Labour’s Islamophobia Definition “Unlawful”
Counter-extremism experts have warned that Keir Starmer’s new Islamophobia definition could backfire badly – risking unfairly sidelining other faiths and stirring more community tension. The Telegraph has the story.
The proposals could also backfire by inflaming tensions among other minority faith groups who might perceive it as favouring Muslims, says the analysis by the respected Counter Extremism Group (CEG), a research centre.
The report, by Dr Daniel Allington of King’s College, which was backed by a panel of experts including legislators and police, comes ahead of the publication of Labour’s official definition of anti-Muslim hostility.
Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, is finalising the new definition based on a draft from an advisory group, headed by Dominic Grieve, the former Tory attorney general, which was submitted to the Government in October.
The non-statutory definition is aimed at providing guidance for behaviour codes that public bodies, councils and businesses could adopt to combat prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards Muslims.
The group’s definition has avoided the word “Islamophobia” and instead called it “anti-Muslim hostility” so that it focuses on hate towards Muslims rather than Islam. It follows concerns over its potential impact on free speech and fears of a back-door blasphemy law.
However, the CEG report claimed that any definition was unnecessary because existing UK equality, hate and human rights laws already provided adequate protection for members of all faith groups, including Muslims. …
It added that existing laws also safeguarded free speech because, while protecting the right to practise and promote a religion, they also underpinned the right to criticise religions and their associated practices. …
It also said a definition of anti-Muslim hate officially introduced by Government could have “serious unintended consequences”, because it was likely that councils, schools and police would use it as if it was a “statutory” definition when it was non-statutory. …
The report concluded that the best response to anti-Muslim hate was an “even-handed re-assertion of the existing British legal framework for religious hate” rather than singling out one community and introducing a new definition or legislation that could be “counterproductive and divisive”.
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.
I think it is a pointless effort expecting anything these lunatics in power to do anything sensible. The hope is that when their paymasters in Iran are overthrown they will be exposed.
Agreed although I have now come to the conclusion that the real paymasters are the Chinese so the fall of the mad mullahs in Teheran will have little impact.
Chinese embassy to be built above London’s telephone cabling ?
Who would have thought that?
100 %.
“When I use a word,’ [Sir Keir] said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said [Sir Keir], ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Control the language, control the argument.
The non-statutory definition is aimed at … prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards Muslims
Here’s an idea. Since 1979 there have been over 48,000 Muslim terrorist attacks world-wide – admittedly the great majority directed at other Muslims. Could I politely suggest that “prejudice” (i.e. justified fear and dislike) might be less if Muslims killed fewer people?
How extraordinarily reasonable 🙄
The Koran tells them to do it, and we all know that holy books trump everything.
“might perceive it as favouring Muslims”… ‘Might’ 😀
Complaining won’t work because the intention behind this bill has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with giving Islam an advantage when it deliberately stokes tension and division.
As for Dominic Grieve… what a repulsive little man he is.
Agreed. The intention behind all new and wholly unnecessary legislation is to stoke tensions and division.
It is lucky everything works so well in Britain that Ministers and civil servants can find time for such needless and damaging activities as this. Ooops, perhaps not everything is that great after all.
I would put it this way. Lampoon or portray Jesus Christ in a cartoon – nobody dies.
If “Islamophobia” is considered a big enough problem to warrant this, then that implies that there are significant numbers of “Islamophobes” out there OR small numbers but those “Islamophobes” can whip lots of other people up into an anti-Islamic frenzy. So maybe a conclusion to draw is that lots of people here don’t like Islam. A possible solution to that would be to have less Islam here. It’s a bit like serving spinach all the time, hearing lots of complaints from people who don’t like it, and “solving” the problem by forcing people to pretend to like spinach and implying they are Bad People if they don’t. This is pretty much what has happened with all “anti-racist” legislation. If almost everyone loved all of these immigrants, there would be no need for laws to stop people saying they don’t like it.
Excellent comment.
Giving the muslim religion – one noted as the biggest promoter of terrorist attacks and random murders and rape in the World – a unique protected status might backfire and cause increase tensions. Really?? Ya think?
So we are about to have protection for a foreign religion whilst having had the blasphemy laws of our native religion abolished! Absolutely insane! Imagine doing the reverse in any Muslim country!