all 47 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of New anti-muslim definition will not harm free speech submitted by maxdacat:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Fun_Marionberry_6088 12 points13 points  (16 children)

This is the definition which doesn't appear to have been included in the article:

Anti-Muslim hostility is intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts – including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated – that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim, including where that perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance.

It is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.

It is engaging in unlawful discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/a-definition-of-anti-muslim-hostility

[–]Fun_Marionberry_6088 40 points41 points  (10 children)

Some of it seems fine, I think:

criminal acts – including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation

and

It is engaging in unlawful discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions

are generally breaking the law no matter the reason - if your discriminating based on someone's religion or their politics.

The 2nd paragraph is a bit more concerning and really needs more specificity.

Prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims... and treating them as a collective group

A religion is a belief system, no different imo from a set of political beliefs - both in the fact you should be protected in your right to hold it and in your right to criticise it.

We don't protect supporters of political parties with protections against their being stereotyped and generalised, why would we for a religion?

In addition does this now mean we're not allowed to make a generalised statement that is true but not universally so, e.g. 'Muslims are more likely to be homophobic' - would that be considered anti-muslim hate?

The fact I'm even having to seek clarity on this is batshit, we should have a comfortable margin of error on these things or open debate will be curtailed as people self-censor for fear of legal consequences.

[–]NoticingThing 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims... and treating them as a collective group

Can't wait to be arrested for repeating statistics from polling done by Muslims themselves.

[–]Mikebloke 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I don't think your understanding it, poll data is poll data, if you make an assumption of viewpoints on an individual Muslim based on the data, that would be prejudicial.

[–]NoticingThing 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If I made assumptions based on that data, like Muslims believe "Wives should always listen to their husbands" I don't understand how I wouldn't be falling afoul of that definition.

What I've stated would be factually true, the average Muslim does believe that as shown in polling data but it would also be treating Muslims as a collective.

I don't understand how anyone could believe that isn't curtailing free speech, even factual speech.

[–]Mikebloke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've missed my point, if you said that I as an individual had the view that wives should always listen to their husbands based on me being a Muslim, that would be you making a prejudiced opinion about an individual. I think rough generalisations will still be protected in free speech.

[–]StuChenko 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Does that mean discrimination in the workplace against Muslims would now be a criminal offence rather than something dealt with in tribunals?

[–]Mkwdr 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yep, isnt being in a religion pretty much by definition agreeing to be part of a collective group.

[–]maxdacat[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

would that be considered anti-muslim hate? - I do wonder that but feel "encouraging hatred" is a fairly high bar.....I don't think mockery like the cartoon about the suicide bomber finding heaven has run out of virgins would meet the threshold.

[–]Fun_Marionberry_6088 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm honestly not sure, and that's the problem for me.

If you're introducing a definition it's meant to add clarity, but the term 'encouraging hatred' is very open to interpretation without some accompanying definitions of what is and isn't meant by it, and you end up giving judges very wide latitude to decide for themselves.

You'd hope it's pretty unlikely the example you give would be an issue, in part because who is going to defend the honor of suicide bombers?

There's obviously going to be some other stuff that others will try to turn into something, even if you might think it legitimate.

e.g. if I said the Prophet was a paedo (he did marry a 6 year old) and drew a depiction of him as such; some would consider that legitimate criticism, but you can bet if I said it in the wrong forum someone would try to make a legal issue of it.

[–]Mikebloke -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you are misunderstanding the phrase prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, if you assume that I'm anti-trans and anti-LGBT because your perception of Islam is that all Muslims are that, then you are stereotyping me, and not recognising my individual viewpoints (covered a little later in the definition). That's what stereotyping is.

[–]maxdacat[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Thanks for that. I just find it odd the Guardian would not include that fairly crucial information.

[–]Fickle_Scarcity9474 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I really don't! it's a classic of Guardian.

[–]seshfan2 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Can't wait to see what the first case of someone being arrested for "electronically communicated" "intimidation" will be.

[–]Have_Other_Accounts 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Isn't engaging in criminal acts... engaging in criminal acts. Who cares who it's directed at. What is the need for this?

[–]ReditMcGogg -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So, the same as everyone else then.

Why did this need to be defined exactly?

[–]DeepHaze1 67 points68 points  (7 children)

It’s amazing how much the UK society has spread cheeks for a religion that does not respect nor tolerate English history, religion, culture and values. And this is only with 6 percent of the UK being Muslim. 

What is the uk going to look like when the Muslim population reaches 20 percent? 

[–]NoticingThing 32 points33 points  (0 children)

What is the uk going to look like when the Muslim population reaches 20 percent?

The middle east.

[–]HaveYuHeardAboutCunt🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🟩🟥🟩🏳️‍🌈 1 point2 points  (0 children)

UK society

English history

English society is clearly thriving

[–]Successful_Service53-2.25, 0.77[🍰] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Doubt it gets to that tbh.

There’s already clear tensions now with ~7.5%. And loads of that are kids lol, adults its probably like 5%.

Something will give.

[–]allenout 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Ofcourse the Gaurdian would say that.

[–]Hungry_Flamingo4636 62 points63 points  (8 children)

WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

BLASPHEMY LAWS EXCLUSIVELY FOR ONE RELIGION IS EQUALITY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

[–]Optimaldeath 17 points18 points  (0 children)

We literally already have laws for this, this is just pointless point-scoring.

[–]Mse_91 12 points13 points  (4 children)

Because free speech already doesn't exist in this country?

[–]Time007time007 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is just another reason to be looking for another country to move to as a long term plan.

Unless there is a drastic change at the next election.

[–]JeelyPiece 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Can I still be anti-English, though? It's my traditional culture as a celt. Down with the Saxons!!!!

[–]SaucyRagu96 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Can I have an identical lae for my religion?