Fears Labour’s Islamophobia definition could silence women’s rights campaigners - Baroness Falkner

[IwantToRetire]

Labour's Islamophobia definition could be used to silence women’s rights campaigners, the recent head of the equalities watchdog has warned.

Baroness Falkner said the new definition could be weaponised against those who “dare” say that Muslim women are being suppressed.

The new definition – which has not yet been published by Communities Secretary Steve Reed – has been criticised by Tories as a route to a “de facto blasphemy law”.

Criticising the plans, Baroness Falkner told Sky News: “If they’re going to bring in yet another area where, for example, anyone who’s defending women’s rights is going to be accused by those ethnic minority men of Islamophobia, if they dare say something about how Muslim women are suppressed.

“I’m a Muslim woman myself. I know all about this.

“I know the community.”

NB source is the Sun! Link for full article https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37562911/labour-islamophobia-definition-silence-womens-rights/

Yes, you should be able to say anything about a particular religion - Islam, Christianity, Scientology, Genderism - including criticisms that they might not like. They’re all cults if you ask me.

That is still compatible with not being able to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion.

Agreed. This isn't a niche issue, this is a civil rights issue that will impact everyone. It doesn't inspire confidence when they are being so cagey about it, and combined with their stance on Digital ID and facial recognition it is genuinely terrifying.

We already know there's two-tier policing, we can see that clearly with the difference in approaches to policing of women who peacefully protest and TRAs who can scream deaths and rape threats with impunity.

Of course. Never question.

Agree with you on the various forms of control. Hopefully they’ll be out soon.

Surely that depends on the definition?
It is what it says on the tin. Islamophobia legislation means one cannot criticise a religion.

The time to question is surely when there is a proposed definition to question? At the moment, there's just lots of outrage about hypotheticals.

Baroness Falkner is exemplary. She doesn’t do ‘manufactured outrage’.

Good on her speaking up for women, as always.

Exactly this.

Which of course is a protection which already exists in law. What further protection is needed?

All Abrahamic faiths are, to a greater or lesser extent (with Islam being at the greater end of the scale) sexist and homophobic.

In a civilised country we should be able to critique all beliefs and religions. We do not have blasphemy laws in this country nor should we.

The EA is about balancing opposing rights. Jews, Christians and Muslims are free to practice their sexist, homophobic religions - and women and LGBT people are free to go about their business without being discriminated against on the basis of someone else’s faith.

A blasphemy law in favour of one of those faiths compromises that balance.

And back to the middle ages we go, FFS.

Of course you should be able to criticise a religion, any religion. Islam is not a special case. And no, hurty feelings are not a reason to ban people from speaking. Whatever the topic.

There is a working definition on the Labour Party website that is/was very broad. What is meant by expressions of Muslimness?

The old definition states: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

Reports now that Islamophobia (which was strange wording) been changed to replace it with "anti-Muslim hate", but I couldn’t find out how else it’s changed.

And yet, violent misogyny in speech is still not a hate crime.

Indeed.

Any cult in the form of religion that takes offence of said religion of the slightest thing is very clearly weak or downright dangerous.

The group’s proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression - which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents.

This is from the governments website. It doesn't sound like a blasphemy law?

So what’s the point of the law? Remember, it’s called Islamophobia, not Muslimphobia. It is specifically about the religion, not those who practise it.

It will advise government on how to best understand, quantify and define prejudice, discrimination, and hate crime targeted against Muslims.

With incidents of anti-Muslim hate crime at record high in England and Wales, the group’s work will support wider and ongoing government-led efforts to tackle religiously motivated hate crime.

The group’s proposed definition will be non-statutory and will provide the government and other relevant bodies with an understanding of unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities.

Again from the governments website, this appears to be the point.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-working-group-on-anti-muslim-hatredislamophobia-definition

Because any incitement to violence is already covered by criminal law. So why the need for any definition / legislative change? Why should the law of the UK protect any particular religion or culture or, more importantly, any criticism of it?

As a woman I’m not keen on cultures or practices that ‘other’ women or restrict them in terms of behaviour or dress or rights differently from men. That includes most religions at the fundamental edges. People of these beliefs can do as they wish - so long as these practices and beliefs are not ‘protected’ in law or become part of our legal system thus being enforced on the (currently) secular majority - but which may become the minority with population change.

Why should the law of the UK protect any particular religion or culture or, more importantly, any criticism of it?

From the UK governments website:The group’s proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression - which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents.

I have to admit I'm highly concerned. Britain arrests 13,000 people annually for hate speech, most of those are for the most utterly ridiculous reasons imaginable and initiated by people without resources, coordination or in many cases much mental health. I shudder to think what would happen if it were weaponized by a very highly motivated group with resources and deep institutional resources.

Yes - forgive me for having limited faith in the pronouncements of an administration that has failed to implement or require compliance with the law on single sex spaces by the NHS, state schools and other public bodies and which continues to obfuscate and delay while paying ‘lip service’ to the Supreme Court ruling.

If the above has shown anything, it’s that this government will appease any interest group while ignoring women.

Are you familiar with how “transphobia” has been weaponised against feminist campaigners @CrossChecking? Baroness Falkner certainly is.

I’m not sure that it is clear that anti-Muslim crime is at a record high per capita of the population (because with a growing population you might have more numbers of crimes even if the likelihood of incidences are no more frequent) right now, unless you’re counting hate crimes, which could be quite spuriously recorded and are likely to be distortive (I doubt that the police were recording all and any instances of racism in the 70s, or indeed the 90s, frankly). None of this is to say that racism or hate crime is ok or that government should not try to improve things, but if you’re legislating for a particular type of racism, it’s only sensible to understand whether it really is a growing issue and how it arises before you do so?

I don’t think that there should even be a debate as to whether criticising a religious practice comes under protected belief and I do think that the Islamophobia definition will open this up. Yes, you may well have a defence, but you’re on the back foot unless you can be totally certain your belief is protected and that, for example, your employer won’t just sack you and then you have to try to advocate your belief; who actually wants to be in a Sandy Peggy situation?

I think it’s fine for people to openly say that, in their view, cousin marriage has no place in modern Britain. That will obviously offend certain communities and those who have such marriages, but it’s not the same as saying that we should attack people. Same with conversations about FGM, or integration. Or women’s rights.

It’s pretty clear that girls are going to be vulnerable in a very specific way in a culture in which the freedom of girls is restricted and women are required to preserve their family’s honour, which is how some Muslim communities work. But it’s pretty clear in the case of Sara Sharif that the fact that her family was Muslim made authorities less likely to look at whether she required protection and not equally or even more likely, despite the fact that she was a withdrawn underweight child suddenly covering her head. I can’t imagine this is going to be improved where a definition of Islamophobia is likely to prompt public authorities to be even more scared of even suggesting that some cultures or cultural practices might give rise to additional safeguarding concerns. This does not mean that I think that all Muslim families abuse children, obviously. There are obviously child protection issues that are not associated with the strict Muslim community - alcohol abuse being one. I don’t believe that we should profile people and assume they are abusers and criminals as a result of their background. But in order to do a job, social workers have to be able to look into the background of adults and children in order to ask the correct questions and consider the issues as a whole. And some professionals will worry that this is effectively a racist hate crime. Do we want professionals to be protecting themselves or protecting children?

One of the problems is that the government has consulted with Muslim groups but few non Muslims. For example the Sikhs are very concerned. It reminds me of the GRA and the lack of consultation with women.
It's obvious they are in a bind and are using their usual modus operandi of sleight of hand instead of open democratic debate.

Would people think it’s right for people being scathing about Christianity to be prosecuted or for public services to have guidelines about suppressing their views? People making comments about how the Christian right in the US are misogynistic? Homophobic?