A complete waste of time. Given that they have recognised that the fear of Islam is not irrational but "supremely rational" (where they've quoted one commentator), perhaps they ought to be addressing what followers of Islam need to do in order to change publicly held perceptions about its adherents.
This is where they ended up. Note that it has been adopted by the Labour Party and by the Liberal Democrats, so it will presumably be enacted in the next few years.
"ISLAMOPHOBIA IS ROOTED IN RACISM AND IS A TYPE OF RACISM THAT TARGETS EXPRESSIONS OF MUSLIMNESS OR PERCEIVED MUSLIMNESS."
If it were enacted, I wonder what effect this definition would have on polite, normal criticism of the ideas that are included in Islam?
And what is the definition of "racism" for this purpose (given that Islam is practised/professed/enforced in dozens of countries, cultures, creeds etc. all over the world)?
I think they make the point that Jewishness is also based on religion, and that it is entirely possible to discriminate against Jews. However the last time I looked, most Jewish folk don't openly treat the people of their host countries with open contempt, call them kuffar, engage into antediluvian, repressive practices toward their women or tolerate terrorism being fostered in their places of worship.
I once got a mark up where someone added a definition of Monday. It was something along the lines of "the period of 24 hours between the end of a sunday and the beginning of the tuesday". I tried to out w**ker them by adding a reference to GMT I think.
I once called out a Norton Rose partner for having replaced a parent company guarantee in the schedules of a contract with their own firm's "light touch" guarantor-friendly version instead of taking instructions. When she challenged me, I pointed out that NR's logo was on the front page of the guarantee, as she had been too lazy and incompetent to remove it. She called me "unhelpful", if memory serves.
It is also the case that the vast majority of Jews share common blood lines (going back at least hundreds, if not thousands, of years), so it is not unreasonable to define Judaism as a "race", and hence anti-Semitism as a form of "racism".
I don't know about that, but in any case that's not my point. Indonesian muslims marry other Indonesian muslims, likewise Saudi-Arabian, Nigerian, Pakistani, etc. But I'm not aware that there is any gene pool in common across all these countries which defines Muslims ethnically.
My point is that intermarriage amongst family members over an extended period of time (e.g. centuries) inevitably leads to a commonality of genepools certainly within countries. But I take your point.
"As such, the recourse to the notion of free speech and a supposed right to criticise Islam results in nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism, whereby the criticism humiliates, marginalises, and stigmatises Muslims."
1. As such, the recourse to the notion of free speech (nonsense - we absolutely have aright to free speech)
2. and a supposed right to criticise Islam (ditto - and the right is justifiable if the criticism is aimed at the repressive, antediluvian and antisocial tenets and practices of Islam and muslims)
3. results in nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism (muslims are not a race, and calling people out on the traits indicated above is not a racist act, nor is it irrational, as acknowledged by the paper),
4. whereby the criticism humiliates (not always), marginalises (doubtful - muslims are no longer a minority religious group), and stigmatises (that's true, but muslims fail to accept responsibility for, or to address, the issues which people object to) Muslims
But the underlying purpose of political correctness is not to engender debate or bring about social change, but to suppress free speech by demonising those who seek to exercise that right, in applying negative epithets to, and making ad hominem remarks directed at, the speaker.
What the report fails to distinguish between is yobbos ignorantly calling muslim women "ninjas" or muslim men "pakis", and the very valid criticism that there are vast, unaddressed cultural issues in communities which have cut themselves off and view people of other religions (and especially women) as inferior, if not sub-human.
“For Nadya Ali and Ben Witham, resorting to the debate over freedom of speech is but an excuse to legitimise “anti-Muslim racism”. Echoing John Stuart Mill, they argue that “freedom of speech ends when it causes harm to others”. Ali and Witham further their concern about the boundaries between Islamophobia and free speech by arguing that “there is no ‘good faith’ criticism of Islam”. Central in their argument is the concept of inseparability of race and religion, whereby an attack on the religion cannot be separated from an attack on the race because both concepts are constructs adopted “as a means of categorising colonial subjects”.
i wonder what Chinese, Arab, African and Native American people who are Christians would make of the “concept of inseparability of race and religion....”
Mr Ahmed said his community was "respectful and tolerant" of British values but now felt victimised. He claimed parents who had protested were "effectively seen as homophobes in the wider community. Fundamentally the issue we have with No Outsiders is that it is changing our children's moral position on family values on sexuality and we are a traditional community. Morally we do not accept homosexuality as a valid sexual relationship to have. It's not about being homophobic... that's like saying, if you don't believe in Islam, you're Islamophobic.".
So one rule for muslims, and another rule for everyone else? Traditionally Christianity has been against homosexuality, but nevertheless the CofE was forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies. Why is the same yardstick not applied to muslims?
0
0
It would be interesting to know if being critical of Iraq will be thought to be anti islamic .
0
0
It will be interesting, certainly.
Some people are good at definitions. Others are not. This kind of proposal means it becomes very important to be good at definitions.
0
0
I stopped at the start of the Foreward where it said
"being that [ sic] neither of us is a Muslim "
0
0
You need to persevere to the bit with the definitions. The Runnymede Trust proposal is particularly fun.
0
0
A complete waste of time. Given that they have recognised that the fear of Islam is not irrational but "supremely rational" (where they've quoted one commentator), perhaps they ought to be addressing what followers of Islam need to do in order to change publicly held perceptions about its adherents.
0
0
This is where they ended up. Note that it has been adopted by the Labour Party and by the Liberal Democrats, so it will presumably be enacted in the next few years.
"ISLAMOPHOBIA IS ROOTED IN RACISM AND IS A TYPE OF RACISM THAT TARGETS EXPRESSIONS OF MUSLIMNESS OR PERCEIVED MUSLIMNESS."
If it were enacted, I wonder what effect this definition would have on polite, normal criticism of the ideas that are included in Islam?
0
0
And what is the definition of "racism" for this purpose (given that Islam is practised/professed/enforced in dozens of countries, cultures, creeds etc. all over the world)?
0
0
I think they make the point that Jewishness is also based on religion, and that it is entirely possible to discriminate against Jews. However the last time I looked, most Jewish folk don't openly treat the people of their host countries with open contempt, call them kuffar, engage into antediluvian, repressive practices toward their women or tolerate terrorism being fostered in their places of worship.
0
0
I once got a mark up where someone added a definition of Monday. It was something along the lines of "the period of 24 hours between the end of a sunday and the beginning of the tuesday". I tried to out w**ker them by adding a reference to GMT I think.
0
0
Good work, Wangle. That'll learn 'em.
0
0
I once called out a Norton Rose partner for having replaced a parent company guarantee in the schedules of a contract with their own firm's "light touch" guarantor-friendly version instead of taking instructions. When she challenged me, I pointed out that NR's logo was on the front page of the guarantee, as she had been too lazy and incompetent to remove it. She called me "unhelpful", if memory serves.
0
0
It is also the case that the vast majority of Jews share common blood lines (going back at least hundreds, if not thousands, of years), so it is not unreasonable to define Judaism as a "race", and hence anti-Semitism as a form of "racism".
0
0
Yes, but lots of Muzzas marry cousins and other more distant relations, so surely the same rationale applies?
0
0
I don't know about that, but in any case that's not my point. Indonesian muslims marry other Indonesian muslims, likewise Saudi-Arabian, Nigerian, Pakistani, etc. But I'm not aware that there is any gene pool in common across all these countries which defines Muslims ethnically.
0
0
My point is that intermarriage amongst family members over an extended period of time (e.g. centuries) inevitably leads to a commonality of genepools certainly within countries. But I take your point.
0
0
Jews are not a race they are an ethnoreligious group.
HTH
0
0
My point applies equally to Christians. Indeed, will a definition of Christophobia be forthcoming?
0
0
Here is a passage from the document, on page 34:
"As such, the recourse to the notion of free speech and a supposed right to criticise Islam results in nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism, whereby the criticism humiliates, marginalises, and stigmatises Muslims."
0
0
Bump
0
0
Breaking this down:
1. As such, the recourse to the notion of free speech (nonsense - we absolutely have aright to free speech)
2. and a supposed right to criticise Islam (ditto - and the right is justifiable if the criticism is aimed at the repressive, antediluvian and antisocial tenets and practices of Islam and muslims)
3. results in nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism (muslims are not a race, and calling people out on the traits indicated above is not a racist act, nor is it irrational, as acknowledged by the paper),
4. whereby the criticism humiliates (not always), marginalises (doubtful - muslims are no longer a minority religious group), and stigmatises (that's true, but muslims fail to accept responsibility for, or to address, the issues which people object to) Muslims
But the underlying purpose of political correctness is not to engender debate or bring about social change, but to suppress free speech by demonising those who seek to exercise that right, in applying negative epithets to, and making ad hominem remarks directed at, the speaker.
What the report fails to distinguish between is yobbos ignorantly calling muslim women "ninjas" or muslim men "pakis", and the very valid criticism that there are vast, unaddressed cultural issues in communities which have cut themselves off and view people of other religions (and especially women) as inferior, if not sub-human.
0
0
Here is another short passage from page 34:
“For Nadya Ali and Ben Witham, resorting to the debate over freedom of speech is but an excuse to legitimise “anti-Muslim racism”. Echoing John Stuart Mill, they argue that “freedom of speech ends when it causes harm to others”. Ali and Witham further their concern about the boundaries between Islamophobia and free speech by arguing that “there is no ‘good faith’ criticism of Islam”. Central in their argument is the concept of inseparability of race and religion, whereby an attack on the religion cannot be separated from an attack on the race because both concepts are constructs adopted “as a means of categorising colonial subjects”.
i wonder what Chinese, Arab, African and Native American people who are Christians would make of the “concept of inseparability of race and religion....”
0
0
I particularly like the possibilities for discussion that are raised by the statement in this passage that:
“...... there is no ‘good faith’ criticism of Islam”
0
0
So then we come to this little gem. Which sums up exactly why people have an extremely rational dislike of Islam and muslims.
'Campaigners say they want Birmingham LGBT teaching abolished
Five schools in Birmingham have stopped teaching about LGBT rights following complaints by parents.
Amir Ahmed, a lead campaigner for the parents, told Sima Kotecha: "Morally, we do not accept homosexuality as a valid sexual relationship to have."
The No Outsiders project was set up to educate children to accept differences in society.'
0
0
I love this bit from the Beeb:
Mr Ahmed said his community was "respectful and tolerant" of British values but now felt victimised. He claimed parents who had protested were "effectively seen as homophobes in the wider community. Fundamentally the issue we have with No Outsiders is that it is changing our children's moral position on family values on sexuality and we are a traditional community. Morally we do not accept homosexuality as a valid sexual relationship to have. It's not about being homophobic... that's like saying, if you don't believe in Islam, you're Islamophobic.".
So one rule for muslims, and another rule for everyone else? Traditionally Christianity has been against homosexuality, but nevertheless the CofE was forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies. Why is the same yardstick not applied to muslims?
0
0
Sorry - this has turned into somewhat of a rant.
Join the discussion