Criticism of Islam is a protected belief

[theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15272771/Criticism-Islam-ruled-legally-protected-belief-man-banned-fined-thousands-pounds-social-media-posts.html

I wasn't able to find the judgment. There'll be a hearing in February but it's not clear to me whether claimant's beliefs have already been tested for Grainger compliance. Either way, the tribunal will (also) have to address objectionable manifestation (Bananarama doctrine).

I've raised it here because of the parallels with Forstater. It's a constant refrain of TRAs that permitting Forstater belief is tantamount to attacking GR as a protected characteristic. They do not understand secularism (or the SC ruling).

Of course the situation is not the same insofar as Islam has not been written into our law and Muslims don't expect the rest of us to follow its rules.

Article 9, anyone?

I literally quoted a poll to you that says practicing Muslims are overwhelmingly less tolerant and law-abiding than other religious people, themselves slightly less than atheists. How is that not a point ? Unless you refuse to grasp it.

Are you not in the UK? Or do you only watch the BBC and read The Guardian?

As I and PPs have demonstrated to you, Islam and many Muslims are generally far more hard line in their views than other religions.

The point however, is that we are all freely allowed to criticise other religions. No one is proposing or attempting to outlaw criticism of any religion other than Islam.

You need to consider why people want us to stop criticising Islam or Muslims with views incompatible with our society.

This is the point - you’re so close to getting it. No one needs to go to court to gain the right to criticise other religions, we already can and do quite extensively.

The only religion we are not allowed to criticise and there is an intention to outlaw criticism altogether is Islam.

Phobia is an irrational fear of a thing

Some fears are perfectly rational (and can be demonstrated as such). Making them very much not phobias.

Exactly.

Somewhat worryingly, the Labour Party have already adopted the following (among quite a bit else) as their definition. Keir has been talking to the Muslim council of Britain about his intention of making that law.

As 47% of Muslims think that gay people shouldn’t be employed as teachers for example, it would be reasonable to assume that that is an ‘expression of Muslimness’. So ‘targeting’ (a deliberately very general word) homophobia in the Muslim community would at best be subjected to a chilling effect of people worrying about breaking the law and at worst be found to be a criminal act. Ditto forced and child marriage, first cousin marriage etc etc.

Why is Keir promising such power to Muslims? The power to silence the rest of us.

From the Labour Party website:

“Complaints of Islamophobia will be investigated and processed in accordance with the Labour Party’s disciplinary policies, which can be found on the Labour Party’s website and in the Labour Party Complaint Handling Handbook.What is Islamophobia?

1. There is no single agreed definition of Islamophobia, albeit various civic, social, legal and political sources have attempted to define it. One definition is the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslim’s definition (APPG). The APPG defines Islamophobia as:

“… rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. The Labour Party adopted the APPG definition and its examples in March 2019 as an important statement of principle and solidarity. The NEC reaffirms that position in this Code of Conduct.”

labour.org.uk/resources/labours-islamophobia-policy/

Maybe Jade works for the BBC? The selective editibg/understanding/totally ignoring the actual point seems familiar.

I don’t get the idea that you approach a bunch of activists pushing their demands and simply accept them without weighing up those demands against the rights of others. We could all draw up a wish list of selfish demands that harm other people but none of us would expect the PM to make it law without approaching those people and considering the impact on them.

This is exactly what happened with trans activism. No lessons learned.

Catholic countries put their religious beliefs before any sort of secular rights. So you'll see big restrictions on abortion and the like in those countries. Little welfare for single mothers. All things that promote their belief system.

No I'd be sacked from my job if I wrote negative views about any religion on my SM and was reported as a result. If I spoke about the incest and paedophilia in the bible, there would be denial and anger from the Christians and their supporters.

No I do not. Please stop speculating about my personal life and engage with the content of my posts. It is creeping me out.

You don't know many Christians if that is your belief. Probably because you only know a few non church goers who loosely describe themselves as C of E.

Yes and no I don't read those papers or sources routinely. I'm asking because I regualrly see anyone who does do that punished for doing so. Of course if someone doesnt have a job to take away, then they can just say it.

When the Christians you poll haven't even seen a church for years, your data means nothing.

Churchgoing is not required as proof of faith in Christ in most protestant religions.

It is proof of your commitment to the religion rather than an association by background. The fact that hardly any of the people polled actually worship in a church is important when analysing the data.

People who have actually read the bible and believe in it are typically against homosexuality and think it is a sin. That goes without saying.

The problems is that as religions Christianity and Islam are not comparable.

Christianity - based on the Bible itself - contains the philosophical basis for separating the spiritual and the mundane. (It's the very meaning of "Give unto Caesar ...." that Jesus instructed). Therefore it is possible to be a Christian in a secular society. Admittedly you have to cede your power over women people, but it can be done and lead to what you might loosely call "the West".

Islam has no such provisions. It is specifically presented as a guide to all aspects of life. There is no such division between the sacred and the profane. Ultimately it requires full control of every Muslims life.

Now as with Christianity there are a spectrum of views on this. However unlike Christianity they cannot be reconciled with a secular state.

More perceptive readers will of course notice that the alleged rising tide of Christian batshittery fundamentalism from the US makes suspiciously similar claims to Islam about there being no separation between church and state.

Personally, as someone who has very little time for people who believe in fairy stories, no matter how amusing or twee, I say a plague on all your houses.

Can we have dates and timeline please?
If you are so educated, you won't mind sharing, will you?

You realise America is the West, right? The place where little raped girls now have to continue their pregnancies? That place? Familiar?

You realise our own politicians have been talking about restricting abortion for a whike now, yes?

@Swiftasthewind

around 600 BC: 1st tribal king in the British Isles to be baptised
around 610 BC: Muhammad is supposed to have received his first revelation

Facts...

You realise there is a law now going through parliament making it legal up to full term?

It's always been legal up to full term depending on circumstances.

What I do know is that at two political parties want to restrict abortion. I know there was a huge anti abortion March in London a few months ago, and it is an annual event.