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/

A survey of Muslim views from March 2024.

28% say it would be undesirable to outlaw homosexuality so 72% are either unsupportive of or even anti homosexuality. This could therefore be considered to be representative of Muslim views, and could meets the general definition of Islamophobia. How do we manage the obvious clash between the idea of ‘Islamophobia’ (on the Labour website as ‘targeting expressions of Muslimness) and gay rights?

It would be helpful to know if the government had consulted any gay rights groups (that actually support gay rights) on this.

From the survey:
Key stats: Future of society

• Only 17% think it is undesirable that women take a more traditional role in society
• Only 27% say it would be undesirable to outlaw gay marriage (compared to 60% of the wider public)
• Only 28% say it would be undesirable to outlaw homosexuality in the UK (compared to 62% of the public as a whole)
• Only 26% say it would be undesirable to outlaw abortion, compared to 63% of the public as a whole
• Only 35% say it would be undesirable to legalise polygamy, compared to 70% of the public

henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HJS-Deck-200324-Final.pdf

That's from their website.

Happy to assume their self-reported numbers as accurate, but I dare say they are over-inflating their role in "successes" (however they measure those).

They rarely handle cases themselves - they refer out to specialist law firms (in contrast to, say, Liberty, who have a dedicated legal team and long history of succesful and high-profile litigation).

FSU are more generally in the publicity/fundraising side of things - which is fine, that's obviously central to advocacy - but the quote you posted is, I'd say, rather misleading (and again, self-agrandizing). Framing it as "cases" they have "fought" makes it sound like they are regularly in the courtroom, securing "wins". They've only actually been involved in proceedings themselves a handful of times.

Meanwhile, what are the other unions doing for women? Several are refusing to even represent women like the Darlington nurses. Is that acceptable in your mind?

Again - Free Speech Union are not a union.

Per my post, its very questionable whether FSU are doing much at all.

For heavens sake. They offer support to ordinary people at there wits end who have fallen foul of hate speech prosecutions. They organise first class legal representation.
They are standing beside Hamit Coskin.
They supported Linzi Smith. Perhaps you've not heard of these people but they are the ones fighting for your freedom of speech. They are in the trenches.
Index on censorship have just held the ritual banned book list. On the real threat to freedom of speech in publishing today - tumbleweed.

I don't know what else to say other than that I consider you to be grossly overstating their significance.

You quoted their ~80% success rate and number of "cases" they have "fought". I think its quite reasonable to point out that they seldom fight cases themselves and quite how they measure success (and attribute it to themselves) is not exactly clear.

What pathetic hair splitting.

Seriously, who cares what your opinion of them is? No one is asking you to support them.

As pp said they have been involved in some high profile cases. I’m glad they exist, whatever other people reckon about them.

A previous poster reposted a release from Free Speech Union, who considered it outrageous that they have not been consulted on the new definition.

I do not consider it outrageous (and made that clear).

I was then asked why I was so keen to dismiss them, so I answered.

I then responded to follow ups.

Hope that helps.

You simply gave your personal opinion, and you don’t seem to really know about any of the cases that I know about, so I’ll be taking your own obvious agenda with a pinch of salt. Hope that helps!

My "obvious agenda" being what, exactly?

I would be concerned if the existing APPG definition of "Islamophobia" was adopted as guidance for government authorities.

I think a definition that distinguishes between hate speech (directed at people) vs criticism of ideas and beliefs (Islam) is potentially helpful, and arguably bolsters free speech (because it will help stop wrong-headed attempts to shut down criticism of Islam, based on authorities finding it difficult to distinguish between the two).

It sounds broadly in line with the recent Employment Triubnal decision in Patrick Lee v Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which FSU supported (and which I think was a good decision by the ET).

I don't think its outrageous that FSU have not been consulted by the working group. I am dubious about them continuing to reference "blasphemy laws", given that the working group do not seem to be going down the road.

I will ultimately reserve judgment until a definition is published.

I’m glad Baroness Falkner is speaking now rather than waiting which seems to be the pro Labour stance.

Once it’s done there’s little to be achieved on changing it. Which I suppose is what some will want.

I didn’t share that FAU post because I necessarily agreed that they should have been included, I shared it because ause a number of PPs on here seem to think that the government gave wound down discussions on this due to public opinion but in reality, they are just hiding it.

The FSU point was that the discussions, although an ‘Islamophobia’ law will have wide ranging effects, discussions are being held behind closed doors with no transparency as to who is involved.

There is no need for a law against Islamophobia, any more than we need a law against Christianophobia. We already have hate speech laws and they are being misused against us. Harassment, assault, vandalism are already crimes - and there are two Hate crime strands that would cover any race or religious related aggravating factors (yes I know Islam isn’t a race but I’m sure there are common factors in actual anti Muslim attacks).

There were 9000 crimes including violence and vandalism recorded in churches last year. Who knows how many of those were religiously motivated?

There is little open discussion from government about exactly what the government want to protect Muslims from but the risks to society of shutting down free speech and stopping us from dealing with abhorrent behaviour by an ultra protected group are huge. That 6% have power.

PPs who think I’m making a fuss about nothing should also listen to the Muslims trying to warn us of the rush’s, in some cases they have come here to flee the situation we appear to be moving towards.

This.

The FSU are highlighting what is going on, and are trying to ask for clarity, as are other groups who have been shut out of discussions. It's all being done behind closed doors, and that doesn't inspire confidence, particularly from a party that have already made it clear that they are going to steamroll ahead on other contentious issues.

Agree with you and pp too. Of course Labour don’t want scrutiny.

We don’t need the definition and it probably will go at the next GE.

I sometimes wonder if Labour are deliberately making themselves unelectable by destroying any sense of good will that they may have had. I do not understand how anyone can look at what they have been doing and see a positive outcome.

FWIW I think Labour are dancing on the knife edge of satisfying the public and, on the other side, their back benchers.
I could almost pity them.

This, exactly.

I'll believe they are for free speech the moment they back cases of people who don't share the politics of Mr Young with as much vigour as those whose views are in alignment with them.

If I were to hold my breath waiting for them to demonstrate they aren't just a right wing lawfare mirror of the glp, the dodo would be more alive than me...

If pp is allowed to say such offensive things about him without being silenced I guess they can thank him for his efforts later.

Yep

FGM is a muslim issue as it is religiously sanctioned or widely perceived to be sunnah, or acceptable practice. Religious authorities in many diverse muslim communities across the globe permit it or do not work particularly hard to condemn it. Indonesia, the world's most populous muslim nation, had no record of FGM until conversion to Islam and in recent years with increasing religiosity has seen increased rates of FGM, though the type practised in Indonesia is less harmful (clitoral cutting rather than removal). There are non-muslim african communities that practise FGM but when it comes to the sheer numbers and institutional religious sanction, it is a global Muslim issue. You may not want to admit it as you seem to be fighting a different battle rather than the one for women and girls' safety and dignity.

I think that once certain ideas and practices are in the public domain - anyone can question, interrogate, criticise and even insult them. There are dozens of countries in which islamic laws - which routinely disadvantage women, gays, non muslims - hold sway as law of the land. This is not case with other religions (except maybe with abortion laws in some catholic majority countries) and thus, it is even more urgent for anyone who has an interest in human rights to question these iniquitous laws. That they originate from religion does not exempt them from scrutiny.

Copied and pasted from Toby Young's Twitter feed, Feb 19th 2025. Sorry I can't screenshot it:

'Yesterday I got the following email from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:
'Hi there I am writing on censorship in my column today and want to know if the Free Speech Union has defended the rights of pro-Palestinian protestors and defenders in the UK. My deadline is 3.30. I would be immensely grateful for a prompt reply.'

'This was my reply:
'Hi Yasmin. Thanks for getting in touch.

'Yes, we've defended several people who've got into trouble with their employers for their outspoken support of the Palestinian cause, including a commercial lawyer and an academic.

'I may be a Conservative peer, but the Free Speech Union is a non-partisan organisation and will defend any of its members who get into trouble for exercising their right to lawful free speech, regardless of whether I agree with their political views or not.

'Over the past five years we have defended over 3,300 people, including over 1,000 gender critical feminists. The vast majority of them are left-wing, but the FSU has gone into bat for them again and again, which is more than can be said for the UCU or any of the other so-called free speech advocacy groups.

'If you're a member and you get into trouble for exercising your right to lawful free speech, we will defend you – and that includes putting together a team of top lawyers and paying all your legal costs if we think your case merits that.

'We now have more than 26,500 members, which is more than the NUJ, and continue to grow at a rate of over 1,000 new members every month.

'The FSU is also a growing international movement. There are now FSUs in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Switzerland and this week saw the launch of the FSU of Canada. I recently set up FSU International to coordinate the activities of all the different FSUs and to help people set up new ones and appointed a former British Ambassador, Jon Benjamin, to run it. We hope to see FSUs established in France, Germany and Brazil in the near future.

'Best,
'Toby'
8:04 AM · Feb 19, 2025

https://x.com/toadmeister/status/1892123123828281749