University Staff Face Punishment if They Breach Labour’s Islamophobia Definition
University staff and students will face disciplinary action if they breach Labour’s new definition of Islamophobia, a cross-party group of peers has warned. The Telegraph has the story.
More than 30 peers have written to the working group responsible for the new definition to warn that the proposals risk having a “chilling effect” on free speech.
The working group is understood to be proposing a ‘non-statutory’ definition that it hopes could become a template for the workplace policies of universities, governmental and other public sector bodies.
It is designed to counter a surge in anti-Muslim abuse but there are fears it could stifle legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion and act as a de facto blasphemy law.
Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general who is Chairman of the group, told the peers that he hoped the new non-statutory definition of Islamophobia would be “embedded in university speech codes and curb ‘micro-aggressions’”.
However, in a letter to Mr Grieve, seen by the Telegraph, the peers warn: “This presumably would mean any member of a university that says or does something that falls foul of the definition would face potential penalties.”
They said it was also likely to cover staff at other organisations who would face similar sanctions if it was embedded in their workplace policies, including government departments, councils, courts, NHS trusts, museums, galleries, schools and regulators.
The peers cited the case of Sir Trevor Phillips, who was suspended by Labour for Islamophobia in 2020 after the party adopted a non-statutory definition drawn up by an all party Parliamentary group jointly headed by Wes Streeting.
They said: “The fact that your definition will be ‘non-statutory’ does not mean it will not have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly if it enjoys the stamp of government approval and various organisations feel obliged to embed it in their equity, diversity and inclusion policies, as well as workplace training course.
“Our principal concern is that if your Working Group comes up with a definition and it is taken up by the Government it will have a chilling effect on free speech and exacerbate community tensions.
“We respectfully urge you to advise the Government that it would be unwise for the state to adopt an official definition of ‘Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred’, an option you said your group was considering.”
Among the signatories to the letter are Lord Young, the Director of the Free Speech Union; Lord Frost, the former cabinet minister; Baroness Hoey, the former Labour MP; and Baroness Deech, the chair of the Lords Appointments Commission.
The peers claimed that there was no evidence that creating a definition would reduce incidents of Islamophobia. They added that it could allow the Government to avoid taking more concrete action.
Worth reading in full. Read the letter here.
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.
“could stifle legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion and act as a de facto blasphemy law.”—————–But Islam is not just a religion. It is a Political and Legal System as well. So are we not to be allowed to disagree or criticise those aspects of Islam? The squirming Politicians who do this to attract Muslim votes must realise that Muslims will eventually only vote for their own and not for the Labour Party.
They’re too thick
It not surprising that Grieve is involved in this kind of anti democratic behaviour, after all he tried everything to thwart Brexit. He is a malignancy and represents everything that is wrong with society at this time.
So I take it that the principle of setting one religion and its followers above all others has been agreed, we are now just arguing about how to Punish those that transgress and to what level.
Have I been asleep and woken up in Iran?
Get sufficient numbers so that you can get your feet under the table, conquer, subjugate the native population. In that order. And that’s just on 6 or 7% of the population being Muslim. So, to state the obvious, none of this would be possible if it were not for the inside handiwork and efforts of the native traitors who enable all of this in the first place. The supporting evidence for this just doesn’t stop coming. Take the protest the other day at Epping, which Adam Brooks has been covering, due to the migrant who has been charged with 3 counts of sexual offence against a local school girl. This isn’t even the only crime that’s been reported relating to that particular hotel, but it’s the most serious. The concerned community turns out to peacefully stand in solidarity and show their opposition to having this migrant hotel in their midst. But who else shows up? The ”anti-racist” protesters, again. And what colour do they all happen to be? White. Again. What sort of deranged person goes out to shout ”Nazi scum” and ”fascist scum!” to a load of families who are peacefully gathering because they’ve got legitimate concerns about the… Read more »
Dominic Grieve, Fake Conservative.
Fake human.
So, if we say something like Islam is wrong in that homosexual people should be punished, we’ll be punished for being Islamophobic. On the other hand, if we say homosexuality is wrong, we will be punished for homophobia. Free speech rules?
Hence why you can’t have ‘some free speech’… we either have it, or we don’t
For context: https://www.facebook.com/reel/652296857620188
Islamophobia, a made up word to stifle debate or free speech.
“It is designed to counter a surge in anti-Muslim abuse”. What surge is that? What about the inexorable increase in anti white racism and abuse by islamists as characterised by the well known but until recently ignored systematic abuse and r@pe of white female English children by men of predominantly Pakistani heritage or the frequent stabbing and other assaults on white people by followers of the Islamist ideology? We did not ask them to come here.
So I guess that means you are not allowed to cheer when hearing that the number of attacks on mosques are increasing across Europe and especially in Germany.
“Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general who is Chairman of the group, told the peers that he hoped the new non-statutory definition of Islamophobia would be “embedded in university speech codes and curb ‘micro-aggressions’”.”
Let’s hope that while they’re at it they can embed a new non-statutory definition of Kafirphobia in the Koran to curb macro-aggressions.
Sadly the need for a definition to specify/delineate a group in society is the response of a political grouping to maintain the support of the favoured ones to the exclusion of the endemic population. The fact that it is this parliament that instigates this initiative precludes any lawful means of countering what is a wholly inequitable and divisive response which will lead to the undermining of the long standing values of what used to be this country. There are those who are warning of the potential for civil war and this will only give credence to those warnings. Look at Ireland.