Islamaphobia in Tory party?
Discussion
The Surveyor said:
AJL308 said:
They won on appeal (rightly).
I wasn't aware of that. What were the grounds of the appeal and does that effectively render the Equalities Act toothless?Which makes perfect sense, IMO. You can't refuse to deal with people because they're gay, but neither can you be compelled to do things that you are unwilling to do for anyone.
amusingduck said:
The Surveyor said:
AJL308 said:
They won on appeal (rightly).
I wasn't aware of that. What were the grounds of the appeal and does that effectively render the Equalities Act toothless?Which makes perfect sense, IMO. You can't refuse to deal with people because they're gay, but neither can you be compelled to do things that you are unwilling to do for anyone.
I know people who do not approve of homosexuality yet employ homosexuals...are these people in the minority?
biggbn said:
AJL308 said:
Something which annoys the s
t out of me these days is the application of "phobia" to the end of anything which people find objectionable or are trying to make a cause out of.
A phobia is an irrational fear of something not a hatred of, or an objection to, something.
Agreed, I think the word is used out of context a lot. Criticising aspects of judeasim, Islam, Christianity etc...should be acceptable behaviour, acting on and discriminating against people of faith should not, same goes for any other protected characteristic. t out of me these days is the application of "phobia" to the end of anything which people find objectionable or are trying to make a cause out of. A phobia is an irrational fear of something not a hatred of, or an objection to, something.
I utterly despise all religions, however I don't hate people who are religious. My view is that if you choose to follow a religion then you should accept that others will disagree with what you believe. Rather than being 'offended' all the time and seeking to prevent criticism or challenges to your belief system you should accept that others disagree with the religious belief you choose to hold.
Tresco said:
edh said:
Tresco said:
What I don't get is why she would attack her own party, I've no doubt she has received personal anti Muslim attacks but in the age of social media, which all MP's seem to embrace, that's now part of the territory, the same no doubt if you're a gay, black, trans, outspoken, Brexit supporting/remain supporting MP.
Doesn't make it right of course, but seems a knee jerk to take to the news channels saying "I get attacks therefore my Party is Islamophobic".
Do you think you should have a word with Margaret Hodge and Luciana Berger? or is that different?Doesn't make it right of course, but seems a knee jerk to take to the news channels saying "I get attacks therefore my Party is Islamophobic".
I doubt anybody would disagree with the Labour MP's who have called out anti Semitism in their party.
amusingduck said:
The Surveyor said:
AJL308 said:
They won on appeal (rightly).
I wasn't aware of that. What were the grounds of the appeal and does that effectively render the Equalities Act toothless?Which makes perfect sense, IMO. You can't refuse to deal with people because they're gay, but neither can you be compelled to do things that you are unwilling to do for anyone.
Yes. And that the words which Mr Lee wanted on the cake “support gay marriage”, is not a belief held exclusively by him or the gay community.
There was also no direct discrimination against Lee’s political or religious beliefs.
It also upheld the Bakers’ ECHR, including the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold.
biggbn said:
SpeckledJim said:
biggbn said:
AJL308 said:
Something which annoys the st out of me these days is the application of "phobia" to the end of anything which people find objectionable or are trying to make a cause out of.
A phobia is an irrational fear of something not a hatred of, or an objection to, something.
Agreed, I think the word is used out of context a lot. Criticising aspects of judeasim, Islam, Christianity etc...should be acceptable behaviour, acting on and discriminating against people of faith should not, same goes for any other protected characteristic. t out of me these days is the application of "phobia" to the end of anything which people find objectionable or are trying to make a cause out of. A phobia is an irrational fear of something not a hatred of, or an objection to, something.
Choose your favourite protected characteristic, because you can't protect both.
Awkward one...?
A gay person has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their sexuality.
And a Muslim has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their religion.
Yet central to the Islam is a belief in the immorality of homosexuality.
A Muslim who denies the immorality of homosexuals isn't being a proper Muslim.
It's a baked-in hypocrisy. I would personally say that, given the law forces us to choose which protected characteristic trumps the other, that since homosexuality is innate, and Islam is voluntary, that Muslims should not be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. I can see there's an argument the other way, but I don't think it's a good one.
Yes, it applies to Christians and other religions as well, that believe things we've agreed are not to be tolerated. Except when it's a religion, then we do tolerate it.
Because, apparently, it's not the nasty belief that's the important factor here, but the characteristics of the person who carries the nasty belief, which dictates the nature of the reaction, or not.
Alpinestars said:
amusingduck said:
The Surveyor said:
AJL308 said:
They won on appeal (rightly).
I wasn't aware of that. What were the grounds of the appeal and does that effectively render the Equalities Act toothless?Which makes perfect sense, IMO. You can't refuse to deal with people because they're gay, but neither can you be compelled to do things that you are unwilling to do for anyone.
Yes. And that the words which Mr Lee wanted on the cake “support gay marriage”, is not a belief held exclusively by him or the gay community.
There was also no direct discrimination against Lee’s political or religious beliefs.
It also upheld the Bakers’ ECHR, including the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold.
SpeckledJim said:
Well, no, it's been taken out of the realm of individual interpretation by legislation.
A gay person has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their sexuality.
And a Muslim has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their religion.
Yet central to the Islam is a belief in the immorality of homosexuality.
A Muslim who denies the immorality of homosexuals isn't being a proper Muslim.
It's a baked-in hypocrisy. I would personally say that, given the law forces us to choose which protected characteristic trumps the other, that since homosexuality is innate, and Islam is voluntary, that Muslims should not be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. I can see there's an argument the other way, but I don't think it's a good one.
Yes, it applies to Christians and other religions as well, that believe things we've agreed are not to be tolerated. Except when it's a religion, then we do tolerate it.
Because, apparently, it's not the nasty belief that's the important factor here, but the characteristics of the person who carries the nasty belief, which dictates the nature of the reaction, or not.
The crux of the matter is the word discriminate. I know Christian and Muslim people, and atheists for that matter who do not approve of homosexuality, but they work alongside, employ or in a few cases have homosexuals as friends. They will strongly and passionately argue that their belief is OK...but they don't discriminate. A gay person has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their sexuality.
And a Muslim has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their religion.
Yet central to the Islam is a belief in the immorality of homosexuality.
A Muslim who denies the immorality of homosexuals isn't being a proper Muslim.
It's a baked-in hypocrisy. I would personally say that, given the law forces us to choose which protected characteristic trumps the other, that since homosexuality is innate, and Islam is voluntary, that Muslims should not be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. I can see there's an argument the other way, but I don't think it's a good one.
Yes, it applies to Christians and other religions as well, that believe things we've agreed are not to be tolerated. Except when it's a religion, then we do tolerate it.
Because, apparently, it's not the nasty belief that's the important factor here, but the characteristics of the person who carries the nasty belief, which dictates the nature of the reaction, or not.
Funk said:
I liked Penn Jillette's take on it; Muslims are a group of people whereas Islam is just an idea (as are all religions). It's OK to hate or object to an idea, but it's not OK to hate people because of their ideas regardless of how objectionable those ideas are. Religion is a choice - you can hate Islam but love Muslims.
That's the literal definition, but for some reason it obviously doesn't suit people's agendas. I am an Islamophobe (well, I'm not, because I'm not scared of it, but you know what I mean) because I hold a particularly strong disliking for Islam. However, I have no objection to Muslims existing in line with British social expectations - which, as Islam vs. homosexuality argument demonstrates, generally requires compromising the Quran so that they are not true Muslims - and will gladly interact with them on an individual, personal level without prejudice.Islamophobia is no more than an objection to ideas. Politicians and the public must be able to object to ideas and if we can't then we are living in a state that practises and endorses fascism, even if it's on a such a small level that it doesn't (yet) affect people's daily routines all that much.
biggbn said:
SpeckledJim said:
Well, no, it's been taken out of the realm of individual interpretation by legislation.
A gay person has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their sexuality.
And a Muslim has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their religion.
Yet central to the Islam is a belief in the immorality of homosexuality.
A Muslim who denies the immorality of homosexuals isn't being a proper Muslim.
It's a baked-in hypocrisy. I would personally say that, given the law forces us to choose which protected characteristic trumps the other, that since homosexuality is innate, and Islam is voluntary, that Muslims should not be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. I can see there's an argument the other way, but I don't think it's a good one.
Yes, it applies to Christians and other religions as well, that believe things we've agreed are not to be tolerated. Except when it's a religion, then we do tolerate it.
Because, apparently, it's not the nasty belief that's the important factor here, but the characteristics of the person who carries the nasty belief, which dictates the nature of the reaction, or not.
The crux of the matter is the word discriminate. I know Christian and Muslim people, and atheists for that matter who do not approve of homosexuality, but they work alongside, employ or in a few cases have homosexuals as friends. They will strongly and passionately argue that their belief is OK...but they don't discriminate. A gay person has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their sexuality.
And a Muslim has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their religion.
Yet central to the Islam is a belief in the immorality of homosexuality.
A Muslim who denies the immorality of homosexuals isn't being a proper Muslim.
It's a baked-in hypocrisy. I would personally say that, given the law forces us to choose which protected characteristic trumps the other, that since homosexuality is innate, and Islam is voluntary, that Muslims should not be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. I can see there's an argument the other way, but I don't think it's a good one.
Yes, it applies to Christians and other religions as well, that believe things we've agreed are not to be tolerated. Except when it's a religion, then we do tolerate it.
Because, apparently, it's not the nasty belief that's the important factor here, but the characteristics of the person who carries the nasty belief, which dictates the nature of the reaction, or not.
They're very clearly discriminating, and the law isn't doing much to help this poor bloke.
SpeckledJim said:
biggbn said:
SpeckledJim said:
Well, no, it's been taken out of the realm of individual interpretation by legislation.
A gay person has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their sexuality.
And a Muslim has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their religion.
Yet central to the Islam is a belief in the immorality of homosexuality.
A Muslim who denies the immorality of homosexuals isn't being a proper Muslim.
It's a baked-in hypocrisy. I would personally say that, given the law forces us to choose which protected characteristic trumps the other, that since homosexuality is innate, and Islam is voluntary, that Muslims should not be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. I can see there's an argument the other way, but I don't think it's a good one.
Yes, it applies to Christians and other religions as well, that believe things we've agreed are not to be tolerated. Except when it's a religion, then we do tolerate it.
Because, apparently, it's not the nasty belief that's the important factor here, but the characteristics of the person who carries the nasty belief, which dictates the nature of the reaction, or not.
The crux of the matter is the word discriminate. I know Christian and Muslim people, and atheists for that matter who do not approve of homosexuality, but they work alongside, employ or in a few cases have homosexuals as friends. They will strongly and passionately argue that their belief is OK...but they don't discriminate. A gay person has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their sexuality.
And a Muslim has the right in law to freedom from persecution because of their religion.
Yet central to the Islam is a belief in the immorality of homosexuality.
A Muslim who denies the immorality of homosexuals isn't being a proper Muslim.
It's a baked-in hypocrisy. I would personally say that, given the law forces us to choose which protected characteristic trumps the other, that since homosexuality is innate, and Islam is voluntary, that Muslims should not be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. I can see there's an argument the other way, but I don't think it's a good one.
Yes, it applies to Christians and other religions as well, that believe things we've agreed are not to be tolerated. Except when it's a religion, then we do tolerate it.
Because, apparently, it's not the nasty belief that's the important factor here, but the characteristics of the person who carries the nasty belief, which dictates the nature of the reaction, or not.
They're very clearly discriminating, and the law isn't doing much to help this poor bloke.
biggbn said:
My understanding is it was the message that was the problem in the eyes of the law, not the people asking for the message. If the Baker had refused to sell a gay couple a cake he would be breaking the law. Refusing to write something he does not agree with is different. If someone had asked him to decorate a cake with 'I hate gay people' he would have equally been within his rights to refuse.
It was the fact they objected to the message and not the individual or his beliefs that the case went in their favour. Ziplobb said:
my gut feeling is that there is less Islamaphobia in the Tory party than their is racism (sorry anti -seminitism) in the Labour party
Not sure about that. It's quite normal these days to hear anti muslim rhetoric, and i'm not sure why MP's would be any different.When was the last time you heard anything anti semetic?
BlackLabel said:
It’s such a silly and inappropriate word imo. Anti Muslim bigotry is more accurate. Does it exist? Of course it does. Has it increased? I’m sure it has over the last decade or so.
As for Warsi, why didn’t she do anything when she was Tory chairperson or when a cabinet minister?
The Conservative members suspended were suspended correctly as their comments, as reported, passed over into bigotry.As for Warsi, why didn’t she do anything when she was Tory chairperson or when a cabinet minister?
Warsi herself however should not be in charge of defining Islamophobia as she seems to term this as any criticism of Islam, or concern over its growing role in the UK.
As Warsi would define it at least half the British public are "Islamophobic", based on opinion polls, as they are not happy with the way things are going.
Peter Oborne's not impressed
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/britain-need...
"Something has gone hideously wrong with the modern Conservative Party and Theresa May is incapable of dealing with it"
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/britain-need...
"Something has gone hideously wrong with the modern Conservative Party and Theresa May is incapable of dealing with it"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff