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/

Excellent post.

And horror of horrors the secret backers of SexMatters.

The Taliban and other Muslim men who abuse women quote parts of the Koran to justify their actions against women who are second class.
Therefore if those verses really exist in that book which is the authority of how to behave all Muslim women are potentially at risk and women just have to hope that their men chose not to follow those verses.
In the Rochdale and other northern cases, male and female relatives of the convicted men used the Koran to justify their opinion that the white girls were of less value than their men.
We can accept that those people may not themselves have been high grade scholars. But they do get support from their 'clergy' the Mullahs for those views.

I repeat, @CrossChecking, why is this called Islamophobia not Muslimphobia?

Not just Sikhs, they should ask women. As for wait till until they do it from pp it’s too late then.

She's part of the community, so she will be aware. She has done a good job. And Muslim women are suppressed in many parts of the world, and quite possibly here in the UK. It's not in any way racist to say so.

I’m so confused the governments website states it’s to tackle racism towards Muslims . Much like the antisemitism definition… the amount of hate Muslims get alone on this platform should be evident of that.

There’s deliberate conflation on this thread between curtailing speech and criticism of Islam and incitement of hate against Muslims.

‘Muslims are terrorists and violent’ - Islamophobia

’does Islamic text promote intolerance the use of violence?’ - open speech/criticism/dialogue of a religion

There’s massive difference between the two and i am not sure I buy the faux outrage on this thread that you won’t be able to discuss women’s rights or oppressive tactics by men.

There’s deliberate conflation on this thread between curtailing speech and criticism of Islam and incitement of hate against Muslims.
I think you need to substatiate that. I've seen no 'incitement of hate' on these threads.

Surely you recognise how discussions of grooming gangs has been silenced by authorities in the name of cultural cohesion. How pleas for legislation to protect women from misogyny in Sharia Councils has been ignored.
Not to mention the in your face attacks on freedom of speech regarding Salman Rushdie, Hamit Coskin and the teacher still in hiding after threats from Islamists.
I didn't see local Muslims rallying to the defence of that teacher.

Why should one religion be afforded greater protections than another, or than other groups of people? We already have laws that cover this. For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with saying "‘Muslims are terrorists and violent". It's wrong, but it shouldn't be illegal. What is Islamophobic about it?

Its not the EHRC who is setting up this definition. The EHRC is against this.

I meant 'they' as in the Government, not the EHRC. Reading back, I realise that wasn't the clearest, apologies!

Did anybody read either of the two articles I gave links to.

Baroness Falkner isn't talking about, as this thread has done, wide ranging issues about different cultures and religions.

She is saying she has doubts about the value of doing this and for her is that it could be weaponised to undermine women.

ie she is saying men, as they always do in any culture will attack women who stand up for other women by saying it is because they are racist, or imperialists, or they are right wing.

Just as many people both those of the Jewish faith and those who aren't have used what was written with best of intention, a definition of anti semitism, is used to close down discussion. Not forgetting that the man who wrote also says it is misused. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/antisemitism-executive-order-trump-chilling-effect

Obviously there are tensions between women of different cultures, race and class, and not always harmonious working together. But it is quite something that in the face of Labour thinking they are leading the world in tackling Islamaphobia Falkner is prepared to say she can see it being used by men to attack women.

Posting this article not so much because I have faith in the survey, but it shows the "journey" that this proposal has gone through. And in doing so indicating the problems with these definitions.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/majority-public-does-not-want-121237522.html

But still think that for a woman in the public eye to say I am putting women's rights first, however virtuous the intention of the Government of whoever, is quite bold and brave.

I think it’s also important to bear in mind that the muslim brotherhood are famous for being extremely litigious. The playbook in other countries is to infect charities, schools, NGO’s, democratic institutions etc and basically create the ground for more and more islamic overreach, they are much more insidious than people realise.

If I were the muslim brotherhood I would be rubbing my hands with glee about testing everything I could in court. There is a reason they are banned in many muslim majority countries.

It’ll just be a replay of the TRA’s but with religious nutters instead.

There are men in India right now claiming that they ought to have the right to rape their wives because it is an anti-colonialist stance. I think we should be very wary of anything groups trying to use anti-imperialist or anti-colonialist language to try to undermine a secular public space and discourse.

And again with the not so subtle use of language… why does it have to be outrage? Why can’t it just be concerns of women based on the prior evidence of previous definitions, the lack of open consultation on changing it, as well as the evidence of the analysis into ‘perceptions of Muslimness’ spoken about in reports on grooming gangs?

When you have the governments of Muslim countries like Yemen and Egypt telling us that the Muslim Brotherhood are an extreme Islamist group which has been banned in both of those two countries, and warning the U.K. government that consulting with the MB on the question of Islamophobia is dangerous, then I think we should listen, and be concerned at the suggestion that a blasphemy law specifically to protect Islam is even being considered, let alone become law.

I meant social justice language (very tired today) same as TRA’s. Same shit imo.

No one has actually said that though, have they? Although the religion itself and the culture surrounding it are misogynistic so it makes sense that a lot of it's male followers will also be. However the point being made here isn't that ALL Muslim men are misogynists but rather that IF THEY ARE, women should be able to say so without being called Islamaphobic or racist

Nope.

Indeed. And in the real world, giving this one religion special protection is likely to increase actual Islamophobia not reduce it.

But it isn't being brought in because of "special protection" but because of the increase in Islamaphobia.

I am not particularly in support of this idea, as I think the anti semitism narrative has also had negative impacts (mainly because politicians play silly games to point score against each other).

So the question is then if there is no official definition of Islamaphobia what is the country, via its politicians going to do about the UK being increasingly Islamaphobic?

Frankly I don't think fear of falling foul of hate speech laws is what silences criticism, or even in some cases discussion, of Islam. Its not wanting to end up in hiding due to death threats like that teacher in Batley that silences people.

What do you mean by Islamophobia, OP? Are you talking about Islam or Muslims?

I am talking about why the Government is saying it wants to bring in such a law.

As to how the police who provide the figures for the increase define it you would need to look at their web site.

And as i said upthread if you look at the link I provided about a poll on this, you will see how over a period of time from when Labour was in opposition and is now in Government they have changed how they define it.