After threats and abuse, British lawmakers question their safety over Gaza - "It was 10 minutes of shouted accusations of being a "genocide enabler" and having "blood on your hands" that made a British lawmaker fear for his safety over his decision to voice support for Israel in its war with Hamas. Almost touching noses with his accuser before walking away and warning he would call the police, the opposition Labour Party member said the incident in a town in his constituency was just the latest of several that made him change his behavior." He now makes sure he sits near the door on public transport and limits meetings with the public. "It feels like it could just need one spark to flip from someone giving you tuppence (criticism) in the street to escalating to actual violence," the lawmaker said. After the Oct. 7 Hamas attack that sparked the war in Gaza, more than 10 British politicians spoken to by Reuters said the abuse directed at them had become more intense. At least one cited this as a factor in deciding not to seek a new term in parliament in an election later this year. All spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were fearful that giving their names would increase the threats and abuse... In Britain, even politicians who are no strangers to receiving abuse from the public say the tone has become ugly and dangerous, with some fearing it could easily slip into violence. Many are considering taking steps to protect themselves, such as wearing stab vests in meetings or building safe rooms. Last week, parliamentary speaker Lindsay Hoyle sent parliament into chaos when he broke with precedent to allow the three main parties to set out their positions on a call for a ceasefire in Gaza. That was designed to prevent lawmakers from having to choose between backing a ceasefire, abstaining or voting against one to follow their party orders... After seeing his office in his North London constituency targeted in a suspected arson attack in December, Conservative lawmaker Mike Freer said he was standing down at the election after a "constant string of incidents." He had defended Israel. Dozens of protesters demonstrated outside the home of Tobias Ellwood, another Conservative lawmaker, earlier this month, with signs accusing him of being "complicit in genocide" in Gaza. The Labour lawmaker who now watches where he sits in public transport said he had been advised by police to install a partition at his constituency or voting district office so that people waiting to see him could not get near to him quickly... Another lawmaker said he had discussed with his wife getting a safe room installed at home. "No one should have to think about having a safe room just because they want to serve their communities," he said. A veteran politician said there had been other times when public anger meant lawmakers were in the firing line, such as over Britain's departure from the European Union, but that the threat of violence over Gaza marked a change for the worse."
Obviously, they need to crack down more on "Islamophobia" and the "far right"
Rishi Sunak urged to speak out by Tory peer as Islamophobia row deepens - "Ministers also faced questions over why no action had been taken against Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, who wrote an article for the Telegraph saying: “The truth is that the Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge now.”... The row comes after Labour faced its own crisis over antisemitism. The party stood by its Rochdale byelection candidate, Azhar Ali, after he was recorded claiming Israel had allowed the 7 October attacks as a pretext to invade Gaza, saying he had immediately apologised. The party withdrew its support when it emerged that Ali also blamed “people in the media from certain Jewish quarters” for the suspension of another Labour MP."
Denouncing terrorism means you're racist. Amazing
This is no longer the great country I knew. Islamists are bullying Britain into submission - "They started with the Jews; there were stern words of disapproval from the top but things only got worse. The Islamist cranks and Left-wing extremists then took control of the streets; the police looked meekly on. They harassed teachers through the courts; our human rights and equalities laws were used against us. They threatened to kill an MP; he decided, justifiably, to leave public life. A respected peer, Lord Austin spoke out against terrorism and Islamism; he was suspended from a job he loves. They have hijacked a by-election in a deprived town in northern England. We see their influence in our judiciary, our legal profession and our universities. And then they came for Parliament. On a day when Keir Starmer should have shown strength of character, he bowed to the mob, abused his position, and undermined the integrity of Parliament. Conventions cast aside, the Speaker’s legitimacy destroyed, and democracy denied. Trust was shattered by Starmer’s grubby backroom deal. The mask has slipped: in hock to the Islamists, he is responsible for one of the most shameful days of our democracy. By effectively taking the Speaker hostage, he brought Parliament into disrepute. This is the behaviour of tyrants. Just imagine what Starmer would do as Prime Minister. The truth is that the Islamists, the extremists and the anti-Semites are in charge now. They have bullied the Labour Party, they have bullied our institutions, and now they have bullied our country into submission. But what is our response? Our leaders bury their heads in the sand, preferring the illusion of a “successful multicultural society”, terrified of being called “racist”. But the law has not changed, mass extremism parades itself proudly, campuses remain dangerous places for Jews, and Labour is still rotten to the core... What is happening to our great country? That one which was respectful, welcoming, and where speaking your mind did not mean losing your job, or your life? Where different faiths and races co-existed peacefully? I remember that country, but it’s not the Britain I see now. We cannot accept defeat. We need to find our courage. But we can only do that with honesty and determination. That’s why we must resist the attacks against the Prevent programme, designed to tackle extremism in whatever form it takes and stop people being radicalised into terrorism. It has been labelled “Islamophobic” and “racist” because, in the main, it is set up to tackle the most dangerous terrorist ideology facing our country: Islamism... we need to keep the spotlight on Hamas networks in the UK. We know that some on the marches have links to that Islamist terror group. We need to get over our cultural timidity to refer budding Islamists, where they are a threat, into the programme. The Government has failed if 75 per cent of MI5’s caseload consists of Islamist terrorism yet the proportion of Islamist referrals into Prevent is only 11 per cent and falling. It’s not Islamophobic to challenge Islamist fanatics; it’s a civic duty. Lastly, no progress has been made on introducing guidance to stop blasphemy laws being introduced by the backdoor. We cannot allow teachers to be hounded out of schools because a picture of Muhammad was shown, or children to be censured because a Koran was scuffed accidentally. In this country, it is perfectly lawful to criticise any religion or God. One may disagree passionately, but it is not criminal. None of this is easy. I’ve written about how the protests could be policed better. Others have set out how we can clean up campuses, mosques and councils and, more fundamentally, how we can promote better integration. I may have been sacked because I spoke out against the appeasement of Islamists, but I would do it again because we need to wake up to what we are sleep-walking into: a ghettoised society where free expression and British values are diluted. Where sharia law, the Islamist mob and anti-Semites take over communities. We need to overcome the fear of being labelled Islamophobic and speak truthfully. Enough of the hand-wringing and apologies. Turning a blind eye to fanatics has got us into this terrible situation: it needs to stop. This is a crisis. And the fightback must start now, with urgency, if we are to preserve the liberties we cherish and the privileges this country affords us all. If we are to have any chance of saving our country from the mob."
Of course, by going after her for pointing out the problem, they proved the point
Sunak urged to act against Truss for spreading rightwing conspiracy theories - "Rishi Sunak should take action against Liz Truss for appearing alongside the far-right commentator Steve Bannon and spreading conspiracy theories about the “deep state” ousting her from power, Labour has said... Truss also appeared alongside Bannon, a former strategist to Donald Trump, on Real America’s Voice, a far-right TV channel, in a hallway outside the main conference auditorium. When Bannon raised recent comments by Nigel Farage warning of a radical Islamic party gaining seats in the British parliament, Truss replied: “There’s going to be a byelection in the next few weeks, and it could be a radical Islamic party win in that byelection. So that is a possibility.”... “Liz Truss was never fit to be prime minister and certainly is not fit to be given a six-figure allowance of taxpayers’ money. It represents another slap in the face to all those paying hundreds of pounds more a month on their mortgages due to her disastrous policies and should be stripped immediately.”"
Amazing.
It's only sexist to criticise women when they're on the left
Burkina Faso: At least 15 dead in Catholic church attack
Max on X - "Yet another Islamist attack. This one has left at least 15 people dead. Islamist terrorism claims thousands of lives globally each year. It will result in virtually no outrage among western liberals and many Muslim activists. But use the phrase ‘Islamists’ and they’ll blow a fuse"
Konstantin Kisin on X - "Some bigoted people say Rishi Sunak isn't British. That's silly. He thinks the way to solve the problem of Islamist intimidation is to write a letter! What could be more British than that?"
Labour’s Islamic blasphemy law - "The Tories have suspended Lee Anderson for his daft comments last week about London mayor Sadiq Khan being ‘controlled’ by Islamists. UK prime minister Rishi Sunak weighed in earlier today to say that Anderson’s assertions were ‘wrong’ and ‘not acceptable’. Crucially, Tory higher-ups have not called the comments ‘Islamophobic’. And this reluctance to use the magic I-word has been pounced on by Labour. ‘Why are senior Conservatives finding it so hard to call out Islamophobia?’, asked shadow equalities minister Anneliese Dodds. ‘Perhaps because the Conservatives still refuse to adopt the definition used by every other major political party in Britain.’ It’s true that the Tories are alone on this. In 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims defined ‘Islamophobia’ very broadly as a ‘type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’. Labour, the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and the mayor of London all subsequently adopted the definition. But after much deliberation, the Tory government announced in May 2019 that it would not be following suit. Dodds and many others among our political and cultural elites clearly think that this is some sort of gotcha. That this is proof of the government’s ‘structural Islamophobia’, as the Muslim Council of Britain put it over the weekend. But it’s not. The Tories’ refusal to embrace the idea of ‘Islamophobia’ is actually one of the few things they deserve credit for. Make no mistake, ‘Islamophobia’ is an inherently dangerous concept. The term was first coined by the Runnymede Trust in 1997 to describe an ‘unfounded hostility towards Islam’. Since then, the idea of Islamophobia has done virtually nothing to tackle instances of anti-Muslim hatred. But it has served as a way to impede and restrict freedom of thought and speech. It acts, effectively, as a form of Islamic blasphemy law. Promoted by assorted NGOs, politicians, journalists and indeed Islamists themselves over the past few decades, the idea of Islamophobia has exerted an ever more stifling grip over public life in the UK. It has served to protect reactionary Islamic practices from challenge and, increasingly, to insulate the tyrannical theocratic creed of Islamism from any sort of criticism. As the National Secular Society pointed out a few years ago, the charge of Islamophobia has had a chilling effect on public debate. Liberal and secular Muslims have been labelled ‘Islamophobes’ for voicing opposition to Muslim clerics on issues such as women’s rights and gender segregation. Gay-rights campaigners have been branded ‘Islamophobic’ for standing up to Islamists’ rampant homophobia. And just about anyone condemning Islamist terrorism is today deemed an Islamophobe. The charge of Islamophobia silences criticism from the left just as much as from the right. In 2015, Iranian-born dissenter and feminist Maryam Namazie was No Platformed from UK campuses for challenging Islamic conservatism. In 2016, Nick Lowles, the director of anti-racism campaign group Hope Not Hate, was disinvited from a National Union of Students event for daring to ‘condemn Islamist extremism’. The 2018 APPG definition of Islamophobia is the culmination of two decades worth of Islamocensorship. Damning criticism of ‘expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’ as racism, it potentially outlaws everything from opposition to Iran’s mandatory hijab law to criticism of the theocratic terror of the Islamic State as ‘Islamophobic’. The APPG even called explicitly for ‘appropriate limits to free speech’ and for the policing and regulation of matters ‘far beyond what can be captured as criminal acts’. Since the APPG issued its definition of Islamophobia in 2018, and most of the UK’s party-political establishment then adopted it, Islamocensorship has been further emboldened. We’ve seen a film pulled from cinemas across the UK for promoting the Shia interpretation of Islam. We’ve seen a teacher in Batley forced into hiding for showing a cartoon of Muhammad during a religious-studies class. And we’ve seen an autistic schoolboy in Wakefield hauled before local clerics for a dressing down, after he lightly scuffed a Koran. An informal regime of Islamocensorship has now consolidated and justified itself in the UK in the name of combating ‘Islamophobia’. Rather than challenge this constriction of thought and speech, Labour is cheering it on. Its embrace of the APPG definition of Islamophobia – which would likely be introduced into law if and when it enters government – is far more concerning than the stupid things Lee Anderson has said. It threatens to turn criticism of Islamism into a crime. It would represent an astonishing capitulation to theocratic extremists."
Frankie Boyle Updates on X - "If I see the word Islamist, I just assume I’m about to read the incoherent ramblings of a crazed racist"
Josh Howie on X - "I’ve known and liked Frankie for a long time. But if Islamists aren’t real, and Islamists aren’t a problem in the UK, then I’d challenge him to post the Hebdo cartoon? I’ll even make it easier, just post a handsome heroic image of the Prophet Mohammed."
Michael Deacon on X - "You missed the big news. There is no Islamism. 9/11 never happened. Or 7/7, Charlie Hebdo, the Bataclan, Lee Rigby, Madrid, ISIS, PC Keith Palmer, Sir David Amess, Manchester Arena..."
The shameful silencing of radical Islam’s critics - "What Tory MP Lee Anderson said this week was dumb. But what the cultural elites are doing on the back of Anderson’s comments is outright sinister. They are using his outburst about ‘the Islamists’ having ‘control’ over London mayor Sadiq Khan to distract attention from the very real threat Islamists pose in 21st-century Britain. They are holding him up as oafish proof that the ‘real threat’ is the ‘far right’ and ‘Islamophobes’ – gruff gammon like him – not those mystical ‘Islamists’ people keep banging on about. They are exploiting the Anderson scandal to achieve something they’ve wanted to achieve since the 7 October pogrom and the orgy of bigotry it licensed in Britain and other Western nations – that is, shift the public’s attention away from Islamism and back to ‘Islamophobia’. It is one of the most cynical political manoeuvres of modern times... Khan hasn’t turned London into a demented caliphate but rather into a woke hellhole where you can’t go five minutes without being bombarded by some eyesore Trans Pride flag or official finger-wagging about the evils of junk food. Khan has sacrificed our capital not to political Islam, but to political correctness... Political influencers have not contented themselves with criticising him, or branding him a raging Islamophobe, if that’s what they want to do. No, they’ve made him into the archetype of ‘Islamophobic Britain’. They’ve crowned him King Gammon, who merely gives voice to a phobic derangement that is all-pervasive. The irony is too much – they damn the conspiracist mindset that sees Islamists as the puppeteers of public life while promoting their own unhinged theory that actually it’s Islamophobes who haunt every corridor of power... This giddy extrapolation from one loudmouth’s musings on a TV show to the end of tarring the entire nation as ‘Islamophobic’ is not only cynical – it’s ominous. The intention is as clear as it is repellent: to send the message that it isn’t Islamism that’s the problem – it’s ‘Islamophobia’. Worse, Anderson-bashers are implying, if not outright stating, that critics of Islamism pose a larger threat to the nation than Islamism itself. Especially its right-wing critics, those ‘far right’ goons like Anderson and Braverman, as they crazily view those outspoken Tories. We are witnessing nothing less than a top-down cultural assault on truth – the truth here being that radical Islam is indeed a major threat to life, limb and democracy. The Anderson scandal comes hot on the heels of the Commons antics of last week, when the speaker of the house, Lindsay Hoyle, said he permitted a vote on Labour’s ceasefire motion because he was concerned that MPs would face violent threats if they didn’t say something on Israel-Gaza. He didn’t say who might issue such threats – of course not – but we knew. He was hinting at Islamists. Hoyle’s intervention likewise ignited a binfire of outrage among correct-thinking liberals and leftists who accused him of demonising ‘pro-Palestine’ protesters and exaggerating the menace of Islamism. It’s the far right we should be worried about, they squealed, like they’ve been squealing for decades. These people are peddling cynical fictions. It is measurably, demonstrably untrue that the far right is a larger or even equal threat to radical Islam. Almost a hundred people have been slaughtered by Islamists in the UK over the past two decades. Girls at a pop concert, people going to work on the Tube, a member of parliament. Hundreds of British-born Muslims went to Syria to throw their lot in with an Islamist death cult that enslaved women, executed homosexuals, slaughtered Christians. Since 7 October we’ve seen Islamists on the streets cheering the mass murder of Jews and demanding more ‘jihad’ against the Jewish State. We’ve seen a suspected Islamist threaten Jews with a knife. We’ve seen Islamists hound an MP from office. The far right – for all its venomous ideas and hooligan behaviour – hasn’t got anywhere close to such extremes of misanthropy. The idea that the far right are The Real Threat is a comforting lie for our cowardly elites. It allows them to posture against ‘fascism’ without having to address the fascistic violence of radical Islam. It means they never have to contemplate whether their precious ideology of multiculturalism might have played a role in whipping up Islamist fervour by constantly telling young Muslims that Britain is a racist hellhole that hates them. They prefer to live in the dreamscape of fighting far-right old blokes than in a reality where many young people – including people they march shoulder to shoulder with – have signed up to a belief system that is anti-Semitic, misogynistic, homophobic and anti-human. The denialism of the comfortable classes reached deranged levels this week. Labour MP Jess Phillips said she has personally found anti-Israel protesters outside parliament to be cordial and kind. Bully for you. I’m sure many of them are. But try being someone who wears a kippah or Star of David necklace. That cordiality might soon evaporate. You might be all right, Jack, but others aren’t... I wonder if Boyle would say this to the mother of the eight-year-old girl murdered in the Manchester Arena bombing. Is she racist if she talks about the Islamist who killed her daughter? Or to the friends of the three gay men stabbed to death by an Islamist in Reading, or to the family of Sir David Amess, or to the Jews of Golders Green who witnessed a knifeman threaten their co-religionists just a few weeks ago. Are these people ‘crazed racists’ if they accurately describe the ideology of the individuals who massacred or threatened their loved ones? Are Jews allowed to talk about the Islamist threat? What about women, including Muslim women, who live under the cosh of radical Islam in some parts of the UK? Can they name the thing that oppresses them, or would that also offend the moral sensibilities of this rich comic who faces no such neo-fascistic threat and therefore doesn’t have to give a fuck? Boyle’s boorish intervention captures the Orwellianism of the ‘Islamophobia’ charge. That slur is expressly used to choke debate about the Islamist threat. The ‘anti-fascists’ of the cultural elite are no such thing. In fact, they’ve made themselves water carriers for a new fascism, the supine protectors of violent extremism from robust debate and protest. Their slippery censorship of any discussion of Islamism is far more dangerous than the far right they fight fantasy battles with. Let us not forget that one of the reasons security guards at Manchester Arena failed to question the suspicious-looking suicide bomber who massacred 21 people there in 2017 is because they feared being branded ‘Islamophobes’. Your white-saviour censorship poses a greater threat than any ‘gammon bigotry’ ever could. In silencing opposition to the Islamist ideology, in making people fear cancellation if they call out the threat in their midst, you aid and abet Islamist violence. The Manchester bomber directly benefited from the climate of moral cowardice you fake progressives have cynically constructed. I’m going to say the thing you’re not supposed to say: there is no comparison whatsoever between anti-Semitism and ‘Islamophobia’. The former is the world’s oldest hatred and has caused the deaths of millions. The latter is an idea dreamt up by Islamists and anti-racist NGOs to stymie criticism of Islam... To drag people’s focus from these crisis levels of anti-Semitism and back to the elite’s familiar, comfortable territory of handwringing over ‘Islamophobia’ is unforgivable. It is unconscionable. It represents the sacrifice of Jewish safety at the altar of protecting the elite’s ideology of multiculturalism from frank critique. For shame."
Konstantin Kisin on X - "I don't understand why all these Tory MPs won't explain that, to quote Hitchens, "Islamophobia is a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons". I was critical of what Lee Anderson said about Khan but this he actually did very well in his interview after. Anti-Muslim prejudice exists. But Islam is a set of ideas and Islamism is a political ideology. You can disagree with ideas and political ideologies without being prejudiced. What is more, the real conversation we should be having is that in Britain we have imported the civil war raging within the Muslim world. Whenever anyone brings up the issue of Islamist terrorism, the response is always that Muslims are the biggest victims of this kind of terrorism world-wide. This is true but no one ever explains WHY. And the reason is (massive oversimplification coming) that within the Muslim world, there is a battle between people who want to live in nation states and Islamists who want to impose Sharia law and create a Caliphate, I.e. a transnational religious entity under one religious ruler. It is the Islamists who are terrorising their fellow Muslims. And we imported this problem into the West and then gave no protection or support to the normal Muslims and empowered the Islamists. The Gulf states, for example, have no interest in becoming part of a Caliphate - they would quite like to maintain their hereditary monarchies thank you very much. Which is why they don't put up with Islamists at all. We are much more tolerant of Islamist extremists than many Muslim countries. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous. So, to summarise, there are some people who are bigoted towards Muslims. But highlighting the problem with Islamists is not only not anti-Muslim, it is a way of protecting most Muslims from the extreme minority. And it needs doing."
Brianna Wu on X - "As the Iran/Saudi Arabia Cold War continues to destabilize the Middle East, there are VERY REAL QUESTIONS of how this will affect Europe. Democracies are generally secular. Theocracies are not. It’s not prejudiced to have concerns about that core value.
’s the exact same objection I have to Christian theocracy in the US, but no one objects to having that discussion."
The left just hate Christians, Christianity, the West and white people
J Stewart on X - "Maajid Nawaz on Islamophobia: “The word Islamophobia is used as a shield to reintroduce blasphemy as law through the back door” “We’ve got to allow for scrutiny of our religion like every other religion is scrutinised”"
Meme - Frances Weetman @francesweetman: "Don't anyone tell me that the APPG definition of islamophobia wouldn't ban saying Aisha was nine. It's a blasphemy law by the backdoor, no matter how many literature reviews led to it."
"targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Contemporary examples of Islamophobia in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in encounters between religions and non-religions in the public sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/ fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism, and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.
Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.
Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.
Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.
Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, eg loyalty tests.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies."
Tamara 🎗 @tm1fox: "‘Claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minorities under their rule…’ A lot of history books will have to be burned."
Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic."
According to this definition, no Muslim claims of Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide can be questioned, since that is "Islamophobia". They learnt well from the trash Ambivalent Sexism Inventory
Ironic. The terrorism supporters hold Jews collectively responsible for Israel and glorify "resistance" (i.e. terrorism) for Palestine
So if Muslims demand that other Muslims support Palestine because of Muslim solidarity, they are also "Islamophobic"
Teaching accurate history is Islamophobic, but of course liberals want to falsify history, since to them teaching accurate history means villifying white people