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

I'll help out;

"I hate you and will mistreat you because you are a Muslim".


That's Islamophobia.


"I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this Islam lark, mate, fancy a brew and a Custard Cream?"


That's not.
What is "Islam is a load of bollocks" or "Mohamed fucked young children"classed as?
 
I'll help out;

"I hate you and will mistreat you because you are a Muslim".


That's Islamophobia.


"I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this Islam lark, mate, fancy a brew and a Custard Cream?"


That's not.
That is bigotry. There are already laws protecting people from bigotry depending on the context and environment.
 
I agree with you.

There's a difference between agreeing/ liking something or tolerating it. It's your fundamental right. Hate is a different thing though. Everybody has a different opinion - that's human and natural. You can still not like something and get along.

I hate vegemite/ marmite though. Vile things! :)
While we may be drifting away from to a degree from "things that cripple anti terrorism to a more general things that can be used to get you up before the beak.

That you say "hate" is different from disagreeing with someone or something, and should be dealt with differently. Is something that is to my mind the first step towards the slippery slope of paving the road to hell with good intentions.

If someone hates that their fundamental right also, the only time the law should be involved are when a person acts unlawfully on such thoughts. This is of course difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and when it is as I have posted earlier can be brought to bear in sentencing.

You I and everyone else is of course free to ignore, snub not use the services of etc, such person if it offends our own moral compass. There is already legislation that makes it a civil offence to use provable acts of hatred in the workplace. Where terrorism is involved, it is not a persons thoughts that are used to convict rather it is action.

Trying to ban 'Hate' is pointless as hate is a natural emotion. Do racists hate other races, without doubt, and do antifascists hate fascists, I would suggest evidence of many TV reports showing them attacking each other would settle that question.

So which of those two expressions of hate will you try to legislate away.
 
How do you propose instances of Islamophobia are dealt with?
Ignore them?
Pretend there is no such thing as Islamophobia?
Islamophobes can't accept they are haters, and their hate is often rooted in racism.
It happens.
When the Muslim Council of Great Britain, start to engage with the British public and take responsibility for those Moooooslim Nutters (Home Grown) who think murdering non-moooooslim citizens in their beds is a good idea.
Currently the MCGB, have failed consistently to deal with any of the muderous barstewards who commit attrocities against the rest of the UK, nor do they support the implementation of UK born Imans or offer any guidance to those foreign born Imans over their interpretations of the Koran. They have also refused to deal with the growing problem of Saudi funding for schools and mosques. It’s why the government have given up talking to them, and why they (the government) have announced today (Channel 4 news this pm) that they won’t be accepting the notion that being a moooooslim is anything other than a death wish and shouldn’t be given the time of day.
Moreover why should they? This is a religion that refuses to accept the 20th Century, believes that murdering their children in the name of ‘honour’ is somehow a right-on progressive thinking. That carving up their female children is just dandy, that marrying your cousin and as a result produce 90%+ of all birth defects in U.K. babies, is good for the NHS. That marrying of your female children to settle a gambling debt, is sound policy.
They behave like they re caught in a time warp, and that Mohammad marrying a 9 year old is somehow guidance for their religion, likewise that a bright burning light that shone out of Mohammad’s mother clung is modern religion thinking. That the Koran is full of verses that condemn non-muslims and that the aim of all moooooslims is to take over their host country violently preferably. That sharia law is akin to modern latter-day legal thinking,
instead of the Middle Ages guide to ‘Men Rule’ ok?
There is far to much wrong for western culture for Muslims to regarded as anything other than outsiders temporarily residing in the U.K. who don’t need any additional protections. Well not until they behave like westernised Muslim citizens?
Edited to ask, is it ok for Muslims, to murder a policewoman, and escape wearing the black bin bag garb that they favour their women wear, and escape to a country, which said murderer has previously claimed could not possibly be safe because of his families opposition to the ruling government? Later nabbed in Kenya, by the SAS with a Browning Hi-Power strapped to his leg?

The above is not Islamophobia it’s is a true record of events that have occurred in the U.K. over the past few years. Sprinkled with a bit of Arrse level humour. However I am absolutely positive that should Islamophobia be recognised as a race, that I would have the whole,race-relations lobby after me?
 
Last edited:
I get the impression that our Politicians of any stripe have for a long time, been doing an excellent impression of a scared Ostrich, as an effective way of neatly sidestepping having to make politically awkward and "dangerous" decisions whilst in Government.
That appears to be evolving. They've now hit on the idea of trying to legislate to get us to all put our heads in the sand on command with them? Hey presto...It's not a problem, because you can't even say "its a problem"
They already have the curb on freedom of speech, when it comes to expressions of racial or religious hatred through Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

Either that, or we've narrowly avoided one of those "must be seen to Act in haste" moments of desperate political posturing, in the wake of the New Zealand attacks?
 
When the Muslim Council of Great Britain, start to engage with the British public and take responsibility for those Moooooslim Nutters (Home Grown) who think murdering non-moooooslim citizens in their beds is a good idea.
Currently the MCGB, have failed consistently to deal with any of the muderous barstewards who commit attrocities against the rest of the UK, nor do they support the implementation of UK born Imans or offer any guidance to those foreign born Imans over their interpretations of the Koran. They have also refused to deal with the growing problem of Saudi funding for schools and mosques. It’s why the government have given up talking to them, and why they (the government) have announced today (Channel 4 news this pm) that they won’t be accepting the notion that being a moooooslim is anything other than a death wish and shouldn’t be given the time of day.
Moreover why should they? This is a religion that refuses to accept the 20th Century, believes that murdering their children in the name of ‘honour’ is somehow a right-on progressive thinking. That carving up their female children is just dandy, that marrying your cousin and as a result produce 90%+ of all birth defects in U.K. babies, is good for the NHS. That marrying of your female children to settle a gambling debt, is sound policy.
They behave like they re caught in a time warp, and that Mohammad marrying a 9 year old is somehow guidance for their religion, likewise that a bright burning light that shone out of Mohammad’s mother clung is modern religion thinking. That the Koran is full of verses that condemn non-muslims and that the aim of all moooooslims is to take over their host country. That sharia law is akin to modern latter-day legal thinking, instead of the Middle Ages guide to ‘Men Rule’ ok?
There is far to much wrong for western culture for Muslims to regarded as anything other than outsiders temporarily residing in the U.K. who don’t need any additional protections. Well not until they behave like western Muslim citizens?
Two things particularly impressed me as to your argument; the highly amusing "Mooooslims"; Mohammed was a paedo, and referencing FGM.

I know that's three, but I don't think you can read, let alone count.
 
Last edited:
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.
Professor Alexis Jay's report identified "blatant" collective failures by Rotherham council's leadership. Senior managers had "underplayed" the scale of the problem and South Yorkshire Police had failed to prioritise the issue. The District Commander for Rotherham apologised unreservedly for the force's failures.

On your point, the Jay Report said that "staff appeared confused about what to do [ref CSE]".
Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist -
Professor Alexis Jay
Senior council staff and the police 'downplayed' the ethnic dimensions of CSE. "Unsurprisingly, frontline staff appeared to be confused as to what they were supposed to say and do and what would be interpreted as 'racist'. From a political perspective, the approach of avoiding public discussion of the issues was ill judged." - Jay Report 1997-2013.

Victimisation through racism, or 'Islamophobia' aka hatred of or prejudice against the Islamic religion or Muslims generally, and hate speech, is rightly punishable. However, it's time we had a definition for Islamophobia that doesn't undermine counter-terrorism or gags freedom of expression, subject to restrictions and law.

But if any "lessons have been learned" at all from the crimes, failures and venal government under the Rotherham banner: the incitement of fear in the general public to achieve political or workplace goals, through emotional bias or coercion, must not be legitimised.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Professor Alexis Jay's report identified "blatant" collective failures by Rotherham council's leadership. Senior managers had "underplayed" the scale of the problem and South Yorkshire Police had failed to prioritise the issue. The District Commander for Rotherham apologised unreservedly for the force's failures.

On your point, the Jay Report said that "staff appeared confused about what to do [ref CSE]".

Senior council staff and the police 'downplayed' the ethnic dimensions of CSE. "Unsurprisingly, frontline staff appeared to be confused as to what they were supposed to say and do and what would be interpreted as 'racist'. From a political perspective, the approach of avoiding public discussion of the issues was ill judged." - Jay Report 1997-2013.

Victimisation through racism, or 'Islamophobia' aka hatred of or prejudice against the Islamic religion or Muslims generally, and hate speech, is rightly punishable. However, it's time we had a definition for Islamophobia that doesn't undermine counter-terrorism or gags freedom of expression, subject to restrictions and law.

But if any "lessons have been learned" at all from the crimes, failures and venal government under the Rotherham banner: the incitement of fear in the general public to achieve political or workplace goals, through emotional bias or coercion, must not be legitimised.
I think that that is a hell of a lot of words to basically agree with me!:rolleyes:
 
Yes what exactly do you want Muslims to do to be more british be prescriptive. What is being british?
I'll go out on a limb and suggest it would involve not togging oneself out in a C4 weskit and detonating it amongst one's fellow citizens in the name of your particular sky-goblin, no matter how miffed you might feel.
 
How come the home-grown Muslims and others from the former colonies were not taught about the Spoy history? That would have been a good way to integrate these people. The armed forces would probably not face any recruitment shortages.
 

Latest Threads

Top