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/

You have admitted yourself that they have no official definition of Islamophobia so how are they counting ‘Islamophobia’??

I think generally the ability to have an informed discussion about anything in the UK is nearly impossible, not just because of twitter etc., but the MSM screaming headlines.

Do you think your rude and dismissive comments invoking Farage etc are helping or hindering that ‘informed discussion’?

Try looking at where that 6% live and consider how our fptp voting system might work in their favour.

Jess Phillips’ constituency is 45% Muslim, a number of other constituencies are similar.

Obviously they are not going to gain a majority in the next election, or the one after that but if you consider the influence they already have over our government hoping not to lose a number of important seats, it gives them power.

Have you considered the fact that our Home Secretary is Muslim? Does she have a conflict of interest with her faith and her responsibility to the country? Only time will tell but it is a very arrogant person that doesn’t look at history and learn from it.

We gave posters on here from countries that have been taken over fully by Islamists and they are trying to warn us of the intentions s of some. Who is listening to those Muslims?

Even Baroness Falkner is trying to warn us

“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.”

Listen to what she is saying., that is a very polite but clear warning.

Indeed.

Because many Labour supporting posters on MN want to sneer and put you in a box they can simply dismiss. It’s uncomfortable for them to confront their own biases, especially when there’s a hint of wrongthink involved if they do.

Blasphemy laws by definition protect only one religion, "ecumenical blasphemy law" is an oxymoron.

The problem with this view is that Muslims share diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds on a worldwide scale. Child marriage & FGM are very particular practices to certain areas in North Africa rather than globally. Cousin marriage rates vary by region, community, and education level, with roots in tradition, tribal solidarity, and economic reasons that don't necessarily apply globally or in western settings. Therefore to assume these are typical behaviours of Muslims particularly in the west is not only false but creates a damaging view of them. That's not to say the practices themselves shouldn't be called out rather they shouldn't be ascribed broadly as they shouldn’t those of Christian or fundamentalists or Orthodox Jews to Christians or Jews.

In terms of women being silenced & abused in relationships, this certainly isn't exclusive to muslims & again should be called out generally.

Did I say they weren't?

I dont believe you.

People that actually know Muslims wouldnt be thinking about child grooming gangs etc no more than I'd think a white teen is an incel who is about to go and molest some children or shoot up a school.

How many white Jehovah Witnesses do you know who have been ex communicated?

You spoke of Muslims as if they are all men out to harm women. No you didn't seem to acknowledge that there are Muslim women at all

Exactly.

Anyone should be able to criticise anyone’s religious practices and customs without it being a criminal offence, however accurate or wrong they are. Freedom of speech and expression.

I’ve known many Muslims socially and as colleagues and currently I’m in a Muslim country. I have no problem with Muslim people, followers of Islam or religious people in general. I’m an agnostic atheist personally. I don’t actively disbelieve in god, I just don’t positively have a religious belief.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there is a significant problem with gangs of Pakistani men sexually abusing working class white girls. That’s just reality. It doesn’t mean there is no other sexual abuse or that all resources should focus on this abuse. But some should, no? Baroness Falkner (a Muslim woman) knows it and so do I.

There's significant problems with all types of men exploting girls. In groups and otherwise. There is also significant social issues in white working class families that obstruct proper safeguarding of children. Anyone remember Charlene Downes?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15284129/charlene-downes-case-paedophile-raymond-munro-living-home-police-suspected-abuse.html

If the middle and upper classes of all political persuasion were more interested in equality for their poor than they are division and discrimination against other groups, the world would be so much better.

Reminder that this thread is about freedom of speech and criminal law, not our personal opinions about Muslims or anyone else. Even if you think it’s wrong to focus on Pakistani grooming gangs, people should be able to voice why they disagree, shouldn’t they?

You’re kind of proving Baroness Falkner’s point here, so well done.

Free speech means we can all voice our opinions but people might challenge them.

Depends what, where & by whom. Socially, I don't see that as problematic as opposed to the work place.

In terms of media, wide spread hate speech has been a precursor to many genocides in the past 100 years so guard rails/regulation is a necessary precaution.

That's not to say certain ideas should be verboten rather its whether they are framed in stereotypical dehumanising & demonising rhetoric that makes them dangerous. It's one thing to discuss the problems with immigration & quite another to ascribe entire ethnicities /races/religions as national security threats.

Yep and the ‘manufactured’ part. As if women can’t just speak about what concerns them.

Agree with pp on Labour supporters wanting discussion to be squashed.

This feels like a blasphemy law by the backdoor, and the biggest threat will be to ex-Muslims and more liberal Muslims.

I had Muslim friends with relatively liberal parents growing up but when new immigrants brought more hardline Islam to their mosque, they were told they weren't allowed to be friends with white girls any more. The parents who held out were shamed and more extreme Muslim kids, mostly nasty jealous boys, used to report back to their families. It was insidious. One of my closest friends never came back from a family holiday to Pakistan when she was 14 - it was arranged by an uncle.

Most men who put themselves forward as Community Leaders by definition are more extreme in their version of Islam because it is the key part of their identity.

We should be very wary of taking guidance on an Islamophobia law from anyone that would use the words infidel or apostate.

Between 55%-65% of Pakistani marriages are between first cousins. Repeated first cousin marriage causes a high proportion of congenital abnormalities and deaths.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islamic_Law

As I said upthread, other religions do practise FGM but the countries where it is MOST prevalent are almost all Muslim. Last time I looked those other religions were not trying to make discussion in FGM unlawful.

Same with forced and child marriage. The country that recently reduced the age of consent to 9 is Muslim.

Obviously we know that not all types of Muslims are in support of this but we need a way of differentiating them from those who do. Suppression of conversation in this will not help that.

nationalfgmcentre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Hard-Copy-Map.pdf

Haha my Muslim friends will be tickled to know that you are erasing their existence.

The rest of your post is incoherent - can you try again please?

Yes but FGM isnt a Muslim practice. The countries where cocaine use is most prevalent are Christian or Catholic. That doesn't mean all Christians are cokeheads or drug smuggling bandits.

Why do you think you are better situated to challenge first cousin marriage practices than people from that community who do and can better advise where funding and government assistance might help? How will you handle women from that community who argue for their right to marry their cousin if they want to?

Are you saying the pp shouldn’t think of those grooming gangs? Why