Connor Tomlinson on X - "The Guardian argues Muslims are the real victims of Islamic terror attacks, on the twentieth anniversary of 7/7. The article quotes Qari Asim, the Imam at Makkah Masjid in Leeds. Asim is a trustee of the HOPE Not Hate Charitable Trust, and a member of Angela Rayner's Islamophobia working group. “Islamophobia has consistently increased in the last 20 years, and that’s not just due to extremism and terrorism but also a multitude of factors,” Asim said. Reminder: HOPE Not Hate conducted the polling for the 2019 All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims' definition of Islamophobia, which said conversations about the grooming gangs scandal are “aimed at (and can achieve) harm to individual Muslims, and is not rooted in any meaningful theological debate but rather in a racist attempt to ‘other’ Muslims in general”. They also cite the Muslim Council of Britain, which a 2009 government report stated were responsible for 80 percent of British-trained imams being of the anti-British Deobandi branch. A 2015 government report found the Muslim Brotherhood "played an important role in establishing and then running the Muslim Council of Britain". In 2023, their General Secretary, Wajid Akhtar told Muslims to raise generations of "Saladin after Saladin after Saladin until you don’t know what to do with them" in Britain. It cites the Runnymede Trust: infamous for having introduced the term “Islamophobia” into British politics in 1997, after it was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to silence critics. Former Islamist, Abdur-Rahman Muhammad confirmed a meeting took place where members of a Muslim Brotherhood outfit, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, plotted to “emulate the homosexual activists who used the term ‘homophobia’ to silence critics.” Communists and Islamists are still trying to gaslight you to protect Islam from criticism, and are using the tragic and preventable deaths of innocent Brits in Jihadist attacks to do it. All the while, the media and Home Office help them. Sickening and insidious stuff."
UK ‘faces social unrest’ if Labour pushes ahead with Islamophobia definition - "Britain will face social unrest and a perception of a two-tier society if the government pushes ahead with plans to come up with a formal definition of Islamophobia, the head of a new campaign group has warned. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, has set up a working group to provide recommendations to the government on “appropriate and sensitive language” to describe “unacceptable treatment, prejudice and discrimination against Muslims”. Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of the Tell Mama organisation which monitors anti-Muslim hate incidents, is leading a campaign against the definition, which he believes risks having a “chilling effect” on free speech and creating a “blasphemy law by the back door”. The campaign is called Keep the Law Equal. While the definition will not be legally binding, Mughal raised concerns that the police, prosecutors, other public authorities and employers would adopt it and that criticism of any practices associated with the Muslim faith would effectively become an offence. He suggested it could curtail public discourse about the grooming scandals amid concerns that a disproportionate number of Asian men have been responsible. He also said that it could discourage legitimate debate about the hijab, the niqab and sharia courts. “We are seeing a sense of people being very unhappy about two-tier application of the law, two-tier society,” he said. “The same narrative is being potentially, I’m hearing, it’s being used around this definition. Why are Muslims getting extra protection? Why do they have to have more laws? “I worked with the police. We have seen the systems work really well. We need proper enforcement of existing laws, not additional definitions which in fairness given that the world has also changed, given our country and the dynamics has changed, any definition that marks out one community is going to cause major social divisions. and it’s happening in our society. We don’t need social divisions. We need the implementation of existing laws which are more than sufficient. “It will raise community tensions and it will just add to the narrative that actually one community is getting a better deal than another. And that just leads to local anger.” He said it would have a “chilling effect” on free speech. “It creates a sense of a deeply chilling effect, where people are scared to raise things about religion, which can be used against them, and where digital traces can be placed online that are difficult to remove,” he said. “It creates a vastly, deeply problematic element of a chilling effect in society. It doesn’t matter whether it’s statutory or non-statutory. Defence and prosecutors, defence solicitors and prosecutors could use this in legal argument. Now the judges could say, actually, I’m not going to listen to this because it’s non-statutory. But some judges may well listen to it.” An independent review by Baroness Casey of Blackstock recently found that the ethnicity of grooming gangs was “shied away from” by the authorities. It said that disproportionate numbers of Asian men have been responsible for child sex grooming gangs but successive governments and authorities have failed to address their crimes. Mughal said: “This is an issue where we can say we need to look at what kind of cultural elements have brought about actions against young girls. Now even a simple statement like that could be twisted to suggest that actually this is an attack on my identity, that you’re suggesting that all Muslims are groomers and paedophiles.” He said employers could also adopt the definition. “The reality is that if there is one charge of something around Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred that is made against an employee, that employee is going to go through a very long and difficult process.” The government faced criticism for attempting to limit public input into the plans by circulating a call for evidence to only a limited number of groups. But its plans were derailed after Claire Coutinho, the shadow equalities minister, found a link to the online consultation form and circulated it widely. “This whole process has been so, so troubling because it’s so private,” Mughal said. “The way that the government has reached out to a selected handful of individuals is not a consultation.”"
Hate-crime definitions risk making things worse - "It’s comforting to believe we can cast most disputes in black and white. But we live in a world that’s much murkier. He experiences his manager’s behaviour as bullying; she says she was just giving forthright feedback: what’s the reasonable interpretation? So many situations require leaders and managers to make finely balanced judgments that can have serious consequences. The weak ones cling to badly drafted definitions and policies in the vain hope that they will eliminate the need for uncomfortable determinations. It’s this tendency that partly explains the mess Labour has got itself into by trying to define Islamophobia... In 2018, the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims called for the government to make its preferred definition — “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” — legally binding. The Conservatives resisted this but it was quickly adopted by Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and many local councils... There are a number of serious flaws with the APPG definition. It conflates faith-based discrimination with racism; this matters because the law distinguishes between the two and provides robust protections for speech that criticises religion as a belief system. It is vague. It confuses prejudice, discrimination or hostility against an individual or group because they are of a faith with legitimate opposition to that belief system itself. It does not clearly delineate what types of criticism of Islam are permissible; indeed the APPG report uncritically included perspectives that any criticism of the Birmingham schools involved in the Trojan Horse affair — schools known to have seriously failed their mostly Muslim pupils — is “Islamophobic”, and referenced “Asian grooming gangs” as a “modern-day iteration” of an Islamophobic “trope”. It is also unclear how this definition would help in any of the cases the report cites of already-criminal anti-Muslim bigotry, such as a Muslim woman who had a firework posted through her letterbox that the police failed to follow up properly. But when adopted by institutions and incorporated into disciplinary policies its expansiveness will intensify chilling effects that already operate when calling out unlawful or even criminal behaviour by certain individuals, for fear of being accused of bigotry; a factor highlighted by numerous investigations in partly explaining why rape gangs of mostly Asian men were allowed to continue their violent sexual assaults of children for so long, for example. Anti-Muslim discrimination and prejudice is already defined in law by the Equality Act; the Public Order Act already makes it an offence to stir up religious hatred (while including robust protections for criticism of religion). The impetus to create an additional bespoke definition is political; driven by a well-meaning desire to be seen to be doing something — anything — about a horrible form of bigotry, regardless of the unintended consequences. It is also understandable given the widespread adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which shares some of the same problematic features. To criticise the IHRA definition is not to deny concerning evidence of increasing levels of antisemitism in the wake of the Israel-Gaza conflict and the failure of leaders and institutions to adequately address this insidious form of bigotry. But the definition was originally drafted by an American academic for data collection purposes, not to inform disciplinary policies."
It's ironic that the APPG claims that opposing self-determination for Muslim populations like the Palestinians or Kashmir is Islamophobic. Does that mean that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic?
Labour must abandon its project to define Islamophobia - "In February, under the stewardship of the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, the government established a parliamentary working group to come up with an official definition of “Islamophobia”. Since then, there have been multiple warning signs that this ill-conceived project was on the wrong track. Meeting in private, the group solicited evidence from only a small number of interested parties. Concerns that any definition of Islamophobia would prejudice free speech and academic freedom were naively downplayed, as too were plausible objections from opposition parties that the definition would introduce anti-liberal blasphemy prohibitions by a legislative backdoor. Most worryingly, the group’s chairman, the former attorney-general Dominic Grieve, praised a bizarre report authored by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims: it claimed that the public discussion of the “grooming gangs” had been an example of recent “anti-Muslim racism”. The government has now been forced to delay its working group’s deadline till the autumn, after its online consultation form was leaked on social media. Unsurprisingly, that leak led to the group being inundated with responses from the public. That expression of public concern should be taken by Labour as a signal that their ill-thought-through plans ought to be abandoned altogether. There are problems both in practice and principle with trying to circumscribe allegedly Islamophobic speech and action. Any definition broad enough to satisfy its proponents will inevitably be couched in language so generic and vague as to have a chilling effect on speech that is merely critical of religion or culture. Even non-statutory guidance tends to have this anti-liberal effect, because its force and remit is often subject to confusion. Though Labour’s working group was set up in response to evidence of instances of anti-Muslim criminality, to point to this concerning increase is simply a distraction. Britain, by comparison with other liberal democracies, already has a surfeit of laws covering hate speech. Such existing laws should be properly enforced, rather than free and open speech subject to sinister restrictions. When it comes to codifying Islamophobia there is a specific danger that legitimate criticism of religion will be conflated with bigotry. These days, it is the outspoken proponents of free speech who need protection, rather than their alleged victims... The recent audit by Baroness Casey of Blackstock into the grooming gangs scandal has revealed how a slew of officials culpably turned a blind eye to appalling child abuse and rape allegations for fear of appearing prejudiced. Such evidence of officials’ cowardice rightly draws public outcry"
Islamophobia row academic: I wore a disguise. Better ridiculous than dead - "As Steven Greer relates his long-running battle to shake himself free of false accusations of Islamophobia, he describes moments of absurdity. At one stage, this respected law professor, a quietly spoken grandfather of four, was so worried about his personal safety that he did not venture out to the corner shop in the leafy Bristol suburb where he lives without wearing a disguise. When a social media storm engulfed him, he grew a Taliban-style beard, wore empty spectacle frames and a hoodie and carried an umbrella and a screwdriver for protection. “I was mostly thinking, ‘This is ridiculous’. But it’s better to be ridiculous than dead,” he said. This week, free speech campaigners and academic groups asked the Office for Students (OfS), the higher education regulator in England, to examine what they believe are failures of governance and management at the University of Bristol, where Greer was a professor of law and had worked for 36 years... Bristol University is accused of failing to protect Greer, a respected expert on human rights law, from a potentially life-threatening social media campaign and of taking decisions that damaged his reputation and chilled lawful academic debate. Greer, 68, who was eventually exonerated, believes he had come to the attention of some students because he was a public defender of Prevent, the government’s strategy to stop individuals becoming terrorists, which he said was not racist or Islamophobic. In 2020, a complaint was made by the university’s Islamic Society (Brisoc) alleging that he had made Islamophobic comments. The student who formally submitted the complaint had not attended the module — Islam, China and the Far East — which Greer had been teaching for many years as part of a course he devised on human rights in law, politics and society. The Islamic society claimed to have reports of Greer making discriminatory remarks and insulting the Quran. He was accused of Islamophobia for referring, in a discussion on the traditional Islamic death penalty for blasphemy, to the Islamist attacks in Paris in 2015, in which journalists and cartoonists at the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine were murdered. “One thing that the students either didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand was that part of the purpose of a lecture is to flag up issues for discussion rather than to instruct or deliver a doctrine,” he says... in February 2021 Brisoc launched a social media campaign accusing Greer of bigotry and demanding an apology. A petition to have him sacked acquired 4,000 signatures. This was a breach of the confidentiality of the complaints process for which Greer believes the perpetrators should have been punished. “The university routinely disciplines students for cheating in assessments. But they wouldn’t discipline students who put the life of one of their staff at risk,” he said. How concerned was Greer for his own safety? “I was scared, but I come from Northern Ireland. I survived the Troubles.”... in October 2021 the MP Sir David Amess was killed by a terrorist who had apparently targeted him because he had voted for airstrikes on Syria years earlier. “So you never know when you’re in the clear,” said Greer as we talked in the living room of his home. The Brisoc’s allegations were “an attempt at character assassination [which] raised concerns that someone else might attempt a literal assassination”... In the summer of 2021 an assessor from another university department exonerated him... To his dismay, the module the society had complained about was taken off the syllabus. “I wanted to stand up in front of the students and say, ‘You may be aware that I was accused of Islamophobia because of what I’m about to tell you — and I was exonerated’.”... Some students sent unsolicited messages of support, but few colleagues showed solidarity. “One of the more disheartening aspects of the whole thing was that people I regarded as friends stayed completely silent.”... He immersed himself in writing a book, Falsely Accused of Islamophobia: My Struggle Against Academic Cancellation, and will publish another about Islamophobia and free speech later this year. He is research director at the Oxford Institute for British Islam, a think tank... He worries about British universities and what he describes in his book as the tendency of students and teachers to be “seduced into hunting non-existent witches”. All he did in his classes, he said, was refer students to the literature and invite them to make up their own minds. “Young people increasingly expect education to be about the delivery of information and the ‘correct’ point of view and not playing devil’s advocate or setting out a framework for debate.”"
Academic freedom is only to call for the death of Jews and the destruction of the West, not to say anything that might make "minorities" look bad (even if they did it themselves)
Government-backed Islamophobia group linked to foundation that slammed counter-extremism programme - "Supporters of a highly-controversial plan to set “appropriate limits to free speech” about Muslims have been given up to £2.6million by the Government to police and monitor “Islamophobia”. The British Muslim Trust has been awarded a £1million-a-year contract by ministers to “combat hate against Muslims”. The trust — which only launched its website today — replaces the group Tell Mama, which had done the job for the last 13 years but withdrew after what it called a “smear campaign” against it by Islamists and the far-right. The new group is co-run by the Aziz Foundation, which has said that the Government’s counter-extremism Prevent programme “actively harms Muslims”. The Aziz Foundation also funded and supported a report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims calling for a highly restrictive legal definition of “Islamophobia”. The Aziz-funded APPG report said an Islamophobia definition should set “appropriate limits to free speech” when talking about Muslims. It said that “free speech and a supposed right to criticise Islam results in nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism”. It specifically listed “the issue of 'grooming gangs',” which it placed in inverted commas, as a “real-life example” of Islamophobia and racism. The Aziz Foundation strongly supports the APPG Islamophobia definition, saying that with its “encouragement and engagement,” almost a dozen universities have adopted it... the Aziz Foundation has also funded the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM), which until this month was part of the Muslim Council of Britain, which has been boycotted by ministers for more than 15 years because of its hardline views. It has also funded the Islamophobia Response Unit, which is part of the Muslim Engagement and Development, which was being assessed for extremism by the last Government. The IRU was established by Mend, which ran it until 2021. It is now independent of the organisation. Last year, then-Levelling-Up Secretary Michael Gove said in the Commons that Mend had an “Islamist orientation and views” and that it was a “divisive force within Muslim communities”... Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of Tell Mama, told GB News: “We need to look very closely at who these foundations have previously funded and if they have been involved in the production of the 2018 Islamophobia definition. “We also need to be clear about the past histories of those involved in delivering a national service and how they can include servicing members of the Ahmadiyya, LGBTQ+ Muslims and Muslims who dissent from their opinions of Islam.” He added: “They also need to show us how they will serve those individuals and actively challenge discrimination within Muslim communities against other Muslims.”"
RadioGenoa on X - "Muslims with knives, clubs and brass knuckles looking for British patriots. For Keir Starmer problem in UK is Islamophobia."
Dan Burmawi on X - "Why Sadiq Khan can tweet about “Islamophobia” more than terrorism, and critics of Islam face more institutional backlash than actual jihadists? Because in countries like the UK, France, Belgium, and Germany, Muslim communities now make up significant voting blocs, especially in urban areas. Politicians, particularly on the Left, know that criticizing Islam, or even refusing to bow to its demands, could mean electoral suicide. In the UK, the Labour Party is heavily dependent on the Muslim vote. That’s why its leaders tiptoe around issues like grooming gangs, forced marriage, or sharia influence in schools."
Why are conservative subreddits so locked down? Are other political subreddits the same generally? : r/NoStupidQuestions - "You get banned from most subs on Reddit for saying anything remotely conservative. It’s kind of hilarious this thread is just comment after comment about conservatives needing an echo chamber when they have like one sub and practically all of Reddit is a liberal echo chamber lol"
Why are conservative subreddits so locked down? Are other political subreddits the same generally? : r/NoStupidQuestions - "Years ago I was banned from one of the Bernie subs because one of the mods misinterpreted my comment as being anti-Bernie. When I messaged the mods to appeal the ban I was muted for 2 weeks. When I was finally unmuted and could appeal my ban again I wasn't even given an apology, just "friendly fire happens, get over it". People acting like it's only the conservative subs are being willfully ignorant."
"I was banned from my favorite sub because someone posted an easily disprovable comment. Turns out he was a mod and didn't like being disproven. Ban happy mods suck imo"
"I used to care, I don't anymore. It's just some loser flexing the only power he has in his life. If banning me makes him feel powerful then he can have it. Don't forget the part-time dog walking philosopher, that's the type of person who moderates on this site."
Why are conservative subreddits so locked down? Are other political subreddits the same generally? : r/NoStupidQuestions - "I got banned from whitepeople twitter for saying the cops who shot Breonna Taylor were wearing Police vests. That was literally it- someone said they weren't wearing anything identifying them as cops and I said "They were wearing police vests" and linked to an article showing pictures of them from that night wearing police vests. Instant permaban for going against the narrative by literally just stating a fact with zero commentary. The ban message said I was "spreading terrorist apologia". I got banned from r/news for posting an NPR interview with Emmet Till's cousin who was with him the day he whistled at that woman that led to his murder. Someone said he didn't whistle at her and stuttered or something? And I linked to actually a few articles with Emmett's family members who were with him where they all confirmed, yeah he wolf whistled at her. I made it VERYYYYYYY clear in my comment that doesn't at all mean he deserved anything close to what happened to him- once again just clarified a fact that went against the narrative- again instant permaban. I got banned from r/politics for pointing out those pictures of "kids in cages" that made the rounds were taken during Obama's term in 2014, with a link to the original Arizona Republic (or something) article they'd been posted in. Again instant permaban for clarifying a fact. Again in none of these comments did I say ANYTHING remotely close to justifying what happened to Breonna Taylor/Emmett Till/unaccompanied minors crossing the border. I do not think any of those things were remotely close to justified. Literally just stated a fact with links to sources (and trustworthy sources, not like right-wing sites). Personally I'm nowhere close to right-wing, nowhere close to a Trump supporter, I just think sometimes the truth is bad enough that you don't have to lie about it? Like does it fundamentally change or justify anything that happened if we know the police who shot through the door at Breonna Taylor were wearing vests when they couldn't be seen through a door anyway? So why lie about that? But that simple fact was not allowed to be shared. Idk people think the "big" subs on reddit like r/news or r/politics aren't just as biased and moderated as more fringe subs but they really are. (And yes I'm banned on r/conservative too, lol.)"
"I got banned for correcting someone when they said Kyle Rittenhouse "went out and killed a bunch of black people". I simply said that everybody he shot was white. Ban."
"I got banned from r/gaming for saying maybe we shouldn't wildly label people as Nazis and then advocate for violence against them."
Why are conservative subreddits so locked down? Are other political subreddits the same generally? : r/NoStupidQuestions - "I was banned in other subreddits for just commenting in certain subreddits. Like I can’t go to r pics anymore and comment. It’s not just conservative sub Reddits at all. Worst part for me is I agree with democrats on something’s and republicans on others and disagree with both on some stuff. At least republican and libertarian subreddits still let me comment."
Why are conservative subreddits so locked down? Are other political subreddits the same generally? : r/NoStupidQuestions - "Just like anything Rask. “Older conservatives of Reddit why do believe this?”
“As a 18 socialist I can answer that they believe that because of all the leaded gasoline being used in the 60s and 70s.“"
Why are conservative subreddits so locked down? Are other political subreddits the same generally? : r/NoStupidQuestions - "Can confirm. Despite me being left and vehemently anti fascist, I am banned from more left wing subreddits than I am right wing ones. The infighting among leftist is absurd and is the biggest reason leftists get nothing done."
Why are conservative subreddits so locked down? Are other political subreddits the same generally? : r/NoStupidQuestions - "Playing devil's advocate, as a minority if they DON'T lock the sub down it would be overrun with people who just want to contradict the entire point of the sub which is not to be an echo chamber but to talk about Conservative opinions in politics. Every other post would be "why do conservatives think xyz" and every comment from an actual conservative person would be down voted into oblivion and within days it would be a subreddit for people to hate on conservatives. Like every subreddit that's NOT one of theirs does. For the record: I'm as liberal as they come. But I live in one of the reddest red states in the country and I therefore have no voice and no safe spaces, so I emphasize with conservatives on Reddit even though I strongly disagree with literally everything they believe politically."
"To add on to your point, there’s a sub that sometimes comes across my timeline that allows people to ask a conservative/liberal and consistently I would see someone ask conservatives a question and ALL the top initial comments were removed because they weren’t conservatives; they were liberals that spoke for conservatives. Which isn’t exactly the most helpful when you’re trying to hear and understand what the other side is saying. So, while I don’t necessarily agree with highly moderated content, there is enough sufficient evidence to prove that your devil’s advocate would be correct"
"Should see posts in asktrumpsupporters. It defaults to sort by controversial, and without that it would be difficult to navigate and see the real answers. Any trump supporter who does answer gets heavily downvoted."
