"Islamophobia" Finally. It Just had To Happen.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 34
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
As I predicted sometime ago, the loony LIBERAL left wing tossers have finally come up with a definition for the made up silly word  -
ISLAMOPHOBIA..
 This of course, is just another exorcise in ‘shut your mouth and do not criticise an ideology; Islam, because it is now a CRIMINAL offence’/hate crime.
They are now pressing this to be the official definition.
I said this was coming years ago. 
 
I have pointed out many times on this forum the fact that Islam is not a race and that a phobic person is a person having or involving an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
 I don’t consider my own fears of Islam to be irrational, in fact the actions of Muslims (that is more than one) and the words of the Quran give me many very RATIONAL reasons to fear this ideology.

The definition reads:“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
 
Nope, me neither.

This “definition” was apparently decided upon after a six-month consultation with academics,(un-named), lawyers, (un-named), elected officials, ( un-named), activists,(un-named),campaigners, (un-named) and [muslim] communities (un-named) and  Muslim organisations << speaks for itself.

Naz Shah, the Muslim Labour MP for Bradford West and a shadow minister for women and equalities, said all political parties should adopt the definition. Yes, Naz Shah,  she  it is who told the victims of Muslim rapegangs in Rotherham to “ shut their mouths for the sake of diversity”. I think she meant for the sake of Muslim rapist.
 
Naz Shah goes on:
“This could not be more urgent, while Islamophobia has been rising in our society and across the world,and support for the far right and their extremist white supremacist views is growing,” she said.
 
She doesn’t actually say why she believes “islamophobia has been rising” or what has caused its rise, only to say:

"many politicians have actively fuelled it, from the Conservatives’ overtly Islamophobic campaign against Sadiq Khan becoming [muslim] mayor in 2016 to Boris Johnson’s vile comments about Muslim women. << Rude maybe but IT-  a single comment-  wasn't "vile" and nowhere near as "vile" as her elling rape victims to shut up about their rapes at the hands of muslims.No, what Johnson spoke of, was muslim women  looking like "letter boxes".
 
There are of course more honest and factual reasons for the rise in supposed “islamophobia”.

One only has to research – Islamic terrors over the last 10 years and hey presto!, you have the perfect, factual and honest answer.

Start here>>

 Naz Shah goes further:
“We must work together to rid your country of this evil, starting by urging widespread adoption of this definitionso we can create deeper understanding and awareness at every level of our society.”

If I didn't know any better,I would say she was referring to Islam.
 
 
 

#2
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
What has any Muslim done to you to cause your irrational fear and hatred?
 
She doesn’t actually say why she believes “islamophobia has been rising” or what has caused its rise, only to say:
Umm yes she does look
“This could not be more urgent, while Islamophobia has been rising in our society and across the world,and support for the far right and their extremist white supremacist views is growing,” she said.
It's the growth in the cowardly and super inferior white supremacists, you know your Nazi and Fascist compatriots.
Topic's author
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
Umm yes she does look

You can't read can you?

She cannot explain WHY so called "islamophobia" has risen OR WHY the far right seem to be getting more support.

#4
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I wonder what a Sunni thinks of a Shia and vice versa? 

There is alot of loopholes said John. 


#5
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
This “definition” was apparently decided upon after a six-month consultation with academics,(un-named), lawyers, (un-named), elected officials, ( un-named), activists,(un-named),campaigners, (un-named) and [muslim] communities (un-named) and  Muslim organisations << speaks for itself
It seems the Labour party has formally adopted the definition of 'islamophobia' recommended by a cross-party parliamentary committee.

The lengthy and thorough report of that committee - which gives full details of the individuals and organisations involved in the consultation process - is here:


I will concede that a constant diet of news stories about terrorist atrocities and criminal activity committed by Muslims will have increased the natural xenophobia of some individuals to the point where they machine gun innocent people purely because they are Muslims.  I don't see that a good thing.
 


Topic's author
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I will concede that a constant diet of news stories about terrorist atrocities and criminal activity committed by Muslims ... blah blah blah

Yes and I bet it breaks your FKN heart. "More than 750 British Muslim organisations". You don't say!? "Teachers could be forced to allow full-face veils to be worn in classrooms if ministers accept a new definition of Islamophobia, one of the country’s leading equality campaigners has warned".

New definition!!!?  There was never an old one.

What these leftist liberal apologist such as yourself haven't stopped to realise is that by defining Islamophobia as a form of racism or Muslims as a "race" would actually make life harder for them instead of helping and/ OR

According to the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Trevor Phillips OBE (who is "of colour") said that it would “reduce the lives of British Muslim to the status of perpetual victims and pawns in some wider battle”. 

Trevor Philips OBE who wrote the forward for DefiningIslamophobia states at page Five here >>https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Defining-Islamophobia.pdf

"It is therefore all the more puzzling that the All Party Parliamentary Groupshould call for the government to adopt a definition of Islamophobia as “rootedin racism” and “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness orperceived Muslimness” – a definition of Islamophobia which, in their own words,“racialises” Islam. Yet their report even quotes the distinguished Professor TariqModood condemning such racialisation as a “specific process” thatcharacterises Islamophobia.Unfortunately, the APPG’s confused report Islamophobia Defined demonstratesthat its authors appear to understand neither the concept of racism nor themeaning of Islamophobia. As Policy Exchange’s Research Note explains, despitethe undoubted good intentions of MPs on the committee, the adoption of thisdefinition would be a grave mistake, undoing much of the good work tointegrate Muslim communities during the past quarter century or so. The MPswho have put their names to this report have proud records of concern for theneeds of minorities. But I fear that they have been persuaded to recommend acourse that far from supporting the integration of British Muslims will isolatethem and make them the object of continuing hostility.My biggest concern is that instead of protecting Muslims, defining Islamophobia".

Trevor Phillips OBE,  this well educated and Honoured author "of colour" must be a racist and a bigoted "Islamophobe". To not agree in the slightest with these left wing liberals such as yourself , eh keith.

And here is something for the ISLAM apologists to think about:

"If the unequal treatment of people is to be tackled – as it should be with greatdetermination – we need to be clear about what we think is producing it. To putthis another way, the APPG’s report does not explain to what problem thisdefinition is supposed to be the answer. There are two possibilities.
 If we thinkIslamophobia is a problem suffered by all Muslims as a single group because oftheir “Muslimness”, it would be very hard to argue that this is about “racism”,since Muslims are a conspicuously multiracial group. They’re also multicultural –some are secular, some highly devout, many in-between, some drink alcohol,some wear head coverings, others don’t.
  If on the other hand, we do think it is about “racism” then the APPG should haveexplained why it thinks that Muslims are a “race” and offered a new definition ofa racial or ethnic group, alongside its definition of Islamophobia. Otherwise, it isdifficult to see why the existing anti-racism law and the definitions it encodesshouldn’t be applied in the sorts of cases they outline in the report".

 I wonder what kind of trouble this is going to cause the Shiite and Sunni. Are Shiites going to claim to be a "race" above all others ?
 Will the Sunnis now believe themselves to be above the Shiites and the Shiites of a lower class of "animal" like many muslims believe the unbeliever to be? 
 This bullshite has simple added to the already strained relationship between Western culture and the 7th century culture of the Islamic east. Not to mention that this will close down ANY discussion of Islam or criticism.

Congratulations you left wing liberal apologists, you have all agree to stoke the fires of intolerance and division.
Topic's author
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I wonder what a Sunni thinks of a Shia and vice versa? 

That was the first question that came to my mind  . My second question was to I wonder how will the left wing Islam apologists square my first question.
#8
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Much the same as protestants and catholics throughut European history, I expect.

People divide themselves into factions - it is one of our species' less endearing qualities.   If we don't don't fight over the name if our gods we fight over 'nation', or the football team we support.  You give me the impression you think tribalism - by whatever name - is something to be proud of.  I don't.  I think it's dumb.  It's dumb because, well, for one thing colour or nation would seem to put us on he same side, yet we have absolutely nothing in common! Where's the logic that would say we have common interests just because we both sunburn easily?

I'm not on your side, but that doesn't put me on the other side.  I am your enemy because I think you are a hater,  i don't like haters which ever side they claim to love or hate.   You are not all that different from a Jihadist, and I am not not all that differnt from 99% of muslims.
 


Topic's author
#9
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I am your enemy because I think you are a hater, 

Your entitled to that unfounded opinion.

 You are not all that different from a Jihadist,
Jihadist?  You mean, no different from those who carry out the instructions written in the quran?  I have never hit anyone since my junior school days. I haven't burned anyone alive, I haven't raped anyone, I haven't blown anyone up, I haven't shot anyone and I didn't marry a FKN six year old and I haven't raped the wife of a man I had just beheaded as did the perfect prophet . But according to you, I am not all that different from a muslim Jihadist.  

Don't make me laugh. You have no answers so resort to ad hominem.

Like I have said about you many times now, you would rather watch your children burn rather than admit you could ever be wrong or misguided.

How's this for Intolerance, division and "HATE"?

Quran 51- You, who havebelieved, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact]allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed,he is [one] of them.
#10
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
We should let our kids, kids deal with it. 


Topic's author
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
We should let our kids, kids deal with it. 
Well believing some left wing liberal idea of "re defining" words will make the problem disappear simply  doesn't cut it. It will be left to our children to define what they are. They are already being taught to hate themselves for being white by people such as keithprosser.

I notice that the great Islamic apologist himself hasn't commented on whether or not he agrees with this left wing liberal crackpot idea. No, he would rather use ad hominem and tell me he hates me for relaying what it is his lefty liberal friends have decided and will try to force into law. . He wants people like me gaged for criticizing an ideology. He wants criticism of an ideology made a crime of racial hate speech. 


#12
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I can believe you've never done any physical violence.  You don't have the balls.   You just use lanuage designed to incite others to violence.

Topic's author
#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I can believe you've never done any physical violence.  

 I have never had cause to keith. Let's hope the importation of this barbaric ideology doesn't ever drive a peaceful person like me to do so. eh.


You just use lanuage designed to incite others to violence.

Such as?
#14
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Can you site some examples of Stephen using violence inciting language?
#15
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
His technique is to present one side of the story as forcefully as possibly and ignore any serious consideration of other factors.  Its not what he says, it's often what he doesn't say.

For example, he quotes the Naz Shah retweet without giving it context.  but has Ste'phen said to go out and kill Muslims?   No.  He's dumb, but not that dumb!

Stephen has been quite strident in crticism of me - such as accusing me ofbeing an islamic apologist of all things.  Because I am not a frothing at the mouth islamphobe he thinks I am pro-islam!   I most certainly am not ptro-Iskam!  I am against posting one-sided and hence misleading material from either source for any cause because its the easiest thing in the world to stoke up trouble, and the hardest thig in the world to put a lid on.

Low level islamophobia is - in my opinion - more normalised than anti-semitism or anti-black ever was.  Things are said in casual coversation now that I don't think were acceptable 'in polite society' in the dark days of old-fashioned racism just a few decades ago.   One can write a post about myuslims that would get you banned ifyou wrote it about jews or blacks.

I my view ecan't turn the clock back or build walls between us and the rest of the world.  Somehow we have to find away to make it work and with Jihdists on one side and race-patriots like Stephen on the other egging us it ain't going to be easy. 
 

#16
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Be very aware of the ones in black, they're ninja muslims the most dangerous type.
Topic's author
#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
Low level islamophobia is - in my opinion

You cannot even define this non word. Although a PROPOSED definition has been put forward by the liberal left. 

And as usual you have ignored the very sound and logical opposition put forward by a very well educated man ("of colour") Trevor Phillips OBE,  who said

 ....the APPG’s report does not explain to what problem this definition is supposed to be the answer. There are two possibilities.
 If we think Islamophobia is a problem suffered by all Muslims as a single group because of their “Muslimness”, it would be very hard to argue that this is about “racism”,since Muslims are a conspicuously multiracial group. They’re also multicultural –some are secular, some highly devout, many in-between, some drink alcohol,some wear head coverings, others don’t.


  If on the other hand, we do think it is about “racism” then the APPG should have explained why it thinks that Muslims are a “race” and offered a new definition of a racial or ethnic group, alongside its definition of Islamophobia. 


Otherwise, it is difficult to see why the existing anti-racism law and the definitions it encodes shouldn’t be applied in the sorts of cases they outline in the report".





--> @janesix Can you site some examples of Stephen using violence inciting language?


--> @keithprosser For example, he quotes the Naz Shah retweet without giving it context.  


That would be a NO then,and the vile racist tweet spoke for itself. She liked it, approved of it, agreed with it and passed it on. She then tried to tell the world it was a FKN "accident".

"Ms Shah’s comments come just days after she attacked fellow Labour MP Sarah Champion for speaking out about the Rotherham sex scandal in article".

Yes, Muslim MP Shah  wanted to silence Sarah Champion from speaking the truth, just as YOUR LIBERAL proposed definition is designed to do.

Somehow we have to find away to make it work and with Jihdists   blah blah blah .... like Stephen
You have given me a whole new thread with that undeliverable statement. 


Well now I am all ears. So apart from re defining words and inventing new words, how do you suggest "WE , make it work with Muslim jihadist" who want to behead every single person who refuses to submit to Allah? 


#18
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
By building bridges with the majority of Muslims that don't.



#19
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Stephen
The definition reads:“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
 
Yes, that is a horrible definition. For one thing, any definition of a phobia that does not begin with "an irrational fear of..." is inaccurate. For another, Muslims are not a race.

The word has been overused so much that anyone who is critical of or parodies Islam or its adherents in any way is labeled with it.

Topic's author
#20
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
---> @Stephen Well now I am all ears. So apart from re defining words and inventing new words, how do you suggest "WE , make it work with Muslim jihadist" who want to behead every single person who refuses to submit to Allah? 

By building bridges with the majority of Muslims that don't.

Ok keith, How? Not once have I seen a mass of muslims taking to the streets after a islamic attack on the west and shout "not in my name".  We do get  the usual suspects lining up to "condemn" one muslim terror attack or another now and again such as ,the local dignitaries  Mayor, local MP and councillor and Imam.
But where's the masses of muslims condemning the actions of these so called " very few muslims" who want to murder us?  Where is the outrage from the muslim community when these attacks on the western world happen? FKN silence is what you get .


They were on the streets in a flash when Salman Rushdie wrote a novel and even today they are still "outraged" about it. Where were the muslims in the crowd and the Ariana Grande charity concert for the victims of the Manchester bombing that killed little girls and their mothers?  You just refuse to accept it, that the MAJORITY of muslims do not care about the Kuffar as much as you need and want to then to. 


So, your first bridge, where do you think that should be built? KEEPING IN MIND:

Quran 51- You, who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact]allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed,he is [one] of them.

Let's hear your plan to build and cross that^^^^^^^^^^^^^ bridge. It's a very wide span.
#21
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@keithprosser
Much the same as protestants and catholics throughut European history, I expect.

People divide themselves into factions - it is one of our species' less endearing qualities.   If we don't don't fight over the name if our gods we fight over 'nation', or the football team we support.  You give me the impression you think tribalism - by whatever name - is something to be proud of.  I don't.  I think it's dumb. 
You know what's dumber?-: not engaging in tribalism. Whilst you're yacking away here with your big-brained individualism, all kinds of tribal groups are voting in and supporting people of their own group. They're getting Hispanics into power over in California. They're getting Blacks into power over in South Africa. They're getting Muslims into power in Lakemba, NSW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_district_of_Lakemba). Say what you want about how "dumb" it is (nice, qualitative, clear language there, buddy), but it WORKS in politics. What you espouse DOESN'T work.

It's dumb because, well, for one thing colour or nation would seem to put us on he same side, yet we have absolutely nothing in common! Where's the logic that would say we have common interests just because we both sunburn easily?
Once again, anything you say on race is just wrong. Cluster analysis of SNPs and loci shows that they match virtually 100% with colloquial attributions of race. Heterozygosity is sufficient in humans to dictate the need for subspecies (i.e. race). Hence, we have our genes in common, not "nothing" (https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/).

I'm not on your side, but that doesn't put me on the other side.  I am your enemy because I think you are a hater,  i don't like haters which ever side they claim to love or hate.   You are not all that different from a Jihadist, and I am not not all that differnt from 99% of muslims.
You are his enemy because he is a "hater?" That has to be one of the most illogical qualifications I've ever seen. I hate paedophiles. I hate terrorists. I hate rapists. That would qualify me as your "enemy" because I'm a hater.

You are doing this site no service by making these dreadful comments on racial or religious conflict. Go back to writing those pointless and mildly witty one-liners -- you would do far less harm to everyone in doing so.


#22
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
That's why an attempt  defining it properly has been made.

I linked to the detailed 72 page report that explains the reasoning behind the definition in a previous post.   You can't ban the word, so it does need a definition before it can be used in legislation etc. 

I don' suppose the recommendaion will prevent the debate being dominated by emtional rhetoric, selective qutation and half-truths though.

Topic's author
#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser


My problem with you, Stephen, is that I don't believe you when you claim your problem is only with Islam, not at all with Musims.

I cannot help what you believe of me. I don't care what you believe of me. What you believe of me you have made your  own problem. 

  You always present Islam was 'our' enremy, not the enemy of all mankind.  

READ VERY SLOWLY!!!!!   ISLAM- is the Enemy of anyone NOT muslim , you clown. You know this but try to avoid this fact.


You ask where the outrage is - well there's not a lot of outrage when a mosque is blown up in Basra  or Karachi either.  

Theres has been no outrage concerning the Christians and Christain churches in Syria and Nigerian and  other countries, nope nothing from the western media or you.. But stop trying to conflate the issue here .  I asked you where is the outrage from the UK muslim community when terror attacks happen here in the UK and you again have failed to answer  me. You have NO FKN answers to anything I say. And this fact just pisses you right off so you attack me instead. You are a buffoon..



I don't care how many Christians have been killed by Muslims and vice versa.
I do.


  I think we should add the two numbers together to see how dumb tribalism is.

Is that your first attempt at FKN "bridge building"?


And you have avoided this AGAIN!!!

Quran 51- You, who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact]allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed,he is [one] of them.

Let's hear your plan to build and cross that^^^^^^^^^^^^^ bridge. It's a very wide span.

Topic's author
#24
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I don' suppose the recommendaion will prevent the debate being dominated by emtional rhetoric, selective qutation and half-truths though.


Read it again you buffoon. Do you understand it? Does it make sense to you? Can you explain it to us all?  And above all do you agree and support it and wish it to be entered into the British criminal code as hate crime to critique Islam. 


The definition reads:“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Topic's author
#25
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
--> @keithprosser Much the same as protestants and catholics throughut European history, I expect.

People divide themselves into factions - it is one of our species' less endearing qualities.   If we don't don't fight over the name if our gods we fight over 'nation', or the football team we support.  You give me the impression you think tribalism - by whatever name - is something to be proud of.  I don't.  I think it's dumb.  
You know what's dumber?-: not engaging in tribalism. Whilst you're yacking away here with your big-brained individualism, all kinds of tribal groups are voting in and supporting people of their own group. They're getting Hispanics into power over in California. They're getting Blacks into power over in South Africa. They're getting Muslims into power in Lakemba, NSW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_district_of_Lakemba). Say what you want about how "dumb" it is (nice, qualitative, clear language there, buddy), but it WORKS in politics. What you espouse DOESN'T work.

All true. Here in the Uk there have been "record numbers" of Muslim MP voted in around the country. This of course is because muslims simply want to be represented by 'one of their own'. This is something prosser will refuse recognise even with the figures shoved up his snooty jumped up self righteous snoz.







Topic's author
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I linked to the detailed 72 page report that explains the reasoning behind the definition in a previous post.

And I linked to one here explaining its very large pitfalls and ambiguous text.


"It is therefore all the more puzzling that the All Party Parliamentary Group Should call for the government to adopt a definition of Islamophobia as “rooted in racism” and “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” – a definition of Islamophobia which, in their own words,“racialises” Islam.

>>>>>>>Yet their report even quotes the distinguished Professor Tariq Modood condemning such racialisation as a “specific process” that characterises Islamophobia.<<<<<<

Unfortunately, >>>>the APPG’s confused report<<<< Islamophobia Defined demonstrates that >>>>its authors appear to understand neither the concept of racism nor the meaning of Islamophobia. <<<<

As Policy Exchange’s Research Note explains, despite the undoubted good intentions of MPs on the committee, >>>>the adoption of this definition would be a grave mistake, undoing much of the good work to integrate Muslim communities during the past quarter century or so. <<<<<



Trevor Phillips man "of colour" OBE,  this well educated and Honoured must be a racist and a bigoted "Islamophobe". To not agree in the slightest with these left wing liberals such as yourself , eh keith.  

#27
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@Stephen
All true. Here in the Uk there have been "record numbers" of Muslim MP voted in around the country. This of course is because muslims simply want to be represented by 'one of their own'. This is something prosser will refuse recognise even with the figures shoved up his snooty jumped up self righteous snoz.
He can't recognise it because he's got this basic idea that tribalism is unintelligent and can disappear if we just stop engaging in it. If I'm honest, it's unintelligent, when viewed through the lens of conscious mind. But when you consider it was evolutionary ingrained into us - that it's a strong feeling, like being a bit hungry or seeing a sexually attractive mate - it becomes unintelligent not to treat humans as these quasi-intellectual beings who engage in tribalism, rather than purely rational beings.

But yeah, I feel for you, Stephen. The U.K. is quickly becoming swamped with Muslim immigration and anti-White/anti-U.K. sentiments. I'm sorry this is happening to your country. Just know that the people, who can actually see what are going, on are with you.

God save the Queen.

#28
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I was told some 35 years ago. 

MOM. 35 : 17    if you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all !

I've never like it,  although i probably employ this lotssssssss in life. 
However i believe ( MOM 35:17 )  is NOT the right way about this here issue. 
I so know i should go with ( MOM 28 : 9 )  honesty is the best policy.  With a added  ( DAD  78 : 44 )   speak up son. 
 What does the Quran state we do on this topic ?

Topic's author
#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
In my opinion, you are right to say your MOM 3;17 isn't right, and right to say MOM 28;9 is right and right to say your DAD 78:44 is right.
Topic's author
#30
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,602
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
But yeah, I feel for you, Stephen. The U.K. is quickly becoming swamped with Muslim immigration and anti-White/anti-U.K. sentiments. I'm sorry this is happening to your country. Just know that the people, who can actually see what are going, on are with you.

God save the Queen.

Thank you , it is comforting to know.. God save the Queen, indeed.,