Rayner Backs Down in Islamophobia Free Speech Row
Angela Rayner has backed down on “secretive” plans for a new definition of Islamophobia, expanding and extending a public consultation on the proposals, after the Free Speech Union threatened legal action. The Telegraph has more.
The Deputy Prime Minister has expanded and extended a public consultation over the proposals, which critics fear will rubber-stamp a controversial definition.
The consultation will now run for an extra week and a link for responses to the plans has been made public.
The move followed complaints by the Free Speech Union (FSU), which said the new definition was being drawn up behind closed doors.
The FSU wrote to Ms Rayner expressing concern that the process would enshrine a definition which treats Islamophobia as a type of racism.
The definition has been criticised for being so expansive that it could threaten free speech, act as a de facto blasphemy law and stifle legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion.
In his letter, Lord Young, the General Secretary of the FSU, said the consultation questions appeared to be “heavily weighted” in favour of a “predetermined outcome”, endorsing a definition “closely aligned” with that put forward by the all party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims.
The APPG definition was adopted by Labour and stated that “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
Lord Young said key groups that might challenge the definition over its impact on free speech and provide alternative views had not been invited to submit evidence.
He listed Christian Concern, the Christian Institute, the Adam Smith Institute and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Ms Rayner’s department has extended the deadline to July 20th and widened the consultees. Lord Young said it needed to give sufficient time to take on board all the responses to the plan.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Islamophobia cannot be racism, Islam is not a race, it is a religion. No religion should have special status where it cannot be criticised, laughed at or commented on. It is a belief system, not a skin colour or genetic inheritance. If you can stop believing, then it is not a race.
Excellent factual comment.
It’s one of the so-called world religions because it has followers among all peoples and races all over the world. Regardless of that, somehow tacking this onto racism has obviousy benefits for the proponents of that in the UK: It would enable them to use the race-relations act to support their cause. If Islam is defined as race, critics of Islam can be accused of inciting racial hatred.
It isn’t just a religion though. It is also a Political System and Legal System. No religion should be free from criticism, and especially ones that incorporate politics into them.
special treatment once more to support Labours voting community, funded by the tax payer. I wonder how much money these exercise is costing? FOI perhaps
The more they ban us from criticizing them, the more they censor us, the more suspicious and resentful the general population will become.
While our anglophobe and anti-white government is “expanding … [their] public consultation” could they explain why there’s no hindu-phobia, and no buddha-phobia, and no sikh-phobia, and no tao-phobia, and no shinto-phobia? Thanks.
Another excellent factual comment.
Why did Christianity not get a mention?
Presumably because Christian doctrine doesn’t call for non-believers to be killed or forcibly converted? Or could it be because Labour depends so much on the Muslim vote?
Lack of an influential politicy pressure group eager to bend existing legislation in their favour.
And of course it is open season on Christianity and Judaism.
The consultation will be cosmetic. A decision will already have been made and Islam will most likely get special protection.
Yep.
There will be some announcements about how this won’t affect free speech. Then a few people will be arrested for criticizing Islam.
The article says the department has “widened the consultees” without saying who will now be included. May the whole thing prove to be unworkable.
They will get some fat left wingers to contribute
If this is allowed to pass it will set aside all of the principles of the Enlightenment. How can this be right?
I am slowly coming to the conclusion that, contrary to what we have always been led to believe, Islam is a religion followed only by a small section of the world, namely a few valleys in parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It also, of course, is followed by anyone who traces their ancestry to those valleys. What the people from North Africa, the Far East and the lands bordering Europe, Africa and Asia worship, who knows, because they are never mentioned in these discussions, whether it is child rape, Islamaphobia, women being oppressed and having to cover themselves head to toe, etc etc and they seem to need no protection from evil Christians.
Granting special protection to a belief system is the same as endorsing it and thereby dramatically increasing its status.
You have to wonder what it is about the religion of Islam that makes its devotees so sensitive to criticism. Surely if they are comfortable in their beliefs it makes not a jot of difference what anyone may say about it.
Yet another depressing thing. There is a temptation to engage in debate regarding how Islamophobia should be defined. But that would be falling into a trap. The state should not be spending even one second of time considering the definition of any “phobia”. Protect our borders, enforce laws related to private property and bodily integrity, organise transport and energy network planning, and then piss off and mind your own business.
So they’ve already decided on the word – Islamophobia – but not what that means?
Why a -phobia? An irrational fear of something? Will it only be irrational fear that’s to be suppressed? Will it be OK if you can demonstrate a rational fear of some of the tenets of Islam?
Why is there no Christianophobia? Hinduophobia? Juddaophobia? Buddaophobia? ——Because none of these religions kick up an almighty stink about everything and our politicians don’t feel the need to pander to them so as to keep their vote.