Schools Urged to Monitor Anti-Muslim Hostility
Schools, councils and workplaces will be encouraged to monitor incidents of anti-Muslim hostility under Labour ‘Islamophobia’ plans that critics warn risk having a “chilling effect” on free speech. The Telegraph has more.
The Government on Monday unveiled a definition of anti-Muslim hostility as part of its strategy for social cohesion.
Public, private and charity bodies are to be urged to adopt the non-statutory definition, which was going to be of Islamophobia before the description was changed amid fears it could amount to a blasphemy law by the back door.
Announcing the plan in the Commons, Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, said the Government had a duty to act against record levels of hate crime against Muslims, but that “you can’t tackle a problem if you can’t describe it”.
However, the move drew warnings from Tories and free speech campaigners that it could hinder “legitimate criticism of Islamism”.
There are also fears it could lead to a system as controversial as non-crime hate incidents, which have been criticised for drawing police into investigating online spats and are expected to be scrapped.
Paul Holmes, the Shadow Communities Minister, said: “It risks undermining free speech within the law, it risks hindering legitimate criticism of Islamism, and it risks creating a back-door blasphemy law.”
Lord Young, the Director of the Free Speech Union, said: “It will inevitably have a chilling effect on free speech because people will be inhibited about raising concerns about specifically Muslim issues, such as honour killings, for fear of being accused of anti-Muslim hostility.”
The new definition describes anti-Muslim hostility as “prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim, including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals”.
Reed told MPs the definition would “safeguard” the right to freedom of speech about religion and ensure that concerns raised in the public interest were protected.
It sets out examples of expression that would be “protected”, such as criticising a religion, including Islam, or its practices; ridiculing or insulting a religion or belief; portraying it in a manner that some of its adherents might find disrespectful or scandalous; raising concerns in the public interest, and contributing to debates.
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.
“Labour ‘Islamophobia’ plans that critics warn risk having a “chilling effect” on free speech”
No WARNING is required because the WHOLE POINT is to curtail free speech, by definition. There is no RISK – it is a DESIGNED IN DEAD CERTAINTY.
Absolutely ToF. Given the Koran’s edicts about the infidels, implacable hostility to Islam is the only sane course.
Well I am implacably hostile to those who are facilitating the entry of millions of aliens into our country, and also hostile to the entry of those aliens. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that large numbers of at least certain groups of Muslims will not bring benefits to the UK.
The one guaranteed outcome of showering privileges on this most favoured group is to engender foster and stir up resentment building through frustration to hatred of that group by us, the majority.
Anybody with a brain can see that.
Why do our rulers persist in provoking us?
There are many theories, but whatever the reason, our rulers and their useful idiots (of which there are many) are in my eyes more to blame than the people who’ve entered this country, legally or illegally.
Yes of course that is true.
Yes, I agree. But what I’d also say is that Muslims are their own worst enemy because it’s due to their well documented appalling behaviour that people hate them ( or Islam, at least ) in the first place. They have a very bad image, understandably, and this is based on shed-loads of evidence in the form of the crimes they’ve committed and what we know is written in the Koran. How can normal people be expected to differentiate between the good and the bad Muslims? So it’s entirely inevitable that there’ll come a point ( already reached by many ) where we just tar them all with the same brush and see them as a collective threat and just want them all gone because it’s easier and more practical that way, in much the same way as how Egypt didn’t let any Gazans through to safety when Israel retaliated. Because they knew from history that these people are a threat and more trouble than they’re worth, and unfortunately any decent ones get lumped in with the dangerous ones because it’s impossible to tell them apart so best to just ban the lot. ”The United States currently has 4-5 million… Read more »
Yes it’s very sad and our evil rulers and their useful idiots should be made to clean up this mess except there is no easy solution. I know a tiny number of Muslims and they all seem like fine people who cause no trouble. One of them describes The Prophet as a paedophile – he has studied in depth. If much smaller numbers had arrived and we had been a lot more discerning about exactly who came, we would not be having this conversation
I think that is the key point, an admixture of foreign races and cultures can easily be seen as a genuine enrichment.
However an invasion taking over many many otherwise and formerly charming provincial towns plus London plus our already benighted second city no population will tolerate that for long.
The question of numbers is essential.
Numbers absolutely matter
All things are poison, it’s a question of amount.
100%
Probably because our rulers lack functioning brains especially that c*nt Reed who was dribbling about how well the colonies of invaders have integrated.
Could I show a drawing of their prophet to an RE class without risk of having to go into hiding for the rest of my life?
Why isn’t our verminous government also trying to suppress anti-kaffir hostility?
If you look for something hard enough you will surely find it – whether it exists or not. And there will be many, many, people looking really hard.
Steve Reed: the man who puts the ‘communist’ into ‘communities’. 🙄
Blimey. People have every right to be concerned and suspicious about them. And this isn’t even taking into account the amount of sex crimes they’ve carried out ( and still are, presently ) over the decades. Yes, a country clearly can never have too many imported jihadists or rapists, FFS! Also, these figures aren’t taking into account the complicity of many of the women and other family members, especially where the highly organized and extensive Pakistani rape gangs were concerned, and don’t tell me no woman knows that her husband, son or brother is planning a terrorist attack; ”UK Muslim population 4m UK Muslims on Mi5 watch list 40k Equals 1 in 100 of all Muslims on terror watch list. Remove women children and elderly The number is actually about 1 in 35 Muslim men in the UK on the terror watch list Insane” Coldhardfacts. Fact checked from Grok when asked if accurate; ”Yes, roughly accurate. UK Muslim pop: ~4.2m (6.5% per recent estimates from 2021 census + growth). MI5 Islamist subjects on watchlist: ~39-40k (75% of total per Shawcross 2023 review & Henry Jackson Soc reports; total watchlist historically ~43k, with increases since). = ~1 in 100 overall. Focusing… Read more »
This is going to end badly
So if someone is accused of a crime, or is intercepted before they commit a crime and they happen to be Muslim, or believe they were thought to be Muslim, they can claim they are being targeted as AMH.
But no way anyone is going to exploit this, right…
I am sick and tired of being force fed Islam by the state and the media, or is it now compulsory?
The tail appears to be wagging the dog.
Well they’re not wagging me!
Until you get locked up or stoned or even decapitated 😳
Can you raise the issue of certain rape gangs, even if you point out other perpetrators are available?
Here is an incomplete list of Islamophobia:
The Armenian Genocide
The Greek Genocide
The Assyrian Genocide
Munich Olympics
Entebbe
Pan Am Flt 103
MS Achille Lauro
US Embassy Beirut
US Embassy Tehran
Lee Rigby
9/11
7/7
Manchester Arena
Samuel Paty
Sir David Ames
Salmon Rushdie
Theo van Gogh
Jacques Hamel
London Bridge
Borough Market
Westminster Bridge
Glasgow Airport
Barcelona
Madrid Railway Station
Mumbai
Nice
Berlin
Nairobi
Boston Marathon
Tunisia
Charlie Hebdo
Dublin
Reading
Beslan School
The Bataclan
Louisa Vesterager Jespersen and Maren Ueland
Chibok schoolgirls
ISIS
Yazidis
David Haines
James Foley
Kris Donald
Palmyra
Khaled al-Asaad
Hamas
Hezbollah
Taliban
Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades
Rochdale Rape Gangs
Rotherham Rape Gangs
Telford Rape Gangs
Amie Grey
Southport
Terence Carney
Oct 7th
Nigerian Christians
Syrian Christians
Magdeburg
Manchester Synagogue
Gurvinder Johal
Wayne Broadhurst
Bondi Beach
………………….
Well sourced but I’m on the fence with some of those , 9/11 being the main one .
For arguments sake lets remove 9/11. How does the incomplete list look now?
I’m sure it’s all just a misunderstanding and they meant all these things peacefully.
You can add to that a recent incident of people coincidentally coming out of the mosque and attacking hindus celebrating holi in Harrow.
Anti-Muslim hostility is a vague tautology, saying the same thing twice. It is a legal nonsense. Furthermore, for it to be an offence, hostility needs to be enacted and it is difficult to think of any hostile act that is not already illegal – except holding or expressing an opposing or adversarial opinion. Therefore this unintelligible proposal must be intended to restrict thought and speech. Making mention by default of the Theocracy of Islam followed by Muslims bestows a distinct endorsement, and no religion – particularly one with its own legal system, should receive government endorsement in the UK. It is a complete outrage and I urge all those opposed to support the FSU in its endeavour to challenge it.
In his speech Reed mentioned evidence of rising hate incidents against the Muslim community. Really? He gave no stats or examples. We could easily point however to the number of Jews being attacked…… but there are fewer of those than the 4M Muslims of course, so their vote would make no difference.
I keep seeing that image of 2TK being slobbered over and literally caressed by MUslim leaders at the Iftcar in Westminster Hall last Friday. It explained a lot…. And made me very worried for the future…
Westminster Hall, of all places? Kneel Starmer is deliberate in this provocation. Also, what religious or culteral group would knowingly invade such a significant building of a different culture?
Bit early in the seasons but The Turkeys are voting for Christmas in large numbers 🤯