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

And back to the middle ages we go, FFS.

Of course you should be able to criticise a religion, any religion. Islam is not a special case. And no, hurty feelings are not a reason to ban people from speaking. Whatever the topic.

All Abrahamic faiths are, to a greater or lesser extent (with Islam being at the greater end of the scale) sexist and homophobic.

In a civilised country we should be able to critique all beliefs and religions. We do not have blasphemy laws in this country nor should we.

The EA is about balancing opposing rights. Jews, Christians and Muslims are free to practice their sexist, homophobic religions - and women and LGBT people are free to go about their business without being discriminated against on the basis of someone else’s faith.

A blasphemy law in favour of one of those faiths compromises that balance.

Which of course is a protection which already exists in law. What further protection is needed?

Exactly this.

Baroness Falkner is exemplary. She doesn’t do ‘manufactured outrage’.

Good on her speaking up for women, as always.

The time to question is surely when there is a proposed definition to question? At the moment, there's just lots of outrage about hypotheticals.

Surely that depends on the definition?
It is what it says on the tin. Islamophobia legislation means one cannot criticise a religion.

Agree with you on the various forms of control. Hopefully they’ll be out soon.

Of course. Never question.

Agreed. This isn't a niche issue, this is a civil rights issue that will impact everyone. It doesn't inspire confidence when they are being so cagey about it, and combined with their stance on Digital ID and facial recognition it is genuinely terrifying.

We already know there's two-tier policing, we can see that clearly with the difference in approaches to policing of women who peacefully protest and TRAs who can scream deaths and rape threats with impunity.

Yes, you should be able to say anything about a particular religion - Islam, Christianity, Scientology, Genderism - including criticisms that they might not like. They’re all cults if you ask me.

That is still compatible with not being able to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion.

Agree. I think some people should definitely be careful what they wish for.

Not all Muslim women in the UK are oppressed, but I don’t think there’s a single Muslim country where women have equal rights with men.

in the Uk FGM, forced marriage, cousin marriage and grooming gangs as well as Islamic terrorism targeting women and girls are issues in the Muslim community which affect women and we have to be able to discuss.

racism is already governed, there is no need for special protection for this religion.

Because presumably Baroness Falkner, with her history and experience, is speaking about it from a position of knowledge about how the definition will be written.

CPS were apparently planning to have another crack at him.

Islam isn’t special, there are loads of religions, we have legislation that cover crimes against individuals, we don’t need this. It’s pointless unless the point is to curb speech. I’m extremely wary of anything that does that, especially how non crime hate incidents were weaponised against women by TRA’s and the police.

Surely that depends on the definition?

Because creating Islamophobia as an offence i.e. criticism of a faith takes us back to the heresy trials of the Middle Ages.

Exactly my thought.

Why haven't they published it? Groups are asking for details and are being ignored.

I think the recent case involving Hamit Coskun is a good study, particularly when you consider the differing treatment of Hamit and his attacker. The Islamophobia seemed to be the greater crime than the assault. I would need to find it, but there was a documentary a few years ago where a Muslim man went out in public to discuss Rushdie's The Satanic Verses and it didn't go well for him.

Manufactured outrage.

I feel like I'm missing something, it says that the new definition hasn't been published yet but already people are angry about hypothetical things they might not be able to say about Muslims? It all seems a bit putting the cart before the horse. Why aren't people waiting to see what things they will and won't be able to say about Muslims before being angry about it?

Agree! And how is saying that then saying “ALL Muslim women are oppressed”?

Indeed, it was the Labour party and people like Jess Phillips, who scuppered the recent suggestions for a real inquiry into the grooming gangs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly285e5ljyo

I wonder if having a clear definition of what constitutes Islamophobia - and therefore what doesn't - might actually help to prevent the police and other authorities from turning a blind eye to crimes committed by Muslim men for fear of being called Islamophobic.

So it might actually help to protect women and girls.

One of the worrying things is that they seem to be keeping a firm lid on what their proposed definition actually is. It's clearly not intended to be a 'blasphemy' law, because other religions won't be protected and it can't be racial because we already have laws for that and being Muslim isn't a race.