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

I meant 'they' as in the Government, not the EHRC. Reading back, I realise that wasn't the clearest, apologies!

Why should one religion be afforded greater protections than another, or than other groups of people? We already have laws that cover this. For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with saying "‘Muslims are terrorists and violent". It's wrong, but it shouldn't be illegal. What is Islamophobic about it?

There’s deliberate conflation on this thread between curtailing speech and criticism of Islam and incitement of hate against Muslims.
I think you need to substatiate that. I've seen no 'incitement of hate' on these threads.

Surely you recognise how discussions of grooming gangs has been silenced by authorities in the name of cultural cohesion. How pleas for legislation to protect women from misogyny in Sharia Councils has been ignored.
Not to mention the in your face attacks on freedom of speech regarding Salman Rushdie, Hamit Coskin and the teacher still in hiding after threats from Islamists.
I didn't see local Muslims rallying to the defence of that teacher.

I’m so confused the governments website states it’s to tackle racism towards Muslims . Much like the antisemitism definition… the amount of hate Muslims get alone on this platform should be evident of that.

There’s deliberate conflation on this thread between curtailing speech and criticism of Islam and incitement of hate against Muslims.

‘Muslims are terrorists and violent’ - Islamophobia

’does Islamic text promote intolerance the use of violence?’ - open speech/criticism/dialogue of a religion

There’s massive difference between the two and i am not sure I buy the faux outrage on this thread that you won’t be able to discuss women’s rights or oppressive tactics by men.

She's part of the community, so she will be aware. She has done a good job. And Muslim women are suppressed in many parts of the world, and quite possibly here in the UK. It's not in any way racist to say so.

Not just Sikhs, they should ask women. As for wait till until they do it from pp it’s too late then.

I repeat, @CrossChecking, why is this called Islamophobia not Muslimphobia?

The Taliban and other Muslim men who abuse women quote parts of the Koran to justify their actions against women who are second class.
Therefore if those verses really exist in that book which is the authority of how to behave all Muslim women are potentially at risk and women just have to hope that their men chose not to follow those verses.
In the Rochdale and other northern cases, male and female relatives of the convicted men used the Koran to justify their opinion that the white girls were of less value than their men.
We can accept that those people may not themselves have been high grade scholars. But they do get support from their 'clergy' the Mullahs for those views.

And horror of horrors the secret backers of SexMatters.

Excellent post.

Would people think it’s right for people being scathing about Christianity to be prosecuted or for public services to have guidelines about suppressing their views? People making comments about how the Christian right in the US are misogynistic? Homophobic?

One of the problems is that the government has consulted with Muslim groups but few non Muslims. For example the Sikhs are very concerned. It reminds me of the GRA and the lack of consultation with women.
It's obvious they are in a bind and are using their usual modus operandi of sleight of hand instead of open democratic debate.

I’m not sure that it is clear that anti-Muslim crime is at a record high per capita of the population (because with a growing population you might have more numbers of crimes even if the likelihood of incidences are no more frequent) right now, unless you’re counting hate crimes, which could be quite spuriously recorded and are likely to be distortive (I doubt that the police were recording all and any instances of racism in the 70s, or indeed the 90s, frankly). None of this is to say that racism or hate crime is ok or that government should not try to improve things, but if you’re legislating for a particular type of racism, it’s only sensible to understand whether it really is a growing issue and how it arises before you do so?

I don’t think that there should even be a debate as to whether criticising a religious practice comes under protected belief and I do think that the Islamophobia definition will open this up. Yes, you may well have a defence, but you’re on the back foot unless you can be totally certain your belief is protected and that, for example, your employer won’t just sack you and then you have to try to advocate your belief; who actually wants to be in a Sandy Peggy situation?

I think it’s fine for people to openly say that, in their view, cousin marriage has no place in modern Britain. That will obviously offend certain communities and those who have such marriages, but it’s not the same as saying that we should attack people. Same with conversations about FGM, or integration. Or women’s rights.

It’s pretty clear that girls are going to be vulnerable in a very specific way in a culture in which the freedom of girls is restricted and women are required to preserve their family’s honour, which is how some Muslim communities work. But it’s pretty clear in the case of Sara Sharif that the fact that her family was Muslim made authorities less likely to look at whether she required protection and not equally or even more likely, despite the fact that she was a withdrawn underweight child suddenly covering her head. I can’t imagine this is going to be improved where a definition of Islamophobia is likely to prompt public authorities to be even more scared of even suggesting that some cultures or cultural practices might give rise to additional safeguarding concerns. This does not mean that I think that all Muslim families abuse children, obviously. There are obviously child protection issues that are not associated with the strict Muslim community - alcohol abuse being one. I don’t believe that we should profile people and assume they are abusers and criminals as a result of their background. But in order to do a job, social workers have to be able to look into the background of adults and children in order to ask the correct questions and consider the issues as a whole. And some professionals will worry that this is effectively a racist hate crime. Do we want professionals to be protecting themselves or protecting children?

Are you familiar with how “transphobia” has been weaponised against feminist campaigners @CrossChecking? Baroness Falkner certainly is.

Yes - forgive me for having limited faith in the pronouncements of an administration that has failed to implement or require compliance with the law on single sex spaces by the NHS, state schools and other public bodies and which continues to obfuscate and delay while paying ‘lip service’ to the Supreme Court ruling.

If the above has shown anything, it’s that this government will appease any interest group while ignoring women.

I have to admit I'm highly concerned. Britain arrests 13,000 people annually for hate speech, most of those are for the most utterly ridiculous reasons imaginable and initiated by people without resources, coordination or in many cases much mental health. I shudder to think what would happen if it were weaponized by a very highly motivated group with resources and deep institutional resources.

Why should the law of the UK protect any particular religion or culture or, more importantly, any criticism of it?

From the UK governments website:The group’s proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression - which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents.

Because any incitement to violence is already covered by criminal law. So why the need for any definition / legislative change? Why should the law of the UK protect any particular religion or culture or, more importantly, any criticism of it?

As a woman I’m not keen on cultures or practices that ‘other’ women or restrict them in terms of behaviour or dress or rights differently from men. That includes most religions at the fundamental edges. People of these beliefs can do as they wish - so long as these practices and beliefs are not ‘protected’ in law or become part of our legal system thus being enforced on the (currently) secular majority - but which may become the minority with population change.

It will advise government on how to best understand, quantify and define prejudice, discrimination, and hate crime targeted against Muslims.

With incidents of anti-Muslim hate crime at record high in England and Wales, the group’s work will support wider and ongoing government-led efforts to tackle religiously motivated hate crime.

The group’s proposed definition will be non-statutory and will provide the government and other relevant bodies with an understanding of unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities.

Again from the governments website, this appears to be the point.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-working-group-on-anti-muslim-hatredislamophobia-definition

So what’s the point of the law? Remember, it’s called Islamophobia, not Muslimphobia. It is specifically about the religion, not those who practise it.

The group’s proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression - which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents.

This is from the governments website. It doesn't sound like a blasphemy law?

Any cult in the form of religion that takes offence of said religion of the slightest thing is very clearly weak or downright dangerous.

Indeed.

There is a working definition on the Labour Party website that is/was very broad. What is meant by expressions of Muslimness?

The old definition states: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

Reports now that Islamophobia (which was strange wording) been changed to replace it with "anti-Muslim hate", but I couldn’t find out how else it’s changed.

And yet, violent misogyny in speech is still not a hate crime.