Islamophobia

Would Stephen Fry be arrested now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfLfc04QTH0

It's cult not a race, and the above was fine even with the BBC till liberal snowflakes trashed everything including tv and film.

It's a cringeworthy and totally contrived term, invented to try and give one sector of the community something to complain about.

A phobia is, after all, an irrational fear. I'd say that fear of the Religion of Peace is a perfectly rational thing. For example, if you are the parents of children who went to an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, but never got home because of a Peace-Loving Suicide Bomber. (There are of course many other examples, and can be found on an almost global scale).

It's a sh!t word.  Means nothing.  Like h0mophobia is a pretendy description of nothing at all.

If i get on a tube and there are muslims on there with backpacks on, i get off, does that mean i suffer from Islamaphobia, if thats the case, so do thousands of others,
Could i be arrested for being islamaphobic, in other words, can i get arrested for being scared ?

I think the term was first coined by Tevor Philips and he has since disowned it citing it has been used to stifle debate about certain actions and attitudes by hardliners.
Phobia means fear but this term is now applied to any rightful criticism of the actions of some muslims

Is the religion at fault or merely its teachings miss-practised to suit? I find it extremely difficult to believe or accept any religion has no place in a modern society. However, I can fully accept if the teachings of a religion have been manipulated and twisted by unscrupulous "practitioners" to suit their agenda.

I do agree totally a "word" can be created by a self-interest group, used by the self-interested cowards to manipulate/twist the minds of morons to achieve an agenda.

utterly meaningless, deliberately made up nonsense word that George Orwell would be proud of

makes as much sense as murderphobia or rapephobia

I have a genuine and rational fear of Islam and its effects on my country.

Gaddafi had and although deceased, has the solution.  It takes time.

Think i'm right in mentioning the Chinese have built concentration camps in which theyre educate their Muslims.....now there's a thought

He's been named - he name is Khan, and has form; just released from HMP just recently.

Is Islamophobia justified given the repeated terrorist incidents in London by the "cowards"? I think if my adrenaline overcomes me I'd possibly react in the same manner as the courageous and selfless passersby yesterday because the perpetrators have been nothing but exhibiting the behaviour of a coward. And, it saves lives despite two innocent Londoners were killed by the coward.

Open Letter: APPG Islamophobia Definition Threatens Civil Liberties

Addressed to the Home Secretary Sajid Javid

The APPG on British Muslims' definition of Islamophobia has now been adopted by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats Federal board, Plaid Cymru and the Mayor of London, as well as several local councils. All of this is occurring before the Home Affairs Select Committee has been able to assess the evidence for and against the adoption of the definition nationally.

Meanwhile the Conservatives are having their own debate about rooting out Islamophobia from the party.

According to the APPG definition, "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness".

With this definition in hand, it is perhaps no surprise that following the horrific attack on a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, some place responsibility for the atrocity on the pens of journalists and academics who have criticised Islamic beliefs and practices, commented on or investigated Islamist extremism.

The undersigned unequivocally, unreservedly and emphatically condemn acts of violence against Muslims, and recognise the urgent need to deal with anti-Muslim hatred. However, we are extremely concerned about the uncritical and hasty adoption of the APPG's definition of Islamophobia.

This vague and expansive definition is being taken on without an adequate scrutiny or proper consideration of its negative consequences for freedom of expression, and academic and journalistic freedom. The definition will also undermine social cohesion – fuelling the very bigotry against Muslims which it is designed to prevent.

We are concerned that allegations of Islamophobia will be, indeed already are being, used to effectively shield Islamic beliefs and even extremists from criticism, and that formalising this definition will result in it being employed effectively as something of a backdoor blasphemy law.

The accusation of Islamophobia has already been used against those opposing religious and gender segregation in education, the hijab, halal slaughter on the grounds of animal welfare, LGBT rights campaigners opposing Muslim views on homosexuality, ex-Muslims and feminists opposing Islamic views and practices relating to women, as well as those concerned about the issue of grooming gangs. It has been used against journalists who investigate Islamism, Muslims working in counter-extremism, schools and Ofsted for resisting conservative religious pressure and enforcing gender equality.

Evidently abuse, harmful practices, or the activities of groups and individuals which promote ideas contrary to British values are far more likely to go unreported as a result of fear of being called Islamophobic. This will only increase if the APPG definition is formally adopted in law.

We are concerned that the definition will be used to shut down legitimate criticism and investigation. While the APPG authors have assured that it does not wish to infringe free speech, the entire content of the report, the definition itself, and early signs of how it would be used, suggest that it certainly would. Civil liberties should not be treated as an afterthought in the effort to tackle anti-Muslim prejudice.

The conflation of race and religion employed under the confused concept of 'cultural racism' expands the definition beyond anti-Muslim hatred to include 'illegitimate' criticism of the Islamic religion. The concept of Muslimness can effectively be transferred to Muslim practices and beliefs, allowing the report to claim that criticism of Islam is instrumentalised to hurt Muslims.

No religion should be given special protection against criticism. Like anti-Sikh, anti-Christian, or anti-Hindu hatred, we believe the term anti-Muslim hatred is more appropriate and less likely to infringe on free speech. A proliferation of 'phobias' is not desirable, as already stated by Sikh and Christian organisations who recognise the importance of free discussion about their beliefs.

Current legislative provisions are sufficient, as the law already protects individuals against attacks and unlawful discrimination on the basis of their religion. Rather than helping, this definition is likely to create a climate of self-censorship whereby people are fearful of criticising Islam and Islamic beliefs. It will therefore effectively shut down open discussions about matters of public interest. It will only aggravate community tensions further and is therefore no long term solution.

If this definition is adopted the government will likely turn to self-appointed 'representatives of the community' to define 'Muslimness'. This is clearly open to abuse. The APPG already entirely overlooked Muslims who are often considered to be "insufficiently Muslim" by other Muslims, moderates, liberals, reformers and the Ahmadiyyah, who often suffer persecution and violence at the hands of other Muslims.

For all these reasons, the APPG definition of Islamophobia is deeply problematic and unfit for purpose. Acceptance of this definition will only serve to aggravate community tensions and to inhibit free speech about matters of fundamental importance. We urge the government, political parties, local councils and other organisations to reject this flawed proposed definition.

Emma Webb, Civitas

Hardeep Singh, Network of Sikh Organisations (NSOUK)

Lord Singh of Wimbledon

Tim Dieppe, Christian Concern

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society (NSS)

Sadia Hameed, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB)

Prof. Paul Cliteur, candidate for the Dutch Senate, Professor of Law, University of Leiden

Brendan O'Neill, Editor of Spiked

Maajid Nawaz, Founder, Quilliam International

Rt. Rev'd Dr Gavin Ashenden

Pragna Patel, director of Southall Black Sisters

Professor Richard Dawkins

Rahila Gupta, author and Journalist

Peter Whittle, founder and director of New Culture Forum

Trupti Patel, President of Hindu Forum of Britain

Dr Lakshmi Vyas, President Hindu Forum of Europe

Harsha Shukla MBE, President Hindu Council of North UK

Tarang Shelat, President Hindu Council of Birmingham

Ashvin Patel, Chairman, Hindu Forum (Walsall)

Ana Gonzalez, partner at Wilson Solicitors LLP

Baron Desai of Clement Danes

Baroness Cox of Queensbury

Lord Alton of Liverpool

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali

Ade Omooba MBE, Co-Chair National Church Leaders Forum (NCLF)

Wilson Chowdhry, British Pakistani Christian Association

Ashish Joshi, Sikh Media Monitoring Group

Satish K Sharma, National Council of Hindu Temples

Rumy Hasan, Academic and author

Amina Lone, Co-Director, Social Action and Research Foundation

Peter Tatchell, Peter Tatchell Foundation

Seyran Ates, Imam

Gina Khan, One Law for All

Mohammed Amin MBE

Baroness D'Souza

Michael Mosbacher, Acting Editor, Standpoint Magazine

Lisa-Marie Taylor, CEO FiLiA

Julie Bindel, journalist and feminist campaigner

Dr Adrian Hilton, academic

Neil Anderson, academic

Tom Holland, historian

Toby Keynes

Prof. Dr. Bassam Tibi, Professor Emeritus for International Relations, University of Goettingen

Dr Stephen Law, philosopher and author

open borders > free movement > extended family immigration > state subsidised population growth > ascending into top tiers of education system, academia and the media, electing more local councillors > more MPs > government positions > cabinet >white papers >introduction of blasphemy laws > Sharia Law

tick tock

they are part of the victim ideology and have to protect them otherwise you can't belong

so that's you banned from their club ho ho

I am still a card carrying member  - do you think they might take it away.

might as well continue the theme ...internment of whitey Brits

ne of the strangest concepts is liberal women defending Islamic immigration to the west!

If they dont favour the Flange , they Favour the Grant c0ck, the More the Merrier ..........

you mean the she-hadists ?

Its not that strange, they're the useful idiots for the death cult to hide behind.

Feminism was hijacked a long time ago, infiltrated by the marxists who have sold them their victimhood ideology, and most of them have lapped it up.

They're not real feminists (real feminists wouldn't sacrifice women's rights in favour of a minority group that seemingly trumps theirs), they're a new breed of radical feminists.

Radical feminists don't hate men you see, they only hate white men.  That untenable position, right there, betrays their radicalisation.

The non-Islam Muslims eg Christians, etc, do not even like the Islam-Muslims, and visits to one another's households is not encouraged - I've been told by my non-Islam Muslim friends from Turkey; some non-Islam Muslims will eat pork, but that is seen as unclean as the said animal is deemed dirty and polygamous - yes that's what I've been told by an Islam-Muslim (a he) from Afghanistan - and is the accepted and universal logic of the Islam-Muslims, why?

Islam-Muslims can have up to 4 wives at the same time. Yet, he accused the pig of being unclean (who is responsible for the cleanliness of the pig), and polygamous - a double standard of the highest degree.

I do not blame the religion, but the practitioners who are much of a muchness and mostly not learned but individuals living, working and mixing within their own community. I've utmost concerns for the future of The UK and detest their non-integration into the British Society; their dominant presence in any single town; ever quick bleating about discrimination by others; irritating arrogance on matters not their forte; a lack of respect for our laws and traditions; communicating in their own language outside their home and some workplaces in public; etc.

Most of all I detest their increasing political prominence in British Politics not conducive to the locals - to achieve hegemony in a town thro' population and not integration is sufficiently abhorrent, but in British Politics and possibly deciding the future of The UK
could be concerning, reprehensible and problematic for the locals.