'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
Because we do want to be consistent right?
I hope that all the female Imams are up in arms about it
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
Yes, and I have criticised the misogyny of orthodox Islamism on here a number of times.
It is perfectly possible to oppose all forms of bigotry. We do not have to choose.
Wrong. This is the TwiX era. You have to choose. Beliefs now come as a package deal.
More that beliefs come with a matrix.
Drunken racism is career ending providing the racism is by the right group against the right group.
Otherwise it is just social commentary. For some, anyway.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
Yes, and I have criticised the misogyny of orthodox Islamism on here a number of times.
It is perfectly possible to oppose all forms of bigotry. We do not have to choose.
How many mosques treat men and women as equals?
How many Christian, Jewish or Hindu religious establishments do?
And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
"The proposed ban on incitement to "religious hatred" makes no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself; and that would be pretty absurd, when you consider that the Bill's intention is to fight Islamophobia." - A. B. d P. Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2005.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
Yes, and I have criticised the misogyny of orthodox Islamism on here a number of times.
It is perfectly possible to oppose all forms of bigotry. We do not have to choose.
How many mosques treat men and women as equals?
How many Christian, Jewish or Hindu religious establishments do?
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
Why don't we wait to see what definition and examples this group led by Grieve and Rayner comes up with before condemning it?
Anyone who frequents this board sees frequent prejudice against Muslims expressed.
And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
"The proposed ban on incitement to "religious hatred" makes no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself; and that would be pretty absurd, when you consider that the Bill's intention is to fight Islamophobia." - A. B. d P. Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2005.
Theres's plenty of incitement to religious hatred (not to mention misogyny) in the Bible too.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
Because we do want to be consistent right?
Or the likes of Mike Pence unable to be in the same room as a woman without a chaperone perhaps. There are nutters available in all flavours.
Isn’t this so utterly stupid that there must be something more to it? Is Starmer that bad at politics?
I need to hunt down some 'pro' articles about it as doesn't seem like a very good deal. The anti side portray the only supposed benefit being that we will get reputational improvements from following 'international law' on the matter, which frankly doesn't sound enough in a matter which seems pretty clearly transactional for all three parties, so there surely has to be more to it than that.
Surely the opposite is true? We will get a reputation for giving away territory for no reason with a healthy stipend to boot. How is that an improvement in our reputation? On the contrary, it is a reputation that any country would be fearful of acquiring. Negotiating anything worldwide just got near impossible.
I'm mainly confused why the Mauritians seem to be able to get extra concessions from us at this point - I cannot see how we would look worse for sticking with previous terms, for those that already look on us negatively about the whole affair. The government has denied that it is desperate to get a deal over the line, but it sure looks like it, given any cost would in any case be over a long period presumably, so there's no rush to sign from either side.
Once the Mauritians rejected what was on offer ( and which was agreed by the previous government), what downside was there to walking away from negotiations? Criticism from nations that are hostile towards in any case?
Starmer craves redemption from those nations.
It's all part of his worldview and he probably thinks the greater the payment the greater the redemption.
Lefties have inherited the self-flagellation gene from their puritan forefathers. A bit like @Kinabulu voicing that it is always men that are murderers. No doubt he is one that thinks men should take collective responsibility for the sins of men and be apologetic for psychos and rapists that are men as though all of us who have todgers share blame. And as for us being British, well we should all (women possibly accepted) prostrate ourselves in front of the world in apology for the British Empire that none of us alive had anything to do with.
What percentage of mass murderers are female?
Very small. Thankfully the percentage of male murderers, whilst higher than female is also very small. Go and flagellate yourself again you self-loather lol.
No, little Nigel, not what percentage of females are mass murderers, what percentage of mass murderers are female?
Try again maybe?
I'll let you look it up as it interests you so much. Personally I am not flagellating myself over the issue for being male, I leave that to saddos like you. They are bad people, scum, and I am not interested in their gender.
Does poor little Nigel not like being patronised then?
Someone of your limited wit could try old bean, but you will fail, as you have just then. Sorry to tease, and it is so mean of me, as I know you self-righteous lefties are notoriously thin skinned. Oh, btw, did I mention, the Labour government is really shit. I mean really really shit.
I'm mortified you think so. Truly.
I wouldn't say I am mortified, but definitely a little disappointed to note that you are as uncritical of Starmer as HYUFD was of Johnson. I thought that you were more intelligent than the type of person that believes "my party right or wrong".
The Labour government of Kier From HR is shit. He is utterly hopeless.
Well I would be happier if they'd done a wealth tax, cancelled Trident and banned X, but I knew none of that was in the manifesto, so it hasn't come as some massive disappointment.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
Why don't we wait to see what definition and examples this group led by Grieve and Rayner comes up with before condemning it?
Anyone who frequents this board sees frequent prejudice against Muslims expressed.
They already came up with the somewhat problematic APPG definition
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
Why don't we wait to see what definition and examples this group led by Grieve and Rayner comes up with before condemning it?
Anyone who frequents this board sees frequent prejudice against Muslims expressed.
Lucy Letby. One thing glossed over is if the experts doubt the case against Nurse Letby, they are not saying the babies are still alive, or that this many deaths is normal, they are implicitly or explicitly condemning the whole antenatal unit.
Yes, that's a massive call. Interesting to know how it's deducible - without any doubt whatsoever - from case notes.
It is of course possible that all these things are true: Letby is guilty of some or all of the 14 charges, and the hospital unit was useless, and that the expert evidence was imperfect, and that the court process was to some degree flawed, and for whatever reason the defence made errors, and some experts believe she is innocent.
However, simplifying a bit, as there are 14 guilty verdicts on the most serious of charges, the Court of Appeal is only going to allow an appeal in whole (all 14) if all 14 convictions are unsafe individually.
For this to be so, and for Letby to be actually innocent of all charges, in the circumstances of this case something strange must have occurred. (1) There are other murderers or murderer and Letby was unlucky or (2) There must have been what amounts to a joint conspiracy involving many to get her, despite knowing or believing they were wrong to do so and that she was innocent.
I personally don't believe either account (1) or (2).
The really big uphill struggle is going to be to cover all 14 cases with really compelling counter arguments. 13 won't be enough.
Hang on - the prosecution would presumably have used the common element between all 14 as part of their argument? Now the reverse can't be argued in the appeal? How odd.
The jury will have been told that each individual case must be proved individually beyond reasonable doubt, no job lots, - and as we know they didn't return 100% guilty verdicts so they heard that point.
They will also have been given guidance on how and whether certainty on count X might help them in deciding count Y etc, and whether it could be corroboration.
But in logic, proof that you did not murder P is no evidence that you did not murder Q. There will always be lots of people you didn't murder - like unmurdred babies in the hospital. It is no help.
So for an appeal to be any use (except perhaps for slightly reducing the sentence but put that aside) has to clearly show the unsafety of all 14 convictions individually. If, say, 9 were set aside it stuill leaves 5 and so on. This is an exceedingly uphill task, as I suspect the next few years are going to show.
Mm, thanks. Though that assumes the prosecutions were truly independent of each other for each case (so to speak). If they all relied on the same dodgy analysis, for example, things might work a bit more quickly for 2, 3 and so on.
I'm still surprised at the asymmetry, given that prosecuting more than one crime at a time was seen as v. dodgy for many years. But IANAL.
And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
"The proposed ban on incitement to "religious hatred" makes no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself; and that would be pretty absurd, when you consider that the Bill's intention is to fight Islamophobia." - A. B. d P. Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2005.
Theres's plenty of incitement to religious hatred (not to mention misogyny) in the Bible too.
And the Church of England fucking endlessly bangs on about those bits
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
Why don't we wait to see what definition and examples this group led by Grieve and Rayner comes up with before condemning it?
Anyone who frequents this board sees frequent prejudice against Muslims expressed.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
Why don't we wait to see what definition and examples this group led by Grieve and Rayner comes up with before condemning it?
Anyone who frequents this board sees frequent prejudice against Muslims expressed.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
I have often criticised Islam on here. I think the various forms of facial veiling intrinsically misogynist (and misandryist too for that matter). Even as a Christian myself, I am happy to criticise Christianity, it's leaders and it's history too.
But that's not what we see with the Islamophobia of people like Tommy Robinson etc, or of last summers riots after the Southport murders. There was an outpouring of Islamophobic hatred and violence that had been simmering away, including attacks on mosques.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
I have often criticised Islam on here. I think the various forms of facial veiling intrinsically misogynist (and misandryist too for that matter). Even as a Christian myself, I am happy to criticise Christianity, it's leaders and it's history too.
But that's not what we see with the Islamophobia of people like Tommy Robinson etc, or of last summers riots after the Southport murders. There was an outpouring of Islamophobic hatred and violence that had been simmering away, including attacks on mosques.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
Because we do want to be consistent right?
I hope that all the female Imams are up in arms about it
And all Female Roman Catholic priests, presumably.
It's right to criticize Islam - particularly Wahhabi and its relatives - for its treatment of women. But to do so while ignoring that other religions -perhaps even your own- have their own deeply misogynistic bits is pretty hypocritical.
Fortunately, as a evangelical agnostic I don't have to make these distinctions.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
I have often criticised Islam on here. I think the various forms of facial veiling intrinsically misogynist (and misandryist too for that matter). Even as a Christian myself, I am happy to criticise Christianity, it's leaders and it's history too.
But that's not what we see with the Islamophobia of people like Tommy Robinson etc, or of last summers riots after the Southport murders. There was an outpouring of Islamophobic hatred and violence that had been simmering away, including attacks on mosques.
We do need to get to grips with it as a society.
What if criticism of the most holy veil is deemed illegal Islamophobia?
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
Why don't we wait to see what definition and examples this group led by Grieve and Rayner comes up with before condemning it?
Anyone who frequents this board sees frequent prejudice against Muslims expressed.
Do they? Examples please.
some people are just willfully blind.
So give us the examples. You have just told us, dare I say accused PB of being racist so let's have some examples.
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
Why don't we wait to see what definition and examples this group led by Grieve and Rayner comes up with before condemning it?
Anyone who frequents this board sees frequent prejudice against Muslims expressed.
Do they? Examples please.
some people are just willfully blind.
So give us the examples. You have just told us, dare I say accused PB of being racist so let's have some examples.
Perhaps go back and read the threads here immediately after the Southport murders before it became clear that the killer was neither an asylum seekers nor a Muslim.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
Because we do want to be consistent right?
I hope that all the female Imams are up in arms about it
And all Female Roman Catholic priests, presumably.
It's right to criticize Islam - particularly Wahhabi and its relatives - for its treatment of women. But to do so while ignoring that other religions -perhaps even your own- have their own deeply misogynistic bits is pretty hypocritical.
Fortunately, as a evangelical agnostic I don't have to make these distinctions.
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
I have no problem with that at all, but blasphemy is different to Islamophobia.
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
Very soon there will be no more Bishops anyway given the CofE appear unable to appoint to any see going.
And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
"The proposed ban on incitement to "religious hatred" makes no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself; and that would be pretty absurd, when you consider that the Bill's intention is to fight Islamophobia." - A. B. d P. Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2005.
Theres's plenty of incitement to religious hatred (not to mention misogyny) in the Bible too.
Is there a term for being concerned about misogyny only where it's coming from Muslims?
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
I have no problem with that at all, but blasphemy is different to Islamophobia.
How many books am I going to be arrested for.burning?
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
I have no problem with that at all, but blasphemy is different to Islamophobia.
How many books am I going to be arrested for.burning?
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
I have no problem with that at all, but blasphemy is different to Islamophobia.
It’s tricky. I need to be able to say I think believing in Religion X is stupid and harmful. I need to be able to say its practices are silly and that it advances harmful ideas which kill people*.
A follower of that religion will say I am inciting hatred.
*I think these things are broadly true of all organised religion.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
Yes, and I have criticised the misogyny of orthodox Islamism on here a number of times.
It is perfectly possible to oppose all forms of bigotry. We do not have to choose.
How many mosques treat men and women as equals?
How many Christian, Jewish or Hindu religious establishments do?
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
Why don't we wait to see what definition and examples this group led by Grieve and Rayner comes up with before condemning it?
Anyone who frequents this board sees frequent prejudice against Muslims expressed.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
I have often criticised Islam on here. I think the various forms of facial veiling intrinsically misogynist (and misandryist too for that matter). Even as a Christian myself, I am happy to criticise Christianity, it's leaders and it's history too.
But that's not what we see with the Islamophobia of people like Tommy Robinson etc, or of last summers riots after the Southport murders. There was an outpouring of Islamophobic hatred and violence that had been simmering away, including attacks on mosques.
We do need to get to grips with it as a society.
And we have all the laws we need to deal with it. So once again. Why is another definition needed when we already have the laws necessary to tackle criminal behaviour?
You are being naive in not realising that this will be used who want to silence all and any criticism of Muslims. No group is some special caste beyond criticism. Every time this happens it leads to problems and scandals. We have seen it here. We saw it with Irish priests and nuns in Ireland
We not need to wait for a new definition. The first question to ask is why a definition is needed at all and for what purpose? Since we already have the necessary laws, the government has failed the first basic test and to argue about what the definition says is to ignore the much more important question of whether it is necessary at all.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
Because we do want to be consistent right?
I hope that all the female Imams are up in arms about it
And all Female Roman Catholic priests, presumably.
It's right to criticize Islam - particularly Wahhabi and its relatives - for its treatment of women. But to do so while ignoring that other religions -perhaps even your own- have their own deeply misogynistic bits is pretty hypocritical.
Fortunately, as a evangelical agnostic I don't have to make these distinctions.
It is in practice very difficult to enforce treatment on an unwilling patient. It requires both a community treatment order and a certain amount of muscle. The only real alternative is to section to a locked ward, but we now have very few of those.
And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
"The proposed ban on incitement to "religious hatred" makes no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself; and that would be pretty absurd, when you consider that the Bill's intention is to fight Islamophobia." - A. B. d P. Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2005.
Theres's plenty of incitement to religious hatred (not to mention misogyny) in the Bible too.
Is there a term for being concerned about misogyny only where it's coming from Muslims?
If not I think we need one.
The main irony of Wokeness is that it's soft on certain, shall we say, seriously un-woke cultures.
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
I have no problem with that at all, but blasphemy is different to Islamophobia.
How many books am I going to be arrested for.burning?
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
Is there any evidence of Bishops of the CoE engaging in acts of religion?
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
Why don't we wait to see what definition and examples this group led by Grieve and Rayner comes up with before condemning it?
Anyone who frequents this board sees frequent prejudice against Muslims expressed.
Do they? Examples please.
some people are just willfully blind.
So give us the examples. You have just told us, dare I say accused PB of being racist so let's have some examples.
Perhaps go back and read the threads here immediately after the Southport murders before it became clear that the killer was neither an asylum seekers nor a Muslim.
So there should be plenty of examples. Just a few will do.
And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
"The proposed ban on incitement to "religious hatred" makes no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself; and that would be pretty absurd, when you consider that the Bill's intention is to fight Islamophobia." - A. B. d P. Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2005.
Theres's plenty of incitement to religious hatred (not to mention misogyny) in the Bible too.
Is there a term for being concerned about misogyny only where it's coming from Muslims?
If not I think we need one.
We'll need another three for ignoring misogyny, homophobia and religious hatred when coming from Islam
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
Because we do want to be consistent right?
I hope that all the female Imams are up in arms about it
And all Female Roman Catholic priests, presumably.
It's right to criticize Islam - particularly Wahhabi and its relatives - for its treatment of women. But to do so while ignoring that other religions -perhaps even your own- have their own deeply misogynistic bits is pretty hypocritical.
Fortunately, as a evangelical agnostic I don't have to make these distinctions.
I don't have a religion
I'm an Aleist; I believe in the goodness of beer
Atheists of the world unite!
I’m a Devout Capitalist (Yen Buddhism sect)
Anyone who commits heresy against The Word of The Prophet Smith shall be smitten by the Invisible Hand.
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
Absolutely not we have an established church headed by the King and with a presence in the Lords (just add some other faith leaders). The Lords is completely unelected and now fully appointed anyway.
Though I am not that keen on this particular law. We already have laws for targeting individuals for acts of violence as they belong to a particular religion. Not sure why we now need laws to forbid criticism of religions too, as this law will make criticism of Islam illegal
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
Because we do want to be consistent right?
I hope that all the female Imams are up in arms about it
And all Female Roman Catholic priests, presumably.
It's right to criticize Islam - particularly Wahhabi and its relatives - for its treatment of women. But to do so while ignoring that other religions -perhaps even your own- have their own deeply misogynistic bits is pretty hypocritical.
Fortunately, as a evangelical agnostic I don't have to make these distinctions.
I don't have a religion
I'm an Aleist; I believe in the goodness of beer
Atheists of the world unite!
I’m a Devout Capitalist (Yen Buddhism sect)
Anyone who commits heresy against The Word of The Prophet Smith shall be smitten by the Invisible Hand.
I follow the rulings of the MCC myself. I am, of course, sworn enemy of anyone who thinks the rulings of the ICC or BCCI are superior.
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
Very soon there will be no more Bishops anyway given the CofE appear unable to appoint to any see going.
A new Bishop was appointed just before Christmas and a new Archbishop will be appointed by autumn
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
Because we do want to be consistent right?
I hope that all the female Imams are up in arms about it
And all Female Roman Catholic priests, presumably.
It's right to criticize Islam - particularly Wahhabi and its relatives - for its treatment of women. But to do so while ignoring that other religions -perhaps even your own- have their own deeply misogynistic bits is pretty hypocritical.
Fortunately, as a evangelical agnostic I don't have to make these distinctions.
I don't have a religion
I'm an Aleist; I believe in the goodness of beer
Atheists of the world unite!
I’m a Devout Capitalist (Yen Buddhism sect)
Anyone who commits heresy against The Word of The Prophet Smith shall be smitten by the Invisible Hand.
1 How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? No idea. But here's pages of turgid prose on the most efficient way to make the pin. 2 ?? 3 Profit (or prophet?).
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
Absolutely not we have an established church headed by the King and with a presence in the Lords (just add some other faith leaders). The Lords is completely unelected and now fully appointed anyway.
Though I am not that keen on this particular law. We already have laws for targeting individuals for acts of violence as they belong to a particular religion. Not sure why we now need laws to forbid criticism of religions too, as this law will make criticism of Islam illegal
1 How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? No idea. But here's pages of turgid prose on the most efficient way to make the pin. 2 3 Profit (or prophet?).
For the words of the profits Were written on the studio wall Concert hall
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
Because we do want to be consistent right?
I hope that all the female Imams are up in arms about it
And all Female Roman Catholic priests, presumably.
It's right to criticize Islam - particularly Wahhabi and its relatives - for its treatment of women. But to do so while ignoring that other religions -perhaps even your own- have their own deeply misogynistic bits is pretty hypocritical.
Fortunately, as a evangelical agnostic I don't have to make these distinctions.
I don't have a religion
I'm an Aleist; I believe in the goodness of beer
Atheists of the world unite!
I’m a Devout Capitalist (Yen Buddhism sect)
Anyone who commits heresy against The Word of The Prophet Smith shall be smitten by the Invisible Hand.
1 How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? No idea. But here's pages of turgid prose on the most efficient way to make the pin. 2 3 Profit (or prophet?).
1. Exactly as many angels as creates an optimum return on capital, combined with moderate risk. Obviously. 3. A true Prophet is known by his Profit. And verily, this shews that Donald The Orange is a heretic.
And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
"The proposed ban on incitement to "religious hatred" makes no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself; and that would be pretty absurd, when you consider that the Bill's intention is to fight Islamophobia." - A. B. d P. Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2005.
Theres's plenty of incitement to religious hatred (not to mention misogyny) in the Bible too.
Is there a term for being concerned about misogyny only where it's coming from Muslims?
If not I think we need one.
The main irony of Wokeness is that it's soft on certain, shall we say, seriously un-woke cultures.
Yes, fair comment, you do get some of that. It's rather pathetic. It's the mirror image of what I was referring to - people who give not the slightest shit about misogyny or homophobia except as cover to vent their dislike of Muslims. They will always, when challenged, roll out, "oh I'm merely critiquing the religion of islam, I'm not prejudiced against Muslim people". Pull the other one it's got bells on.
It is in practice very difficult to enforce treatment on an unwilling patient. It requires both a community treatment order and a certain amount of muscle. The only real alternative is to section to a locked ward, but we now have very few of those.
I shall read the full report, assuming it is becoming public rather than just the Times journos who pressed for it. There may be nuance, as you say, about what could and could not be done.
Looks to me on face of it that he should have been sectioned to a locked ward and if resource is the issue then the inquiry should state that.
It is in practice very difficult to enforce treatment on an unwilling patient. It requires both a community treatment order and a certain amount of muscle. The only real alternative is to section to a locked ward, but we now have very few of those.
So, as a medical professional do you have any policy proposals because otherwise your comment seems like hand wringing.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
OK;
But if we're doing that, are we going to do the same with some of the more Frum bits of Orthodox Judaism that means that a woman cannot even shake the hand of a male acquaintance.
Because we do want to be consistent right?
I hope that all the female Imams are up in arms about it
And all Female Roman Catholic priests, presumably.
It's right to criticize Islam - particularly Wahhabi and its relatives - for its treatment of women. But to do so while ignoring that other religions -perhaps even your own- have their own deeply misogynistic bits is pretty hypocritical.
Fortunately, as a evangelical agnostic I don't have to make these distinctions.
I don't have a religion
I'm an Aleist; I believe in the goodness of beer
Atheists of the world unite!
I’m a Devout Capitalist (Yen Buddhism sect)
Anyone who commits heresy against The Word of The Prophet Smith shall be smitten by the Invisible Hand.
I follow the rulings of the MCC myself. I am, of course, sworn enemy of anyone who thinks the rulings of the ICC or BCCI are superior.
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
Very soon there will be no more Bishops anyway given the CofE appear unable to appoint to any see going.
A new Bishop was appointed just before Christmas and a new Archbishop will be appointed by autumn
You have to understand that atheism has won. Certainly in the West. There are only remnants of religion and these are petering out at a rapid rate. It is of course the natural conclusion of Protestantism. Get rid of all the trappings until you eventually get rid of religion itself.
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
Very soon there will be no more Bishops anyway given the CofE appear unable to appoint to any see going.
A new Bishop was appointed just before Christmas and a new Archbishop will be appointed by autumn
You have to understand that atheism has won. Certainly in the West. There are only remnants of religion and these are petering out at a rapid rate. It is of course the natural conclusion of Protestantism. Get rid of all the trappings until you eventually get rid of religion itself.
You should be delighted.
No it hasn't, there are more Christians on earth today than there have ever been in human history and more Muslims too.
Population wise it is the West in decline as a percentage of the world's population, not the religious and of course that is partly due to the few if any children atheists have relative to the religious.
Protestantism is in its purest form bible based but in that sense pure religion in form
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
You're happy for the law to identify and punish the misogyny inherent in Islam?
Thought not
Yes, and I have criticised the misogyny of orthodox Islamism on here a number of times.
It is perfectly possible to oppose all forms of bigotry. We do not have to choose.
How many mosques treat men and women as equals?
How many Christian, Jewish or Hindu religious establishments do?
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
Why don't we wait to see what definition and examples this group led by Grieve and Rayner comes up with before condemning it?
Anyone who frequents this board sees frequent prejudice against Muslims expressed.
'Angela Rayner is set to appoint a pro-Remain former Tory MP to lead a new body to advise on Islamophobia.
Dominic Grieve, who previously served as Attorney General, has been recommended to chair a committee of 16 people set up to define anti-Muslim prejudice.
Mr Grieve wrote the foreword to a 2018 report on Islamophobia by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims co-chaired by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.'
We already have a definition of discrimination on grounds of any religion in the Equality Act 2010. What do we need another - and likely wider - definition for?
An Islamic blasphemy law - any sort of blasphemy law - has no place in this country in the 21st century.
I know that Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation. But do our governments have to test this proposition to destruction every single sodding day? FFS!
We do have a definition for anti-semitism, so why not one for Islamophobia too? The only one speaking of a new Blasphemy law is Jenrick, and he is against.
No. We do not need one at all. What about "phobias" against Christians (all varieties) or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists or the many other religions there are?
No: Rayner and Grieve can both fuck off. We are entitled to criticise Islam as much as we damn well like just like any other set of ideas. Discrimination against Muslims is already covered in law.
Why then do we have one for anti-semitism?
I hope that you are not suggesting that there is no Islamophobia in our society.
I have no problem with definitions and clarifications on other forms of discrimination too, such as misogyny.
I do not know what you mean by the term "Islamophobia" which I consider to be a weaselly term designed to obscure the difference between criticism of a religion (necessary, desirable and not to be constrained) and discrimination against individual Muslims because of their religion. The latter exists, is undesirable and is dealt with by the existing law. Criminal offences against Muslims which are religiously aggravated are also adequately dealt with by the law.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
I have often criticised Islam on here. I think the various forms of facial veiling intrinsically misogynist (and misandryist too for that matter). Even as a Christian myself, I am happy to criticise Christianity, it's leaders and it's history too.
But that's not what we see with the Islamophobia of people like Tommy Robinson etc, or of last summers riots after the Southport murders. There was an outpouring of Islamophobic hatred and violence that had been simmering away, including attacks on mosques.
We do need to get to grips with it as a society.
And we have all the laws we need to deal with it. So once again. Why is another definition needed when we already have the laws necessary to tackle criminal behaviour?
You are being naive in not realising that this will be used who want to silence all and any criticism of Muslims. No group is some special caste beyond criticism. Every time this happens it leads to problems and scandals. We have seen it here. We saw it with Irish priests and nuns in Ireland
We not need to wait for a new definition. The first question to ask is why a definition is needed at all and for what purpose? Since we already have the necessary laws, the government has failed the first basic test and to argue about what the definition says is to ignore the much more important question of whether it is necessary at all.
There are still some edge-cases where the government/plod/etc can't just f*ck around with people though. Something must be done!
You gotta say one thing for Trump. He lets the press into his office a lot and answers questions. That might not last. And obviously the answers are often not grounded in the real world.
The world's most powerful politician is recommending ethnic cleansing. And the richest man is taking executive control of the richest nation without ever standing for election. This is exactly why religion matters.
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
Very soon there will be no more Bishops anyway given the CofE appear unable to appoint to any see going.
A new Bishop was appointed just before Christmas and a new Archbishop will be appointed by autumn
You have to understand that atheism has won. Certainly in the West. There are only remnants of religion and these are petering out at a rapid rate. It is of course the natural conclusion of Protestantism. Get rid of all the trappings until you eventually get rid of religion itself.
You should be delighted.
Well you might think that. But we're about to get a blasphemy law. Religion has won. But that religion isn't Christianity.
You gotta say one thing for Trump. He lets the press into his office a lot and answers questions. That might not last. And obviously the answers are often not grounded in the real world.
But it is a major contrast with Biden.
Sleepy Joe is just a doddery old fool. Dodgy Donald is a DANGEROUSLY UNHINGED doddery old fool.
The good news about the Chagos deal is tbat if we can afford £18bn to give away the Chagos, we can certainly afford HS2 and NPR. We're clearly awash with cash.
And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
"The proposed ban on incitement to "religious hatred" makes no sense unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself; and that would be pretty absurd, when you consider that the Bill's intention is to fight Islamophobia." - A. B. d P. Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2005.
Theres's plenty of incitement to religious hatred (not to mention misogyny) in the Bible too.
Is there a term for being concerned about misogyny only where it's coming from Muslims?
If not I think we need one.
We'll need another three for ignoring misogyny, homophobia and religious hatred when coming from Islam
We have those covered. Cultural cringe. And tbf we have the opposite covered too. Islamophobia. Let's see if they include it in the definition as one of the examples.
Incoming split in the new regime surely? Rubio has written to congress to say they still have say over what happens to USAID iirc? I think he wants to move it back inside State not just obliterate it?
NEWS: USAID missions overseas were told to shut down and all staff are being recalled to the US by Friday, multiple sources tell @CBSNews . New USAID Deputy Admin Peter Marocco told State Dept leadership today if they didn’t do it they’d be evacuated by the military, per sources
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
Very soon there will be no more Bishops anyway given the CofE appear unable to appoint to any see going.
A new Bishop was appointed just before Christmas and a new Archbishop will be appointed by autumn
You have to understand that atheism has won. Certainly in the West. There are only remnants of religion and these are petering out at a rapid rate. It is of course the natural conclusion of Protestantism. Get rid of all the trappings until you eventually get rid of religion itself.
You should be delighted.
No it hasn't, there are more Christians on earth today than there have ever been in human history and more Muslims too.
Population wise it is the West in decline as a percentage of the world's population, not the religious and of course that is partly due to the few if any children atheists have relative to the religious.
Protestantism is in its purest form bible based but in that sense pure religion in form
The good news about the Chagos deal is tbat if we can afford £18bn to give away the Chagos, we can certainly afford HS2 and NPR. We're clearly awash with cash.
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
Very soon there will be no more Bishops anyway given the CofE appear unable to appoint to any see going.
A new Bishop was appointed just before Christmas and a new Archbishop will be appointed by autumn
You have to understand that atheism has won. Certainly in the West. There are only remnants of religion and these are petering out at a rapid rate. It is of course the natural conclusion of Protestantism. Get rid of all the trappings until you eventually get rid of religion itself.
You should be delighted.
No it hasn't, there are more Christians on earth today than there have ever been in human history and more Muslims too.
Population wise it is the West in decline as a percentage of the world's population, not the religious and of course that is partly due to the few if any children atheists have relative to the religious.
Protestantism is in its purest form bible based but in that sense pure religion in form
You've lost. Suck it up.
No it is reality, the West is in relative decline driven by decline in population driven by decline in fertility rates due to declining rates of religion.
The fastest growing areas as a percentage of global gdp like Africa, India and Brazil also tend to be more religious
There should be no blasphemy laws. Religion and state should be entirely separate, and religions should be treated like any other voluntary membership organization. (I'm sorry, @HYUFD, this means no more Bishops in the House of Lords.)
Very soon there will be no more Bishops anyway given the CofE appear unable to appoint to any see going.
A new Bishop was appointed just before Christmas and a new Archbishop will be appointed by autumn
You have to understand that atheism has won. Certainly in the West. There are only remnants of religion and these are petering out at a rapid rate. It is of course the natural conclusion of Protestantism. Get rid of all the trappings until you eventually get rid of religion itself.
You should be delighted.
No it hasn't, there are more Christians on earth today than there have ever been in human history and more Muslims too.
Population wise it is the West in decline as a percentage of the world's population, not the religious and of course that is partly due to the few if any children atheists have relative to the religious.
Protestantism is in its purest form bible based but in that sense pure religion in form
You've lost. Suck it up.
No it is reality, the West is in relative decline driven by decline in population driven by decline in fertility rates due to declining rates of religion.
The fastest growing areas as a percentage of global gdp like Africa, India and Brazil also tend to be more religious
I'm sure they do. But in time they too will grow out of religion. As we have done, by and large.
The good news about the Chagos deal is tbat if we can afford £18bn to give away the Chagos, we can certainly afford HS2 and NPR. We're clearly awash with cash.
And that's the problem with the Chagos deal - it's utterly insane given we supposedly haven't got a pot to piss in.
Do any of the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or Jedi holy texts advocate the sexual enslavement of non-believing females?
This is getting too specific to be sociologically useful. Christian and Jewish slavers were rampant around 1,000 years ago, and exclusively enslaved non-believers. As for what their holy texts say, I don't know if God endorsed slavery but God did do some ethnic cleansing.
It is in practice very difficult to enforce treatment on an unwilling patient. It requires both a community treatment order and a certain amount of muscle. The only real alternative is to section to a locked ward, but we now have very few of those.
So, as a medical professional do you have any policy proposals because otherwise your comment seems like hand wringing.
I am not a psychiatrist, but it's undeniable that Psychiatric services have been under funded and under resourced for decades. I think too that there has always been a need for places of asylum for people with severe mental illness. Sure the vast mental hospitals of the past weren't great, but I think the swing to "care in the community" went too far, not least because by and large the community doesn't care.
I think too the prevalence of long term paranoid psychosis from cannabis use is under recognised.
Comments
Where am I, and what has happened to PB?
Drunken racism is career ending providing the racism is by the right group against the right group.
Otherwise it is just social commentary. For some, anyway.
Criticising a religion should not be prevented as the ECHR and other courts have repeatedly ruled.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential in a free democratic society and no-one should be obliged to respect or think well of any set of ideas or religious beliefs. More they are - and should be - free to ridicule, dislike or criticise any religion, no matter whether this offends its adherents or not. (The law should not concern itself with politeness.) I think certain aspects of Orthodox Judaism in relation to its treatment of women are abominable; ditto Islam's view of women and gay people and sharia law. I don't think much of the Plymouth Brethren either and my own church has behaved atrociously over child abuse and the treatment of single mothers and their babies in Ireland.
What this will, I fear, be used for is to stop criticism of anything which upsets some Muslims. Well, boo - fucking - hoo. If upset is going to be the measure, we'd have stopped all those pro-Palestinian marches for the last year and a half with people cheering on what happened on Oct 7 and praising Hamas et which upset a lot of Jews in this country. And all the people on here who talk about sky fairies would need to be hauled off to the gulag. And most religions' holy books would have to be banned too.
So no.
- A. B. d P. Johnson writing in the Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2005.
Plenty of female Bishops and Rabbis
How many lady Imams?
Anyone who frequents this board sees frequent prejudice against Muslims expressed.
I'm still surprised at the asymmetry, given that prosecuting more than one crime at a time was seen as v. dodgy for many years. But IANAL.
Sweden’s gang violence has become the new normal
https://unherd.com/newsroom/swedens-gang-violence-has-become-the-new-normal/
But that's not what we see with the Islamophobia of people like Tommy Robinson etc, or of last summers riots after the Southport murders. There was an outpouring of Islamophobic hatred and violence that had been simmering away, including attacks on mosques.
We do need to get to grips with it as a society.
Possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes
Teaching the woke about pronouns, eh..
It's right to criticize Islam - particularly Wahhabi and its relatives - for its treatment of women. But to do so while ignoring that other religions -perhaps even your own- have their own deeply misogynistic bits is pretty hypocritical.
Fortunately, as a evangelical agnostic I don't have to make these distinctions.
https://newsthump.com/2025/02/03/englands-marcus-rashford-swaps-struggling-mid-table-side-for-champions-league-football/
I'm an Aleist; I believe in the goodness of beer
Allowed not to take medication because he didn't like needles? FFS
George Mann
@sgfmann
·
8m
The Times: NHS allowed Nottingham killer to skip
medication #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://x.com/sgfmann/status/1886901062084247822
If not I think we need one.
I think there is only one
One
A follower of that religion will say I am inciting hatred.
*I think these things are broadly true of all organised religion.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/04/evelyn-de-rothschild-accused-banking-career
You are being naive in not realising that this will be used who want to silence all and any criticism of Muslims. No group is some special caste beyond criticism. Every time this happens it leads to problems and scandals. We have seen it here. We saw it with Irish priests and nuns in Ireland
We not need to wait for a new definition. The first question to ask is why a definition is needed at all and for what purpose? Since we already have the necessary laws, the government has failed the first basic test and to argue about what the definition says is to ignore the much more important question of whether it is necessary at all.
And in Taiwan.
The idea that the US can onshore that kind of capacity any time soon, without an enormous increase over current investment, is fanciful.
Vague niceness doesn’t count.
tia
Anyone who commits heresy against The Word of The Prophet Smith shall be smitten by the Invisible Hand.
Though I am not that keen on this particular law. We already have laws for targeting individuals for acts of violence as they belong to a particular religion. Not sure why we now need laws to forbid criticism of religions too, as this law will make criticism of Islam illegal
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/new-bishop-aston
No idea.
But here's pages of turgid prose on the most efficient way to make the pin.
2 ??
3 Profit (or prophet?).
Were written on the studio wall
Concert hall
3. A true Prophet is known by his Profit. And verily, this shews that Donald The Orange is a heretic.
Looks to me on face of it that he should have been sectioned to a locked ward and if resource is the issue then the inquiry should state that.
You should be delighted.
It could only work as a universal ban on criticism and mockery of all beliefs, which would be fucking ludicrous
Hiding one's beliefs behind a religion is childish. Believe it because you believe it, not because you've joined a gang
Population wise it is the West in decline as a percentage of the world's population, not the religious and of course that is partly due to the few if any children atheists have relative to the religious.
Protestantism is in its purest form bible based but in that sense pure religion in form
Free of Palestinians it will be
But it is a major contrast with Biden.
And the richest man is taking executive control of the richest nation without ever standing for election.
This is exactly why religion matters.
Religion has won. But that religion isn't Christianity.
Dodgy Donald is a DANGEROUSLY UNHINGED doddery old fool.
Sara Cook
@saraecook
NEWS: USAID missions overseas were told to shut down and all staff are being recalled to the US by Friday, multiple sources tell
@CBSNews
. New USAID Deputy Admin Peter Marocco told State Dept leadership today if they didn’t do it they’d be evacuated by the military, per sources
https://x.com/saraecook/status/1886904290767208948
Cool! Count me in!
The fastest growing areas as a percentage of global gdp like Africa, India and Brazil also tend to be more religious
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
[Chuck Schumer's] mad that @DOGE is dismantling the radical-left shadow government in full view of the public.
This is our ONE CHANCE to return POWER to the PEOPLE from an unelected BUREAUcracy back to DEMOcracy!!
Only with the support of YOU can this succeed. Thank you, unknown soldiers.
===
That tweet is a keeper given the 2028 election is going to be cancelled due to "national emergency" conditions.
That said, few today take these texts literally. But some of course still do.
I think too the prevalence of long term paranoid psychosis from cannabis use is under recognised.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/10/nottingham-killer-valdo-calocane-visited-drug-gang-member/