Muslim vote (the group, not people generally)

[Noicant]

I was looking at the list of 18 demands from Muslim Vote to Labour and on that list they had

18. Remove the archaic 'spiritual influence' offence from statute.'

I’m not being funny but they want clergy to be able to direct how people vote. Please tell me Labour are going to just ignore this, I’m not sure that many people want their Imam telling them how to vote either, I know if I were Muslim I’d just ignore him.

I have no particular strong feelings about the Israel stuff, it’s to be expected from the group but that one surprised me a bit.

Well if you did know, you would know they have no legislative or Parliamentary power. So Iran would be wasting its cash.

Here you go@Teentaxidriver

https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/apg/

I think if I drew a picture of Islamic conquests in a non flattering manner I would be accused of suggesting that Islam is inherently violent etc etc.

Now I do happen to think going around gratuitously insulting peoples faith is pretty horrible. But I also can see the problem with a definition which curtails speech and freedom of expression when it comes to religion. I’m surprised you can’t see the problem there.

Possibly or possibly not, but I do think that it is right to be suspicious of groups like this. I don’t subscribe to your frankly complacent, liberal, lassez faire attitude. Do you even read the papers? Are you aware of a Chinese state spy working in the Commons? Our freedoms and liberties are precious and have to be protected.

Yes it requires being specific. What ends in a conviction? A drawing? Stats? A statement?

I also question the idea that a religion needs to be accepted as benign

I don’t think heavily controlling religions are, wrt women and girls

Not wasting cash - putting pressure on politicians by creating the impression that people want this. Also, creating discord and tension = money well spent.

Iran aren't bothering with Parliament. They are going straight to the mosques, sowing discontent, spreading radicalism and funding the preaching of hardline fundamentalist Islam. Even in my lifetime Islam has got more and more fundamentalist. And its because of outside influences. We give visas to Iranian hate preachers, while the government does nothing, moaning about small boats, full of people trying to flee their malign influence in their own cou tries.

The problem is not that an all party group looked at the specific prejudice that muslims face. The problem is adopting points like this come into conflict with peoples civil rights to express opinions which others may find offensive. The point at which something like this is adopted into legislation is the point where there are enhanced rights protections for one specific group and a curtailing of existing rights for others.

It reminds me of the Charlie Hebdo magazine, personally I found it crude, crass, offensive and unfunny, I would never have bought it. However they had a right to publish and to say whatever they like as long as they were not inciting violence, often they were just mocking. So a picture of Muhammed with a 13yr old Aisha couldn’t be published because I bet you £5 someone would take whatever equalities legislation that is on hand and use it to have them hounded through the courts. Because of course it implies that muslims approve of paedophilia right?

Are you seeing where adoption of that definition would come into conflict with peoples civil rights?

If you think it is a good thing then I would rather people said so. It is very possible that Labour are able to pass that as legislation and is right that people should consider if they approve of that.

The reason I would be concerned about it is because I believe in a secular society. If you approve it then thats fine but I would appreciate understanding why it’s a good thing.

Well the problem with current legislation is that I just have to feel I have had a hate crime committed against me. My perception of an incident is what matters. I understand why, I’m a minority myself and what is seemingly innocuous to a white person can be devastating to me. BUT it means we have very wooly borders around what could be considered a crime. It’s a problem generally not just to do with this.

I am very wary of religion being protected in law apart from the right to worship. Because highly motivated people will always try to exploit it. Just like the language in the equalities legislation, the use of gender instead of sex has caused no end of fuss when everyone knows exactly what it was supposed to mean. Women on the feminism boards know this very well.

Unfortunately this discussion is about a small section of a very visible religious minority. If we were talking about abortion clinics I’d be talking about Christian nutcases instead. The whole thing has made me very uncomfortable but we need to be able to discuss these things BEFORE it ends up being voted on by representatives.

To be absolutely clear, I am no fan of Muslim Vote, and I am totally against anyone attempting to interfere with, or influence, how individuals vote. This may not be a useful parallel, but I thought it was interesting that many posters are outraged at the thought of religion being involved in democratic decision making, without being aware that it is already happening (to one extent or another). A previous poster stated, "Religion has no place whatsoever in the laws and governance of a civilised society" and I was merely pointing out that this already happens in the UK.

" I leave this thread safe in the knowledge that none of the crap you are predicting will ever happen".

That's what they said in Lebanon and Iran and that's just recent history.

With the teeny tiny difference that those were majority Muslim countries to begin with. I am more concerned with extreme right wing influences in UK politics.

Well it depends really on how you define democratic decision making. At its core it's about a universal franchise in which people have freedom of choice without fear nor favour of external pressure applied by authority figures whether they be spiritual, marital, tribal or whatever.

The UK's ancestors fought hard to achieve this over many centuries and we are lucky to have it. In my home country it is not the case and I often think in this as in many other matters the British do not realise how fortunate they are.

I would not class the lords spiritual as being involved in democratic decision making as they do not exercise legislative power, do not publish manifestos, bring forward legislation, whip or vote in the Commons. Church and state were separated in 1891 in UK and have held that way ever since. A small number of lords spiritual sit in the Lords as a 'checks and balances' body, some do not like the second chamber, I personally think it's a good thing and they have blocked or watered down much populist legislation. Where the lords spiritual do make their feelings known in the House, it's actually very rare indeed, the Rwanda Bill was a rare exception and I am glad they did it.

Whether you meant to or not, you were making a parallel because someone said Mulsim Vote and your response clearly implied that the lords spiritual are a similar phenomenon whereas actually there are subtle but crucial differences which mean that it is not the same thing at all.

Lebanon was a majority Christian country until quite recently, please read some history, what has happened to christians in Lebanon in the civil war and subsequently is tragic and deserves a spotlight not dismissal

apologies this was for @pointythings

I’m Muslim and never even heard of this group until this thread, but I’m so sick of the horrible, nasty replies on any thread that’s even remotely related to Islam/Muslims, such as the poster who equates Sharia with terrorism 🙄

I'm sorry it came across as a parallel as that's definitely not what I intended, nor what I think about it.

But I do still think many British people are unaware that bishops sit in the House of Lords, and I think it's interesting that that's the case. You previously said "Secondly their role is usually as a 'moral break' on some of the government's more outre ideas e.g. the Rwanda Bill" but in fact the lords spiritual have the same rights as other House of Lords members. They can take part in all business of the House, including tabling and asking questions to the government, leading or speaking in debates, scrutinising legislation, voting and serving on committees or all-party parliamentary groups. In my view that's a direct impact on democratic decision making by non-elected, religious personnel. However, I accept that we view this differently. We do agree that what the Muslim Vote is proposing is not the way forward, though!

Agreed!
I'm from a South East Asian Muslim majority country. None of our women used to even wear headscarves.
In 2024 there's growing pressure to be more religious, our Sharia police (supposed to be for religious rules e.f. regarding marriage and divorce only ) going around checking people's ID cards to see if they're fasting during Ramadan. It's insane.

There are groups fighting back, advocating for gender equality etc. but these fundamentalist groups are not only louder, they also seem to be surprisingly well funded. Where's the money coming from I wonder?

Like the praying issue in Katherine Birbalsingh's school, where the one fanatic pupil tried to bully her peers into praying at lunchtime.

I disagree as they sit ex officio which is important. However many of them (there's only 26 but if you look at their dioceses) bring with them direct witness knowledge of inner city problems and others of rural poverty. Which I think is welcome.

If your point was more about whether practising Christians/Muslims/Hindus/whatever in the Commons are making decisions based partly on bias from their faith, then I think you would have more of a basis for debate. EG has Rishi Sunak ever brought forth legislation partly influenced by his Hindu beliefs? Or that Lib Dem leader who had an issue with gay people because of his Christian beliefs? now that is a problem because they are elected MPs with real democratic decision making power in the HoC. However it's probably hard to find people to stand for election who don't have 'beliefs' of some sort which influence them. But they should disclose them in their manifestos I think.

If British people don't know the composition of their Parliament then that's really on them. I think it's a citizen's duty to educate themselves on these things otherwise why would you even vote. Especially if your Parliament happens to be the beacon and standard for the rest of the world as it slowly transitioned to democracy throughout history.

Thank you for taking the time, it's been very interesting to debate with you. Yes we do agree on Muslim Vote!

And Iran? I mean, that wasn't a civilised Western democracy, was it? The 1979 revolution just replaced one utterly foul regime with another.

Not that it matters. This thread has descended into 'the Muslims are going to take over' and paranoia. It's ridiculous.

Also adding religious context is different in different countries. In India for example Modi's government is hellbent on establishing a Hindu hegemony, with Hindu religious laws.

This isn't a problem in the UK because Hindus here don't tend to organised around religion. And it's really only India that's a major Hindu country. Nepal , Myanmar and Thailand are Hindu/Buddhist but don't hold much world influence.

Even for Sharia law, the proportion of countries that even have it are small compared to the countries that have a sizeable Muslim majority. Nigeria, Somalia etc all have lots of Muslims but no sharia law.

It's really people from certain countries and cultures that are advocating all this not 'all Muslims'.

It matters because there was a 15 year civil war between christians and muslims in lebanon, palestinian-lebanese christians were treated shamefully by the lebanese muslims including torture, murder, rape, mass imprionment as highlighted many, many times by amnesty and a plethora of world leaders and protesters, the christian population of lebanon plunged as a result, so to imply a total lack of knowledge of that horror to make a point on the internet, and then dismiss it by saying 'not that it matters', left a bad taste in my mouth.

The majority here don’t need or want imported laws. We make law here. No one should go to another country and make demands that are unreasonable. I would never dream of going to Saudi Arabia and telling them what to do. This is a fair country and we have fair laws. They don’t need amending based on any religion and I don’t think the Bishops seek to do this. People can disagree with laws but not import ones based on religion alone.

I don’t think that. My primary concern was the idea that any group would be campaigning to let their priests tell people how to vote (I think it would be bad for all religious groups).

I’m also worried about laws being sprung on me because some special interest group managed to sneak a sentence into a text that hasn’t been scrutinised properly but that has a negative impact on civil rights around freedom of speech or unintended consequences.

Also the “do what we say or we will tell “our” people not to vote for you made me feel a bit queasy.

One would like to hope things stay that way @TizerorFizz .

However, the ignorance of many over for example the Lebanese Civil/Religious war that destroyed Beirut and opened the door to Hezbollah, openly funded by the Mullahs in Iran makes me more than a bit sceptical of Muslim motive anywhere.

And Iran? I mean, that wasn't a civilised Western democracy, was it? The 1979 revolution just replaced one utterly foul regime with another.

Not that it matters. This thread has descended into 'the Muslims are going to take over' and paranoia. It's ridiculous.

It's not paranoia though. There's plenty of examples of where this has happened. Where are all the Christians and Jews in Turkey? In Pakistan?

Stop with the far right thing no one supports the far right in numbers in this country. This country is moderate unless you define far right differently.