Truthophobia
“Oh but you mustn’t talk about that” – they say, about the very things we have to talk about.
Horrible women-hating coercive demanding religions for instance. Which religion does that conjure up? Shhhhhhhhhh – it doesn’t do to say so.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has been accused of conducting secretive talks to establish a government-wide definition of Islamophobia that critics say could hamper discussions about grooming gangs.
Don’t. We’re allowed to hate religions. Islam is a harsh system of control of humans, triply harsh toward women and not too fond of atheists or Jews. We’re allowed to criticize it and we’re allowed to resist it.
The MP has established a working group to develop the definition, but Conservative frontbencher Claire Coutinho has raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the process.
Coutinho has written to Rayner accusing her of conducting the work in secret, without allowing the public to contribute their views through a consultation period.
The shadow equalities minister warned that a “culture of secrecy around matters relating to race and religion” was a key factor that had previously enabled “gangs of men to groom, rape, and torture young girls with impunity”.
It’s probably not a coincidence that those men were of a religion that despises female people, calling them whores and sluts if they let a bit of hair show. If you teach men to hate women you’re going to end up with men who hate women.
She told The Telegraph: “The Casey report was crystal clear. For years, people were too scared to tell the truth about the rape and torture of children because they were scared of being called racist. Yet Labour is doubling down – pushing a secretive process including the voices of activists who have promoted extreme definitions of Islamophobia that would prevent people discussing genuine concerns around extremism and integration.”
Islam hates us; we get to hate Islam.
Why does this sound familiar?
Oh, yes. Woman-hating religions.
(No intention of hijacking or changing the subject of the discussion from the grooming gang scandal, but there is an uncanny similarity between the two belief systems in their use of shame and fear when manipulating political and legal institutions in order to remain immune from criticism or scrutiny.)
That’s not hijacking or changing the subject. It’s a big subject with many moving parts.
Okay, good.
Of course I didn’t mention the use of bullying, intimidation, and emotional blackmail that is common between transgenderism and Islamism. The similar response to both is also telling; the assumption of “progessiveness” on the part of appeasers, the stifling of debate, the tendency to give them everything they’re demanding, and the cost to women’s rights.
Genderism (fortunately) does not have the Islamists’ ability to draw on the power and manufactured outrage in Muslim majority states to put pressure on the West to curtail its own freedoms, as we saw in the Rushdie fatwa, the Danish cartoons, and Charlie Hebdo assassinations. There were of course those in the West all too ready to comply, blaming the victims for inciting the ensuing violent “backlash”, the equivalent to “what was she wearing”, or “she should have known better than to say that/ do that/ go there/ exist” used against women in order to deflect blame away from male violence. “Look what you made them do!”
Looking at this media report written the light of Starmer’s announcement of a full, independent inquiry, the word “Muslim” does not show up; “Islam” shows up once, but as part of “Islamophobia.” The cheif concern seems to be with race, rather than religion:
By calling critics “Islamophobic”, it is clear that there is an awareness of the connection to the religion, but its “minority” status (with all of the unearned sympathy and reflexive “progressive” defensiveness which we’ve seen the word “minority” trigger), is supposed to warn critics to keep clear of looking too closely, or at all.
Islam has yet to shed quite as many of the more extreme bits of its rules as Christianity and Judaism have. They have also, for the most part, in most places, been supplanted by secular authority in the adminstration of justice, and the organization of society. (Though given the chance, and power, they might very well retake what they once had. There are plenty on the far right who call for exactly that. Theocracy is not as dead and gone in the West as we’d like, or imagine.) Consequently, currently we in the West don’t stone women to death for adultery. But in far too many places, places where Islam holds sway, they still do. If it’s in the Book, it’s on the books.
In a tradition that holds women and non-believers in contempt, and which accepts Mohammad’s
child “marriage”child rape of Ayisha as acceptable, you’ve got fertile ground for exactly what has happened. Combine that with the already appalling conviction rate for rape in the UK, and you have nominally secular, Western authorities willing to sacrifice thousands of girls for the sake of “community cohesion”, letting these Muslim, Pakistani men continue raping with impunity for far too long. But then again, Muslim, Pakistani men, apart from the degree of organization, aren’t really that special; the police in the UK have essentially been letting any man do the same. After all, it’s only women and girls.Here’s the link to the item I quoted above:
https://theweek.com/crime/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-explained