Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Safeguarding protocols — designed to protect children from genuine harm — are being weaponised to silence lawful views that authorities simply disagree with. Connie Shaw cites a recent case in which a teacher was sacked for stating that Britain is a Christian and admonishing pupils for washing their feet...

SpeechUnion's profile picture

The Free Speech Union

204,641 subscribers

22,048 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

'People are trying to weaponise safeguarding authorities, meant to protect children from physical harm and abuse, from people whose opinions which are completely lawful'. Connie Shaw details the legal battle a teacher found himself in for telling a pupil Britain is Christian.
6:27

'People are trying to weaponise safeguarding authorities, meant to protect children from physical harm and abuse, from people whose opinions which are completely lawful'. Connie Shaw details the legal battle a teacher found himself in for telling a pupil Britain is Christian.

GB News

13,102 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Henley College reported a teacher to its Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), which recommended he be referred to the government’s counter-terrorism programme after he showed videos of President Trump to his A-level politics class. The LADO report claimed the teacher should be referred to Prevent as a “priority”, arguing his teaching could be perceived as “radical” and had caused “emotional harm” to students. Donald Trump is the democratically elected President of the United States — the UK’s closest ally — and the leader of one of America’s two mainstream political parties. There is nothing radical about teaching this. It should also be noted that the teacher also showed videos of President Trump’s former rival, Kamala Harris. Unsurprisingly, that attracted no complaints. This is one of a growing number of cases where local authorities have weaponised safeguarding protocols — designed to protect children from genuine harm — to silence views they disagree with. Watch Connie Shaw on GB News 👇
3:12

Henley College reported a teacher to its Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), which recommended he be referred to the government’s counter-terrorism programme after he showed videos of President Trump to his A-level politics class. The LADO report claimed the teacher should be referred to Prevent as a “priority”, arguing his teaching could be perceived as “radical” and had caused “emotional harm” to students. Donald Trump is the democratically elected President of the United States — the UK’s closest ally — and the leader of one of America’s two mainstream political parties. There is nothing radical about teaching this. It should also be noted that the teacher also showed videos of President Trump’s former rival, Kamala Harris. Unsurprisingly, that attracted no complaints. This is one of a growing number of cases where local authorities have weaponised safeguarding protocols — designed to protect children from genuine harm — to silence views they disagree with. Watch Connie Shaw on GB News 👇

The Free Speech Union

49,332 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

“The public have been kept in the dark.” All five members of the government’s Working Group tasked with drafting an official definition of Islamophobia have links to Islamist organisations — including the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), both of which successive governments have maintained a policy of non-engagement with. Our new Director of Policy and Research has exposed these troubling connections in a new investigative briefing. If the government presses ahead with this proposed definition — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — it will chill free speech and silence legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw on GB News below 👇
2:01

“The public have been kept in the dark.” All five members of the government’s Working Group tasked with drafting an official definition of Islamophobia have links to Islamist organisations — including the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), both of which successive governments have maintained a policy of non-engagement with. Our new Director of Policy and Research has exposed these troubling connections in a new investigative briefing. If the government presses ahead with this proposed definition — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — it will chill free speech and silence legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw on GB News below 👇

The Free Speech Union

61,360 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

“Hopefully after jury trials become the 14th U-turn, the Islamophobia definition will become the 15th”. The government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech. The decision to include racialisation and prejudicial stereotyping as a form of anti-Muslim hate is dangerous because it conflates Islam with race. Important conversations about Islam and its practices will be silenced. People will be deterred from legitimately questioning and challenging Islam for fear of being labelled as “Islamophobic”. Even without this de facto Muslim blasphemy law, we already have a culturally functioning definition of Islamophobia. A recent example includes the Conservative MP Rebecca Paul’s important report into the abuse Muslim women face within their own community being buried by the Women and Equalities Select Committee — despite the fact that it took evidence from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which the government has a policy of non-engagement with due to its links to extremism. An official definition will make matters far worse. It will also negatively impact those who decide to leave the religion of Islam. This includes FSU member Dheyaa, who fled Iraq, converted to Christianity, and burned a copy of the Quran in protest. He was then arrested and told he had committed a hate crime. Watch Connie Shaw on Talk 👇
3:33

“Hopefully after jury trials become the 14th U-turn, the Islamophobia definition will become the 15th”. The government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech. The decision to include racialisation and prejudicial stereotyping as a form of anti-Muslim hate is dangerous because it conflates Islam with race. Important conversations about Islam and its practices will be silenced. People will be deterred from legitimately questioning and challenging Islam for fear of being labelled as “Islamophobic”. Even without this de facto Muslim blasphemy law, we already have a culturally functioning definition of Islamophobia. A recent example includes the Conservative MP Rebecca Paul’s important report into the abuse Muslim women face within their own community being buried by the Women and Equalities Select Committee — despite the fact that it took evidence from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which the government has a policy of non-engagement with due to its links to extremism. An official definition will make matters far worse. It will also negatively impact those who decide to leave the religion of Islam. This includes FSU member Dheyaa, who fled Iraq, converted to Christianity, and burned a copy of the Quran in protest. He was then arrested and told he had committed a hate crime. Watch Connie Shaw on Talk 👇

The Free Speech Union

38,618 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

The official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will be used to suppress legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. We are already seeing this play out. Less than a week after the Communities Secretary, Steve Reed, published the definition — assuring the public it would not stifle legitimate criticism of Islam — Nick Timothy is facing calls to resign after criticising mass ritual prayer by Muslims in Trafalgar Square. He has been accused of “anti-Muslim hostility” by a Labour MP and reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. This is a Muslim blasphemy law by the back door. Today, the Free Speech Union has sent a pre-action letter to Steve Reed, threatening judicial review if the definition and guidance are not withdrawn immediately. This is one of the biggest fights we’ve taken on in our six-year history. Help us stop the Government’s de facto Muslim blasphemy law 👇
1:11

The official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will be used to suppress legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. We are already seeing this play out. Less than a week after the Communities Secretary, Steve Reed, published the definition — assuring the public it would not stifle legitimate criticism of Islam — Nick Timothy is facing calls to resign after criticising mass ritual prayer by Muslims in Trafalgar Square. He has been accused of “anti-Muslim hostility” by a Labour MP and reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. This is a Muslim blasphemy law by the back door. Today, the Free Speech Union has sent a pre-action letter to Steve Reed, threatening judicial review if the definition and guidance are not withdrawn immediately. This is one of the biggest fights we’ve taken on in our six-year history. Help us stop the Government’s de facto Muslim blasphemy law 👇

The Free Speech Union

215,152 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

🚨 WHO IS DRAFTING THE ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ DEFINITION? The Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech. It risks silencing legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices, and deterring people from speaking out about issues such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. So who was tasked with drafting Britain’s new Muslim blasphemy law? In a new report, the FSU’s Director of Research and Policy David Rose reveals that all five members of the Working Group responsible for drafting the definition have links to Islamist organisations. Watch the full podcast episode in the comments 👇
0:50

🚨 WHO IS DRAFTING THE ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ DEFINITION? The Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech. It risks silencing legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices, and deterring people from speaking out about issues such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. So who was tasked with drafting Britain’s new Muslim blasphemy law? In a new report, the FSU’s Director of Research and Policy David Rose reveals that all five members of the Working Group responsible for drafting the definition have links to Islamist organisations. Watch the full podcast episode in the comments 👇

The Free Speech Union

36,578 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

An official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech and inflame already fragile community tensions. If the government presses ahead, it risks reintroducing Britain’s blasphemy laws and effectively banning criticism of Islam and its practices. It would also silence discussion of vital issues, including the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. In a free society, no religion should be afforded greater protection than others or shielded from criticism. We have already seen cases — such as in the West Midlands — where police have capitulated to Islamist extremists. Public services must not be deterred from doing their jobs — especially those responsible for keeping us safe — for fear of being labelled “Islamophobic”. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson explain the dangers of an official definition of Islamophobia 👇
1:27

An official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will have a chilling effect on free speech and inflame already fragile community tensions. If the government presses ahead, it risks reintroducing Britain’s blasphemy laws and effectively banning criticism of Islam and its practices. It would also silence discussion of vital issues, including the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. In a free society, no religion should be afforded greater protection than others or shielded from criticism. We have already seen cases — such as in the West Midlands — where police have capitulated to Islamist extremists. Public services must not be deterred from doing their jobs — especially those responsible for keeping us safe — for fear of being labelled “Islamophobic”. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson explain the dangers of an official definition of Islamophobia 👇

The Free Speech Union

48,216 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

📣🚨The Free Speech Union is mounting a legal challenge against the Government over its official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as 'anti-Muslim hatred' — and its appointment of a new 'tsar' to punish people who fall foul of it. This amounts to a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door. The definition is vague and subjective, and will be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism and debate about Islam, Muslims, and Islamic practices and history. The FSU’s General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, said: “This is the most serious threat to free speech the Government has come up with so far — the only area in which it’s achieving any success. “If we don’t win this fight, tens of thousands of people a year could lose their jobs at the say-so of a Labour-appointed ‘tsar’. It’s dystopian.” Public bodies will adopt this definition — despite it being non-statutory — with the same zeal the police have shown in investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). It is predicted by one of the drafters of the definition that it could lead to around 20,000 reports of 'anti-Muslim hostility' a year. At present, the number of recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes is around 4,000. In a free society, no religion should be shielded from legitimate criticism. This proposal places one faith above the rest. The Free Speech Union is bringing a legal challenge on two grounds. First, the definition relies on nebulous, legally undefined terms such as “negative and prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims”, making it incoherent and irrational — and ripe for weaponisation. Second, adopting such a definition cuts across legislation already enacted by Parliament and therefore breaches the public law principle known as “occupying the field”. Under this established public law doctrine, new regulations, put in place by ministers, must not replace existing legislation. It is constitutionally unlawful. In this case, the body responsible for protecting Muslims from discrimination is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not an anti-Muslim hostility 'tsar'. Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws 18 years ago. We can't let this Government resurrect them via the back door. This is one of the biggest battles the Free Speech Union has ever taken on in its six years — and we need your help. Judicial reviews are expensive, but this is a fight we felt we had to take on. Donate to our crowdfunder below👇
1:15

📣🚨The Free Speech Union is mounting a legal challenge against the Government over its official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as 'anti-Muslim hatred' — and its appointment of a new 'tsar' to punish people who fall foul of it. This amounts to a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door. The definition is vague and subjective, and will be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism and debate about Islam, Muslims, and Islamic practices and history. The FSU’s General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, said: “This is the most serious threat to free speech the Government has come up with so far — the only area in which it’s achieving any success. “If we don’t win this fight, tens of thousands of people a year could lose their jobs at the say-so of a Labour-appointed ‘tsar’. It’s dystopian.” Public bodies will adopt this definition — despite it being non-statutory — with the same zeal the police have shown in investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). It is predicted by one of the drafters of the definition that it could lead to around 20,000 reports of 'anti-Muslim hostility' a year. At present, the number of recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes is around 4,000. In a free society, no religion should be shielded from legitimate criticism. This proposal places one faith above the rest. The Free Speech Union is bringing a legal challenge on two grounds. First, the definition relies on nebulous, legally undefined terms such as “negative and prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims”, making it incoherent and irrational — and ripe for weaponisation. Second, adopting such a definition cuts across legislation already enacted by Parliament and therefore breaches the public law principle known as “occupying the field”. Under this established public law doctrine, new regulations, put in place by ministers, must not replace existing legislation. It is constitutionally unlawful. In this case, the body responsible for protecting Muslims from discrimination is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not an anti-Muslim hostility 'tsar'. Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws 18 years ago. We can't let this Government resurrect them via the back door. This is one of the biggest battles the Free Speech Union has ever taken on in its six years — and we need your help. Judicial reviews are expensive, but this is a fight we felt we had to take on. Donate to our crowdfunder below👇

The Free Speech Union

352,545 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

People with conservative views are being SILENCED. Ex-Royal Marine Jamie Michael has been barred from coaching his daughter’s football team because of his “right-wing” views. The safeguarding board of his local Labour-run council deemed him unsuitable to work with children — despite him being acquitted of stirring up racial hatred in just 17 minutes over a Facebook video on illegal immigration. Now the Football Association of Wales has banned him from coaching, and even warned that if he wants to watch from the sidelines, he’ll be “monitored”. This is not an isolated case. We’ve identified more than a dozen instances where safeguarding protocols — designed to protect children from predators — are being manipulated to silence people authorities disagree with. We supported Jamie before, and we’re standing with him again. We’ve launched a crowdfunder to fight his case and would be grateful for any support you can give. Donate:
1:15

People with conservative views are being SILENCED. Ex-Royal Marine Jamie Michael has been barred from coaching his daughter’s football team because of his “right-wing” views. The safeguarding board of his local Labour-run council deemed him unsuitable to work with children — despite him being acquitted of stirring up racial hatred in just 17 minutes over a Facebook video on illegal immigration. Now the Football Association of Wales has banned him from coaching, and even warned that if he wants to watch from the sidelines, he’ll be “monitored”. This is not an isolated case. We’ve identified more than a dozen instances where safeguarding protocols — designed to protect children from predators — are being manipulated to silence people authorities disagree with. We supported Jamie before, and we’re standing with him again. We’ve launched a crowdfunder to fight his case and would be grateful for any support you can give. Donate:

The Free Speech Union

68,862 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Who has been tasked with drafting the Government’s new Islamophobia definition? All five members of its Working Group have links to Islamist organisations — including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) — both subject to successive governments’ policies of non-engagement due to their extreme views. Some have even supported shutting down debate on issues such as the grooming gangs. In a new investigative briefing, our Director of Policy & Research, David Rose, exposes these troubling connections. If ministers press ahead with this rebranded and ever-expanding definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”, it risks chilling free speech and silencing legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. Watch David Rose on GB News 👇
4:23

Who has been tasked with drafting the Government’s new Islamophobia definition? All five members of its Working Group have links to Islamist organisations — including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) — both subject to successive governments’ policies of non-engagement due to their extreme views. Some have even supported shutting down debate on issues such as the grooming gangs. In a new investigative briefing, our Director of Policy & Research, David Rose, exposes these troubling connections. If ministers press ahead with this rebranded and ever-expanding definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”, it risks chilling free speech and silencing legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. Watch David Rose on GB News 👇

The Free Speech Union

14,825 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNION CHALLENGES GOVERNMENT “ISLAMOPHOBIA” DEFINITION A major legal battle over free speech is now unfolding in Britain. The Free Speech Union has announced it is launching a judicial review against the government’s adoption of a new official definition of “Islamophobia” (described by ministers as anti-Muslim hostility). Critics argue the policy risks creating a blasphemy law through the back door, something Parliament abolished in England and Wales nearly two decades ago. According to the Free Speech Union, the government’s plan to adopt the definition — and appoint an official “czar” to enforce it — could seriously restrict lawful debate, criticism, and public discussion. They say legal advice suggests the move may be unlawful, and have formally placed the government on notice that they intend to challenge the decision in court. The organisation is now asking supporters to help fund the case, warning that judicial reviews against government policy are extremely expensive but crucial for protecting civil liberties. The core question now being raised is simple: Has the government created a new form of blasphemy protection for one religion, or is this a necessary step to combat discrimination? The courts may soon decide. The Free Speech Union
1:15

🚨 FREE SPEECH UNION CHALLENGES GOVERNMENT “ISLAMOPHOBIA” DEFINITION A major legal battle over free speech is now unfolding in Britain. The Free Speech Union has announced it is launching a judicial review against the government’s adoption of a new official definition of “Islamophobia” (described by ministers as anti-Muslim hostility). Critics argue the policy risks creating a blasphemy law through the back door, something Parliament abolished in England and Wales nearly two decades ago. According to the Free Speech Union, the government’s plan to adopt the definition — and appoint an official “czar” to enforce it — could seriously restrict lawful debate, criticism, and public discussion. They say legal advice suggests the move may be unlawful, and have formally placed the government on notice that they intend to challenge the decision in court. The organisation is now asking supporters to help fund the case, warning that judicial reviews against government policy are extremely expensive but crucial for protecting civil liberties. The core question now being raised is simple: Has the government created a new form of blasphemy protection for one religion, or is this a necessary step to combat discrimination? The courts may soon decide. The Free Speech Union

Jim Ferguson

13,650 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

The Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — was published in March. The Free Speech Union warned from the outset that it would have a chilling effect on free speech and stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. The decision to classify prejudicial stereotyping as a form of “anti-Muslim hostility” will also deter people — including public officials — from speaking out about the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. We also predicted that, despite being a non-statutory definition, it would serve as a gold-embossed invitation for public bodies to produce guidance that goes even further. South Wales Police are now zealously enforcing their own bespoke Islamic blasphemy law, instructing officers to record any conversation that goes beyond what they deem “legitimate” discussion of Islam. Why should police officers be given the power to decide what constitutes acceptable speech about a religion and its followers in a country where blasphemy laws were abolished in 2008? These incidents will be logged as “anti-social behaviour incidents” — the successor to the draconian non-crime hate incident regime. They could appear on an enhanced DBS check and potentially prevent someone from getting a job. The Free Speech Union has written to South Wales Police demanding that this guidance be withdrawn. If they refuse, we have warned that we will seek judicial review. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw on Talk 👇
1:45

The Government’s official definition of Islamophobia — repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — was published in March. The Free Speech Union warned from the outset that it would have a chilling effect on free speech and stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. The decision to classify prejudicial stereotyping as a form of “anti-Muslim hostility” will also deter people — including public officials — from speaking out about the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. We also predicted that, despite being a non-statutory definition, it would serve as a gold-embossed invitation for public bodies to produce guidance that goes even further. South Wales Police are now zealously enforcing their own bespoke Islamic blasphemy law, instructing officers to record any conversation that goes beyond what they deem “legitimate” discussion of Islam. Why should police officers be given the power to decide what constitutes acceptable speech about a religion and its followers in a country where blasphemy laws were abolished in 2008? These incidents will be logged as “anti-social behaviour incidents” — the successor to the draconian non-crime hate incident regime. They could appear on an enhanced DBS check and potentially prevent someone from getting a job. The Free Speech Union has written to South Wales Police demanding that this guidance be withdrawn. If they refuse, we have warned that we will seek judicial review. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw on Talk 👇

The Free Speech Union

15,298 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Ben Jones says the PM was right to describe the UK as “an island of strangers”. The FSU’s Director of Case Management appeared on GB News to discuss his new book, Island of Strangers: Diversity, Decline and Free Speech in Crisis. The book examines how mass migration is reshaping Britain, and how an increasingly authoritarian state is attempting to manage the resulting hyper-diversity by suppressing free speech. Many have shied away from admitting that Britain is being transformed. Ben’s work over the past five years at the Free Speech Union led him to confront a difficult question: are Islam and free speech compatible? Although Parliament abolished blasphemy laws 18 years ago, the Government has effectively revived them — but only for Islam — through its official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”, which is already being used to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. Just a few months ago, reports emerged that guidance issued to some schools in the north of England told teachers that children should not draw pictures of Jesus Christ because it could be considered blasphemous, as he is also a prophet in Islam. Watch Benjamin Jones on Free Speech Nation 👇
8:22

Ben Jones says the PM was right to describe the UK as “an island of strangers”. The FSU’s Director of Case Management appeared on GB News to discuss his new book, Island of Strangers: Diversity, Decline and Free Speech in Crisis. The book examines how mass migration is reshaping Britain, and how an increasingly authoritarian state is attempting to manage the resulting hyper-diversity by suppressing free speech. Many have shied away from admitting that Britain is being transformed. Ben’s work over the past five years at the Free Speech Union led him to confront a difficult question: are Islam and free speech compatible? Although Parliament abolished blasphemy laws 18 years ago, the Government has effectively revived them — but only for Islam — through its official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”, which is already being used to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. Just a few months ago, reports emerged that guidance issued to some schools in the north of England told teachers that children should not draw pictures of Jesus Christ because it could be considered blasphemous, as he is also a prophet in Islam. Watch Benjamin Jones on Free Speech Nation 👇

The Free Speech Union

21,115 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

🚨👀 NEW FSU PODCAST OUT NOW “This is all part of a game plan and a playbook.” On this week’s episode, Connie Shaw is joined by former Prime Minister Liz Truss. In this wide-ranging interview, they discuss the fallout from remarks by the Shadow Justice Secretary criticising mass Muslim prayer in Trafalgar Square. It’s been two weeks since the Government announced the official definition of Islamophobia which is already being weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. Watch Liz Truss below 👇 Full episode available on our YouTube channel.
1:21

🚨👀 NEW FSU PODCAST OUT NOW “This is all part of a game plan and a playbook.” On this week’s episode, Connie Shaw is joined by former Prime Minister Liz Truss. In this wide-ranging interview, they discuss the fallout from remarks by the Shadow Justice Secretary criticising mass Muslim prayer in Trafalgar Square. It’s been two weeks since the Government announced the official definition of Islamophobia which is already being weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. Watch Liz Truss below 👇 Full episode available on our YouTube channel.

The Free Speech Union

13,205 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

The Holocaust was a genocide based on Jewish blood, not belief. Even Jews who were secular or converted to Christianity were murdered under antisemitic regimes like Nazi Germany. Antisemitism has always treated Jews as a race, even when Jews did not define themselves that way. Antisemitism laws were created not to shield Judaism from theological criticism, but to prevent racial hate, incitement, and genocide. Islamophobia includes criticism of Islamic doctrines, political Islam, Sharia law, and jihad. Labeling this criticism as “racism” is a way to conflate legitimate scrutiny of ideas with hate. This approach erases the difference between attacking Muslims as people (which is wrong) and critiquing Islam as a political ideology (which must remain free and open). Antisemitism laws protect people, not theology. No one is being arrested for criticizing the Torah or disagreeing with Jewish views. The move to racialize Islam and pass “Islamophobia” laws isn’t about protecting people from harm, it’s about protecting an ideology from examination. That’s dangerous. It allows Islam to advance unchecked, shields oppressive ideas from being challenged, and weaponizes tolerance against open societies. It cheapens real anti-racism efforts, by making criticism of a powerful, global religion into a hate crime.
1:42

The Holocaust was a genocide based on Jewish blood, not belief. Even Jews who were secular or converted to Christianity were murdered under antisemitic regimes like Nazi Germany. Antisemitism has always treated Jews as a race, even when Jews did not define themselves that way. Antisemitism laws were created not to shield Judaism from theological criticism, but to prevent racial hate, incitement, and genocide. Islamophobia includes criticism of Islamic doctrines, political Islam, Sharia law, and jihad. Labeling this criticism as “racism” is a way to conflate legitimate scrutiny of ideas with hate. This approach erases the difference between attacking Muslims as people (which is wrong) and critiquing Islam as a political ideology (which must remain free and open). Antisemitism laws protect people, not theology. No one is being arrested for criticizing the Torah or disagreeing with Jewish views. The move to racialize Islam and pass “Islamophobia” laws isn’t about protecting people from harm, it’s about protecting an ideology from examination. That’s dangerous. It allows Islam to advance unchecked, shields oppressive ideas from being challenged, and weaponizes tolerance against open societies. It cheapens real anti-racism efforts, by making criticism of a powerful, global religion into a hate crime.

Dan Burmawi

30,883 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

The Free Speech Union has long warned that the official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — would be used to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. Within weeks, Labour MPs had reported Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, branded him an “Islamophobe”, and called on the Prime Minister to remove him from his post. Last week, 27 Labour MPs reported Reform UK to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), accusing the party of Islamophobia and urging the Commission to investigate. Led by Afzal Khan, a leading campaigner for an official Islamophobia definition, the MPs cited Nigel Farage’s criticism of the mass Muslim prayer event in Trafalgar Square, alongside comments made by Lee Anderson and Sarah Pochin. This definition is already being weaponised to silence those who criticise Islam. It amounts to an Islamic blasphemy law by the back door. Hear from FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson 👇
1:06

The Free Speech Union has long warned that the official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — would be used to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. Within weeks, Labour MPs had reported Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, branded him an “Islamophobe”, and called on the Prime Minister to remove him from his post. Last week, 27 Labour MPs reported Reform UK to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), accusing the party of Islamophobia and urging the Commission to investigate. Led by Afzal Khan, a leading campaigner for an official Islamophobia definition, the MPs cited Nigel Farage’s criticism of the mass Muslim prayer event in Trafalgar Square, alongside comments made by Lee Anderson and Sarah Pochin. This definition is already being weaponised to silence those who criticise Islam. It amounts to an Islamic blasphemy law by the back door. Hear from FSU Campaigns Officer Max Thompson 👇

The Free Speech Union

37,498 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Muslims in Britain are crying “Islamophobia” after an ex-Muslim appeared on British television and openly criticized Islam. The former Muslim stated that Islam is not compatible with Western values and warned that this is a serious problem that must be addressed in the coming years. This has become a predictable pattern, any criticism of Islam, even from someone who grew up as a Muslim, is immediately dismissed as hatred rather than being honestly discussed. What do you think?
2:58

Muslims in Britain are crying “Islamophobia” after an ex-Muslim appeared on British television and openly criticized Islam. The former Muslim stated that Islam is not compatible with Western values and warned that this is a serious problem that must be addressed in the coming years. This has become a predictable pattern, any criticism of Islam, even from someone who grew up as a Muslim, is immediately dismissed as hatred rather than being honestly discussed. What do you think?

Yossi BenYakar

266,721 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The UK liberal government under Keir Starmer announces a new official definition of “Islamophobia” “Today we are publishing our definition of anti-Muslim hatred and hostility, and this is in response to what we have heard loud and clear from the Muslim community” “The definition must sit alongside action in order to make sure that we are protecting people in this country, and that we're also tackling those that want to sow hate and those that want to intimidate . That's why we will be appointing an anti-Muslim hostility czar to work alongside government to make sure that we are rolling this out in institution after institution” The UK is an Islamic State
0:55

The UK liberal government under Keir Starmer announces a new official definition of “Islamophobia” “Today we are publishing our definition of anti-Muslim hatred and hostility, and this is in response to what we have heard loud and clear from the Muslim community” “The definition must sit alongside action in order to make sure that we are protecting people in this country, and that we're also tackling those that want to sow hate and those that want to intimidate . That's why we will be appointing an anti-Muslim hostility czar to work alongside government to make sure that we are rolling this out in institution after institution” The UK is an Islamic State

Wall Street Apes

55,890 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

“If you are a school teacher and you are teaching the history of the Muslim conquests, are you going to take the risk of saying that Islam was imposed by the sword? Islam was responsible for massacres that took place across what became the Muslim world? You’re going to be very careful.” An official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will stifle legitimate criticism of Islam, including its history and practices. Though non-statutory, it will be adopted zealously by public bodies, including schools and universities. It will deter honest, open and frank discussion, and risk obscuring the realities of historical events. Watch David Rose on our latest podcast episode 👇
1:02

“If you are a school teacher and you are teaching the history of the Muslim conquests, are you going to take the risk of saying that Islam was imposed by the sword? Islam was responsible for massacres that took place across what became the Muslim world? You’re going to be very careful.” An official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will stifle legitimate criticism of Islam, including its history and practices. Though non-statutory, it will be adopted zealously by public bodies, including schools and universities. It will deter honest, open and frank discussion, and risk obscuring the realities of historical events. Watch David Rose on our latest podcast episode 👇

The Free Speech Union

88,378 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

In 2006, polling showed that 68% of Muslims in Britain think it should be a criminal offence to insult Islam. So far, Britain has chosen a path of appeasement and capitulation to Islamic blasphemy laws. Since Starmer came to power, cases received by the Free Speech Union of people being penalised for criticising Islam or Muslim cultural practices have increased by a multiple of 4. This was before the 'anti Muslim hostility definition' was introduced by Labour. All 5 members, hand picked by Labour, of the working group that came up with the definition have links to Islamist organisations.
2:47

In 2006, polling showed that 68% of Muslims in Britain think it should be a criminal offence to insult Islam. So far, Britain has chosen a path of appeasement and capitulation to Islamic blasphemy laws. Since Starmer came to power, cases received by the Free Speech Union of people being penalised for criticising Islam or Muslim cultural practices have increased by a multiple of 4. This was before the 'anti Muslim hostility definition' was introduced by Labour. All 5 members, hand picked by Labour, of the working group that came up with the definition have links to Islamist organisations.

Connie Shaw

84,518 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад