Labour ‘Tears Up Islamophobia Definition’ Amid Free Speech Concerns
Labour’s torn up its old Islamophobia definition amid fears it stifled free speech. The Telegraph has more.
A party working group has drawn up new wording that will replace the controversial definition it adopted in 2019, substituting the term “Islamophobia” with “anti-Muslim hate”.
Crucially, it will remove all references to “Muslimness”, the Telegraph can reveal.
In opposition, the Labour Party incorporated a definition of Islamophobia into its code of conduct for party members.
It stated: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
But critics feared the wording, drawn up by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, was too broad and could amount to a “blasphemy law”.
A source familiar with a review of the definition, led by Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative minister, confirmed that neither “Islamophobia” nor “Muslimness” appeared in the new version, now before ministers.
It is understood the new wording has been drafted with an aim of clearly defining hatred towards Muslims, while protecting free speech. …
The new definition has been submitted to Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, for a final decision. …
But Richard Tice, Reform UK’s deputy leader, said any move to adopt an official definition risked making it harder to call out actions of Muslims for fear of being labelled racist. …
Mr Tice cited new polling showing almost half the public believe issues affecting Muslims had been “prioritised” over broader societal concerns under Sir Keir, fuelling the sense that Britain had become a two-tier nation.
A JL Partners poll of 2,118 voters found four in 10 believed the issue had received too much attention. A majority, 43%, were unsure, while only 17% disagreed that the Muslim community had been privileged “at the expense of issues affecting wider society”.
Just 3% of respondents listed tackling Islamophobia among their top three priorities for Labour. By contrast, 51% put “improving the NHS” first, and half named “cutting immigration and small boat crossings”.
Stop Press: The Free Speech Union has given a cautious welcome to this news:
Stop Press 2: The Telegraph has published a strongly-worded leader urging the Government to drop the attempt to define Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred altogether.
This is so awkward for the Anti-White Party (a.k.a. the Labour Party). It loves and prefers the votes of the imported people (the “Wonderful People”), but there aren’t enough of them yet. Because of this the Anti-White Party still needs the votes of the English (a people the Anti-White Party regards as a “trash people” which is not on the “right side of history”, and which is scheduled to be abolished).
All that’s going on here, then, is that the Anti-White Party has to soften its public adulation for the “Wonderful People” until such time as it doesn’t need the votes of the “trash people”.
to represent; a transitive verb, i.e. something done to someone; the object takes the form “whom”.
Using already the past tense “did” of the verb to do makes “used to” surplus to requirements, in the same way that the incorrect phrase “safe haven” should be merely “haven” as its definition is a safe place – safe has already been said.
Thank you and point taken. However, in the current circumstances what should take precedence? The incompleteness of my Secondary Modern teaching (or perhaps my learning), or the subject in hand?
If, and when, I manage to improve my English, how easy will it be, for me, to get to your level of intellectual rigour?
One more question – how do I analyse intellectual rigour?
“Human Rights”. Since Rights are entirely a Human concept applicable only to Humans… “Human Rights” is tautological, and Rights anyway are innate not awarded by third parties.
Except – “Human Rights” and the ECHR are inventions to enforce ideological and political aims of the globalist nexus of elites.
Keeping English alive: “very” first… so “first” isn’t first? Then: pre-prepare, pre-heat the oven, differs from heat the oven , how? Pre-plan/pre-book… as opposed to post-plan/post-book.
Then we have: I was sat next to him. Oh? Who sat you?
And – the current irritation du jour… every answer to a question now has to start with “So”. What time is it? So, it’s two o’clock. Where did you go on holiday? So, we went to Corfu.
Given the ongoing history of Islamist terror and violence against the citizens of the UK, I would say that it is perfectly rational to fear Islam. I certainly do. And I don’t need any made up words to say that.
I agree that they are both ridiculous, however I think that it is perfectly rational to fear Islam, I do as do many people. Perhaps the country would be in a better position if more people in Westminster also feared Islam. As for the sodomites, their activities are usually between consenting adults, unlike in the systematic r@p€ gangs of men of predominantly Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage.
Jack the dog
5 months ago
I don’t necessarily hate Muslims but I hate Islam.
If us a vile mediaeval religion seeking to colonise our poor old country.
I’m a Christian but I have spent quite a bit of my life studying various other religious traditions: Vedanta, Buddhism and through Christianity Judaism.
In all of them I found something valuable, some aspect of the Divine that was somewhat less clear in others. So I can see the attraction for a curious mind in search of the infinite. Also, fundamentally I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t be able to coexist with other religions.
I have to say, with Islam, all I see is hatred, war, intolerance, slavery. Maybe there is a positive side to it, but, I must admit, I haven’t discovered it. If I’m wrong and there is something beautiful here that I have overlooked amongst all the suicide bombers and terror attacks, well, I’m open minded, so please enlighten me.
Anyone who shouts Allahu Akbar while slaughtering people is not under the direction of God but definitely the other guy. This should also be clear to atheists and agnostics.
It’s necessary because so many Muslims have been murdered in their mosques here by Sikhs, raped by gangs of Christian Pakistanis, banned from football matches by Jewish Councils, arrested for wearing hijabs by Hindu policemen, and subjected to genocide by atheists. It cannot be allowed to go on or Islam will be a thing of the past in this country…
Islam is not a race and a variety of racial groups are Muslims.
Culture is not determined by race. Conflating race and culture allows the race discrimination legislation to be used when people complain about their culture being erased.
Perhaps we could all deny being Islamophobic but admit to hating Arabist Colonialism.
zebedee
5 months ago
So the government is acknowledging that Muslims are special needs people? Must be all the cousin marriage causing that.
Gezza England
5 months ago
Maybe we will a poll asking if there is too much ‘islamophilia’?
AnneCW
5 months ago
I don’t like this framing. It makes it sound as if Labour had free speech fears. Labour have no affinity whatsoever with free speech. I assume they just thought they were losing votes from people who do.
RTSC
5 months ago
It looks like they’re just dropping the “phobia” bit . A phobia is an instinctive fear of something without real justification.
Perhaps dropping the phobia bit is a quiet admission that the public does indeed have justifiable reason to fear Islam.
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.
“while only 17% disagreed that the Muslim community had been privileged “at the expense of issues affecting wider society”.
Probably most of those answering this question feared that a wrong answer might lead to a knock on the door.
It’ll also include Muslim respondents themselves.
This is so awkward for the Anti-White Party (a.k.a. the Labour Party). It loves and prefers the votes of the imported people (the “Wonderful People”), but there aren’t enough of them yet. Because of this the Anti-White Party still needs the votes of the English (a people the Anti-White Party regards as a “trash people” which is not on the “right side of history”, and which is scheduled to be abolished).
All that’s going on here, then, is that the Anti-White Party has to soften its public adulation for the “Wonderful People” until such time as it doesn’t need the votes of the “trash people”.
And the historic roots of the Labour Party? Who did they used to represent?
whom did they represent
to represent; a transitive verb, i.e. something done to someone; the object takes the form “whom”.
Using already the past tense “did” of the verb to do makes “used to” surplus to requirements, in the same way that the incorrect phrase “safe haven” should be merely “haven” as its definition is a safe place – safe has already been said.
English, innit. Keeping it alive 😉
Thank you and point taken. However, in the current circumstances what should take precedence? The incompleteness of my Secondary Modern teaching (or perhaps my learning), or the subject in hand?
The former as its incompleteness hampers your ability to analyse and apply intellectual rigour to the latter.
Thank you, for your wisdom.
If, and when, I manage to improve my English, how easy will it be, for me, to get to your level of intellectual rigour?
One more question – how do I analyse intellectual rigour?
Said the Czech.
“Human Rights”. Since Rights are entirely a Human concept applicable only to Humans… “Human Rights” is tautological, and Rights anyway are innate not awarded by third parties.
Except – “Human Rights” and the ECHR are inventions to enforce ideological and political aims of the globalist nexus of elites.
Keeping English alive: “very” first… so “first” isn’t first? Then: pre-prepare, pre-heat the oven, differs from heat the oven , how? Pre-plan/pre-book… as opposed to post-plan/post-book.
Then we have: I was sat next to him. Oh? Who sat you?
And – the current irritation du jour… every answer to a question now has to start with “So”. What time is it? So, it’s two o’clock. Where did you go on holiday? So, we went to Corfu.
Whom is kidding whom?
Karl Marx.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EYg8Tgrh0o
Christopher Hitchens on Islamophobia (2009)
“Resist it while you still can and before the right to complain is taken away from you…”
What a loss.
Meanwhile not a peep out of the Labour party working group and the wider race relations industry about Englishness, Anglophobia and anti-white hate.
phobia:
noun
Fear not Hatred
I’m not keen on spiders but I don’t hate them!
Islamaphobia is not even a proper word it’s a distortion to provoke a reaction
Given the ongoing history of Islamist terror and violence against the citizens of the UK, I would say that it is perfectly rational to fear Islam. I certainly do. And I don’t need any made up words to say that.
Not fear, hate; and stand ready to fight it by any means necessary.
I read years ago that Muslims actually copied “homophobia” to invent that term “Islamophobia”.
Both terms are ridiculous. No one is “afraid” of Muslims or sodomites.
I agree that they are both ridiculous, however I think that it is perfectly rational to fear Islam, I do as do many people. Perhaps the country would be in a better position if more people in Westminster also feared Islam. As for the sodomites, their activities are usually between consenting adults, unlike in the systematic r@p€ gangs of men of predominantly Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage.
I don’t necessarily hate Muslims but I hate Islam.
If us a vile mediaeval religion seeking to colonise our poor old country.
I’m a Christian but I have spent quite a bit of my life studying various other religious traditions: Vedanta, Buddhism and through Christianity Judaism.
In all of them I found something valuable, some aspect of the Divine that was somewhat less clear in others. So I can see the attraction for a curious mind in search of the infinite. Also, fundamentally I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t be able to coexist with other religions.
I have to say, with Islam, all I see is hatred, war, intolerance, slavery. Maybe there is a positive side to it, but, I must admit, I haven’t discovered it. If I’m wrong and there is something beautiful here that I have overlooked amongst all the suicide bombers and terror attacks, well, I’m open minded, so please enlighten me.
Anyone who shouts Allahu Akbar while slaughtering people is not under the direction of God but definitely the other guy. This should also be clear to atheists and agnostics.
Yes, it should also be clear that Muslims on their prayer rugs are bowing down to Hell, while pointing their Backsides to Heaven.
Do they think even their Moon Spider Goddess Kali-Allah wants to see millions of Backsides pointing toward the sky?
“Islam is the only religion with a terrorist branch.” Douglas Murray.
I don’t think you can have one without another, can you?
Yet Islam, uniquely, will be protected by law – tough for Hindus, Jews, Pagans, Sikhs, Christians and Atheists.
It’s necessary because so many Muslims have been murdered in their mosques here by Sikhs, raped by gangs of Christian Pakistanis, banned from football matches by Jewish Councils, arrested for wearing hijabs by Hindu policemen, and subjected to genocide by atheists. It cannot be allowed to go on or Islam will be a thing of the past in this country…
How will “hate towards Muslims” be defined, or interpreted by police who these days are behaving like law-makers?
And… can we have a law against hate towards White Anglo-Saxons?
““Islamophobia is rooted in racism…”
Islam is not a race and a variety of racial groups are Muslims.
Culture is not determined by race. Conflating race and culture allows the race discrimination legislation to be used when people complain about their culture being erased.
Perhaps we could all deny being Islamophobic but admit to hating Arabist Colonialism.
So the government is acknowledging that Muslims are special needs people? Must be all the cousin marriage causing that.
Maybe we will a poll asking if there is too much ‘islamophilia’?
I don’t like this framing. It makes it sound as if Labour had free speech fears. Labour have no affinity whatsoever with free speech. I assume they just thought they were losing votes from people who do.
It looks like they’re just dropping the “phobia” bit . A phobia is an instinctive fear of something without real justification.
Perhaps dropping the phobia bit is a quiet admission that the public does indeed have justifiable reason to fear Islam.
When are we going to get an APPG on Kafirphobia?