We are told by politicians, especially those on the left, that the arrival by back-door immigration (arranged marriages, or illegal immigrant/asylum seekers, not skilled immigration), hasn't done anything but enhance 'multicultural' Britain ...
... however many of the rest of us, fear that the damage being done to the cohesion of this country (and Europe), is pretty well terminal.
For instance, we got rid of the “blasphemy” laws of England and Wales when they were abolished in 2008 (although some laws remain unused on the books in Scotland and in Northern Ireland), partly through lack of usage. The laws were only effective against blasphemy of Christianity and not any other religion.
The last successful prosecution for “blasphemy” in the UK was in 1977, in the cases brought over the publication of a poem 'The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name' by James Kirkup, which graphically sexualised the character of Jesus Christ for publication in the magazine Gay News. A suspended sentence was handed to the magazine editor.
Oddly perhaps the most famous blasphemy prosecution was for another poem in 1841, when the publisher of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s 'Queen Mab', Edward Moxon, was found guilty of “blasphemous libel,” for publishing the philosophical poem, and was sentenced to prison. So when the laws were removed from the statute books in 2008, we all thought that was that, and good riddance.
However, we didn't take into account the growing influence of the religion that can't be criticised. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, led by Baroness Warsi, has stated that “dinner party” Islamophobia has become too acceptable, and must be combated by law. The APPG argue that its a form of 'racism' to criticise Islam, even though Islam is a religion and not a 'race'.
The APPG definition states that "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” This definition of Islamophobia, has received the support of 750 British Muslim organisations, as well as academics and community groups, and those self styled Muslim spokespersons who pop up oh so regularly, including the former policy analyst of the controversial group MEND, who actually helped write the report on defining Islamophobia ... this organisation has repeatedly criticised Sara Khan, the UK’s counter-extremism commissioner, and herself a Muslim.
Similarly, another of these self important groups, the Islamic Human Rights Commission recently nominated the Muslim London Mayor Sadiq Khan, for the Islamophobe of the Year award. Yet all are free to contribute towards a suggested legal definition of "Islamophobia".
When Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, was asked by the BBC why we need a definition of Islamophobia rather than describe it as “anti-Muslim hatred” (which focuses on acts against the individual rather than the religion). She replied that “anti-Muslim hatred” does not encompass the micro-aggressions that Muslims experience on a daily basis .... are these the same sort of "micro-aggressions" that non-Muslims face in Muslim majority countries? .... Asia Bibi, the Christian who was persecuted for over a decade in Pakistan, is an example of Christian persecution in Muslim lands for an alleged 'blasphemy against Islam' that springs to mind .... or is that merely a "micro-aggression", analogous to those "micro-aggressions", that Muslims in the UK allegedly suffer?
The definition of "Islamophobia" that the APPG produced was rejected by the government, after advice that it would prevent anti-terrorist operations and was also a back-door blasphemy law (which many of us suspect is exactly what its intended to be). However, such is the dhimmitude that we are creeping towards, that a Conservative government is considering its own definition, instead of saying its completely incompatible with our free speech and society, to have special protection for Islam.
So in effect it is willing to consider creating a law, analogous to a back-door blasphemy law, that can only be the first stop towards the suppression of all criticisms of Islam and its followers. A freedom to criticise that the self-appointed spokesmen for Islam and the Islamists want suppressed. This can only lead to a reinforcement of a certain groups identities, and will give more power to whoever can most successfully claim to represent that group. In the case of British Muslims, the most vocal community “representatives” have often espoused very hard line Islamist ideas, as this blog has highlighted on many occasions.
We should be standing up against this now ..... No religion is above critique, and one especially so. The right to free speech should not a negotiable aspect of our society ... those who want it closed down should leave. There are plenty of Islamic run states, where Islamic blasphemy laws are enforced, and free speech is suppressed by violence from the state, and or the mosque mob.
Its hard to argue, as some proponents and supporters of this definition do, that it is not going to impact our lives if its adopted, as even some Muslims admit it will. For instance, according to the columnist Basit Mahmood 'the definition proposed would mean some of the government’s own counter terror legislation, and at one point its own London mayoral campaign would be classified as Islamophobic' ..... which I suggest, shows that indeed the APPG definition was indeed too broad, and really was intended to suppress any criticism of Islam.
The question the Muslims should be asking themselves, is why Islam needs this 'special protection', if it is a peaceful positive force in the community? Why is it perceived as a threat in every non-muslim country in which it now resides? Germany, Belgium, Netherlands France, Italy, Sweden ... the list of countries where problems are now being felt just goes on and on.
As Salman Rushdie said in 2005 “The defence of free speech begins at the point when people say something you can’t stand. If you can’t defend their right to say it, then you don’t believe in free speech.” ..... and he knows something about Islamic blasphemy laws ..... I predict there will be trouble ahead.
 |
| European Civilisation Threatened? |
... however many of the rest of us, fear that the damage being done to the cohesion of this country (and Europe), is pretty well terminal.
For instance, we got rid of the “blasphemy” laws of England and Wales when they were abolished in 2008 (although some laws remain unused on the books in Scotland and in Northern Ireland), partly through lack of usage. The laws were only effective against blasphemy of Christianity and not any other religion.
 |
| The Last Blasphemy Prosecution In England Was 1977 ..... |
The last successful prosecution for “blasphemy” in the UK was in 1977, in the cases brought over the publication of a poem 'The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name' by James Kirkup, which graphically sexualised the character of Jesus Christ for publication in the magazine Gay News. A suspended sentence was handed to the magazine editor.
Oddly perhaps the most famous blasphemy prosecution was for another poem in 1841, when the publisher of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s 'Queen Mab', Edward Moxon, was found guilty of “blasphemous libel,” for publishing the philosophical poem, and was sentenced to prison. So when the laws were removed from the statute books in 2008, we all thought that was that, and good riddance.
However, we didn't take into account the growing influence of the religion that can't be criticised. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, led by Baroness Warsi, has stated that “dinner party” Islamophobia has become too acceptable, and must be combated by law. The APPG argue that its a form of 'racism' to criticise Islam, even though Islam is a religion and not a 'race'.
The APPG definition states that "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” This definition of Islamophobia, has received the support of 750 British Muslim organisations, as well as academics and community groups, and those self styled Muslim spokespersons who pop up oh so regularly, including the former policy analyst of the controversial group MEND, who actually helped write the report on defining Islamophobia ... this organisation has repeatedly criticised Sara Khan, the UK’s counter-extremism commissioner, and herself a Muslim.
Similarly, another of these self important groups, the Islamic Human Rights Commission recently nominated the Muslim London Mayor Sadiq Khan, for the Islamophobe of the Year award. Yet all are free to contribute towards a suggested legal definition of "Islamophobia".
When Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, was asked by the BBC why we need a definition of Islamophobia rather than describe it as “anti-Muslim hatred” (which focuses on acts against the individual rather than the religion). She replied that “anti-Muslim hatred” does not encompass the micro-aggressions that Muslims experience on a daily basis .... are these the same sort of "micro-aggressions" that non-Muslims face in Muslim majority countries? .... Asia Bibi, the Christian who was persecuted for over a decade in Pakistan, is an example of Christian persecution in Muslim lands for an alleged 'blasphemy against Islam' that springs to mind .... or is that merely a "micro-aggression", analogous to those "micro-aggressions", that Muslims in the UK allegedly suffer?
The definition of "Islamophobia" that the APPG produced was rejected by the government, after advice that it would prevent anti-terrorist operations and was also a back-door blasphemy law (which many of us suspect is exactly what its intended to be). However, such is the dhimmitude that we are creeping towards, that a Conservative government is considering its own definition, instead of saying its completely incompatible with our free speech and society, to have special protection for Islam.
So in effect it is willing to consider creating a law, analogous to a back-door blasphemy law, that can only be the first stop towards the suppression of all criticisms of Islam and its followers. A freedom to criticise that the self-appointed spokesmen for Islam and the Islamists want suppressed. This can only lead to a reinforcement of a certain groups identities, and will give more power to whoever can most successfully claim to represent that group. In the case of British Muslims, the most vocal community “representatives” have often espoused very hard line Islamist ideas, as this blog has highlighted on many occasions.
 |
| New Crimes To Be Introduced To Britain? |
We should be standing up against this now ..... No religion is above critique, and one especially so. The right to free speech should not a negotiable aspect of our society ... those who want it closed down should leave. There are plenty of Islamic run states, where Islamic blasphemy laws are enforced, and free speech is suppressed by violence from the state, and or the mosque mob.
Its hard to argue, as some proponents and supporters of this definition do, that it is not going to impact our lives if its adopted, as even some Muslims admit it will. For instance, according to the columnist Basit Mahmood 'the definition proposed would mean some of the government’s own counter terror legislation, and at one point its own London mayoral campaign would be classified as Islamophobic' ..... which I suggest, shows that indeed the APPG definition was indeed too broad, and really was intended to suppress any criticism of Islam.
The question the Muslims should be asking themselves, is why Islam needs this 'special protection', if it is a peaceful positive force in the community? Why is it perceived as a threat in every non-muslim country in which it now resides? Germany, Belgium, Netherlands France, Italy, Sweden ... the list of countries where problems are now being felt just goes on and on.
As Salman Rushdie said in 2005 “The defence of free speech begins at the point when people say something you can’t stand. If you can’t defend their right to say it, then you don’t believe in free speech.” ..... and he knows something about Islamic blasphemy laws ..... I predict there will be trouble ahead.
I believe that your fond of the comment "we reap what we sow". Seems apt to me.
ReplyDeleteGood enough. Thanks for the comment.
Delete