All party group to define Islamophobia

[Tauranga]

The All-Party Group on Islamophobia - which leads calls for govt to officially adopt its definition of 'Islamophobia' for all public bodies - says:

‘The recourse to the notion of free speech and a supposed right to criticise Islam results in nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism, whereby the criticism humiliates, marginalises and stigmatises Muslims. One real-life example of this concerns the issue of “grooming gangs”.’

This seems very strange to me, no other religion has these protections. Also, does this curtail free speech? Could debate still be had?

I can't believe Keir Starmer wants this.

Oh dear, what could possibly go wrong? They clearly have an agenda here.

A phobia is a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

Is this likely to happen?

Is there a link op for context thanks

Badenoch brought this up in PMQs. Given her rather elastic attitude to the truth, I think we need more info and context.

BTW, all party parliamentary groups are not the Labour government. The clue is in the name.

I wonder if the security services will stop trying to identify islamism then. And the rape gangs will start being viewed as individual attackers rather than being part of something bigger and more organised? Will the rape victims actually be able to describe their attacker(s) or can they expect a visit from the police and a warning or even a criminal record if they persist in complaining?

So many questions.

They're all idiots though. We all know this will get through.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-we-should-be-worried-about-labours-islamophobia-plans/

One link but loads available if you Google, also search on X.

Is this the APPG on British Muslims? APPGs have no authority. They're basically (bizarrely well-resourced by the taxpayer) MPs' hobby groups.

"Labour ministers are still planning to press on with a refined definition of Islamophobia"

So there is no finalised definition yet. Maybe wait for the final version?

Presumably the reason that other religions don’t need such protection is that in general they are not noted for terrorist attacks in the name of whichever god(s) they worship, nor for organised gangs of men mass raping vulnerable girls - but only of course girls considered to be worthless, because they do not belong to the men’s religion/ethnic group.

Please don't bother the thread with facts. It spoils the frothing.

It's a back door blasphemy law. It prevents free criticism of a religion and the Labour Party wording equates criticism of a religion with racism.

The other thing is a phobia is a fear so it's ridiculous to try and legislate against a feeling. It's a stupid made up word.

The fact is that Keir Starmer, the PM of the UK, who does have authority, wishes to adopt a new definition of Islamophobia. This new definition would prevent any criticism of the religion.
I think this a terrible idea and should be known about, and debated.
Do not kid on that this is not serious, because it is.

But the definition is not yet decided. Maybe wait for the final definition, then debate it?

Eta: the article you linked to says:
"officials were considering whether to introduce a formal definition."

All religion is a toxic mess, and we should be free to say so.

So what if there is a new definition of Islamaphobia? We also have an official antisemitic definition.

So what if there is a new definition of Islamaphobia?

That depends what it is

A bit late to change it then, is it not? I think that it should be discussed before being changed. People can lobby their MPs before.

Good.

Yes we do.
Have you read the Islamophobia definition?
It doesn't allow any criticism of the religion.

That isn't the definition. There is currently no official definition. Why shouldn't there be a definition? Islamophobia is a problem, even here on MN.

I think you are posting in bad faith, so I'm out.

Who days there should be no definition?
They already have one!
This changes the definition, and it is scary in my opinion.

The APPG definition has been around for ages and was rejected as not being in line with the EA in September last year.

When did Starmer say it would be accepted?