Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

“This is a battle for control over normative Islam.” There are individuals within parts of the Muslim community who hold extremist views about faith and power and are seeking to impose their worldview on the rest of society and our institutions. Islamists are attempting to dominate public discourse, squeezing...

21,116 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

1. Islamophobia is not racist. Christianity isn't a race, and neither is Islam 2. "Islamophobia" is an insidious term created to advance an Islamist agenda 3. Under Labour's new "blasphemy law", criticising child marriage or polygamy could be deemed Islamophobic if someone - anyone - "perceives" it so How did we arrive in this chillingly dystopian world? It's important we understand the origin of "Islamophobia" as a tool to advance a radical Islamist agenda through the strategy of victimhood. The term was first popularised by the violent & extremist Muslim Brotherhood as "an ideological weapon to silence critics" of Islam and to "criminalise any criticism of their religious and political beliefs". The term was then (naively?) popularised in the UK by Trevor Phillips, who later lamented how it has been twisted, more often being used as a cudgel to silence dissent and free speech. Labour says "Islamophobia" is racist because most Muslims are non-white. This is absurd. The majority of communists in this world are Chinese. Is it racist to criticise communism? A majority of Catholics are non-white. Is criticism of Catholicism racist? This is the logic of such a risible argument. Sunni and Shia Muslims preach violent hatred towards each other. Are they guilty of "Islamophobia"? If not, why not? We must speak out and vehemently protest the criminalisation of a sinister term which conflates criticism of Islam with hatred of Muslims. "Islamophobia" should be expunged from our vocabulary. The correct phrase should by "anti-Muslim hatred", a hatred as abhorrent as anti-Semitism. It is a cornerstone of free speech to be able to criticize or attack any religion or ideology, including Islamic beliefs, practices and culture -- indeed, Mohammed himself. This is entirely different from hating members of the Muslim faith. The freedom to criticise both religion and ideology has rarely been more important than it is now -- but it has never been at greater risk. How so? When the Labour Party forms Britain's next government it will desperately seek to appease and win back its disaffected Muslim base (much of which is angered over Labour's support for Israel). Labour will do this in part through its proposed "blasphemy law" banning criticism of Islam by incorporating the APPG's chilling definition of Islamophobia into legislation. This will be either through its proposed Race Equality Bill or as standalone legislation. It is expected that Islamophobia will be defined as "a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. What is "Muslimness"? Well, for example, under the APPG definition, simply to criticise the Muslim practice of polygamy or child marriage might be deemed Islamophobic if someone -- anyone --perceives it so. It might even affect how one describes Muslim r&pe gangs. This is chilling stuff. Under Labour, free speech will be tested as never before. The oft-quoted definition of Islamophobia as “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons”, did not emanate from Christopher Hitchens (that honour belongs to Andrew Cummins). But Mr. Hitchens was no less vociferous in his strident condemnation of the term. Many years ago, with remarkable prescience, he correctly foresaw the sinister erosion of free speech we now see unfolding before us. Hear his prophetic words below and share them widely:

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo

374,803 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

📣🚨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

352,035 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce