for terrorism offences almost doubling in two years. According to statistics published by the Home Office today, more white people were also charged and convicted than any other ethnic appearance recorded by arresting officers. The data also suggests 71% of arrestees considered themselves to be British or British dual nationality.

'The Home Office document explains that there were were falls in the number of arrests across all ethnic groups, apart from those of Asian ethnic appearance, which increased by 26% on the previous year (from 88 to 111). It explained: ‘The proportion of white people arrested exceeded the proportion of Asian people arrested for the second consecutive year, having not done previously since 2004.’ The data means that between 9/11 and the end of last year, 4,682 people were arrested in Britain over terror-related activity. 1,865 were Asian, 1,464 white, 747 ‘other’, 572 black and 34 unknown. 929 of that number were eventually convicted.'


Read more: White people more likely to be arrested over UK terrorism than any other group
 
Now I do find that surprising.

'More white people were arrested over terror-related activity in Britain than any other ethnicity in 2019 – for the second year running. Of the 280 people arrested, 42% – 117 – were white, compared to 111 Asians, 21 black people and 11 recorded as ‘other’. The figures follow increasing concerns around far-right terror in the UK, with the number of prisoners classed as right-wing extremists behind bars for terrorism offences almost doubling in two years. According to statistics published by the Home Office today, more white people were also charged and convicted than any other ethnic appearance recorded by arresting officers. The data also suggests 71% of arrestees considered themselves to be British or British dual nationality.

'The Home Office document explains that there were were falls in the number of arrests across all ethnic groups, apart from those of Asian ethnic appearance, which increased by 26% on the previous year (from 88 to 111). It explained: ‘The proportion of white people arrested exceeded the proportion of Asian people arrested for the second consecutive year, having not done previously since 2004.’ The data means that between 9/11 and the end of last year, 4,682 people were arrested in Britain over terror-related activity. 1,865 were Asian, 1,464 white, 747 ‘other’, 572 black and 34 unknown. 929 of that number were eventually convicted.'


Read more: White people more likely to be arrested over UK terrorism than any other group
The drive to not be racist is going well then.
 
Now I do find that surprising.

'More white people were arrested over terror-related activity in Britain than any other ethnicity in 2019 – for the second year running. Of the 280 people arrested, 42% – 117 – were white, compared to 111 Asians, 21 black people and 11 recorded as ‘other’. The figures follow increasing concerns around far-right terror in the UK, with the number of prisoners classed as right-wing extremists behind bars for terrorism offences almost doubling in two years. According to statistics published by the Home Office today, more white people were also charged and convicted than any other ethnic appearance recorded by arresting officers. The data also suggests 71% of arrestees considered themselves to be British or British dual nationality.

'The Home Office document explains that there were were falls in the number of arrests across all ethnic groups, apart from those of Asian ethnic appearance, which increased by 26% on the previous year (from 88 to 111). It explained: ‘The proportion of white people arrested exceeded the proportion of Asian people arrested for the second consecutive year, having not done previously since 2004.’ The data means that between 9/11 and the end of last year, 4,682 people were arrested in Britain over terror-related activity. 1,865 were Asian, 1,464 white, 747 ‘other’, 572 black and 34 unknown. 929 of that number were eventually convicted.'


Read more: White people more likely to be arrested over UK terrorism than any other group
While the increase in numbers of white wannabe terrorists is worrying, I am delighted to see our Islamic brethren are still punching way above their weight. :

"Of the 231 people in custody for terror related offences last year, 41 were categorised as holding extreme right-wing ideology. This shot up from just a handful of cases five years ago (four in 2014) to 21 for the same period in 2017 and 28 in 2018.

But the ‘vast majority’, 77% (177), were classed as holding Islamist-extremist views – a number that has remained largely the same as last year."
 
But do Hindus, Bhuddists, Sikhs, Jehovah's Witness's require the same protection.
Nope - but we all need protection from Islam.

Maybe we could call it Normophobia.

Srs answer. What do they need to be protected from? We already have equality laws which respects religions plenty.

Islam wants to make it illegal to criticise, let alone poke fun of and draw cartoons etc... the religion of peace.

It's an idea, a choice. Ideas are open to scrutiny, criticism and the option of saying if it's a shit idea, that it's a shit idea.

Let's put it this way, any idea that needs legal protection and drives people to enforce the idea violently, there's a good chance it's not the most fantastic of ideas in the first place.
 
We already have equality laws which respects religions plenty.
But these aren't enough for Muslims in a country like ours where Blasphemy is tolerated, they want us to 'double-down' on our laws specifically for their religion, and their religion only.

This is how Islam operates - it MUST do anything it can to establish primacy everywhere. By creating special laws to protect Islam alone, it expedites it's objective, and shuts down any debate or criticism which it may attract as it proliferates among our societies.

The mission of the MCB is to empower Muslims. These potential changes to the law to protect Islam in particular, empowering Muslims to ensure nobody stands in the way of Islam, whilst blatantly allowing it to stand in the way of other religions due to Islam having special status above them..
 
This is how Islam operates - it MUST do anything it can to establish primacy everywhere. By creating special laws to protect Islam alone, it expedites it's objective, and shuts down any debate or criticism which it may attract as it proliferates among our societies.
In another thread I mentioned reading up on the partition of India.

The obvious course is to lay everything at the feet of the Brits etc... but further reading lays the blame squarely at the feet of the Muslims, Al Jinnah specifically, wanting special status.

The everyone else was happy for a joined up nation with full democratic rights for each state etc... No good for the Muslims, they wanted majority rights even if they were in the minority so they could control everything. Obviously everyone else told them to do one, so they insisted on their own countries, East & West Pakistan, or they threatened violence.

I've simplified for expediency, but that's the crux of it.

Nowt changes.
 
In another thread I mentioned reading up on the partition of India.

The obvious course is to lay everything at the feet of the Brits etc... but further reading lays the blame squarely at the feet of the Muslims, Al Jinnah specifically, wanting special status.

The everyone else was happy for a joined up nation with full democratic rights for each state etc... No good for the Muslims, they wanted majority rights even if they were in the minority so they could control everything. Obviously everyone else told them to do one, so they insisted on their own countries, East & West Pakistan, or they threatened violence.

I've simplified for expediency, but that's the crux of it.

Nowt changes.
Indeed, many of us have been watching that situation with great interest.

Islam is not the victim of this violence in India, it is the cause.

We should not be protecting Islam more than any other religion, anywhere.
 

Latest Threads

Top