February 29, 2024 - 7:00am
Last night, it was reported that the police were “assessing” a report of hate speech made against Lee Anderson following his claim that “Islamists” had taken control of London and Sadiq Khan.
This is a concerning step, particularly because Labour has used the Anderson saga to divert the narrative away to the party’s adoption of the contested All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) definition of Islamophobia, which could become incorporated into law if it sweeps to power. According to this definition (also adopted by the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and the London Mayor’s office), Islamophobia is “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch has described this definition as a backdoor blasphemy law. Its use could serve to embolden those now targeting our elected officials with intimidation. She instead insisted on using the term “anti-Muslim hatred”, which is less ambiguous than the APPG definition, and consistent with the law.
Badenoch is correct: the APPG definition wrongly defines Islamophobia as a form of racism. To illustrate its flaws, “claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule”, would be considered “Islamophobic” and therefore tantamount to racism. Remarkably this serves to censor historical truths, such as the well-documented spread of Islam through the sword by the Mughals, Ottomans, and the Moors (or ISIS). If this gets put into statute, we’d be in the remarkable situation in which we can openly talk about the crusades but are on much shakier ground when it comes to jihads. Free speech would most certainly be censored.
My report for Civitas last year, ‘Islamophobia’ Revisited, showed one in seven councils across England and Wales have already adopted the contested APPG definition (despite it being rejected by government ministers on grounds of free speech). The Government cited a poll by the organisation Muslim Census that found that only 21% of Muslims polled agreed with the APPG definition, primarily due to the confusion it creates between race and religion Unsurprisingly, the councils that have since adopted the definition are mainly Labour-led, which is why the definition is growing in popularity and recognition.
Back in May 2023, it was reported that one councillor from Boston Council, who was scheduled to be appointed Mayor, was denied the role for Facebook posts made in 2022, which were alleged to constitute “hateful speech” towards Muslims. The “offending” posts were made during the 2022 Qatar World Cup, with the councillor raising concerns about aspects of Islamic doctrine which criminalise homosexuality and severely restrict the rights of women in Qatar. Was he really so wrong?
If Labour gets into power and incorporates the APPG definition into law — which seems to be increasingly likely — “offensive” incidents like these could easily become a criminal matter. That’s because the definition is so ambiguous it has the potential to capture a panoply of scenarios — not least legitimate criticism of religious doctrine, extremism, and the mere utterance of historical truths.
Anyone who values freedom of expression in modern Britain, should, by now, be very concerned.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Anyone who values freedom of expression in modern Britain, should, by now, be very concerned.”
Anyone who values freedom of expression should have been very concerned for the last couple of decades.
“Now” is so late to the party that the empty bottles are already in the recycling bag.
Any concern for government plans published today to limit protests? We’ve been on that slippery slope for a good few years now too.
Those protesters have had more than enough freedom to say what they want to say. Putting a lid on it after several months of weekly protests which have swallowed up millions in policing budget is hardly a threat to democracy and the freedom of expression now is it.
Ah yeah fair enough. Maybe we should allocate every citizen freedom tokens each year and once they have used them all up on things like complaining about government policy, questioning the official narrative and voting then they have to keep shut until next year.
Freedom tokens can also be redeemed for Deliveroo and Netflix vouchers.
Unconstrained and repeated protests put costs on society (what economists call “externalities”). How much cost and inconvenience should society be forced to accept here ? Especially in the case that the policies being advocated are actively rejected and opposed by the vast majority of the population ?
By all means, allow protests. But when they become vexatious (where the intent is to repeatedly incovenience the population at large rather than actually promote a cause), I think it’s more than reasonable to demand that the protestors pay the costs.
Yes that was the idea behind my freedom tokens. Perhaps we could allow the lazy and politically inactive who just sit in their armchairs moaning to the internet/their wives to sell theirs.
Seen the stats recently? Polling has consistently shown that Brits want ceasefires, peace talks and think Israel’s response is unjustified. And most Brits sympathise with Palestine. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48675-british-attitudes-to-the-israel-gaza-conflict-february-2024-update
No wonder the government wants to limit protests and speech!
I see, ony men count in your world, “their wives” are just baggage.
Actually, if you want to go down this road, the suggestion is that lazy men sit around pointlessly complaining whereas their wives are up and about doing good and running the country. As you imply, “What use are men anyway?”
Who says the government wants to limit free speech ?
More often than not, it’s the protestors who are seeking to limit free speech by silencing their opponents.
The job of the government is to find the right balance between citizens’ rights and responsibilities.
And if you want these rights, you should expect to take on some responsbilities.
But this is the issue isn’t it? You might very sell see those people as lazy or disengaged or whatever – you might even be right. But that is a political judgment, that is a judgment on the personal beliefs about the allocation of power. Classically protests have been about conscious acts of government – Greenham Common for example. But the recent protests have been at best media attention-seeking provocations and at worst have been harassment of people and not government for political beliefs. There is a difference between politics and government and I don’t think your view accommodates the distinction.
I suspect that what you provocatively call lazy is really just people having differing world-views, and not hectoring those who disagree.
I do not believe that events in the middle east are the highest priority for me or the government I elect. If you don’t like that then you have the right to disagree and the right to think of me as lazy or whatever. I equally would have the right to say to my critics that they need to get away from social media driven middle class concerns and stop demanding this country sticks its nose into other people’s business. That is a political debate about power, not simply events. What neither I nor anyone else should have is an ‘unfreedom token‘ that allows for active harassment over political views, or a priori moral condemnation. In short, we don’t get to impose our politics on anyone else under the guise of living out the cause or individual zeal for whatever fad is doing the rounds. Indeed there is nothing preventing anyone taking the freedom token to its logical endpoint and getting on a plane to Gaza, which would seem considerably more purposeful than shouting at people on the streets of UK towns.
This is why identity politics is so toxic to a good society and the strong civil society the UK so urgently needs – it denies that space for society between politics and government.
Outstanding comment.
“Especially in the case that the policies being advocated are actively rejected and opposed by the vast majority of the population?” What, a ceasefire in Gaza? That has never polled below 70 per cent.
I didn’t say in all cases.
Not sure who is being polled about Gaza and quite what the question is (those would strongly influence the results obtained). I’ve certainly never been asked.
I’m not sure quite what a “ceasefire in Gaza” actually means. It’s not the sort of place where there’s ever really a ceasefire – just different levels of violence.
Perhaps we should build a National Demonstration Facility, somewhere rural in central England, with good transport links, and direct all protests to book a session there.
Daft comment. Living in a liberal democracy doesn’t mean getting to do what you want, when you want all the time. You can exercise your freedoms as long as it doesn’t infringe on the freedoms of anyone else.
And, as far as demonstrations go, that means sharing your toys – both in the sense of letting other people have a share of the resources to demonstrate their causes and in the sense of letting non-demonstrators get on with their day unimpeded by blocked roads and chaos.
You can make your discontent about government policy known any day of the year by writing to your MP, writing an article in your paper, getting into politics yourself to try and change stuff. Participation in a demo is just one arrow in your democratic quiver.
Come on, this is basic stuff!
Precisely the argument for limiting speech. You seemed to have a problem with that in another comment?
Come again! How does speaking about the doctrines of Islam in a critical way for example infringe the freedoms of anyone else. There is a vast difference between saying something someone might regard as offensive and demonstrating in a manner that stops others going about their lawful business.
I have no problem with anyone calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, Ukraine or elsewhere or calling for us to be made much poorer through net-zero and stop oil. What is objectionable is stopping others from carrying on their life in a normal way by clogging up the streets etc on a regular basis. That clearly infringes the freedom of others.
In your earlier reply to me, you’re claiming the government is limiting free speech and that this is bad.
Now you’re apparently agreeing that there’s an argument for limting speech.
Do make your mind up !
Toddler activism is all the rage these days, literally
Protesting can be effective and meaningful when it applies pressure over specific policies, and has specific goals.
A lot of the protesting of recent years seems like a self-indulgent form of tribalism or surrogate religious ritual, rather than anything politically meaningful.
‘Womens march for freedom’, George Floyd protests taking place around the world, middle classes with incoherent politics & views on energy policy being sanctioned to disrupt traffic, tribal political Islamists and progressives protesting about the decisions made by another government in another country, etc.
A lot of that stuff is tedious nonsense for the majority of the population, and it inconveniences them.
If you object to a particular protest in a free country, counter protest.
Asking for protests to be shut down reduces everyone’s freedom, including yours.
It is exasperating how neither the Left nor Right understand the basic principle that freedoms – of speech, thought, association etc – have to apply to everyone regardless of political colour or they are not freedoms but privileges.
You could have made this argument quite rightly back in October if the government had attempted to stop the initial protests. But it didn’t – it let the people have their freedom of speech and has done ever since.
At this point, that argument no longer holds water – shutting down the protests now after several months is simply asserting that in a democracy (almost) every freedom has its limits. as I said above, living in a liberal society does NOT mean getting to do what you want, how you want all the time. The consequence of that principle is the imposition of limits.
Arguably, the government has allowed these protests to go beyond reasonable limits in multiple instances: the projection of “from the river to the sea” on Big Ben, as I said above, was a particularly egregious transgression of those limits and should have been stopped immediately.
Addition: the real danger in my opinion is the failure by these protestors to self-regulate and voluntarily acknowledge and adher to the limits on their right to demonstrate. If rights cannot be exercised sensibly or peacefully, then they will/must be taken away. Would you really prefer that?
It was the police who allowed protests to “go beyond reasonable limits” not the government.
The police and the decisions they make, are indpendent of government and have been for 100’s of years, and they have ignored government requests with regards to the protests.
Mmmm. I would take a hard look at Thatchers use of the police on the miners strikes. She used them to smash, literally, the union at the time.
The more you look into government and it’s relationship with the police force, the more you realise the depth of depravity that exists between the two.
After all the police are the government’s potentially violent arm.
And has been used as such many times.
‘At this point, that argument no longer holds water – shutting down the protests now after several months is simply asserting that in a democracy (almost) every freedom has its limits’
Who gets to assert those limits then? Dictator Katherine?
The gaza/ Israel conflict is an ongoing and developing situation it is therefore not surprising that the demonstrations are also ongoing and the concerns of the protesters may change over time.
‘ living in a liberal society does NOT mean getting to do what you want, how you want all the time’
The protesters are simply using their right to protest peacefully, it has nothing to do with getting what you want, how you want all the time.
‘Arguably, the government has allowed these protests to go beyond reasonable limits in multiple instances: the projection of “from the river to the sea” on Big Ben, as I said above, was a particularly egregious transgression of those limits and should have been stopped immediately’
Again, beyond what YOU consider to be reasonable limits or beyond the limits of a peaceful protest? Because projecting words onto anything isn’t really harming anybody.
‘the real danger in my opinion is the failure by these protestors to self-regulate and voluntarily acknowledge and adher to the limits on their right to demonstrate’
That is just your opinion. You could apply that to any peaceful protest regardless of how long it has gone for. Who are you to say whether other people, that is grown adults that live in a liberal democracy, are not capable of ‘self regulation’ or adhering to the law?
So how do explain the meldown and panic of the Speaker who had been informed that your ‘peaceful’ protestors were threatening real harm to the lives of MPs? Was he lying?? Was it just an outrageous political ruse to help Keir and screw parliamentary practice? Are the MPs all inventing accounts of harassments and abuse online and on the streets?? Or is all this legitimate in your view, like tearing down pictures of Israeli hostages?
‘protestors were threatening real harm to the lives of MPs?’
‘Are the MPs all inventing accounts of harassments and abuse online and on the streets??’
We have laws against that already do we really need MORE laws, further limiting people’s freedom? The original poster said:
‘Any concern for government plans published today to limit protests? We’ve been on that slippery slope for a good few years now too.’
So more laws limiting the right of people to protest. Nothing to do with people issuing threats, harassing MPs or online abuse. Again. We already have laws against this that get more and more prolific, do you think that these laws aren’t working then? And we need more?
Then point of information said:
‘if you object to a particular protest in a free country, counter protest.
Asking for protests to be shut down reduces everyone’s freedom, including yours.
It is exasperating how neither the Left nor Right understand the basic principle that freedoms – of speech, thought, association etc – have to apply to everyone regardless of political colour or they are not freedoms but privileges ‘
Again, nothing to with people tearing posters down, harassing people or people threatening real harm. To do with people’s right to freely, peacefully protest. As soon as a protest is not peaceful, as soon as people threaten real violence they will be shut down by riot police. Arrested. Removed. Quite rightly. I’m pretty sure that’s how it works already, do you think we need more laws limiting people’s right to protest then?
Both the original posts were not even to do with the pro Palestinian protests, they both dealt with peoples right to protest freely.
Katherine is proposing that these protests should be time limited, that the pro Palestinian protesters have been protesting since October and her view they have had long enough to protest.
Do you think then that protests should be time limited? Do we need more laws for that? How long do you think it is acceptable for people to protest then before they are shut down?
‘Or is all this legitimate in your view, like tearing down pictures of Israeli hostages?’
Any actions by pro Palestinian protesters that are not legitimate should be dealt with by the police. Do you think we need more laws to deal with them then?
I am not interested in nor calling for more laws. This is a total distraction. What I affirm – and you studiously ignore – is the fact that elements within the pro Palestinian protest movement plainly ARE using intimidatory and wholly illegitimate actions on the street and beyond. And our pusillanious Appeaser Met are turning its back on these actions, so inflaming the panic amongst our firebombed MPs and profound silent disquiet amongst our people.
I wasn’t talking about the BEHAVIOUR of the pro Palestinian protesters but about TIME LIMITS on the right to protest in general, which is what the discussion was originally about. The only reference to behaviour was the ability for people to ‘self regulate’ I think – again, this could be applied to any protest. I’m not here to defend either side over another. A time limit on protests would apply to BOTH SIDES. Your posts are actually a complete distraction from the original discussion. I did not condone or defend the pro Palestinian protesters but the right to protest without a time limit.
If you think that the pro Palestinian side is using ‘wholly illegitimate’ tactics, aided and abetted by the met police you are saying that the laws that exist already are not being applied properly, I assume? That is nothing to do with the original discussion. So you think the met police need reporting to the IPCC?
If you are going to argue with me, that’s great but please spell my name right. The correct spelling is right there above my post, it’s not a hidden detail or a red herring.
The limits on any freedom are decided by society as a whole, through its elected leaders, voted for by citizens like myself who form (and may also express) their opinions on the matter in open debate, in the unherd comments for example. I have simply made clear where I think those limits should be. And I’m “Dictator Katharine” for doing this? Weird understanding of democracy you have there…
Picking on a simple spelling mistake is arbitrary.
How far do you think protests should be time limited?
You realise that you would have to apply the time limit to both sides? That if you say the pro Palestinian protesters have had since October to protest you would have to apply that to the pro israeli side too?
So neither side, having had since October to protest, should be allowed to protest further?
But the right to protest doesn’t apply to everyone, does it? Counter-protests, however small, have been closed down simply because the demonstrating majority objects to them and ‘there might be a breach of the peace’. This is allowing a large group of people to take control of the streets and censor free speech, all with the support of the police.
Yes, the right to protest applies to everyone including the right to counter protest.
It does not follow that if an injustice is done to one party (restriction of the counter protestors) that it should be done to their opponents (the protestors).
The only problem with attempts to counter protest is the police who have not allowed them.
The same police allow trans activists to “counter protest” and harass women’s events. Women have been physically accosted at these events. The Tommy Robinson types seem to have less leeway to protest. Hypocrisy and double standards do not seem to bother those on this forum who support the weekly pro-Hamas protests.
Protest all you want but don’t inconvenience others. If you feel the need to cause a disturbance then you are a bully and have lost the intellectual argument. It’s perfectly reasonable for a liberal democracy to demand that protests take place next to the road, not in the road.
The problem is that he wants convenience for one side and inconvenience for other.
In Putin’s way it sounds like this: “Everything is for friends, law for enemies.”
THE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION WAS SHOULD A TIME LIMIT BE IMPOSED ON PROTESTERS.
THAT WOULD APPLY TO BOTH SIDES.
NOTHING TO DO WITH ROADS.
The caps lock is to convey my own exasperation with this discussion.
Do you think that both sides, having had since October to protest, should no longer be able to protest about an ongoing and developing situation because it is expensive? How long should a protest be allowed to go on for?
The incursions into councils meetings, throwing rats into private business properties, harassment of others at train stations, disruption at unis, outside schools and hospitals (in other countries) is all about intimidation, not a genuine expression of political opinion. Ban those acts. Find a nice empty field and let the obsessives protest there 24/7 if they want.
Asking for protests to be shut down reduces everyone’s freedom, including yours
OK, if so, then I demand permission to drive on the protesters glued to the road and severely beat those who splash paint on the paintings of the great masters in museums.
That is retarded and irrelevant to the original discussion about A TIME LIMIT that would apply TO BOTH SIDES.
That is part of the reason I pay my taxes, so that if people want to exercise their right to peacefully protest in this country they can do so safely. I’m happy to do that. I’m happy for my tax money to be spent upholding freedom, right to protest and democracy in general. I thought you were Austrian anyway?
Again, you miss the point entirely that the right to protest is not absolute. Curbing protests is entirely legal if there are good enough reasons to do so (I.e if the risk they will turn violent is too high). This is the case in at least every European legal system I know, I’m not just saying that’s how it should be in my opinion.
Or are you also happy to pay tax money to make sure that minority of protestors are “safe and free” who menace poppy sellers, chant anti-semitic/anti-zionist slogans and make Jews feel unsafe?
Do you pay tax in this country or not?
You specifically talked about TIME LIMITING protests.
So you would time limit both the pro Palestinian and the pro israeli protesters because you think it is too expensive and they have had long enough, since October, to express themselves?
I was a poppy seller at one time.
We already have laws against violent protests in this country. You think we need more laws, that the ones in place are not working? Nobody said the right to protest was absolute.
Haven’t read the plans so can’t comment specifically. But yes I also have general concerns on that front. People should – indeed must – have a broadly interpreted right to protest peacefully, regardless of whether I agree with their cause or not.
Of course, just as freedom of expression does not include the right to shout FIRE! in a crowded theatre, there are qualifications to the right of protest. Violence or direct incitement to violence, destruction of property, and deliberate intimidation are not included.
If the theatre is on fire, then you don’t just have the right, you have the obligation to shout, “fire!”
I think 2+2=4 means “If there is no fire”
Protests which cause a disturbance and inconvenience others are a world away from voicing opinions online. People should be allowed to protest as much as they want, provided they do it out of the way, ie by the side of the road, not in it. Blocking motorways, closing tower bridge or spraying orange paint on the Mona Lisa should all be banned, whether you’re in Islamist, a farmer or a greenie.
Throwing paint at artwork and blocking roads (unless you have arranged a permit to demonstrate) are already illegal being criminal damage and obstructing the highway. No doubt in France too under equivalent statutes.
Reasonable limitations that apply equally to all are essential for making Liberal societies work. When limitations are unreasonable or when they are unevenly applied, that is when there is a problem.
Indeed Blair started us down the slippery slope, but most of it has happened under Tories who have been too cowardly or too asleep at the wheel. At least they are waking up now but it does feel all too little too late.
The police have full independence regarding protests and do not have to take regard of government or anyone else for that matter.
Then it’s high time they didn’t have independence. Why should the police not act within the parameters of the law? Anyway, independence from what – Government?
Should that absolve them from delivering the law as intended by Parliament when those laws were made? They seem to think that “independence” means making up tje law to suit themselves and the latest fashion.
Yes
I cannot find the words to describe how utterly despicable I find Labour. Thick as mince, the lot of them. Your own MPs are being subject to threats from Islamist extremists, “From the river to the sea” is being projected onto Big Ben…and you want to pass a law which would at least discourage any discussion of how you might address these things? You cannot make it up.
Any thought for the fact that projecting “From the river to the sea” onto Big Ben is free speech?
Thick as mince indeed. Doublethick perhaps.
Just for once, try and offer an actual argument.
Whenever I do it gets downvoted to the bottom. Much better to highlight the gaping flaws in highly rated ones. I’m yet to see it encouraging any self-reflection or change in opinion but I remain hopeful as a believer in old enlightenment liberalism.
What flaws, with you it’s one fallacy after another.
Premise 1: Free speech.
Premise 2: … well not that free.
Old enlightenment liberalism never permitted incitement to violence or protests that inconvenienced others. Both of those breach JS Mill’s harm principle.
It’s not that people disagree with you that you are downvoted. It’s because you have become the very thing you purport to be against. You constantly ask others to self-reflect without displaying a shred of introspection yourself or budging an inch from your own hardened views. You are so convinced you are right about everything that you don’t even bother to argue beyond the tired old cliches that molder in your brain.
You say that you are a believer in old enlightenment liberalism. It’s nice that you believe that of yourself, but what does that actually mean? It’s a pretty bold claim, but describing yourself as such doesn’t necessarily make it so. It’s the equivalent of that confused guy who believes he’s a really nice person and can’t for the life of him work out why his girlfriend left him.
Takes one to know one.
I know you are but what am I?
It’s quite clearly incitement to violence.
Isn’t there a law against advocating the extermination of the Jews? Funny, I thought there was. Hmmm
Depends on the context: according to a former Ivy League academic.
Let us also allow Tommy Robinson to project onto Westminster: Muslim Grooming Gangs Are A Disgrace, Ban Muslim Immigrants!
Far more useful free speech?
Most Labour MPs don’t need to be intimidated into taking a doctrinaire anti-Israeli line. It’s cynical certainly, but not necessarily thick, to pander to the demands of a growing demographic which votes en bloc (over 80% for Labour in the last election) and makes up a substantial chunk of the total Labour electoral coalition.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48675-british-attitudes-to-the-israel-gaza-conflict-february-2024-update
The polling questions make no sense. It is perfectly possible to have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinian people, without supporting Hamas. Yet Hamas controlled Gaza for the past two decades, and instigated the latest phase of violence. You can’t meaningfully ask for opinions on this issue without specifying to respondents what the underlying assumption is – whether Hamas remain in place, or not.
Some general knowledge is in order, Ms Eyre. As a matter of fact, “From the River to the Sea” was projected onto the Elizabeth Tower of the palace of Westminster. Big Ben is the name of the famous bell within the tower, and it cannot be seen from outside.
Scrap it all. All the protected minority groups, positive discrimination, “equalities” legislation, wasteful negative value quangos, state-funded “charities”, …
Before all this we had plain vanilla equality before the law. Everyone treated equally. No special cases. The execution may not have been perfect in all cases, but the principle was correct. Putting the principles on the bonfire will not lead to perfect execution (fairness), but worse.
Well, there were a few special cases like the Royal family and perhaps the Church of England and MPs. But all that was needed was to eliminate those privileges. Not to extend more privileges to ever more minority lobby groups. And make like more complicated, difficult and expensive for the majority trying to keep up with this ever moving playing field.
It’s just one unforced error after another.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s all become a victimhood industry where everybody jockeys for status on a bogus pyramid of oppressors and oppressed. While, in fact, the real problems facing all groups are never addressed.
I notice there is now backsliding about international agreements to stop multinationals deciding how little tax they’re going to pay. They must be laughing up their sleeves about all this.
Just got a quote for private health care.
The proud to be Woke Conservative Party has bowed the knee to the 30 year Progressive State and its pernicious ideologies for 13 years. Calling for action now, at the fag end of their shoddy misrule, is pointless. They have let the Equality mania spread through all organs of the State and on into popular culture via the evangelical Proud to be Progressive BBC. We have been utterly betrayed by the entire debased cowardly political media and legal clerisy. We are now utterly exposed to the evil of the knee Bender’s new blasphemy laws and more extreme equality laws. Free speech in this Britain? Gone.
“The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no first-class citizens and second-class citizens. This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.” – Enoch Powell, 1968, on the Race Relations Act 1968
Yet when Corbyn commented under a facebook post that could be considered mildly antisemitic if read in a certain way he was literally Hitler.
Corbyn IS anti-Semitic
Al-Jazeera did an investigation into this: https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files/
Al Jazeera! Lol.
One can sum up Islam by pointing to the time when Muhammed wages war against the Banu Qurayza of Yathrib. After this Jewish Arab tribe conditionally surrendered to him in a siege Muhammed ignored their calls for mercy and exterminated the tribe by killing every male and distributing the women and children among Muslim men as slaves to be raped and sold. Muhammed himself took one fifth of them for himself as was his right, as well as a sex slave who supposedly later became his wife.
Such was the religion of peace under its prophet. Is it blasphemy to highlight an incident that every Muslim knows? They revel in this stuff.
As a devout Christian I should point out the Israelites did similar things (albeit 2000 years earlier, which is salient).
This is getting absolutely ridiculous, how your average citizen, regardless of where they come from, what ethnic or religious group they come from is supposed to keep up with the ridiculous and ever expanding hate speech laws is beyond me. And now you can lynched for anything and everything you have ever posted on the Internet too or even for liking something deemed unacceptable by the retards at the top. What’s ironic is that I’m sure this started with the war on terror and the policing of Muslim ‘hate speech’ in the first place. They should never have started down this road at all. It must be costing us a bl*ody fortune to police as well. People must be free to speak regardless of where they come from or who they are. They should scrap the lot.
We are creating a N*zi style police state.
I’m sorry Author but this is classic ‘Dog Whistle’ tripe, which of course has already had desired effect given some comments here.
Suggest folks actually go and read the full Policy rather than latch onto one bit juxtaposed with the idea Labour might intro a Blasphemy law.
And at same time have a reflection ‘Am I prone to latching onto dog whistles and so easily played’?
Suggest folks actually go and read the full Policy rather than latch onto one bit juxtaposed with the idea Labour might intro a Blasphemy law.
Policy, after policy, after policy. How many bl*ody policies do we have to read before we are allowed to speak within the guidelines of said policies?? How long is this policy and where do you find it? If I hadn’t come across this here today I wouldn’t even know that such a policy was being put forward!!
What I am supposed to do, hang about government websites waiting for the next speech police policy to appear so I can read it before I speak to make sure I am compliant and don’t get lynched??
That is also dependent on the fact your average person, already taxed to breaking point, already swamped in regulations and laws, already subject to censorship on a number of subjects, has the time to do that. Absolutely f*cking ridiculous.
The perfect riposte.
It’s a slave mentality. Kenneth Minogue writes about this in his book The Liberal Mind.
Is this just “anything I disagree with is [insert smear]”, and today you’ve chosen “dogwhistle”?
There’s plenty of reasons why elevating “Islamophobia” to statute hate crime is chilling. Another very good article on this is in The Critic by Josephine Bartosch,
https://thecritic.co.uk/why-we-should-question-the-charge-of-islamophobia/
Yes I encourage everyone to read the full APPG definition -it is a bit longer than a tweet, but not all that long.
https://www.camden.gov.uk/documents/20142/4794543/APPG+Definition+of+Islamophobia.pdf/f747d5e0-b4e2-5ba6-b4c7-499bd102d5aa
It is truly frightening that such a definition could be incorporated into a hate speech law by a Labour government – this is no dog whistle it is a wake up call! Every highly rated post on this thread and the previous threads on the subject would be classed as Islamophobia under this definition.
The reference to denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination is interesting, as the application of the principle to Jews would criminalise Anti-Zionism.
The inclusion of that one bit isn’t negated by the rest of it. The (recursively defined) example of “classic Islamophobia”, “claiming” that Islam has in many historical instances been spread by the sword and subjugated minority groups, appears to be an attempt to rewrite history as well as stop anyone discussing it.
A whole new force of thought police are under training now ready for the moment Sir Kier steps into No 10. The Orwellian nightmare 40 years too late!
This is the core problem with ‘hate speech’. It requires a political judgement on what constitutes hate. This involves either inferring intent to an action, or – worse – making the criminality of the action dependent on the subjective feelings of the ‘victim’.
Thanks for drawing attention to that crucial point
Free speech means having to hear things you don’t like and sometimes that does hurt. But there are lots of really horrible things people do to other people and what the woke have managed to do, through their twisted exaggerations and wild extrapolations, is equate offending someone with genocide.
It is long past the time when we stop trying to wrap peoples feeling in cotton wool and just grew thicker skins again (sticks and stones etc). Free speech is our most precious right, without it we slip into authoritarianism and then totalitarianism. When free speech dies pretty soon after the unfavoured people start dying.
The standard interpretation of the MacPherson report has been that offence is defined by the perception of the alleged victim. The police college guidelines assert the same, and anyone reported to them for example by trans activists is investigated regardless of whether or not evidence exists.
Wow. I mean, what legal scholars have signed off on this? It’s insane…
Related issue:
I gather police are now ‘looking into Lee Anderson’s comments’. This rather proves his point doesn’t it?
Is there a list anywhere of which councils have adopted this, would like to see if mine has ?
As for the idea of adopting this, its just simply fits in with the rest of the limp wristed collapse of Britain to the diverse invader. Do we have no leadership anymore?
Starts at page 21.
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/Islamophobia-Revisited.pdf
This is nearly 6 months old so there may be more now. Note that the author of this article is the same as the author of the report at the link.
What will protect the Mormons from Mormonophobia, or the Sikhs from Sikhophobia?
Millions have died in wars to win freedoms that are now being frittered away to appease a murderous ideology.
Extremely well put. Labour’s proposed “anti-Islamophobia” laws will be a gift to members of the “murderous ideology” to which you refer, shielding them from all scrutiny and criticism. It defies logic.
Islamophobia is “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
Right. The actions of Islam’s more radical proponents have nothing at all to do with public perception. Also, ‘racism’ has nothing to do with it. One’s religion has nothing to do with one’s skin tone.
Quick flashback to Malcolm X’s revelation on a flight seeing fellow pilgrims on the Haj who were blue-eyed Balkan travellers to Mecca. This sight inspired him to leave the racist (yes, even if they’re B[I?]PoC) Nation of Islam.
Last night, it was reported that the police were “assessing” a report of hate speech made against Lee Anderson following his claim that “Islamists” had taken control of London and Sadiq Khan.
Is Britain over?
Thank you Hardeep for the heads-up. Peter Tatchell was on Radio 4 this week pointing out how defective and misleading the APPG definition is, and what the consequences of adopting it would be to those who might wish to, for example, criticise Islam for the attitude of some of its adherents and scholars to women and gay people. One could think of other criticisms one might want to make, perhaps on the attitude to free speech in countries with theocratic Muslim constitutions.
Tatchell’s position is clearly set out and he cites three Big Problems with the APPG definition. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/mps-definition-of-islamophobia-menaces-free-speech/ There is a terrible fog around this issue and clear thinking like this should be urgently brought to bear.
The wisdom of Peter Tatchell. Oh the irony.
What is so special about Muslims that they require protection against claims of the sort that many groups have to endure. Equality before the law is the principle behind justice in the UK – not that some groups have special privileges that don’t extend to other groups.
These are some of the things that the APPG considers Islamaphobic:
“Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/ fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion.”
Calling for and instigating the killing or harming anyone is already a criminal offence. Why a special provision for Muslims?
“Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group”
Are not many religious groups and other groups of individuals subject to mendacious, dehumanising or stereotypical allegations? Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Yazdis, Torys, Socialists, University students, elitists, benefit claimants, snobs, idiots or wider still men and women as a group all endure such insulting stereotypes. Find a group not subject to mendacious dehumanising stereotypes.
“Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals”
So no other group gets being told they are responsible for the real and imagined wrongdoing of some individual or group of individuals in the group?
“Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.”
So Jews, Catholics, men and women etc never get accused of exaggerating the prejudices against them?
“Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state”
So Jews have never been held responsible for the actions of Israel? The British for the actions of some other Britains of a white majority state 300 years ago?
“ Denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.”
Why should just Muslim populations have the right to self-determination without accusations being levelled that it is a terrorist enterprise? Why just Palestine and Kashmir? What about Kurds and the Uyghurs in China and other ethnic minorities who are not Muslim?
“Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.”
If some Muslims demonstrate a greater loyalty to Ummah than Britain why is it hateful to point it out? Are Jews to be protected from such an accusation? Are native white communities in Britain to be protected from accusations that the have a greater loyalty to their ethnic group than other ethnic groups?
The examples given suggest that the APPG envisage not so much a blasphemy law but a law to uniquely shield Muslims from any adverse criticism whether broadly true, exaggerated and generalised or simply inaccurate. I expect many might like a law that protected their own religion or other group while leaving other’s exposed to criticism, fair or unfair. But why should Muslims alone be entitled to such a law?
Let us stick to equality before the law and a general preference for free speech that does not incite attacks on others.