Islamophobia becoming normalised in the media

[nomas]

Genuinely shocked by this headline on MSN.com today (UK site).

The title is

"Muslim convert explains why UK is 'best' as she boasts 'everything is free'"

No one seems to blink an eye at this blatant Islamophobia anymore.

Substitute Muslim for any other minority and people would be shocked for example:

• "Jewish convert explains why UK is 'best' as she boasts 'everything is free'"
• "Black person explains why UK is 'best' as she boasts 'everything is free'"
• "Christian convert explains why UK is 'best' as she boasts 'everything is free'"

Muslim convert explains why UK is 'best' as she boasts 'everything is free'

Debbie posts like that all the time. I think most ignore and some obviously report but perhaps that poster has nothing better to do than.....

It’s not true, the stats have already been shared up thread.

Thank you, I'll take a scroll back.

I think you need to investigate what the definitions of Islamophobia are. This is the current action of the Free Speech Union.
" the Guidance then goes on to contradict the limitations in the definition, going far beyond what is prohibited by law and using nebulous, legally undefined terms like "prejudicial stereotyping", "negative", "beyond the bounds of protected free speech", "public interest" and "reprehensible". Those are all vague and subjective concepts that will inevitably be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of the Islamic faith and Muslims."
https://freespeechunion.org/fundraisers/islamophobia-fundraiser

FreeSpeechUnion is not a reliable source btw, it was founded and funded by Lord Young of Acton, a Conservative life-peer. It has political objectives.

Personally I think she gives an amusing satire summing up of arguments being made and I have only ever seen her appear when tensions are get high on a thread or someone is getting more and more outrageous. Think she is doing damage control by breaking the tension a little and pointing out with decent psychology the insanity of some of these arguments

Could be wrong and she is doing it for others reasons but mumsnet are not going to break up a cat fight or delete rants or be the voice of reason. So Debbie is probably doing us all a favour by cutting through the crap and getting straight to the point whilst making some of us crack a smile.

Have you read it though? What problem do you have with it?

I’m just letting you know so you are aware of where you get your info from

If Freedom of Speech means somebody can flagrantly disparage Islam and make derogatory comments about followers of the faith or their sincerely held beliefs then Freedom of Speech is not fit for purpose. Your right to be able to say whatever it is you've got rattling around inside that brain of yours ends when those words cause significant harm or distress to somebody else.

Tbf, behaviour that 'violates dignity' 'creates a hostile, degrading or humiliating or offensive environment' isn't exactly the most objectively measurable definition either, is it? The exact same arguments regarding subjectivity could (and are) made about that by those who want to put their rights to say and do as they please over the protection of others.
Behaviour with the potential to impact others in a variable and personal way can be difficult to capture in a way that achieves consensus, so that this specific thing can be said or done and this one can't. Which is why no such definition exists as an absolute and always requires application and interpretation by an 'authority', a human 'authority', meaning further subjectivity.
Its an imperfect system, where there will always be disagreement in the more nuanced cases as to where freedom of expression should stop and protection of others start.
Whether the law offers necessary and rightful protection (as most would probably agree it does in my first example) or is being 'weaponised' often comes down to a matter of one's own degree of agreement with what has been said.

Yep agree.

Harm or distress because someone laughs at and mocks your religion?! Get a grip for christ sake.

Every other religion is allowed to be critised and laughed at, were not forced to pretend we respect it, just not this one for some reason.

No one is allowed to criticise Judaism or Jewish beliefs though either

Jewish people do that themselves. It is actually a fundamental part of Judaism to question everything. Whereas Islam you are not allowed to question the Quran, Allah and other Muslims unless you believe they are fake Muslims in their following of the Quran.

Judaism believes in learning and expanding on your knowledge. To question, learn and criticise anything you feel is injustice is a big part of the religious teachings.

Jews tend to love debating their beliefs with other Jews and anyone that is not taking tbe piss. The idea that you are not allowed to criticise Judaism is some kind of myth.

All religions or ideologies are up for scrutiny if you don't do it in a hostile or racist or bias manner as far as I am concerned.

I strongly disagree. For a start, what makes Islam so special? Why give that any more credence than Druidism or Scientology? And who gets to be arbiter of where valid fair criticism ends and where derogatory comments that will cause alarm and distress begin? Is it the perceived victim? The severity of their reaction determines the severity of the offense?

Freedom of speech should never end at the point where perceived harm and stress are caused, the only restrictions must be limited to incitement to a crime and instances like screaming "fire" in a theater.

It's not that Islam is so special it's more that some of the discussions are made in bad faith and some of them are absolute fiction.

Like criticisms of them wanting to ban Christmas and bacon or Easter eggs having 'chocolate egg' printed on the packaging because Muslims caused a fuss. None of this has never happened.

To respond to your specific examples, a lot of people consider Druidism and scientology to he a bit nuts. But most people also accept it doesn't have any impact on them or their lives. A lot of people believe that Islam is having a negative impact on their lives even if they don't know a single Muslim.

Freedom of speech is good. Being able to challenge religion is good. But if people are going to do it they should at least make sure their criticisms are valid and what they are criticising actually happens.

Well yes I would agree. If people are intending to debate or make public their opinion on a matter, it is important that they do so based on truths. But I don't want to criminalise speech that is based on misinformation or lies that someone has fallen for - it is the rest of the worlds job to shine a light on lies and misinformation, and discredit them, but not criminalise.

But also, we must be careful when discussing this to establish truth. "My truth", "My lived experience", "alternative facts" or simply facts that go against a chosen narrative that we block out aren't good enough to be called objective fact. I suppose in this age of fake news, or presenting half truths in a confusing and biased way, objective truth is much harder to agree upon.

Really? Not allowed by whom?
What would you like to criticise and what do you think would happen if you did?

Sorry but I don’t like Islam, I’ll say it truthfully, I think it’s an awful religion based on the man being superior and women are oppressed. I don’t like any religion, but I dislike Islam the most. Btw I saw the video, that lady did say those things the article wasn’t lying.
We need to stop being told we’re racist for speaking out on things.

This is misleading. The woman is from the Philippines and has been working in the UK for over 40 years, paying taxes and working at QMUL. The documentary portrayed her as if she had come here just to claim benefits. Of course, as a pensioner, she may be entitled to receive benefits, but that doesn’t erase the decades of hard work and taxes she has contributed to this country. She told the interviewer about her job, explained that she pays taxes, and even showed her QMUL ID, but none of this was included in the documentary. Leaving out such important information creates a misleading impression of her and her life in the UK.

Yes, she said all of those things in the interview. She has worked hard for decades, paid her taxes, and spent a lot of money on visas to live and work in the UK. Yet the documentary left out these important details and portrayed her in a completely different light, because she's muslim

Islam isn’t a race.

I don’t personally have a religion, but I wouldn’t go so far as saying I don’t “like” any of them.

I’m not sure why anything thinks it matters if “namechangeforblahlblah” doesn’t like a religion.

You can’t cancel a whole belief system, it exists, which is kind of just tough shit for you.

Thank you for adding the context.

I never said it does matter ? I was giving my opinion on a public forum, thanks.

And your opinion is that you’re called racist for not “liking” Islam, even though Islam isn’t a race?