Mosque in uber-liberal London enclave bans all females over 12 from charity park run...

This is from Tell Mama. I find this very worrying. It could be used against ex - Muslims who robustly criticise Islam.

Anti-Muslim prejudice whilst being targeted against the followers of Islam, (Muslims), can also sometimes include opinions on Islam such as that it has no common values with other cultures, is inferior to the ‘West,’ and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion. Anti-Muslim prejudice in this context can therefore promote a social stigma towards Muslims and Islam, namely by creating a sense of fear and dread about them.

I’m interested in how similar any new law would be to the NCHI about people feeling upset etc

The impact on speech could be chilling. It’s a major religion, it should withstand those outside it criticising it. Especially since it has an impact on women and girls.

It’s not about the ‘doing’ of these things - it’s being able to speak about them. It’s not currently unlawful to do that but if the definition of Islamophobia in the Labour Party website becomes law, we won’t be able to speak about them which makes preventing them a million times more difficult.

Also we have the expressions of Muslimness that are not unlawful but just anti social - like the ongoing battles over the public call to prayer. One of which is at 5am. We want to retain the lawful right to criticise that imo.

Can you see where the clash comes though? It doesn’t say that Islamophobia = speaking against expressions of Muslimness unless they are already unlawful.

We know that there are a significant number of people who think that FGM, child marriage and forced marriage SHOULDN’T be unlawful so what happens if they become in charge?

Those things are covered by law so nothing should be accepted as Muslimness if it’s against the law. The majority of Muslims will be against all those things, and rightly so.

Isn't there an issue with Muslim schools that are mixed sex but then segregate for lessons. I think it went to the Court of Appeal. It's the same principle.
Redstone Academy, a private secondary school in Birmingham, has an Islamic ethos. A damning Ofsted report in 2019 highlighted unlawful segregation between boys and girls 'for all school activities apart from assemblies' and noted that boys were 'treated favourably and have more privileges.

Exactly. This is the worry (and to @EasternStandard ). I really really want to be wrong here but we’ve seen the chilling effect of broadly and badly drafted laws on free speech already.

Should we not be allowed to condemn expressions of Muslimness like forced and child marriage? Or FGM? Or not allowing girls to be educated or seen outside of the home? These are all expressions of Muslimness both here and abroad. (Remember the government estimates 60,000 girls at risk of FGM IN THIS COUNTRY)

And if the current Muslim Council of Britain are deferred to as arbiters of which ‘expressions of Muslimness’ and make a list that sounds ok and we pass a law so broadly defined as above to back that, what’s to stop the next generation of Islamic leaders being more extreme and deeming the above as acceptable in the UK? Some clearly already do, hence the ongoing fight by the authorities to protect girls.

It appears that the Labour want to keep the Muslim vote. How far will they sell us and our democracy down the river to do that? How will we combat it if we are silenced?

It’s a new law which concerns me. How would you determine what is ok to say about a major religion that impacts women and girls.

Thanks bundle. It’s a fine balancing act when the definition and examples are so all encompassing. I think b and c could be easily breached with v little effort. Is it, for example, derogatory to claim that that Islam’s religious values are patriarchal and oppressive to many women? Is that too sweeping? Are we allowed, according to that definition, to refocus on men and the patriarchy to say that many men practising Islam use the religious tenets to oppress women? Or not?

Anyhow, I wonder what Jess Philips would say about this…

Here you go.

In section 5. Seems like a work in progress but may get slipped into law at some point.

labour.org.uk/resources/labours-islamophobia-policy/

Interesting to hear from Naomi. This case highlights the deliberate exclusion of Muslim women from a ‘family’ event on religious grounds. I would be interested to hear what she thinks of their ‘legitimate aim’ given the difficulties women are currently having in excluding men where there is a clearly legitimate aim. There is an asymmetry there that only benefits men.

As we can see by the majority reaction, that does not sit well with our society and raises a wider point about detrimental treatment of women on religious grounds and whether we wish to allow that.

If we say nothing when women are excluded from what is billed as a ‘family’ and ‘community’ event m, what implications does that have for the future as Muslim leaders who hold these views aim to have more power over all of us?

That I don’t know. Just saw that there’s a post on the LP website about Islamophobia as well as one about antisemitism and a complaint process. No definition on its website. Just that one definition included in the recorded talk but without any reference to where the definition was being drawn from by the women talking.

Edit: posted before seeing bundleboogie post.

I’m not sure if the exact mechanism but Keir Starmer confirmed recently that he was working with the Muslim Council of Britain on a new definition of Islamophobia possibly to be added to the hate crime laws? So this could be something they are trying to slip in fairly quietly so people don’t notice until they start making example arrests for Islamophobia. Like they have been doing to women (and some men) on women’s rights.

The quote about ‘expressions of Muslimness’ is in the Labour Party website part way down after reference to the APPG. @DrBlackbird , I copied most of the text from the website in a previous post and included a link. Sorry an at work and haven’t got time to revisit now.

But as Maya Forster says, they have an easy get out. They were actually running TWO separate races (that happen to run at the same time - common in mass participation events):

1. a race for children under 13 using single characteristic exception (age)
2. a race for males using single characteristic exception (sex)

It would be sneaky, but it would be a pretty good defence.

Tower Hamlets "uber-liberal enclave" 😂😂😂😂
WTF does that even mean?

And yes, it's likely that this event is unlawful as it appears to be combined discrimination under s.14 of the Equality Act 2010.

It is concerning. Is a new law being considered?

Someone on the other thread posted about the Labour Party’s website’s definition of Islamophobia. They claimed the definition included not being able to criticise anything in relation to Islam. That seemed quite broad so I was curious and went and looked.

I could not see any formal definition from the Labour Party itself (though it might be somewhere) but there was an ‘Introduction to Islamophobia’ video on their website that at 11:51 min in offers this definition: Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness. This seems quite broad, too broad, and many posted comments in the two threads might fall under this definition I think. What does ‘target’ mean?

Criticising aspects of any religion can be hurtful to those following the religion but is worrying if we are not allowed to criticise any group in our liberal society. For example, IMO, it was wrong for the police to arrest the man who held a placard protesting against the King during his ascendency to the throne.

I've just seen a post from Naomi Cunningham on the subject. She says "It's thoroughly unattractive, but unfortunately it's far from clear that it's unlawful."

Unsurprising -they’re probably aware they broke the law.

The organisers have massively wiped their Instagram page. Seem to have taken off details of the charities who benefit and blocked comments.

It mentioned unity and family fun, rather than single sex
Family fun where some are allowed to participate and some are invited to watch (gee, thanks) doesnt sound like fun for all the family to me, regardless of who organised it.

You are getting quite hung up on this perceived ‘ignorance’.

Have you considered the wider issues here? The negative impact on real people which is sometimes reported in the Daily Mail among other outlets?

Do you acknowledge that some aspects of Islam are incompatible with our law and values of our society? Do you think Muslim leaders with these views should be given more power over all of our lives?

Surely you can have sympathies for immigrant communities without accepting bad or deliberately discriminatory and unlawful behaviour when it happens?

Condoning bad behaviour because of the colour of the perpetrators skin or immigration status seems quite racist. Why shouldn’t all residents of this country be held to the same laws and standards? Are you saying that they can’t because they are inadequate?

Because if that’s not what you are saying then it’s because they won’t in which case we need to have a conversationalist that. We can’t have a happy and functioning society where specific groups are given exemption from the laws of the land.

If some people are uncomfortable in attending an event that includes women/men, they don't need to attend.
I’m not quite sure what you mean here. You do know the issue with this ‘family friendly’ fun run is that women were banned? All boys and girls under 12 were allowed but girls 12 and over and women were only allowed to watch, not participate. Some men at the mosque objected to the presence of women so they were banned.

If the separation was for women's safety surely the race should be for children and women only, keep the men away. Women shouldn't have to change their behaviour, men do.

Agreed. I think it says alot about them that they choose to overlook a serious matter as it is delivered by an outfit they don't like. Very shallow IMO.
For what its worth, I actually have a lot of time for DM after they campaigned tirelessly for justice for Stephen Lawrence's murder. Paul Dacre practically took it on as a special project. The McPherson report, the reopening of the investigation, the eventual conviction of one of the suspects for Stephen's murder, all thanks to the DM having a bit in its teeth and not letting go.