Will antisemitism ever be looked at and dealt with in the same way as Islamophobia is?

[LucyWestenra]

AIBU for thinking it won’t? Because it doesn’t seem to be the case in this country or my home country (Germany).

(I just googled because it didn’t seem right to have antisemitism in lower capitals, but apparently that is correct, as I thought)

Much love to the Jewish community, wherever they are.

❤️

Islamophobia in practice is discriminating against someone for being Muslim, hate crimes etc. It’s not about criticising the religion, and anyone who uses the word like that is using it incorrectly.

I am surprised you haven’t heard of John Mann or the all party parliamentary group against antisemitism.
Anyway, now the best of your knowledge is better

Anyone who claims Islamophobia is simply fear of Islam is obviously being disingenuous.

Islamophobia obviously refers to prejudice and hostility toward Muslims, not some literal clinical fear of Islam. We use -phobia this way all the time, such as homophobia yet no one pretends that just means fear. So why suddenly play semantics here?

I don’t think you can say that followers of Islam are an oppressed group anywhere. Unless you mean the oppression perpetrated on them by other more extreme followers of Islam?

Unfortunately the Islamophobia definition will contribute to the silencing of discussion on that oppression.

But that isn’t true: how could you discriminate against someone for being Muslim that wouldn’t come under antiracism laws but isn’t about objecting to specific religious practices?

Let’s say a veiled woman is refused a job: if she takes off her veil, she could still practice her religion in private unless her behaviour is still so odd that she can’t fit in to a work environment (eg she refuses to work with male employees etc)

So the “discrimination” over her veil would only have been because her religious practices were judged inappropriate for that firm.

Any discrimination that’s not about religious practice would be covered by racism.

Tell that to the Labour Party. That’s the definition they have already adopted. Check it out.

We already have laws to prevent discrimination on religious grounds.

I’m not sure if fear is the right word but so certainly object to a Muslim MP proposing an anti blasphemy law at Westminster. Is that really disingenuous of me? I’d be just as much against a bishop doing that (except they wouldn’t)

Yes, and look at the court cases where Christian’s have been sacked or discriminated against for wanting to wear a cross at work compared with the accommodations made for people wanting to wear Muslim religious symbols.

A police force (can’t remember where) recently unveiled its new police hijab. Somewhat different standards.

You claimed on another thread that you are a Jewish person of colour, so which is it?

I only looked you up because I actually wondered if you and OP were connected based on the way you both post going on about everyone everywhere being antisemitic but refusing to engage on the actual topic.

Like I said, disingenuous.

The court cases where Christians have been disciplined for displaying religious jewellery etc were upheld because no religious iconography is allowed at work as per the uniform policy.

it’s only different standards of one religion is allowed and another is.

The police force you mention has developed uniform adapted for several minorities- including for female officers and staff. It’s inclusion, not treating anyone demographic above another.

maybe check your sources before posting.

There is and has been systemic 'soft' oppression of Muslims in the UK by the government. Surveillance practices, CCTV monitoring, explicit counter terrorism policies aimed at Muslim children in primary school. There is profiling of "Muslim looking people" in crime prevention and control. There is research that a job applicant named Mohammed is a lot less likely to get a job interview than someone named Adam. Anti- Muslim sentiment is rife and upheld by policy makers. It is incredibly naive and ignorant to deny this oppression.

For anyone who would like a different Jewish view on anti-Semitism to help educate themselves on this topic: "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" By Norman G Finkelstein. Is a very good book.

It's American rather than English, but it's still a good insight.

"Finkelstein follows the Holocaust's standing in American life from the postwar years to the end of the 20th century. Before the 1967 Arab/Israeli War, he argues, the Holocaust took little part in the lives of American Gentiles and Jews. There was, for example, at that time only a small number of books and films on the Holocaust and few works of scholarship. Not until the late 20th century, especially after the 1967 War, did the Holocaust take up its role as the foremost historical event in the American mind - so Finkelstein argues"

amzn.eu/d/0ax3jots

But the veil is religious?

Making an exception by saying it's not "iconography" (well nor is a crucifix an icon, which means a picture, and iconography is drawing) is still making an exception.

Other than when there are health and safety issues (in which case the veil is going to be a problem too) how can a crucifix or a hand of fatima be more offensive than someone covering their hair and face for religious reasons?

If a workplace bans all religious display, it can also ban a hijab. It must be able to justify the ban though.

wearing jewellery at work is often not allowed- safety, infection etc.

clothing can also be restricted, as you say, if there are H&s issues.

workplaces must apply the same rules to all employees. If the cases where the cross-wearing restriction was upheld, restrictions against any religion would also apply. That may only be a “no jewellery” issue.

if the cross-wearers had been discriminated against, and other religious symbols allowed, then they would have won their case. They lost, so a court found that the workplace applied the rules correctly.

So when the christian woman lost her case about her crucifix, does that mean that logically nobody can wear a hijab there either? Or is that different?

ETA found one such case: no, only christian jewelry was not allowed: Hindu, Muslim etc all fine:
https://cbn.com/news/news/attack-my-faith-christian-nurse-fired-wearing-cross-necklace-wins-discrimination-case
Six years ago, Onuoha said she was told by her managers to remove the cross or face disciplinary action. She was told it was a health and safety risk and "must not be visible." Yet other clinical staff members at the hospital were permitted to wear jewelry, saris, turbans, and hijabs without being asked to remove them.

My sources are already checked thank you.

This happened in the NHS

https://christianconcern.com/news/victory-for-christian-nurse-sacked-for-wearing-cross/

Furthermore, it has ruled that the dress code policy was “applied in an arbitrary way and in a way that was not proportionate” and that there was “no cogent explanation” why plain rings, neckties, kalava bracelets, hijabs and turbans were permitted but a cross necklace was not (paras 270-271 of judgment.)

And also this:

Yes, the NHS allows staff to wear the hijab
, as national guidelines encourage faith-sensitive dress codes. Staff may wear their own, clean, and neatly secured hijabs, provided they comply with local health, safety, and infection-control policies. Many trusts provide disposable hijabs or specialized headwear for surgical/clinical areas to meet these standards.
British Islamic Medical Association (BIMA) +4

Re police forces, are you suggesting that allowing police officers to wear a religious hijab is equivalent to providing female officers with body armour that actually fits a female body?

There is and has been systemic 'soft' oppression of Muslims in the UK by the government.

Do you have evidence of this? Can you link to some of these studies?

Anti- Muslim sentiment is rife and upheld by policy makers

What do you mean by anti Muslim sentiment?
Which policy makers? - clearly not those in the Labour party.

Do you acknowledge that in our attempt to battle Islamic extremism we have to look at all possible areas? There are many aspects of Islam that are extreme compared to Western values. The authorities know that there are radical preachers in mosques around the country who aim to radicalise children and young people. Many changes have already had to be made across society to prevent harm by a small minority of the more extreme practitioners.

We know that Muslims are not a homogeneous group, there are different strands with very different views. The difficulty is that we must able to look closely at the extremists as they wish to harm us and destroy the West (their own words) but the authorities need the means to be able meaningfully separate out the subgroups. More moderate Muslims are starting to speak out now which I think is helpful but we need to do more to understand the different groups ensure our national security is protected Ted while not or amusing those who just want to live quietly and assimilate.

If the children you mention are in an Islamic school it would be very reasonable to scrutinise the practices in that school to ensure it conforms to proper standards. Some Islamic schools have been found to be very discriminatory against girls and practising sex segregation among other issues. For purposes of integration and personal freedom, English must also be mandated.

I'm technically not Jewish. But as an ally I do identify more with Jews than antisemites and other racists. I know enough about the culture to be able to fit in a liberal Jewish congregation. Maybe that explains it, even if I assume that this concept is tricky for a lay person.

Not disingenuous, just not a racists.

So anyone who is not a Jew is either an anti-Semite or a racist, so you pretend that you are on social media?

Please do explain that logic to me.

And for the sake of balance, there have been similar problems with some Haredi orthodox yeshivas, where boys are being taught religious subjects instead of the national curriculum, and where abuse is not uncommon. Though as they aren't interested in educating girls, the girls at least go to normal schools I think. Unlike unregistered Islamic schools in the UK where boys and girls are religiously "educated" with the girls all at the back of the room and not allowed to speak.
https://humanists.uk/campaigns/policy-unit/illegal-religious-schools/

But my objections are to the lack of proper education, not to any particular religion.

Username checks out 😁

When I was in isolation, any nurse coming in with a cross would be asked to go home that is ridiculous source of infection. Fortunately, it never happened because no nurse would be so thoughtless Christian or otherwise.

Yes because what they said makes complete sense 🙄

Clearly medical context matters, but in this situation, neckties, hijabs, turbans and jewelry such as kalava bracelets were allowed, so it can't have been about being a source of infection. I hate to think how much of a source of infectin a turban would be - I don't expect they bring a newly-sterilised one in for use everyday, do you?