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

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.
The Tories haven't adopted the definition.

Those that have, per the report, are "the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, the Mayor of London and a number of local authorities have since adopted the APPG definition".

I'd consider those who have adopted the definition as being "left".
 
It is a blasphemy law, pure and simple. And once one religion gets blasphemy laws, all the others will want them as well.

If you look at the definition that they are pushing, it's the idea that Islamophobia is rooted in racism and the definition is supported by [unspecified] communities. It doesn't take a genius to work out that it's politicians from the Pakistani communities who are making a power grab to represent and speak for all Muslim communities in the UK.

These politicians are experts at working grievances & exploiting the lefty groups who attach themselves to any victim identity. They'll eat weak, inexperienced politicians for breakfast.
Can you name some of these Pakistani politicians making a power tab to speak for all Muslim communities. Can you also name the organisations that you think they represent
 
Blanket legislation can not and should not be drawn up, because of outliers. There will always be cases where individual people are troubled by words, and that in some cases they may even take their own lives, as sad as that is, I say once more "Blanket legislation can not and should not be drawn up, because of outliers.".
The issue is on the other side the outliers of Islamaphobia are main stream.

Just google daily mail front page islamaphobia and go on images
 
Can you name some of these Pakistani politicians making a power tab to speak for all Muslim communities. Can you also name the organisations that you think they represent
Have you not heard of the MCB?
 
Can you name some of these Pakistani politicians making a power tab to speak for all Muslim communities. Can you also name the organisations that you think they represent
Sure. Naz Shah & Sayeeda Warsi for starters. They represent the interests of Islamist groups & conservative Pakistani communities in the UK.
 
It is also important to highlight another 2 things:

Firstly, the main victims of this nebulous definition & subsequent empowerment of Islamists is going to be the people of the least status in the different Muslim communities. Namely women but also anyone else with beliefs, characteristics or ambitions which don't conform to the Islamist narrative.

Secondly, the most potent voices against this definition are found within the Muslim communities. Ex-Muslim & secular Muslim groups that oppose the definition have the strongest arguments against the definition but unfortunately do not have the same access to mainstream media or mainstream politicians that the Islamists do.

I think most people can see the value and importance of promoting non-Islamist Muslim voices in our society & supporting their agenda. It's disturbing when it feels like the only energetic opposition to Islamism is from ethno-nationalists; the mirror image of Islamists.
Its not that the only opposition is from ethno-natiinalists though. Its that anyone with legitimate concerns is branded and smeared as an ethno-natiinalist.

All forms of ideological supremacism are dangerous, be it them, islam and the current "progressive left" and far left who are censoring their opponent's using these same "hate speech" laws.
 
The issue is on the other side the outliers of Islamaphobia are main stream.

Just google daily mail front page islamaphobia and go on images
Are your opinions about an issue created by the press? Or do you form your opinion about things based upon information from a variety of news sources?
I am asking because I think most people react to events, based on factors such has how they were brought up by their parents/their values/place in society/etc.
Looking at the NZ attack on a Mosque, it was widely accepted in the media that it was a bad thing. The gunman was rightly described as a White Supremacist. That is a factual description. That event will have helped create in the minds of some people the impression - correct or not - that there is an anti-Muslim sentiment in Australia/NZ. That impression is not something the media can influence once it is formed by an event.
In a similar way, recent terror attacks in London convey that some British Muslims are opposed to the British way of life; and feel strongly enough about the matter to kill non-Muslims. That is again a factual description - we could get bogged down in defining precisely why the Jihadist attackers were opposed to the UK - but the basic fact is that they were.
I would contend that both events need to be reported, and that they cannot be reported without some reference being made to what motivated the attackers. This is where the new definition could become a problem - try describing what happened in London without mentioning Jihadism. Or the NZ attack without mentioning the Alt Right. It can be done but doesn't tell the full story. That is, what beliefs motivated the attackers (even if those beliefs are at the extremes of Muslim or Alt Right thought).
People's responses to those attacks comes from within. After reading your post, I looked at press coverage thereof and it was overwhelmingly moderate and responsible.
Social media - largely the unfiltered or less filtered expression of public opinion, was far less moderate than the press about the attacks. So perhaps people respond to attacks based on what they themselves think?
 
Last edited:
There’s an elephant in the room here, that it has become impossible to discuss or even imply, for fear of being branded a small minded racist.

The UK, despite it’s tolerance and openness, which is an example on the world stage, is a Christian country, that embraces others from other cultures and religions.

I for one, welcome anyone to this country who wants to work towards improving this place, in whatever way they can, irrespective of their race, religion or gender......I’ll even welcome Ginger people, but that’s a struggle even for me.

However, those people have to accept that this country does not have to bend to their needs whether that be religious, cultural or anything else for that matter.

They’ve come here, so it’s for them to accept our national hospitality and integrate, not for us to dilute our own culture to make them feel like they’re still where they’ve come from.

The problem is, that by openly voicing these opinions, an individual runs the risk of being branded a racist.

Am I am racist, or do I just want to retain my own cultural identity as English/British/Christian?

Who stands up for me? No politician, because it would be professional suicide.

And that’s exactly how very dangerous, far right politics thrives, which leads to far left, equally unpleasant politics such as Corbin’s cronies.
You're a proud Brit as I see it and rightly so - but the likes of Bravo_Bravo and other Liberal Leftys will be frothing at the mouth as they brand you an absolute racist for not rolling over like a puppy to make way for those of other races, religions or cultures who come here.

People who expect to eat Halal food or women to be covered up from head to toe for religious reasons, or their kids not to receive sex education about homosexuality at school would be best accommodated in a desert that they will not find in this great country.
 
Its not that the only opposition is from ethno-natiinalists though. Its that anyone with legitimate concerns is branded and smeared as an ethno-natiinalist.

All forms of ideological supremacism are dangerous, be it them, islam and the current "progressive left" and far left who are censoring their opponent's using these same "hate speech" laws.
I agree with that. The is a tendency as you say to label anyone who objects to the definition of Islamophobia as a racist or ethno-nationalist when the truth is very different.

I think that may be a part of the motivation behind the misguided support from some for the definition because they see it as part of their ideological battle against genuine bigots & racists.
 
The issue is on the other side the outliers of Islamaphobia are main stream.

Just google daily mail front page islamaphobia and go on images
Do you honestly think, that everyone who reads the Daily Mail is 'bigoted', and by the same token 'Guardian' readers are the 'Hard working good folk'. I don't believe that stupid trope outside of taking the mick. But that is not what this thread is about.

As I said legislation should not be made on 'outliers' particularly legislation that seeks to criminalise thought. You have made clear across many differing threads that you are support the socialist ideology.

Be careful about what and who you want criminalised as it will be used to criminalise you, thought crimes cut both ways.
 
I find it somewhat ironic that the Liberal Left delight in 'standing in solidarity' with the adherents of one of the most conservative of religions and yet display a withering derision toward the religion and nation state that, pre- and post-independence, was founded on the Socialist tenet of the community working toward a common goal, the kibbutzim and moshavim.
 
I agree with that. The is a tendency as you say to label anyone who objects to the definition of Islamophobia as a racist or ethno-nationalist when the truth is very different.

I think that may be a part of the motivation behind the misguided support from some for the definition because they see it as part of their ideological battle against genuine bigots & racists.
Indeed the reality that escapes them is that there has always been and there always will be genuine bigots & racists, across the entire population of all countries. Just as there has always been a general push against encouraging or accepting it, there are more societal things that bring people together than divide them. from the big to the small. Its possible to like or dislike someone not because of there race or religious faith but because they as an individual are either a fcuktard or a straight up 'fella'.

I am happy to say I believe that across the west they are a minority who are mostly unable to have the badly formulated ideas gain any real traction or sustainable support across the wider population. Its rather ironic that that fundamentalism of all types, tend to target there own potential followers as the purity tests of 'faith' be it religious, ethnonationalism or political ideology end up fracturing such groups.

This is the bit that help to some degree with 'anti terrorism' intelligence and reduces operational effectiveness of a group, sadly it only helps. This is also where getting solid proof for a conviction of giving material support gets fuzzy... By political opportunists and fellow travellers playing the system.
 
The Tories haven't adopted the definition.

Those that have, per the report, are "the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, the Mayor of London and a number of local authorities have since adopted the APPG definition".

I'd consider those who have adopted the definition as being "left".
You seem to have missed out those well known pinkoes, the Scottish Tories...
 
You're a proud Brit as I see it and rightly so - but the likes of Bravo_Bravo and other Liberal Leftys will be frothing at the mouth as they brand you an absolute racist for not rolling over like a puppy to make way for those of other races, religions or cultures who come here.
No I won't.

People who expect to eat Halal food or women to be covered up from head to toe for religious reasons, or their kids not to receive sex education about homosexuality at school would be best accommodated in a desert that they will not find in this great country.
Leave the DUP out of this.


 
I find it somewhat ironic that the Liberal Left delight in 'standing in solidarity' with the adherents of one of the most conservative of religions and yet display a withering derision toward the religion and nation state that, pre- and post-independence, was founded on the Socialist tenet of the community working toward a common goal, the kibbutzim and moshavim.
If the left didn't have double standards they would have no standards at all.
 
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.

An irrational involuntary fear of the Islamic religion, I seriously doubt there is any such thing or if there is it is medically rare.... Or are you using the word "phobia" in the sense of "I'd like to disparage anyone who disagrees with my point of view as mentally ill"
 

Top