BY
In a surprise move, the UK government has refused “to adopt a working definition of ‘Islamophobia’ proposed by an all-party Parliamentary group (APPG). The definition, as put forward by the British Muslims APPG in December, determined that Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
What pray tell does “Muslimness” even mean? And why would anyone accept this loose term without demanding an adequate definition of it?
Forcing the term “Islamophobia” upon Western nations boils down to beating anyone up who criticizes Islam. Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives have “come under fire from Muslim groups and Labour MPs” for rejecting the “Islamophobia” definition.
Once again, we see the alliance between far Leftists and Islamic supremacists in their routine manipulation of identity politics. Islamic supremacists and jihadists have long documented their goals for establishing the sharia in infidel countries, so Western leaders who enable their objectives are without excuse. It is high time that the UK government begins to show leadership in the war on terror, and it is doing just that in its rejection of the term “Islamophobia”. It is no secret that the UK has been–up to now– facilitating the Islamization of its own country. Its odious record includes: welcoming in hate preachers, banning truth tellers like Robert Spencer, and even Franklin Graham among others, persecuting Tommy Robinson, refusing Asia Bibi for asylum, turning its back on persecuted Christians, covering up the shocking actions of Muslim rape gangs, and adopting open-door immigration.
In what amounts to a U-turn, the government rejected the APPG’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’, because it “would negatively impact free speech and restrict legitimate criticism of Islam as a belief system, or of Islamic countries.”
Also…
The government has been advised by the Equalities Office that by British law, Islam is a religion and not a race, illustrating one of the issues with the suggestion that Islamophobia be recognised as a type of racism.
In a letter to Prime Minister Theresa May, the leader of Britain’s police chiefs, Martin Hewitt, warned that “anti-terrorist operations would be hampered if Theresa May bows to pressure to create an official definition of Islamophobia.” Hewitt further warned that the definition “risked exacerbating community tensions and undermining counter-terrorist policing powers and tactics“–a risk that would certainly be expedient for Islamic supremacists.
In normative Islam, women are inferior to men, Islam is superior to all other faiths, murdering gays and apostates is prescribed, as is conquest and jihad; and blacks are still being held slaves by Arabs in many countries like: Mauratania, Algeria and Sudan. If normative Islam is defined as “Muslimness“, then those who ascribe to the APPG’s definition of “Islamophobia” are promoting the aforementioned values of the sharia and severely undermining democracy. Under no circumstances should any Western democracy compromise its values of equality between genders, creeds and races and its freedom of speech–which serves as a protection against fascism. Free speech is absent in fascist regimes.
The Liberal Government of Canada adopted ‘anti-Islamophobia’ Motion M-103 which is an infringement upon the rights of Canadians, deems Canada to be a country with a “climate of fear” toward Muslims and in need of government help for this “fear” to be “quelled,” and aims to monitor citizens for compliance as expressed in a followup document to “take action” against “Islamophobia”.
Kudos to the UK government for rejecting the APPG’s definition of “Islamophobia”. Let’s hope that the government does not fold under pressure from Islamic supremacist groups.
It is important to note that the UK Equalities Chief Trevor Phillips “who popularised the term ‘Islamophobia’”–in a stunning admission–finally revealed that he “thought Muslims would blend into Britain” and that he “should have known better”. Phillips “admitted he got almost everything wrong on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating ‘nations within nations’ in the West.”
“Conservatives Condemned for Rejecting ‘Racism’ Definition of Islamophobia”, by Joe Markham, May 15, Breitbart, 2019:
The Conservatives have come under fire from Muslim groups and Labour MPs for reportedly refusing to adopt a working definition of ‘Islamophobia’ proposed by an all-party Parliamentary group (APPG).
The definition, as put forward by the British Muslims APPG in December, determined that “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”, reports The Guardian.
While the definition has been accepted and adopted by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and even the Scottish Conservatives, the Conservative Party in England and Wales have yet to adopt the definition due to concerns that it would negatively impact free speech and restrict legitimate criticism of Islam as a belief system, or of Islamic countries. As such, the Conservatives are appointing two advisors to develop a new, less controversial, definition of Islamophobia.
The government has been advised by the Equalities Office that by British law, Islam is a religion and not a race, illustrating one of the issues with the suggestion that Islamophobia be recognised as a type of racism.
The concerns about free speech were also highlighted by Martin Hewitt, Chair of the National Police Chief’s council, who said that the definition was “too broad as currently drafted, could cause confusion for officers enforcing it and could be used to challenge legitimate free speech on the historical or theological actions of Islamic states”.
The senior officer has warned the definition, if adopted, could even impact counter-terrorism operations in future, The Times reports.
Sayeeda Warsi, the former Chair of the Conservative Party, dismissed Hewitt’s concerns as “irresponsible scaremongering”. She said “a non-legally binding working definition” would not negatively impact free speech or hinder the police in doing their job…..
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.