Fears Labour’s Islamophobia definition could silence women’s rights campaigners - Baroness Falkner

She really is thick and worse, cannot keep away from social media. She keeps posting the offensive tweets about about others but always gets a free pass for her offensiveness.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/89mvhv/labour_mp_naz_shahs_necklacing_winnie_mandela/

Yes. Is it just a wild coincidence that millions of Muslims are carrying out FGM?

We know the level of control achievable by Islamists where they are almost the total majority in a country.

If FGM is so ‘un-Islamic’ as PPs are so desperate to convince us - why haven’t they stopped it already and why do these Muslims want to do it?

Some very ‘silo’ed’ thinking going on by PPs.

I agree. And yet there’s a massive difference between offending people, which may be annoying, and oppressing them, which causes them genuine harm and frequently escalates to violence, including murder.

Free speech has to include the right to offend people. Otherwise it is not free speech.

Exactly. Look at the people we are not allowed to criticise to see who has the power.

This is very worrying
Naz Shah is a particularly thick one though. When Winnie Mandela died, she tweeted approvingly of "necklacing" having not the slightest idea of what it was.

I can’t believe anyone could be that stupid.

😟That's grim.

Thanks. You’ve solidified my intention to join them. Want to support.

Sometimes I worry because it’s already too late - that Labour have done something which has given the means to stay in power as long as they want so they don’t care if we hate them, they know we have no choice. They have started by cancelling local elections - what next?

Yet no one took Naz Shah to court for her RT because those thousands of girls raped have no 'protected' characteristic. Naz Shah is a particularly thick one though. When Winnie Mandela died, she tweeted approvingly of "necklacing" having not the slightest idea of what it was. A party that is full of such thickos has no business drafting speech curtailment laws.

Just to add to my delight.

During the trial, Ms Shah accepted that there is a disproportionate representation of Pakistani men in grooming-gang cases.

Wow, over 1000 GC feminists!?!

Stephen Bradbury acquitted at Derby Magistrates’ Court – The Free Speech Union https://share.google/IDbKfp4H3E8LKNQK6

The case centred on two posts on X in which Mr Bradbury criticised Naz Shah, the Labour MP for Bradford West, after she liked and shared a post from an Owen Jones parody account stating, with reference to the grooming-gangs scandal: “Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of #diversity.”

Copied and pasted from Toby Young's Twitter feed, Feb 19th 2025. Sorry I can't screenshot it:

'Yesterday I got the following email from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:
'Hi there I am writing on censorship in my column today and want to know if the Free Speech Union has defended the rights of pro-Palestinian protestors and defenders in the UK. My deadline is 3.30. I would be immensely grateful for a prompt reply.'

'This was my reply:
'Hi Yasmin. Thanks for getting in touch.

'Yes, we've defended several people who've got into trouble with their employers for their outspoken support of the Palestinian cause, including a commercial lawyer and an academic.

'I may be a Conservative peer, but the Free Speech Union is a non-partisan organisation and will defend any of its members who get into trouble for exercising their right to lawful free speech, regardless of whether I agree with their political views or not.

'Over the past five years we have defended over 3,300 people, including over 1,000 gender critical feminists. The vast majority of them are left-wing, but the FSU has gone into bat for them again and again, which is more than can be said for the UCU or any of the other so-called free speech advocacy groups.

'If you're a member and you get into trouble for exercising your right to lawful free speech, we will defend you – and that includes putting together a team of top lawyers and paying all your legal costs if we think your case merits that.

'We now have more than 26,500 members, which is more than the NUJ, and continue to grow at a rate of over 1,000 new members every month.

'The FSU is also a growing international movement. There are now FSUs in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Switzerland and this week saw the launch of the FSU of Canada. I recently set up FSU International to coordinate the activities of all the different FSUs and to help people set up new ones and appointed a former British Ambassador, Jon Benjamin, to run it. We hope to see FSUs established in France, Germany and Brazil in the near future.

'Best,
'Toby'
8:04 AM · Feb 19, 2025

https://x.com/toadmeister/status/1892123123828281749

I think that once certain ideas and practices are in the public domain - anyone can question, interrogate, criticise and even insult them. There are dozens of countries in which islamic laws - which routinely disadvantage women, gays, non muslims - hold sway as law of the land. This is not case with other religions (except maybe with abortion laws in some catholic majority countries) and thus, it is even more urgent for anyone who has an interest in human rights to question these iniquitous laws. That they originate from religion does not exempt them from scrutiny.

FGM is a muslim issue as it is religiously sanctioned or widely perceived to be sunnah, or acceptable practice. Religious authorities in many diverse muslim communities across the globe permit it or do not work particularly hard to condemn it. Indonesia, the world's most populous muslim nation, had no record of FGM until conversion to Islam and in recent years with increasing religiosity has seen increased rates of FGM, though the type practised in Indonesia is less harmful (clitoral cutting rather than removal). There are non-muslim african communities that practise FGM but when it comes to the sheer numbers and institutional religious sanction, it is a global Muslim issue. You may not want to admit it as you seem to be fighting a different battle rather than the one for women and girls' safety and dignity.

Yep

If pp is allowed to say such offensive things about him without being silenced I guess they can thank him for his efforts later.

I'll believe they are for free speech the moment they back cases of people who don't share the politics of Mr Young with as much vigour as those whose views are in alignment with them.

If I were to hold my breath waiting for them to demonstrate they aren't just a right wing lawfare mirror of the glp, the dodo would be more alive than me...

This, exactly.

FWIW I think Labour are dancing on the knife edge of satisfying the public and, on the other side, their back benchers.
I could almost pity them.

I sometimes wonder if Labour are deliberately making themselves unelectable by destroying any sense of good will that they may have had. I do not understand how anyone can look at what they have been doing and see a positive outcome.

Agree with you and pp too. Of course Labour don’t want scrutiny.

We don’t need the definition and it probably will go at the next GE.

This.

The FSU are highlighting what is going on, and are trying to ask for clarity, as are other groups who have been shut out of discussions. It's all being done behind closed doors, and that doesn't inspire confidence, particularly from a party that have already made it clear that they are going to steamroll ahead on other contentious issues.

I didn’t share that FAU post because I necessarily agreed that they should have been included, I shared it because ause a number of PPs on here seem to think that the government gave wound down discussions on this due to public opinion but in reality, they are just hiding it.

The FSU point was that the discussions, although an ‘Islamophobia’ law will have wide ranging effects, discussions are being held behind closed doors with no transparency as to who is involved.

There is no need for a law against Islamophobia, any more than we need a law against Christianophobia. We already have hate speech laws and they are being misused against us. Harassment, assault, vandalism are already crimes - and there are two Hate crime strands that would cover any race or religious related aggravating factors (yes I know Islam isn’t a race but I’m sure there are common factors in actual anti Muslim attacks).

There were 9000 crimes including violence and vandalism recorded in churches last year. Who knows how many of those were religiously motivated?

There is little open discussion from government about exactly what the government want to protect Muslims from but the risks to society of shutting down free speech and stopping us from dealing with abhorrent behaviour by an ultra protected group are huge. That 6% have power.

PPs who think I’m making a fuss about nothing should also listen to the Muslims trying to warn us of the rush’s, in some cases they have come here to flee the situation we appear to be moving towards.

I’m glad Baroness Falkner is speaking now rather than waiting which seems to be the pro Labour stance.

Once it’s done there’s little to be achieved on changing it. Which I suppose is what some will want.

My "obvious agenda" being what, exactly?

I would be concerned if the existing APPG definition of "Islamophobia" was adopted as guidance for government authorities.

I think a definition that distinguishes between hate speech (directed at people) vs criticism of ideas and beliefs (Islam) is potentially helpful, and arguably bolsters free speech (because it will help stop wrong-headed attempts to shut down criticism of Islam, based on authorities finding it difficult to distinguish between the two).

It sounds broadly in line with the recent Employment Triubnal decision in Patrick Lee v Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which FSU supported (and which I think was a good decision by the ET).

I don't think its outrageous that FSU have not been consulted by the working group. I am dubious about them continuing to reference "blasphemy laws", given that the working group do not seem to be going down the road.

I will ultimately reserve judgment until a definition is published.