Islamaphobia is getting out of control

Thank you for the clarification GrannyGravy. It did seem a bit daft.

Anniebach

Glorianny
I wondered about this. I regularly see people on public transport wearing masks, apparently they couldn't join a march unless they were willing to put their health at risk

Who does one ask for permission to join a march ?

What has permission to do with.it?
If you need to wear a mask for health reasons you cannot go on a march because you will be asked to remove it, and if you are, and refuse you may be arrested. So do you risk your health?

growstuff

Callistemon21

growstuff

Urmstongran

Islam is not a race. It is not racist to criticise a religion.

There is only one race - the human race.

"Racist" has a specific meaning which covers hatred of people belonging to a religious or national group. Presumably you don't think anti-semitism is racist. By that reasoning, you obviously think that doesn't exist either.

That has already been discussed and biologically yes, but sociologically there are different races.

If there is only one race there would be no need for Race Relations Acts and ergo no-one could claim to be the victim of racial discrimination.

From a scientific point of view, there really is only one race. It is impossible to divide the human race into separate races because there is a huge overlap in haploid groups, although it was tried in the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Racist and racism are modern concepts, which have generally been accepted, to describe discrimination based on (usually) physical characteristics. There's a good explanation in Adam Rutherford's "How to argue with a racist".

In any case, that's a red herring. Discrimination does exist. Anti-semitism exists, as does Islamophobia (whatever anybody chooses to call it). Ironically, Palestinians are closer genetically to Jews whose ancestry is in the middle East and round the Mediterranean than those same Jews are to Jews who have immigrated to Israel from Eastern Europe. Evidence suggests they have relatively recent (in terms of human development) common ancestry.

Yes, I know.
I said that race is a social concept and you now agree the human race point was a red herring.

Full circle- here we were prosecuted for not wearing a mask a few years ago - now it’s the opposite for your mob.

Islamic fundamentalists opposed to British values have become experts in gaming a broken system.

‘Islamic fundamentalists have become masters at invoking liberal values like tolerance, liberty and human rights in order to destroy them’

They have exploited the flawed liberal multiculturalist social model to create ghettos where sex-segregated restaurants, and madrassas that teach their students that dancing is inspired by the devil, are the daily reality. They have exploited the liberal policy of “community outreach” via a select number of unelected elders to amass control of local “ethnic” voting blocs and silence rival moderates.

They have become masters at invoking liberal values like tolerance, liberty and human rights in order to destroy them. This can be seen when it comes to the strategy of branding all criticism of Islamism as Islamophobic.

I've been thinking about this issue over the last few days. I've no real opinion about Lee Anderson but I keep coming back to thinking that if he believes what he's saying, doesn't he have the right a voice? Shouldn't the challenge be along the lines of 'show your proof ' as opposed to shutting down any debate?

growstuff

Thank you for the clarification GrannyGravy. It did seem a bit daft.

I imagine it’s because the Met are aware of the identity of so called agitators who turn up at protests with the one aim of disruption. (Whatever the protest/march is for)

They haven’t got the time or numbers to ask every protester to remove their face covering.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

Thank you for the clarification GrannyGravy. It did seem a bit daft.

I imagine it’s because the Met are aware of the identity of so called agitators who turn up at protests with the one aim of disruption. (Whatever the protest/march is for)

They haven’t got the time or numbers to ask every protester to remove their face covering.

At the march in October 7 people were arrested 4 of them for refusing to remove a face mask
www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestine-supporters-march-london-against-israel-action-gaza-2023-10-14/
At an anti-fascist march a woman spent 2 nights in a police cell for refusing to remove her mask. She said she feared retribution from the fascist demonstrators. She was cleared of all charges at the magistrates court.

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

Thank you for the clarification GrannyGravy. It did seem a bit daft.

I imagine it’s because the Met are aware of the identity of so called agitators who turn up at protests with the one aim of disruption. (Whatever the protest/march is for)

They haven’t got the time or numbers to ask every protester to remove their face covering.

At the march in October 7 people were arrested 4 of them for refusing to remove a face mask
www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestine-supporters-march-london-against-israel-action-gaza-2023-10-14/
At an anti-fascist march a woman spent 2 nights in a police cell for refusing to remove her mask. She said she feared retribution from the fascist demonstrators. She was cleared of all charges at the magistrates court.

It isn’t clear from that article if they were arrested on suspicion of defacing the BBC building with red paint. Lots of people are arrested then acquitted?

I will repeat that it is not illegal to wear a face covering on a protest March.

Cadenza123

I've been thinking about this issue over the last few days. I've no real opinion about Lee Anderson but I keep coming back to thinking that if he believes what he's saying, doesn't he have the right a voice? Shouldn't the challenge be along the lines of 'show your proof ' as opposed to shutting down any debate?

I agree, Cadenza

But free speech/freedom of speech comes with responsibility. It also comes with someone's right to reply.

The "problem" with people like Lee Anderson is the FACT that not only is he a politician, he's a star of social media and has a massive following. People believe him, even if what he says is untrue, if his facts are twisted or if even if he might just be telling the truth. The danger is that many followers of people like him, Yaxley Lennon, Calvin Robinson et al are ill-educated, feel let down/ostracised by the public and government and follow these people because they shout what they want to hear. Regardless of whether it's factual or not.

Yes, isn't it all to do with live facial recognition cameras which pick distinguishing features? So like at passport control you are asked to remove hats, even glasses sometimes. I guess sophisticated police cameras are focused on a specific area and have a watch list of those who might cause harm. Any scarves or masks might inhibit that process and there would soon be an outcry if police didn't remove the offender pretty swiftly. Isn't it those who are thought to be trying to conceal their identity who will be asked to remove their face coverings?

Joseann

Yes, isn't it all to do with live facial recognition cameras which pick distinguishing features? So like at passport control you are asked to remove hats, even glasses sometimes. I guess sophisticated police cameras are focused on a specific area and have a watch list of those who might cause harm. Any scarves or masks might inhibit that process and there would soon be an outcry if police didn't remove the offender pretty swiftly. Isn't it those who are thought to be trying to conceal their identity who will be asked to remove their face coverings?

Joseann

You might find this interesting 😊

www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/fr/facial-recognition-technology/

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

Thank you for the clarification GrannyGravy. It did seem a bit daft.

I imagine it’s because the Met are aware of the identity of so called agitators who turn up at protests with the one aim of disruption. (Whatever the protest/march is for)

They haven’t got the time or numbers to ask every protester to remove their face covering.

At the march in October 7 people were arrested 4 of them for refusing to remove a face mask
www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestine-supporters-march-london-against-israel-action-gaza-2023-10-14/
At an anti-fascist march a woman spent 2 nights in a police cell for refusing to remove her mask. She said she feared retribution from the fascist demonstrators. She was cleared of all charges at the magistrates court.

It isn’t clear from that article if they were arrested on suspicion of defacing the BBC building with red paint. Lots of people are arrested then acquitted?

I will repeat that it is not illegal to wear a face covering on a protest March.

From the article
As the demonstration ended, police said seven arrests had been made, four of them for refusing to remove face masks.

SeaWoozle

Cadenza123

I've been thinking about this issue over the last few days. I've no real opinion about Lee Anderson but I keep coming back to thinking that if he believes what he's saying, doesn't he have the right a voice? Shouldn't the challenge be along the lines of 'show your proof ' as opposed to shutting down any debate?

I agree, Cadenza

But free speech/freedom of speech comes with responsibility. It also comes with someone's right to reply.

The "problem" with people like Lee Anderson is the FACT that not only is he a politician, he's a star of social media and has a massive following. People believe him, even if what he says is untrue, if his facts are twisted or if even if he might just be telling the truth. The danger is that many followers of people like him, Yaxley Lennon, Calvin Robinson et al are ill-educated, feel let down/ostracised by the public and government and follow these people because they shout what they want to hear. Regardless of whether it's factual or not.

Calvin Robinson “ill educated”? He went to Uni, was a teacher, is an ordained Minister, is mixed race and a top guy! I don’t think he needs to “follow” anybody. He has his own ideas and opinions and makes them known.

SeaWoozle

Joseann

Yes, isn't it all to do with live facial recognition cameras which pick distinguishing features? So like at passport control you are asked to remove hats, even glasses sometimes. I guess sophisticated police cameras are focused on a specific area and have a watch list of those who might cause harm. Any scarves or masks might inhibit that process and there would soon be an outcry if police didn't remove the offender pretty swiftly. Isn't it those who are thought to be trying to conceal their identity who will be asked to remove their face coverings?

Joseann

You might find this interesting 😊

www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/fr/facial-recognition-technology/

Thanks SeaWoozle.

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

Thank you for the clarification GrannyGravy. It did seem a bit daft.

I imagine it’s because the Met are aware of the identity of so called agitators who turn up at protests with the one aim of disruption. (Whatever the protest/march is for)

They haven’t got the time or numbers to ask every protester to remove their face covering.

At the march in October 7 people were arrested 4 of them for refusing to remove a face mask
www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestine-supporters-march-london-against-israel-action-gaza-2023-10-14/
At an anti-fascist march a woman spent 2 nights in a police cell for refusing to remove her mask. She said she feared retribution from the fascist demonstrators. She was cleared of all charges at the magistrates court.

It isn’t clear from that article if they were arrested on suspicion of defacing the BBC building with red paint. Lots of people are arrested then acquitted?

I will repeat that it is not illegal to wear a face covering on a protest March.

From the article
^As the demonstration ended, police said seven arrests had been made, four of them for refusing to remove face masks.^

You really are splitting hairs to suit your narrative.

Four were arrested for refusing to remove face coverings, the article does not say why these four were singled out.

They were acquitted.

Primrose53

Nope. Read my post again. I said his followers.

And we'll beg to differ on whether he's a top guy, or not.

The Muslim religion has no historical connection with Britain or British people. So I cannot understand why we are expected to show it so much reverence, regard and respect. It is nothing to do with us. Yet it causes so much friction and trouble and even murder and mayhem in this country.

Urmstongran

The Muslim religion has no historical connection with Britain or British people. So I cannot understand why we are expected to show it so much reverence, regard and respect. It is nothing to do with us. Yet it causes so much friction and trouble and even murder and mayhem in this country.

🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱

The Muslim religion has no historical connection with Britain or British people.

I think you need to study some British history, Ug

Urmstongran

The Muslim religion has no historical connection with Britain or British people. So I cannot understand why we are expected to show it so much reverence, regard and respect. It is nothing to do with us. Yet it causes so much friction and trouble and even murder and mayhem in this country.

Yes, just go away all you non Celts, let’s become pagan again shall we? (Joke).

Muslims have roots in Britain that go back centuries. 16th Century I believe. Hundreds of thousands for example fought for this country in the First World War.

Yes look at our history
It’s also impossible to consider our history by excluding The Empire/ our colonial history.
Muslim soldiers fought in support of the UK and allies in WW1 and Ww2
Many of us have family members with connection to British Muslims. My family includes a 30 year old woman who grew up as a Muslim. She loves her family. They love her and her partner, a key member of our family. Like many of my Catholic friends 50 years ago, there’s a gentle avoidance of addressing the fact she no longer ‘believes’

This might be helpful on the history of Muslims in Britain.

Though, IMO, it skates rather too lightly over the contribution of the British Empire and our takeover of their countries...

www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/uk_1.shtml

Interesting to see the claim the Muslim religion has no historical connection with Britain or the British people. Can the poster have so little appreciation of British history? Maybe the person wanted us to review the historical facts, to refute her claims. Well done! We are probably more knowledgeable than before their provocative post! Ps earliest links between Muslims and British Isles has been proven to be 8th century (Cambridge press)