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/

Not everyone groomed was groomed by A Muslim grooming gang. Not even most people groomed. The fact that grooming is only of concern to you when it is a grooming gang with a Muslim background is what is telling.

You seem to have badly misunderstood the point of this thread. Literally no one is saying you shouldn’t be able to challenge them. That’s how you counter misinformation, not by making talking about it illegal.

If there are patterns, people need to be able to talk about them. Should we not discuss that many Catholic priests were implicated in child abuse?

We don't discuss that in a way that speaks of or for all Catholics.

I've never mentioned grooming, less by any particular group. Please point me to where I've said anything to that effect?

By your reasoning we can't discuss anything about anything. So much for free speech!

Should it be a criminal offence to discuss Muslim grooming gangs, do you think? Do you see any possible issues with that?

yes, and when we discuss grooming gangs, we mean particular men, no?

You can discuss what you want but you will be challenged by others exercising free speech.

Men that groom maybe. What men are you discussing?

I’m discussing the known Pakistani grooming gangs. That well known phenomenon in the north of England which has been responsible for the rape and sexual abuse of thousands of girls and young women. Hope that helps.

North of England isn’t exhaustive, of course.

Absolutely fine. As I said, you have entirely missed the point of the thread.

And Baroness Falkner just keeps on being proved right.

Why would you fixate on that tiny number of men compared to the massive number of men and boys involved in grooming overall?

Some might say you don't care about their victims who are substantially more in number than the victims of "Muslim" grooming gangs.

Of course not all grooming gangs are Muslim. But the issues arose because the Police and other authorities were derelict in their duty (in other words turned a blind eye) through fear of being labelled racist and causing community tensions. This is a fact and has been reported ad nauseam.

It ain’t a “tiny number of men”. And like it or not, it will be discussed. Again, Baroness Falkner being proven right.

I’m somewhat sceptical of people who claim not to understand this tbh.

Of course. I would prefer it if the engagement was on the actual substance of the topic, rather than trying to dismiss or stifle discussion, but free speech does allow you to do that, yes.

So that’s all you’ve got?

How are you differentiating between religion and cultural practices that are deeply established in people of that religion? Why are certain practices so high in certain groups that have the shared characteristic of following particular strands of Islam?

I note no answer to any of my questions. I’ll assume you have no answer because you haven’t really thought it through.

Do you think we should be able to call out unacceptable behaviour regardless of who is doing it? That is the essence of our discussion.

Please, at least do us the courtesy of reading the posts in this thread more carefully before you respond as you seem to be totally misunderstanding. You repeatedly imply that we are speaking against ALL Muslims but that hasn’t happened at all. If you are going to continue making this claim you will need to evidence it.

Yes it’s very bizarre. I mean, why have the government just announced a third inquiry into this very specific issue? If the cultural and religious practices of these men are totally irrelevant, it’s surely going to be a short inquiry?

And I can’t fathom the approach that repeatedly claims that posters are smearing all members of a certain group but when this is pre-empted and clarified, there is no acceptance, just more false claims.

In a normal world, if I was worried that an individual was making a negative generalisation about an entire group, I would ask for clarification and then when that clarification was clearly provided with explanation, I would stop repeating my claim. But that’s just me. ..

Culture.

If you ever interacted with anyone who avtially had or was at risk of FGM, you'd know yourself that it isn't only Muslims. But you don't so you dont know. You focus on Muslims because you don't actually care about the issue itself or the women it affects, you care about division.

I probably deliver ten or more babies a year from women that have FGM and that small number is only because I am not FT on LW. And especially now, they are certainly not all Muslim and with current situations around the world, the religious demographics of women with FGM will change even more.

This is the difference between living and working in these communities and reading the papers about them.

It's telling us it's a tragedy for Britain. I genuinely don't care what you think about that, but ultimately this tragedy has changed Britain for the worse and nothing anyone can say will change that fact.

The Catholic church has lost a lot of respect in Britain because of the failure to stop abuse, for their protection of abusers.

The BBC has lost a lot of respect because of their protection of Saville and other abusers, a lot of respect has gone and will never come back.

The Hollywood scandals caused a worldwide loss of respect, and justifiably so.

Islam has lost respect in Britain because of the same failures.

Getting angry about the loss of respect is a dead end because it doesn't come back.

FGM was an established cultural practice in certain regions of Africa before Islam or Christianity were introduced.

It is still practiced, in those regions, by a significant portion of those who practice traditional African religions, Islam and Christianity.

Rates are far more associated with ethnic group, rather than faith. There are some majority Christian ethnic groups who practice it at higher rates than some Muslim groups, for example - e.g. its rooted in the culture of the ethnic group, not their faith.

That's why anti-FGM groups (rightfully) frame it as a cultural practice, not a religious one.

That's true but the reality is that it has been ignored in the past because of 'cultural relativism'. There are few countries if any where it is legal but it is still shockingly widespread. It's particularly high in Egypt an Islamic country. 87.2% of women aged 15-49 in Egypt although it is starting to decline.

In the UK, it is estimated that approximately 60,000 girls under the age of 15 are at risk of female genital mutilation.
The communities in the UK most at risk of FGM originate from countries including Somalia, Egypt, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, Nigeria, Kenya, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Kurdistan.
The connection with Islamophobia is that the potential for being accused (as with grooming gangs) leads to a wilfull blindness among professionals.
Many of the African countries are majority Muslim. Nimco Ali for example is Somali.
We must be able to criticise and shame all cultural practices and religions whatever there source without being visited by the police.