Islamaphobia in Tory party?

[biggbn]

Just read article saying party has suspended a dozen members or so for alleged islamaphobia.

Tories suspend 14 members over alleged Islamophobia

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/05/t...

My question/obsevation is...we have incidents of antisemitism, islamaphobia, homophobia etc...etc... in all walks of life and in all parties doubtless. How common is it in reality? Have you personally experienced it? It seems to me that racism and other 'isms' are endemic in society, culturally ingrained. If we can't sort it out at 'street level' there will always be institutionalised fear of 'the other'. Is this a genuine existential problem or is it same old same old, always has been a problem, always will. Do people care or is apathy and nimbyism prevelant?

[biggbn]

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.

[biggbn]

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.

Should you discriminate against Muslims for their discrimination against homosexuals?

Choose your favourite protected characteristic, because you can't protect both.

Awkward one...?

Yes it is an awkward one. Aren't there also some Christians who translate the Bible as being anti homosexual? There are still some Christians who will not perform same sex marriage. Is this individual choice, individual interpretation?

[biggbn]

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?

Wasn't the crux of the issue that they weren't refusing service to the people because they were Gay, but because the cake they wanted conflicted with their religious beliefs - a cake they wouldn't be willing to make for anyone, not just gay people.

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.

As others have said, it is such a difficult one. If you are an employer and whichever one of the myriad religions you adhere to prohibits homosexuality, or worshiping false idols, and you only employ straight people of the same religion as yourself, you are breaking the law with regard your potential employees protected characteristics, yes? But being forced to employ from wider catchment would be against your protected characteristic? The laws sometimes overlap.

I know people who do not approve of homosexuality yet employ homosexuals...are these people in the minority?

[biggbn]

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?

Wasn't the crux of the issue that they weren't refusing service to the people because they were Gay, but because the cake they wanted conflicted with their religious beliefs - a cake they wouldn't be willing to make for anyone, not just gay people.

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.

9]
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.

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.

[biggbn]

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.

[biggbn]

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.

Well, there's 400 parents trying to drum an award-winning teacher out of his job for teaching to the curriculum. He's gay, and the parents are campaigning outside the school against his immoral teachings and corrosive effect on the straightness of their children.

They're very clearly discriminating, and the law isn't doing much to help this poor bloke.

Which validates my point perfectly. Discrimination is wrong.

[biggbn]

SpeckledJim said:

s1962a said:

SpeckledJim said:

A Muslim who denies the immorality of homosexuals isn't being a proper Muslim.

I'm muslim and I have no problem with homosexuality, so thats a load of rubbish.

Would your imam agree, and if he would, would his boss agree?

Would you ask the same question to a Christian whose translation of his Bible is at odds with his ministry/bishop etc.. ?

Edit, no offence intended but this is a multifaith problem.

[biggbn]

SpeckledJim said:

biggbn said:

SpeckledJim said:

s1962a said:

SpeckledJim said:

A Muslim who denies the immorality of homosexuals isn't being a proper Muslim.

I'm muslim and I have no problem with homosexuality, so thats a load of rubbish.

Would your imam agree, and if he would, would his boss agree?

Would you ask the same question to a Christian whose translation of his Bible is at odds with his ministry/bishop etc.. ?

Edit, no offence intended but this is a multifaith problem.

Absolutely I would. Laughed my head off when Tim Farron couldn't square his circle and call himself a liberal and a Christian at the same time. Equally as ridiculous as any other group who does similar.

We shouldn't be permitting Christianity or anyone else to run, for example, expressly sexist or homophobic recruitment/promotion practices.

If we wouldn't tolerate, for example, the Scouts doing X, then we shouldn't tolerate anyone else doing it either.

Islam's ruling is pretty clear on homosexuality, and whilst I'd absolutely applaud anyone with the sense to disobey, the organisation won't do the same.

Good for you brother man, an open mind is a rarer and rarer commodity these days

[biggbn]

Alpinestars said:

It’s not an “organised” religion with a single leader. It’s hugely fragmented, and each individual makes their own choices. You should judge the religion based on the individual followers, not what you think they might follow. The leaders you describe have no authority to lead, unlike in some other religions. I get that people may look to them for guidance, but you should accept that people make their own choices as well.

Surely the case for all religions?

[biggbn]

desolate said:

Not the case with Catholicism.
And many other Christian religions.

Can you explain why? Surely the Bible is open to individual interpretation? There is a huge range of interpretations available and practiced within those two faiths you mention?

[biggbn]

gregs656 said:

biggbn said:

Can you explain why? Surely the Bible is open to individual interpretation? There is a huge range of interpretations available and practiced within those two faiths you mention?

Because of the organisational structures. The Catholic faith is defined by the leadership of it, there is only 1 branch of it, although I accept that some Catholics may be in conflict with the official line of their church that is not the same thing as having no official line in the first instance.

Edit....Sorry, incorrectly written...the Pope has spoken out about birth control yet many Catholics use it. As with abortion. I am sorry but i do take your point but feel ALL religions may have basic tenets but ALL are open to malleability and individual interpretation, as I believe they should be to remain relevant in an ever changing world.

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 6th March 16:42

[biggbn]

It seems the pope may be in favour of change?

https://onepeterfive.com/pope-francis-really-stand...


It's a really difficult thing to debate with any surety as we seem always to return to interpretation of ancient texts

[biggbn]

gregs656 said:

biggbn said:

Yet the Pope has spoken out in favour of birth control? I am sorry but i do take your point but feel ALL religions may have basic tenets but ALL are open to malleability and individual interpretation, as I believe they should be to remain relevant in an ever changing world.

Your example is in support of my point, not against it.

Catholic Dogma is not up for grabs, of course, but Catholic Doctrine can be changed by the Pope. There is no such equivalence in Islam, no one person in Islam can change the Doctrine in this way.

I see your edit and it doesn't really matter; if individual Catholics choose to run against Catholic Doctrine that is their choice - but it doesn't change the Doctrine. Indeed, Catholics are in the business of people sinning and being forgiven, particularly if they are ready to pay for their forgiveness.

That doesn't change the overall point about how the rules are dictated, which was your query.

Thanks I see your point although no not see how this affects the individual. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[biggbn]

JagLover said:

Countdown said:

Either Rod Liddle doesn't understand English or he's a wuckfit.

Actually it;s quite possible that he could be both. They're not mutually exclusive.

Is it irrational to have misgivings about Islam as a religion and an ideology?.

I don't think it is irrational to have misgivings about any individual who slavishly follows a single interpretation of any religion or ideology...

[biggbn]

desolate said:

biggbn said:

I don't think it is irrational to have misgivings about any individual who slavishly follows a single interpretation of any religion or ideology...

Agree.
Same with those who are so aggressively against those who believe in a god.
"You don't count as a Muslim as you think it's ok to be gay, or to drink"
fk off.

Live and let live man, 100%

[biggbn]

Halb said:

biggbn said:

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.

DO you know why the atheists don't approve of it?

Some atheists man, not all. Personal choice I guess or an outmoded outdated moral compass due to environmental drivers?

Edit...is moral compass the correct term? Will think on this

[biggbn]

edh said:

jakesmith said:

edh said:

The things I find outrageous are:

Go home vans

Hostile environment

Windrush scandal

"papers please" landlord checks found by a court recently to be unlawful and racist.

Theresa May is responsible for all of that and more.

I'm not at all surprised there are racists in the Tory party. Are you? Is anyone?

You think it is racist to try and encourage illegal imigrants to leave the country? That is, in my opinion a key factor in how Brexit happened. UKIP surge and a poor decision by Cameron to remove the UKIP threat. People being fed up with being told that by being concerned about immigration, that they were racist.

Windrush may well be a scandal but affected a heck of a lot less people than the antisemitism scandal in Labour that the Human Rights Watchdog are now investigating, that you've been busy denying in the Jeremy Corbyn thread

Edited by jakesmith on Thursday 7th March 12:10

Edited by jakesmith on Thursday 7th March 12:51

I read on here all the time that Brexit was "nothing to do with immigration" but anyway, the Go Home vans stoked division and distrust, much the same as making landlords into outsourced immigration checkers.

Is whataboutery OK this time? if you really want to compare Labour AS and the Windrush scandal..

Define "affected"? does that mean reading about it and thinking "oh dear that's bad.."
Even the home office says that it has spoken to over 5000 people of this generation who may have suffered immigration problems.

How many people have been wrongly deported to a foreign country, how many have been unable to work, get housing and have been forced into poverty, because of the labour AS issue? How many others are waiting for the knock on the door..?

The disregard for people's lives and rights in this whole episode is disgraceful and racist.

How do you think people feel when they have been threatened by the home office because they have no documentation of their right to remain? How will they have felt when they saw or read of the "Go Home" vans.


oh - "denying" ? from that Corbyn thread...

edh said:

It certainly has a problem. I would not want you to think I was denying that. I was trying to give my opinion on the context.

I also think we have a wider AS problem in the world - from the often casual and almost unnoticed to the extremes evidenced by those video links posted above.

Hear hear.

[biggbn]

So, islamaphobia in the Tory Party....hahaha

[biggbn]

jakesmith said:

edh said:

Shall we get back to the topic?

In the meantime, thousands of Muslims in the UK in the 21st century are being made to feel unwelcome and unsafe in their area, home, community and political party, being bullied, abused online, had death threats made, shouted & spat at in the street, as a result of their religion.

Does the Tory party have a problem in this respect? Is Warsi right? Should they acknowledge and investigate?

Pointing out the hypocrisy of your position is not 'getting off the topic' as it undermines your argument.
Labour is bowing under a deluge of racism that is infesting every part of the organisation, top down, from the leader, to the shadow cabinet, to the NEC, to the party members, to the activists, to the supporters. And you try and throw a bit of mud back.

Your approach to this reminds me of the time I was driving home with my lights off at dusk, and I drove past a police car that had pulled over and handcuffed the driver. As I drove past, the handcuffed driver shouted out 'LIGHTS!!!' at me.
Maybe he was hoping the police would release him and go after me but it didn't happen, also any bystanders were in no doubt as to who was in the wrong in that situation

Nice try at a deflection I would say

Pots and kettles re deflection brother man. This is a thread about the alleged islamaphobia in the Tory Party yet you seem hell bent on steering it towards antisemitism, a topic being discussed elsewhere.

A thoughtful article here if read to the end...

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/antisemitism-labour-th...