"The same rules don't apply to us " will sow division on steroids. This government and its appeasing agenda is dead in the water. Reform cannot come soon enough !
Further to my comment (below), of course, it's absolutely deliberate that "new law" is always convoluted, iterated, nuanced and utterly impossible to make instant sense of. That way, we are all forced to keep our mouths shut, for fear of brushing against a trip wire. Keir Starmer to Donald Tump: "We have a long tradition of free speech in this country..." Yeah. Right. Did have.
The type of Muslims that have come to the UK follow a more extreme Islam. Those ex Muslims keep their head down for obvious reasons. Muslim Countries like Tajikistan BANNED Sharia law and BANNED Hijabs!! Why has our Government allowed extreme Islam to take hold in the UK? Pandering to these people empowers them. They play the race card and victim to gain advantage and use our human rights laws against us. It is not going to end well unless this Country becomes hospitable to their religious beliefs. Banning Halal meat, processing, import and export should've been passed decades ago. Denmark banned Halal 10 years ago.
Detransitioners may have punctured the narrative but they only partially deflated it. Gender woowoo is still going on across institutions.
I hope you are right about apostates being a conscience in all this, but I am not optimistic. In fact, I think we kuffars and infidels are waking up, as it were, too late to resist what is coming. There is hardly a day when Islam or Muslims are not mentioned somewhere in the papers or other news outlets. If a Martian was asked to investigate what was the religion of GB the answer would probably be Islam.
The sense of entitlement (and ambition by clan leaders, immans and the Muslim Vote) is growing and a government privileging Muslims can only fuel a process already well advanced.
Those of us low on the totem pole can only manage small acts of resistance, but the cumulative effect, if enough of us refuse to be cowed, could become significant. Apostates who speak out, religious or otherwise dissenting from orthodoxies seemingly protected from scrutiny, deserve support.
I struggled to make sense of the government's definition of ‘anti‑Muslim hostility’, which you quoted. And I have a degree in philosophy and am a former daily newspaper journalist. Old law was simple: "Thou shalt not kill". (Anyone struggling to understand that?) But, new law is always convoluted, iterated, nuanced and utterly impossible to make instant sense of. Why can't the government simply order: "Don't be beastly to muslims."? I could get my head round that.
"Fifth and finally, there is a conceptual difficulty embedded in separating Islamism from Islam."
This is where liberal democracies really don't understand and/or don't want to face the logical reality of Islam. Sharia law is 'god's law' over and above anything any person, Muslim or infidel can 'understand' and should, therefore, never seek to question. And, over and above any man made system of government. Democracy is, ultimately, redundant in this belief system which contains this most political point at its core. So, how to separate this out? How much 'sharia law' do Muslims want / think they need? How much Sharia law is compatible with the values, laws and practices of a liberal democray? Do Muslims have to be, in effect, westernised to reconcile this? How acceptable, or not, is this? Where are the most serious tensions / conflicts? What should we do about them? Where does ultimate personal responsibility sit? Or, maybe we should actually listen to the apostates on this elemental point?
Good point. Apostasy is the absolute worst sin in Islam. None of the other sins even come close. If you drink alcohol and have wanton sex daily, you can still be forgiven, but if you deny the faith, your soul is lost for eternity. That’s why there are so few.
I’m glad they’ve dropped the word Islamophobia. Normally we extend empathy towards people with phobias and offer treatment or counselling not arrest and charge them.
This definition does appear to protect our rights to freedom of expression
“Examples of expression that are protected include:
criticisms of a religion or belief, including Islam, or of its practices, or critical analyses of its historical development
ridiculing or insulting a religion or belief, including Islam, or portraying it in a manner that some of its adherents might find disrespectful or scandalous
criticism of the belief systems or practices of individual adherents of a religion or belief, including Islam
raising concerns in the public interest
contributing to debates in the public interest, including academic and political debate.”
I'm not dropping the word Islamophobia helps. I think it was a sleight of hand and makes the difference between lawful criticism and anti-muslim hostility even harder.
Ex-Muslims get very little attention from the mainstream media because they often try to warn the west of the negative consequences of mass Islamic immigration. They are largely ignored for not parroting the diversity is our strength myth.
As you said, detransitioners played a critical role in debunking the awful transgender ideology, but we don't seem to give enough weight to the crucial testimony of people who have left Islam, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or maybe the problem is that the historical/philosophical approach of thinkers like Raymond Ibrahim, Sam Harris & Douglas Murray mainly approach Islamism from observing its historical ill effects. The two approaches in my view need to be much better integrated.
You said, "Their [detransitioners'] existence made it impossible to maintain the claim that transition was always compassionate and benign". Nicely put and the same point could be applied to Islamism: "The existence of ex-Muslims makes it impossible to claim that Islam is always compassionate and benign."
Wonderful , forensic analysis Laura.
"The same rules don't apply to us " will sow division on steroids. This government and its appeasing agenda is dead in the water. Reform cannot come soon enough !
Thank you Alan.
Further to my comment (below), of course, it's absolutely deliberate that "new law" is always convoluted, iterated, nuanced and utterly impossible to make instant sense of. That way, we are all forced to keep our mouths shut, for fear of brushing against a trip wire. Keir Starmer to Donald Tump: "We have a long tradition of free speech in this country..." Yeah. Right. Did have.
The type of Muslims that have come to the UK follow a more extreme Islam. Those ex Muslims keep their head down for obvious reasons. Muslim Countries like Tajikistan BANNED Sharia law and BANNED Hijabs!! Why has our Government allowed extreme Islam to take hold in the UK? Pandering to these people empowers them. They play the race card and victim to gain advantage and use our human rights laws against us. It is not going to end well unless this Country becomes hospitable to their religious beliefs. Banning Halal meat, processing, import and export should've been passed decades ago. Denmark banned Halal 10 years ago.
I mean Inhospitable.
So where is the definition of anti-Jewish hostility? Yes, I thought not 😡
To be fair, the UK government has adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism already.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism#
Detransitioners may have punctured the narrative but they only partially deflated it. Gender woowoo is still going on across institutions.
I hope you are right about apostates being a conscience in all this, but I am not optimistic. In fact, I think we kuffars and infidels are waking up, as it were, too late to resist what is coming. There is hardly a day when Islam or Muslims are not mentioned somewhere in the papers or other news outlets. If a Martian was asked to investigate what was the religion of GB the answer would probably be Islam.
The sense of entitlement (and ambition by clan leaders, immans and the Muslim Vote) is growing and a government privileging Muslims can only fuel a process already well advanced.
You are right, the detransitioners have not and could not fought the entire battle alone, but their existence and persistent voices have done much.
Those of us low on the totem pole can only manage small acts of resistance, but the cumulative effect, if enough of us refuse to be cowed, could become significant. Apostates who speak out, religious or otherwise dissenting from orthodoxies seemingly protected from scrutiny, deserve support.
I struggled to make sense of the government's definition of ‘anti‑Muslim hostility’, which you quoted. And I have a degree in philosophy and am a former daily newspaper journalist. Old law was simple: "Thou shalt not kill". (Anyone struggling to understand that?) But, new law is always convoluted, iterated, nuanced and utterly impossible to make instant sense of. Why can't the government simply order: "Don't be beastly to muslims."? I could get my head round that.
"Fifth and finally, there is a conceptual difficulty embedded in separating Islamism from Islam."
This is where liberal democracies really don't understand and/or don't want to face the logical reality of Islam. Sharia law is 'god's law' over and above anything any person, Muslim or infidel can 'understand' and should, therefore, never seek to question. And, over and above any man made system of government. Democracy is, ultimately, redundant in this belief system which contains this most political point at its core. So, how to separate this out? How much 'sharia law' do Muslims want / think they need? How much Sharia law is compatible with the values, laws and practices of a liberal democray? Do Muslims have to be, in effect, westernised to reconcile this? How acceptable, or not, is this? Where are the most serious tensions / conflicts? What should we do about them? Where does ultimate personal responsibility sit? Or, maybe we should actually listen to the apostates on this elemental point?
Some have argued that Islamists are taking the Quran to its fullest conclusion. For example, read 'Son of Hamas'.
I fear there just aren't enough of them though ...
Good point. Apostasy is the absolute worst sin in Islam. None of the other sins even come close. If you drink alcohol and have wanton sex daily, you can still be forgiven, but if you deny the faith, your soul is lost for eternity. That’s why there are so few.
Very well put...such impeccable logic..!
Is it even a 'religion'? Maybe time to redefine what that means.
Etymologically, "religion" is related to LIGature... that which binds.
Ergo, anyone who says "I'm not reLIGious" is talking BS.
Everyone has BINDING beliefs, presuppositions, commitments that are reLIGious. Even Ed Miliband. Er... wait... ESPECIALLY Ed Numtiband.
I’m glad they’ve dropped the word Islamophobia. Normally we extend empathy towards people with phobias and offer treatment or counselling not arrest and charge them.
This definition does appear to protect our rights to freedom of expression
“Examples of expression that are protected include:
criticisms of a religion or belief, including Islam, or of its practices, or critical analyses of its historical development
ridiculing or insulting a religion or belief, including Islam, or portraying it in a manner that some of its adherents might find disrespectful or scandalous
criticism of the belief systems or practices of individual adherents of a religion or belief, including Islam
raising concerns in the public interest
contributing to debates in the public interest, including academic and political debate.”
I'm not dropping the word Islamophobia helps. I think it was a sleight of hand and makes the difference between lawful criticism and anti-muslim hostility even harder.
Ex-Muslims get very little attention from the mainstream media because they often try to warn the west of the negative consequences of mass Islamic immigration. They are largely ignored for not parroting the diversity is our strength myth.
As you said, detransitioners played a critical role in debunking the awful transgender ideology, but we don't seem to give enough weight to the crucial testimony of people who have left Islam, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or maybe the problem is that the historical/philosophical approach of thinkers like Raymond Ibrahim, Sam Harris & Douglas Murray mainly approach Islamism from observing its historical ill effects. The two approaches in my view need to be much better integrated.
You said, "Their [detransitioners'] existence made it impossible to maintain the claim that transition was always compassionate and benign". Nicely put and the same point could be applied to Islamism: "The existence of ex-Muslims makes it impossible to claim that Islam is always compassionate and benign."
This is unfortunate... and it’s actually what I’m dealing with.
This is a brand-new installment, just published!
https://indepnews.org/en/why-canada-cannot-handle-dissent/
https://indepnews.org/en/new-years-speech-even-the-pope-is-saying-it/