A few days ago, during Prime Minister’s Questions, Tahir Ali Labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green called for the government to take “clear and measurable steps to prevent acts that fuel hatred in society”, with specific emphasis on Islam.
He referred to last year’s United Nations Human Rights Council resolution “condemning the desecration of religious texts, including the Koran”.
Keir Starmer agreed, telling Parliament that “we are, as I said before, committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including Islamophobia”.Indeed, it would seem that our Prime Minister, habitually putting the international order of the United Nations above the national one of the Crown in Parliament, supports the Pakistani-sponsored UN General Assembly resolution on “combating Islamophobia” on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
As Starmer nodded in acquiescence to Tahir Ali MP’s suggestions, a Muslim school girl admitted in court to lying that her history teacher, Samuel Paty, was Islamophobic.
This falsehood led him to being decapitated by an asylum-seeking jihadist.
She lied because she had been suspended from school for a couple of days for bad behaviour and feared her father’s wrath.
To avoid short-term unpleasantness, she made up a story about the hapless teacher ordering Muslim students to leave his classroom while he showed caricatures of Mohammed drawn by Charlie Hebdo, an anarchist French weekly.
He was beheaded for the crime of perceived Islamophobia. Incidentally, the French magazine became the focus of international news in 2015 when two French-born Muslims murdered 15 cartoonists and journalists, injuring 11 others, because of the publication’s perceived Islamophobia. Mocking Mohammed carries the death penalty, according to the Fiqh of Islam (Islamic jurisprudence).
Closer to home, the rhythm of violent attacks and terror-like incidents inspired by the peace creed daily gathers speed.
Sometimes, the offences are heinous enough to make it to the front page for a brief second. More often, though, they are pushed to the back pages where they go to die in obscurity. Only three weeks ago, twenty men were jailed for the rape and sexual abuse of young girls in West Yorkshire.
Worthy of a national debate? Not at all. All these men had one specific thing in common, which is why news on the topic was subdued. The refrain of that awful tune returns so regularly that it no longer registers, apart perhaps deep in our national psyche as an unbearable and accumulating sense of humiliation that, when dwelled upon, brings tears of innermost shame to the eye of Britain’s toughest.Perceived Islamophobia, then, is deadly.
It will be much more lethal soon. The Labour Party already agrees with the United Nations definition of Islamophobia, co-signed by exalted states such as Sudan, Somalia and Pakistan. Intellectual giants Professor Imran Awan and Dr Irene Zempi of Birmingham City University and Nottingham Trent University, respectively, wrote a briefing paper on the definition.
Islamophobia is rooted in racism according to Awan and Zempi, the United Nations and, unsurprisingly, our very own Labour Party in government.
The transformation of Islam from a religion to a race is a deeply dishonest metamorphosis. It is in fact a dangerous lie.
Islam is a religion, not a race. There is no overlap at all between the former and the latter. Forcing the religion peg into the race hole, however, is politically expedient to our iconoclastic leadership class. It means the threshold for criminal prosecution is easier to cross and the inevitable death knell to free speech in the UK.
Back in 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims heard from Dr Nadya Ali and Dr Ben Witham that “there is no ‘good faith’ criticism of Islam”, with the central concept being the “inseparability of race and religion”. Both agreed that the ability to speak freely on the topic is “Islamophobic hate speech” and “anti-Muslim racism”.
MP’s call for Islamophobia crackdown misses the point entirely, writes Alex story
GB News/Reuters
As an aside, the extremism of the language must be read to be believed. Of course, the corollary is that theological discussions about Islam’s central claims, or Islamic text or fact-based evaluation of Mohammed and the Koran will be criminalised unless these agree with the Sunnah. Intellectual curiosity on the topic, or anything that pertains to it, will be forbidden.
Furthermore, anyone trying to establish what links Islamic terrorism and Mohammed, who is the example to follow in all things to Muslims, will potentially be subject to criminal investigation.
Seeking truth will become the offence. Much more pernicious, however, but embedded in the discussion, is the idea that the crime of Islamophobia could be retrospectively applied.
As Professor Aristotle Kallis said to the committee, “The institutionalisation of the term genocide allowed for it to be used retrospectively and thus locate all similar crimes within the same category – a process that would be invaluable for identifying and tackling Islamophobic crimes”.
If Starmer supports Tahir Ali’s view of criminalising Islamophobia, with the broad Labour Party, Pakistan and the United Nation’s Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s blessing, the entire history of Great Britain will be judged retrospectively and dismantled.
This could happen very fast. Churchill, among others, will be an obvious target for the retrospective crime of Islamophobia.
He wrote in The River War in 1899 that Islam “is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog”.Another target will be the Cross of St George.
It was Richard the Lionheart’s crusader flag, after all. England’s greatest warrior king will be turned from a Romance Hero into a race criminal for his heroic, kingly deeds over 800 years ago.
Every Great British person or institution of note will be attacked for their perceived Islamophobia unless they submit to the orthodoxy.
Anyone wishing to defend them will be attacked in turn. The victim will become the aggressor and the aggressor the parliamentary-backed victim.
Of note is that the parliamentary document refers to “British values” as a nebulous concept, with the nation-state contributing to “compartmentalising and ‘othering’ Muslims”.
The nation-state, according to our very own parliamentarians, is problematic.
Perhaps former peer and journalist Matt Ridley put it best when he said: “A truly black moment for Britain to hear a Prime Minister effectively endorse the idea that we should reintroduce blasphemy law.”
The curtain on our sceptred isle could fall very quickly if it hasn’t already done so.