ChatterBank2 mins ago
In Defining 'Islamophobia'...
... shouldn't we be very careful ?
https:/
Answers
Thank you naomi, I cringed when I realized my mistake.
Here's a link to a related article in today' D.T. which should work;
I think itwould be a terrble blunder to lay down a hard and fast definitition and play into the hand of the likes of The Muslim Brotherhood.
n. For once I'm in agreement with R.D. !
It seems I've made a dog's breakfast of this posting. I'll just cut and paste an extract from the report, just in case anyone's interested,
'The Free Speech Union has published an essay by Tim Dieppe, with a Foreword by Richard Dawkins, arguing that any attempt to define ‘Islamophobia’ will have a chilling effect on free speech.
Tim Dieppe, the Head of Public Policy at Christian Concern, believes that any attempt to define ‘Islamophobia’ and punish those responsible for it, whether by cancelling them or changing the law to make ‘Islamophobia’ a ‘hate crime’, would have a chilling effect on free speech. That’s particularly true of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims' definition, which is so broad that, among other things, it means anyone disputing Hamas’s description of Israel’s military operation in Gaza as a ‘genocide’ is guilty of ‘Islamophobia’. As the GB News reporter Tom Harwood recently pointed out, this would make Keir Starmer, who doesn’t accept that what’s happening in Gaza is a ‘genocide’, an ‘Islamophobe’. Yet the Labour Party, along with the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Scottish Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Greens, has accepted the APPG’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’.
That isn’t the only shortcoming of the APPG’s definition. It produced a report in 2018, fleshing out its definition, in which it claimed that ‘Islamophobia’ also includes “claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule”. As the historian Tom Holland said at the time, “most Muslims, for most of history, would have been fine with these claims”. He continued:
The definition of Islam we are being given is of a liberalised, westernised Islam – but Islamic civilisation is not to be defined solely by liberal, Western standards. Military conquest and the subjugation of minority groups have absolutely been features of Islamic imperialism.
We risk the ludicrous situation of being able to write without fear of prosecution about the Christian tradition of crusading or antisemitism, but not the Islamic tradition of jihad or the jizya.
In effect, if we were to accept the APPG’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’ and do our best to eradicate it we’d have to shut down every Islamic Studies department in Britain’s universities. It’s transparently absurd, yet when the Muslim Council of Britain recently called for an investigation of ‘Structural Islamophobia’ in the Conservative Party it had in mind this definition, which includes anyone saying anything that could conceivably fuel hostility towards Muslims, regardless of whether it’s true.'
My point is that we don't have definition of anti-Semitism or anti-Christianity etc. so why do we need one for 'Islamophobia' ?
"Islamist" or "Islabophobia" ?
My ' off the top of my head' definitions of them follow below:
The first is someone determined to force Islam beliefs, usually an extreme interpretation of them, on everyone else with total disregard of needing to act in a socially accepted manner and to maintain decent behavior.
The second is an unjustified, irrational, fear of Islam.
> My point is that we don't have definition of anti-Semitism or anti-Christianity etc. so why do we need one for 'Islamophobia' ?
We do have a definition of anti-Semitism, as well as Islamophobia and Christophobia. Instead of me giving a definition, I'll just let you find them for yourself:
https:/
https:/
https:/
You said:
> My point is that we don't have definition of anti-Semitism or anti-Christianity etc. so why do we need one for 'Islamophobia' ?
So I gave their definitions. On the legal front, these are all under the umbrella of "hate crimes":
https:/
https:/
https:/
> Why do we need a law specifically aimed at enforcing 'Islamophobia'?
You don't, you need (and we have) a law around hate crime.
So for example in this document (https:/
> The CPS uses definitions agreed with the National Police Chiefs' Council to identify racist or religious incidents/crimes and to monitor the decisions and outcomes:
> "Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race"
>or
> "Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion."
And then to look at two definitions:
* Antisemitism: hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews.
* Islamaphobia: the fear of, hatred of, or prejudice against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general.
You can see how the relationships work between the legal definition of hate crime and the specific two examples above.
No one needs any hate specific laws. The whole concept is ridiculous. We don't have thought police, so everyone is free to hate if they so wish. Meanwhile it is actions that need to be legislated for, or against. And the victim of some action should not be treated better or worse than another victim, neither should their assailant, simply because of why someone thinks the offence occurred. It is time common sense returned to society.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.