The UK government has published more details about a working group set up to advise it on a possible definition of Islamophobia which would also protect the right to “insult” religious beliefs and practices.
The membership of the working group appears to signal that the government is engaging with the recently launched British Muslim Network (BMN), but not the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) - the largest umbrella body claiming to represent British Muslims.
Dominic Grieve, a former Conservative attorney general, has been appointed chair of the group with BMN co-chair Akeela Ahmed among its four other members.
Ahmed’s inclusion in the working group comes just weeks after the official launch of the BMN in February with backing from faith minister Khan, and after Middle East Eye had previously revealed it had lost much of its Muslim support and was being backed by a charity set up by disgraced former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby.
Doubling down on your Islamophobia after being presented an example proving you are completely wrong is certainly a strategy.
what’s islamophobic about what I said? Everything I said is undeniably true isn’t it?
Do you think people shouldn’t be allowed to point out uncomfortable truths about your religion?
You dismissed the Muslim rape gang hoax by calling it a “conspiracy theory” and the rest of your comments is crusader displaying. It would help if you were able to engage with facts instead of trying to pivot to hate speech.
I’m happy to talk facts. Start with telling me your religious affiliation. We can take it from there.
Trying to get someone to profess their religious affiliations just so you can have an easy dunk and dismiss what they’re saying out of hand is not the killer debate tactic you think it is. Geneva_convenience being a Muslim or not has nothing to do with the truthfulness of ‘Muslim grooming gangs’. The term ‘grooming gang’ has no legal definition, BTW. It’s pure media invention that’s only employed against South Asians, despite the perpetrators of group-based child sexual exploitation being predominately white.
If we’re talking about religion and conspiracy theories then yes, your religious affiliation is relevant. The more religious someone is, the more likely they are to believe in conspiracy theories, such as the ones I mentioned.
This thread started with geneva_convenience claiming the rape gangs were a hoax. That’s crazy talk. They were not a hoax, heinous crimes were ignored and brushed under the carpet for years, children were seriously let down by the system, police and authorities missed many opportunities to help children in desperate need. There is no hoax there, and to call it a hoax is on a par with holocaust denial.
Your whataboutism to try to minimise the rapists’ crimes is completely irrelevant and at best missing the point. No one is saying these are the only people to commit rapes, literally nobody is saying that.
Literally trying to do a genetic fallacy. Trust me it not Geneva_convenience who looks like the raving conspiracy theorist here.
The hoax isn’t that there weren’t gangs of people of South Asian decent participating in group-based child sexual exploitation, but that this was a phenomenon exclusive to/overrepresented by the South Asian community. The hoax is the picture the media painted in the public’s eyes that ‘rape gangs’ (no legal definition of this either, BTW) were predominantly done by Muslim men.
You don’t know what Geneva_convenience did or didn’t mean. Unlike you, I didn’t make any assumptions, I just asked them to clarify. They couldn’t or didn’t want to. Why you then came jumping in like a sad loser is anyone’s guess.
If you want to talk about the subject of this post, then make a comment of your own. I’m not interested in discussing your assumptions about what some other person actually meant.