“UK Lawmakers Call for ‘Islamophobia’ to Be Officially Classed as Racism”

UK MP’s call for “Islamophobia” to be classed as “racism,” want to criminalize claims that Islam spread by the sword

Islam is not a race & “Islamophobia” is not a thing, but the Muslim Council of Britain and all the usual suspects like “Baroness” Warsi and a bunch of utterly corrupt wakademics are on the case to make it so that Islam is shielded from criticism.

In other news:

UN accuses Italy of anti-migrant “smear campaign,” fostering “climate of hate” and “threatening” migrant rights

“Migrant rights” means putting Mohammedan invaders above criticism.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) expressed concern for the “continued smear campaign in Italy against NGOs.” The new immigration measures proposed by the government as well as a climate of hate are threatening the rights of migrants in Italy, according to the UN.

Italy has stood against the hijrah, and is now being demonized as hateful and exclusionary for doing so by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. This is the standard accusation against any country which resists Islamization.

The UN is on an aggressive campaign to force Western nations to accept open borders. It devised the UN Migration Plan, which would hand over border control of sovereign states to the UN. The U.S., Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Australia have withdrawn from the Plan, and Italy will likely follow.

UK MP’s call for “Islamophobia” to be classed as “racism” 

“However, the report cites other arguments from Oxford University student Bertie Vidgen, that ‘giving up the term Islamophobia – and with it the possibility of creating legal instruments to tackle it – simply because of the perceived risk that may limit free speech would be highly misguided.’”

Update:

This is a good time to bury bad news. And sure enough it turns out that a cross-party group of MPs and peers that includes the failed MP Baroness Warsi has chosen this moment to try to persuade the government to adopt their own definition of ‘Islamophobia’. …

Why is the UK Parliament citing a university student? In any case, Bertie asserts that it “would be highly misguided” to refraining from criminalizing “Islamophobia” “simply because of the perceived risk that may limit free speech.” At least in this article, he does not support his assertion with either evidence or argument. In reality, forbidding criticism of any individual, group or idea in itself means the end of the freedom of speech, as the one rendered immune from criticism is then free to do whatever he, she, or it wants without fear of any opposition at all, and that is the very definition of tyranny.

“University lecturer Ben Whitham highlights ‘the concept of inseparability of race and religion, whereby an attack on the religion cannot be separated from an attack on the race,’ the report also says.”

This is moronic. Muslims aren’t only of one race. There are white people who are fervent believers in Islam, such has Hamas-linked CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper, the late al-Qaeda jihadi Adam Gadahn, the Marin County Taliban John Walker Lindh, North Carolina jihad plotters Justin Sullivan and Donald Ray Morgan, would-be Wichita jihad bomber Terry Lee Loewen, Boston Marathon jihad bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, UK “Sharia patrol” leader Jordan Horner, failed former Brandeis Professor Joseph Lumbard, and many, many others. Is criticizing any of them “racist”?

“Examples of ‘Islamophobia’ listed including claiming it is terrorism to support an independent Palestine, calling Muhammad a paedophile, and ‘claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule.’”

This demonstrates that this entire initiative is a totalitarian war against reality. The “Palestinian” jihad is inextricably tied to terrorism (scroll the articles here if you doubt that); Islamic sources themselves state that Muhammad raped a nine-year-old girl when he was 54 (evidence here); and Muslims did spread Islam by the sword and subjugated minority groups under their rule. The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS is full of evidence, mostly from Islamic sources, that for 1,400 years, everywhere they went from Spain to India, Muslims spread Islam by the sword and subjugated minority groups under their rule. I challenge Baroness Warsi or anyone else to prove from the historical record that this statement is false. No one, of course, will take up that challenge, because Warsi and her cohorts doubtless know that Muslims did spread Islam by the sword and subjugate minority groups under its rule.

Yet now they’re seeking to criminalize stating this truth. If Britain implements this proposal, it will be officially dead as a free society. This has been a long time coming, and is perhaps inevitable at this point.

“UK Lawmakers Call for ‘Islamophobia’ to Be Officially Classed as Racism,” by Liam Deacon, Breitbart, November 27, 2018:

A group of British Parliamentarians have demanded “Islamophobia” be officially classed as a form of racism in the UK, claiming the country is deeply prejudiced and unfair towards Muslims.

The new parliamentary report blames “prevalent” Islamophobia for divisions, hate crimes, and even terror attacks. It also appears to reject claims criminalising comments about Islam will restrict free speech and calls for an official definition of “Islamophobia.”

Examples of “Islamophobia” listed including claiming it is terrorism to support an independent Palestine, calling Muhammad a paedophile, and “claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule.”

The document comes from the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, which is led by leading anti-Brexit Tory MP Anna Soubry.

Tory Peer Baroness Warsi, the group’s Treasurer, commented on the document release: “Islamophobia is a form of racism – like antisemitism it’s time it got its own definition.”

Labour MP Wes Streeting added: “Islamophobia isn’t just anti-Muslim hatred. It’s about everyday discrimination that takes place — targeting Muslimness or perceived Muslimness. It is rooted in racism and is a type of racism. It can be deliberate or unconscious bias.”

The findings were also backed by the Muslim Council of Britain, linked to the pro-Caliphate Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, which was recently criticised for working withgroups calling for apostates to be killed.

When consultation for the report was launched, a UKIP spokesman criticised the parliamentary group for taking evidence from groups allegedly linked to Islamism and extremism and “making rules and definitions which are likely to curtail the freedoms which have been hard-won over centuries of British history.”

The document also claims Muslims are widely oppressed in the UK and blames British society for Muslims not being as economically successful as some other groups.

It says: “British society at large, by virtue of normalised prejudice against Muslim beliefs and practice, have come to imbibe a panoply of falsehoods or misrepresentations and discriminatory outlooks.”

Adding: “Academic research has consistently shown that British Muslims face considerably high levels of economic disadvantage than other groups in Britain.”…

However, the report cites other arguments from Oxford University student Bertie Vidgen, that “giving up the term Islamophobia – and with it the possibility of creating legal instruments to tackle it – simply because of the perceived risk that may limit free speech would be highly misguided.”

University lecturer Ben Whitham highlights “the concept of inseparability of race and religion, whereby an attack on the religion cannot be separated from an attack on the race,” the report also says….

Related:

The American ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday that the US government will contemplate sanctions against French and German entities that seek to evade sanctions on Iran’s clerical regime.

“The US will consider sanctions on those entities participating in these tactics,” Grenell said, adding the French and German activities “would not be a smart move.”

Here’s the whole article from Douglas Murray:

The ‘Islamophobia’ problem

This is a good time to bury bad news. And sure enough it turns out that a cross-party group of MPs and peers that includes the failed MP Baroness Warsi has chosen this moment to try to persuade the government to adopt their own definition of ‘Islamophobia’.

Long-time readers will know that I have no sympathy for this term. The most succinct summary of the problem is often erroneously attributed to the late Christopher Hitchens. It is that, Islamophobia is ‘a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.’

That ‘Islamophobia’ was created by fascists is provable: the term was conjured up and pumped into the international debate around politics and religion decades ago by the Muslim Brotherhood. The claim that it is used by cowards slightly lets others of its users off the hook. For it is not only used by cowards. It is also used by sinister and sectarian figures who wish to protect their own religious patch from any and all discussion or scrutiny. That it intimidates cowards is evident from every day’s news.

But now, at a crucial juncture in this nation’s history, this group of MPs and Peers are attempting to push through an agenda of their own. As Tim Shipman described it in the Sunday Times the group is proposing a set of ‘tests’ of what is ‘Islamophobic’. Let us take them in turn:

– ‘Does it stereotype Muslims by assuming that they all think the same?

Well let us see. Would it be Islamophobic to say ‘All Muslims believe that the Quran is the revealed word of God, that Mohammed was the messenger of Allah and that this revelation has been revealed for all time as the unalterable, final revelation from God?’ It would appear so. And yet it would also be true. There are certain things which all Muslims do agree on. There are many other generalisations that one could make that are more critical. Yet to say so would be ‘Islamophobic’.

– ‘Does the criticism consist of generalising about Muslims in a way that excludes them?’

An interesting one. Let’s try a couple out. How about ‘All Muslim majority countries are either dictatorships, despotisms or countries where the army remains on standby at any moment to wrestle back control from religious zealots’? Or how about ‘Muslims tend to be bad at understanding and advocating minority rights unless they happen to be in a minority themselves’? Both of these statements are at least highly defensible. I would suggest they are also true. Yet they undoubtedly ‘generalise’ in certain ways, and if just one Muslim said that they felt ‘excluded’ by people failing to talk up the pluralism and freedom in the Islamic world we would have to agree that both statements are indeed ‘Islamophobic’.

– ‘Is the behaviour or practice being criticised in an offensive way so it makes Muslims rather than the issue the target?’

Well it rather hinges on two things, doesn’t it? One is the question of ‘what is offensive’. Who is to judge? Who is to say? Is a cross-party coalition of low-grade MPs and Peers to make this judgement? Who would like Sayeeda Warsi to make this call? Or Labour’s Wes Streeting, who is also supporting this sinister move? Does anyone feel that either individual’s intellect, knowledge and skill at impartially weighing up matters makes them fit for the task of deciding what the rest of us can think, write or say? Then there is the question of determining whether ‘Muslims rather than the issue are the target?’ Again, are the brains behind all this sufficiently huge to make this judgement call? If one draws attention to certain aspects of the private life of the man who invented Islam is one aiming the point at Muslims or the issue of, say, historical attitudes towards child abuse? Who is to say? I can guess at least some of the applicants for the role.

– ‘Does the person criticising really care about the issue or is he or she using it to attack Muslims?’

There is nothing sweeter than the sound of totalitarian ideology presented in the lingua franca of social justice. Do you ‘really care about the issue’? Who the hell is to say? And why should it matter? Let us say that I object to Islamic anti-Semitism. Let us say that I cite the considerable stream of examples (both current and historical) which I could bring to my aid to explain there is a problem here.  Do I care? Or do I not? And who should decide?

Sayeeda Warsi says that some people use criticism of Islam’s approach to gays and women as a clever cover – a sort of ploy – for attacking Islam. ‘I’ve never known homophobes care so much about gay people and misogynists express such support for women as when they are criticising Muslims’ she is quoted as saying.

And that is interesting isn’t it? Firstly because there is again the question of ‘who is to judge’. If these criticisms are indeed legitimate – and even Baroness Warsi in her more liberal moments might agree that they’re not conjured up wholly out of air – who decides which person is allowed to say a truth and which person is not?  Are gays allowed to criticise Islamic homophobia? If so am I – as a fully signed up, equity card-carrying gay – allowed to go to town on Islam whenever I like? My own experience and observation has often suggested not. So who can? Is a gay who raises a really very mild objection, filled with caveats and ‘in a very real sense-isms’ allowed to dip their gay toe in this Muslim water? I suppose we shall see.

But really it is – as so often – not a matter of absolutes. After all, one reason why people who might not be big on gay marriage, or don’t swallow every claim made about the ‘gender pay-gap’ might be voluble about Islamic homophobia and Islam’s attitudes towards women is that there is a question of degree. It includes the difference between whether you’re allowed to marry somebody of the same gender or whether you should have a wall pushed on you. And it is a matter not of whether, if you add up pay differentials taking pregnancy and other life-factors into account, women are still under-renumerated in certain sectors or whether all women are now and for all time (and should be) second class citizens. There is a difference is there not? A difference about the size of an ocean where plenty of people might peaceably swim.

Apparently the Home Secretary is being pressured – for reasons of optics – into signing up to this sinister and sectarian agenda. The rest of the government could be forgiven for having much else on its mind. I hope all relevant members of the government realise in their spare moments that this matters very much indeed. Future freedoms – including freedom of religion and freedom of speech in this country – will depend very much on this ugly agenda not being deployed.