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.

Every religion should be open to criticism, and all moderate followers (and religious leaders) are typically open for a reasoned debate about the concept of God and the tenets of their faith. It's generally fundamentalists who will only deal with absolutes.

Just did some googling.

What you have posted is not even the APPG's definition of Islamophobia.

"The APPG on British Muslims defines Islamophobia as “rooted in racism and a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-01-09/debates/24010969000020/DefinitionOfIslamophobia#:~:text=Declares%20that%20a%20formal%2C%20government,perceived%20Muslimness%3B%E2%80%9D%20notes%20that%20this

Now I really am out.

When people aren't permitted to express legitimate fears because the language to do so has been removed then that is '1984' territory with the destruction of language. Nobody and nothing should be above criticism. How come Hindus and Buddhists don't have this problem? Perhaps because they're not involved in certain activities which the population have identified as harmful? Sure, individuals might break the law or fight each other in the streets or rape girls, but I'm sensing a definite pattern elsewhere. Why is that?

That is not the definition in it's entirely.

You seem to be defending this new definition even although you have only started to look in to it?

Sometimes it is good to investigate first before defending. You probably think I am a Tory Trumpist, when actually I have voted left right and centre.
This definition proposal scares me. Not just in terms of Islam, but in terms of free speech and Starmer legislating everything he can.

OK. Could you link to the definition in its entirety, please.

The APPG definition was rejected by Labour last year. When did he say it would be accepted and does that mean Labour are changing the EA?

In PMQ today:

"The Labour party has adopted the APPG definition of Islamophobia"

"That same report says talking about 'sex groomers' was an example of Islamophobia"

That is what Badenoch said, not Starmer.

Could you link to the entire definition you mentioned, please?

You can Google, like I did.
Just type in what you are searching for and it will appear as if by magic.

The fact a blasphemy law is going to be debated in the UK Parliament at all is insane. We have existing laws to deal with racism. We don't need to single out a particular religion to protect over and above other religions.

Islam is a religion, not a race and it annoys me when people try to conflate the two.

There are very good reasons for disliking Islam (as there are for disliking Christianity) and I see no reasons for it to enjoy any more protection under the law than other religions do.

Also, you can change your religion. You can't change your race.

Your OP is clearly a snippet from the APPG report. It does not form part of any definition that I can find on Google.

If I am wrong, then why won't you link to the entire definition?

How would you personally define "Islamophobia". It can't be anything other than a blasphemy law no matter how any freaky definition is worded.

Jewishness is a race as well as involving a religion. Islam is a religion only.

No, Judaism can be linked to ethnicity but you also get converts. It's considered antisemitic to criticise Zionism.

I don't think there's anything you can say "No" to in the wording of my original post.

No, Judaism is not considered a race.

That's why in my post I said "Jewishness"

Judaism is associated with ethnicity and also includes converts. Some Jewish people can trace their ethnicity back a long way. It's not monolithic.

The point being that race can be involved in being a Jew. It can be religious and ethnic. Islam is only religious. Islam cannot be ethnic.

So what you're saying is that all Jewish people, or at least the vast majority, have shared physical and biological traits that make up a single race. Despite the fact that for thousands of years, Jewish people have intermarried and are made up of lots of different demographics.

No. I'm saying that you mentioned the existing anti-semitism definition as an argument for defining Islamophobia. Islamophobia (if there is such a thing).relates to solely a religion. It's confused thinking relating it to racisim (which is already covered in law). Anti-semitism is different as it relates to Jews which can be ethnic and/or a religious characteristic.

There has been a huge outcry over Justin wellby, it was all over the media and not once did I hear anyone say it was church of England a phobia.

Stopping dialogue of things which matter is not the way.

This isn’t a good way to go. I assume support is low bar those four councils