The Free Speech Union has published an essay by Tim Dieppe, Head of Public Policy at Christian Concern, about why we should hesitate before trying to prohibit ‘Islamophobia’, particularly as defined by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, a definition that has been adopted by the Labour Party, as well as one in seven local authorities in England. Spiked has published a summary by Tim of his argument.
The APPG definition is as follows: ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’
The problem with such a broad definition is that it can be invoked to shut down legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion, not just unacceptable prejudice towards Muslim people. Indeed, the authors of the APPG report dismissed the ‘the supposed right to criticise Islam’ as ‘nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism’. In this way, a well-meaning effort to protect Muslim people from abuse ends stifling debate about almost anything connected to Islam. Teaching about the spread of Islam historically through war and conquest, criticisms of Islamic practices around women’s rights – particularly those made by ex-Muslims – and press coverage of Islamist terror attacks all have the potential to be labelled ‘Islamophobic’, according to the APPG’s definition. No other religion is granted this degree of protection in the UK.
The definition of ‘Islamophobia’ in the APPG’s report 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 hate speech. Indeed, anyone who questions a group of Muslims, or a Muslim-majority state, when they claim to be experiencing ‘genocide’ is designated as an Islamophobe. As 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. Anneliese Dodds, Labour’s shadow equalities minister, recently tried to publicly shame the Conservative Party for not subscribing to the APPG’s definition. She was seemingly unaware that, as a member of Labour’s front bench, her adoption of Labour’s official line on Gaza would make her an Islamophobe as well.
Worth reading in full.
Richard Dawkins has written the Foreword to Tim’s essay and Spiked has published an edited version of that too. You can read that here.
You can read the full version of Tim’s essay and Richard‘s Foreword on the Free Speech Union’s website.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Dr James Moreton Wakeley is a former parliamentary researcher with a PhD in History from Oxford.”
I’m afraid it shows.
I think it’s necessary to be able to stand a bit more outside the box of the political class to present a more penetrating observation of it.
Not “a fantastic original essay”. It just doesn’t get to the essence. More a missed target, if correct in parts.
Yes, but the question begged is who are the political class dancing around. Moreton Wakeley is quite funny about their victimhood but how about Gates, Schwab, Soros, Bezos, GAVI, GM food, digital surveillance etc. These are what Boris Johnson with his limited vocabulary would say are making “fantastic” progress while the rest of us are under the cosh
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-4th-industrial-revolution
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-to-un-general-assembly-26-september-2020
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-call-with-bill-and-melinda-gates-19-may-2020
https://www.gavi.org/investing-gavi/resource-mobilisation-process/gavis-3rd-donor-pledging-conference-june-2020
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uk-digital-identity-and-attributes-trust-framework/the-uk-digital-identity-and-attributes-trust-framework
https://www.anhinternational.org/news/close-the-back-door-to-unregulated-gene-edited-foods/
Not bad, but I agree with Rick and Phantom, I have read better in LeftLDS and Iain Davis and in Off-Guardian where the authors felt able to be more decisive and specific.
However it makes good points about group-think , this applies to a wider London metro set than just politicians of course and in my mind is fundamental to the problems in the UK. It applies to ‘climate crisis’ as much as covid. There is a set of people who hated that Brexit and Trump delayed their imperious movement to a global hegmony. They are using covid to ‘get their own back’ in as unpleasant a way as possible.
But this is not a conspiracy with a capital ‘C’, its just the confluence of forces that want to make a lot of money and gain a lot of power by unleashing a resource constraint capitalism , using a fairly mild virus and 1degC/century of ‘heat’ as the means to pump fear into the populace and create a regime with them on top.
http://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf
Mr Wakeley is right about the preference for computer models over empirical evidence, but to explain it as the result of the education of the political class is mere labelling, a non-explanation. I have no doubt they would prefer empirical evidence in a micro second if it suited their purposes.