Majority of Public “Does Not Want” Labour’s Islamophobia Definition
Labour’s new definition of Islamophobia is not wanted by the majority of the public in any form, with just a fifth backing it, a poll has found, amid a free speech backlash. The Telegraph has the story.
Only one fifth of the public backs creating either a new definition of Islamophobia or of anti-Muslim hate, according to the survey of 1,500 adults.
Labour has tried to shift the emphasis of the definition from Islamophobia to ‘anti-Muslim hatred’ in face of a major backlash, with critics warning that it will threaten free speech.
The change in tone was evident in the Commons on Wednesday at Prime Minister’s Questions when Sir Keir Starmer chose to use the term “anti-Muslim hatred” rather than Islamophobia.
However, the survey by pollsters JL Partners found that around a third opposed both definitions and only a fifth supported either of them, indicating that any change in terminology will make no difference to public opinion.
Some 36% said that a new definition of Islamophobia was a wholly or somewhat “bad” thing, while 20% said it was wholly or somewhat a “good” thing.
Meanwhile, 31% said that a new definition using the term anti-Muslim hatred was a wholly or somewhat “bad” thing, while one in five (20%) said it was wholly or somewhat a “good” thing.
A working group was originally set up to draw up an official definition of Islamophobia. However it has reportedly removed all references to Islamophobia or Muslimness in its final report, which is now before ministers.
Instead, it is said to have opted to use the term “anti-Muslim hate” in an attempt to counter fears that the use of Islamophobia could restrict free speech.
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.
Quite rightly a Muslim in Britain enjoys equal protection under the Law and this cannot be qualified or modified without creating a special or privileged class of society. Apart from idolatry, no religion is corporeal, but is an act of blind faith which cannot be protected, since the reason for its existence cannot be proven. I am guessing Labour has come up against this inconvenient reality which is why it is looking for ways around it. Endorsing any organized religion, especially one with its own legal system, by giving it a special status is fraught with peril.
It reminds me of the Hanseatic League. Germans occupied defined quarters of all significant sea ports around the Baltic with which they traded. Within them they administered their own law (akin to Sharia being administered in Muslim communities here) and throughout the cities they were given special protection: attack a German there and you would be severly punished but the reverse seems not to have been true (two tier, as here now).
I do not know if the Germans had different religion from the places they occupied. By then Germany was largely Catholic and Luther did not come along for a couple of centuries. I do not know if the Baltic cities were Catholic or heathen in those days.
“Islamophobia” is the great ideological lie invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s. It’s been adopted by the madleft because they hope that Muslims will be the madleft’s allies in the construction of the secular paradise that the madleft is hoping to create on this Earth. To say that the madleft is engaged in wishful thinking is to understate their stupidity.
Madleft thinking:”these religious fanatics will be great allies in the construction of a secular paradise”.
This is indeed their level of comprehension.
Speaking of the Brotherhood, idiot treasonous politicians made this possible;
BREAKING:
”More than a hundred million dollars have been stolen from Swedish taxpayers by a network of Islamist Muslim Brotherhood-linked Imams who ran private schools in Sweden and how now fled the country.
An explosive investigation by one of Sweden’s largest newspapers Expressen reveals that the group looted OVER ONE BILLION SEK in school vouchers and welfare funds.
One of them, the former Member of Parliament, Abdirizak Waberi, siphoned off SEK 12M via fake IT invoices to fund sex clubs in Thailand, luxury hotels & his own Islamist party in Somalia.
A group of Imams classified by the Swedish Security Service (Säpo) in 2019 as threats to national security (Abo Raad, Abdel Nasser El Nadi, Hussein al-Jibury) ran schools/preschools that funnelled tens of millions to Malta, private individuals & extremist groups.
Most schools have been shut down – sometimes for extremism, sometimes via the “Al Capone route” (economic crimes).
Taxpayer money meant for Swedish children instead funded luxury lifestyles & radical Islamism.
“A double loss for society,” says prosecutor Henric Fagher.”
https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sverige/islamister-flyr-sverige-lamnar-efter-sig-miljoner-i-obetalda-skatteskulder/
And they were all blokes!
I don’t think you can get Imams in a female version.
Is it an expression of anti-Muslim sentiment to say something like “I have serious reservations about a warlord who bought, sold and kept slaves, executed people who surrendered to him and married a six year old girl?”
Speaking of anti-Muslim sentiments, seems they’ve got the same issues with overreach and appeasement in Sweden. Fancy taking a man of this age to court over a few schnapps-induced comments; ”A 90-year-old man in a Borås nursing home has been charged with inciting hatred after allegedly telling staff that all Muslims should leave Sweden, comments witnesses say he made after drinking a couple of shots of schnapps with his lunch. The incident took place in August in the home’s cafeteria, where the man routinely has two shots of schnapps during meals to help with pain relief. According to witness accounts provided to police as cited by Samnytt, he grew irritated with the staff — many of whom are Muslim — and muttered that he was “fucking tired of this place” and that “these Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to stay.” He then allegedly directed the remarks at a Syrian staff member wearing a headscarf, telling her that all Muslims must leave the country and that she “shouldn’t stay here.” The case is now proceeding to court. They are also seeking a conviction for molestation as an alternative charge. Three colleagues, two of them also Muslim, told investigators they heard the comments clearly.… Read more »
Many people would agree, including the undersigned.
Or a made-up character and a religion concocted from Gnostic heresies still circulating into the 7th Century, that sought to legitimise those practices.
Hear, hear!
69% of the population can’t see the danger of defining criticism of Islam as racism. That’s concerning.
Slightly Off-T.
Meanwhile in N. Ireland the teaching of Christian beliefs has been ruled illegal by Blair’s Supreme Court
https://x.com/TheNorfolkLion/status/1991173459221577737
Interesting, isn’t it?
A couple found the idea of their daughter’s participation in the school’s Christian education lessons so intolerable, they just had to go all the way to the High Court. Even though they could have withdrawn their daughter from the corresponding lessons.
So, regardless of the pissing about in Westminster the muzzies have got the result they wanted anyway. The fireworks will be going off tonight.
Our Parliament is nothing more than a gravy train talking shop. What’s the point?
Phobia-definition. ‘Extreme or irrational fear of or aversion’. So there’s no such thing as Islamophobia. Additionally, if there was, where is sikhismophobia, buddhismophobia or Hinduismophobia. How come Islam has cornered the market?
Christianophobia ?
If any religious group is under attack we Christians are a close second to the Jews. See my post below.
Typed that Hux, but considered it a little too parochially partisan, so went for the alternatives.
Sorry guys ,I do hate Islam.
I don’t think that makes me a bad person.
You are a saint 😀
You can hate an ideology.
That’s fine. Even in Christianity.
But not individuals.
43 out of 71 people also do not want Islam, Muslims or the Labour Party…..pppffftttt
Let people ‘hate’ all they want… but only punish them for illegal actions like discrimination or violence.
That wasn’t difficult was it?
It seems to have been forgotten, especially in the House of Commons, that this country, in its laws and customs, is based on Christian roots. Immigrants who have come to this country in past centuries accepted this and integrated. The UK is a European country with general European values and customs in law and order and respect for people with different opinions. With this background going back many centuries, I am absolutely fed up to the back teeth to pick up my daily paper, or tune in to the news, to find them dominated day after day with Muslims complaining bitterly about every aspect of life here and demanding special treatment. The basic tenet of Christianity of loving your neighbour and turning the other cheek is being scorned and swept aside by the followers of the religion of peace shouting “Death” to anyone who upsets them. Tolerance can only be stretched so far and the influx of so many, especially young men, in such a short period of time with a wildly different attitude to life and civil behaviour, especially towards women and girls, is a recipe for resentment and civil disorder. It is the parliamentarians who are primarily responsible… Read more »
Majority of the public don’t want Labour.
Kidding the ring of the Muhhammadans. Labour is shut scared of them. Violence works, doesn’t it
Why islamophobia, but no Buddhaphobia? Why Islamophobia but not Hinduphobia? —-We are not supposed to discriminate against any religion, and seems fair enough. But Islam is not just a religion. It is a political and legal system as well. If something is political then it MUST be able to be questioned and criticised.
What they have never realised and never will is what people really don’t like is the fundamental destabilising of the demographic balance of their country. I have lived and worked in a Muslim country and thoroughly enjoyed my time there. But I can’t imagine for one minute that they would entertain the idea of a law to protect Christian values or large parts of their towns and cities becoming Christian or non Muslim enclaves.