A proposed new definition
Oh gawd they’re talking about “Islamophobia” again.
For the billionth time: Islam is a religion, and we are allowed to dispute religions. Theocracy is bad, and making one particular religion immune from dissent is a bad form of theocracy.
Islam treats women like shit, and we do get to say that.
A proposed new definition of Islamophobia is being considered by the Government, with the intention of helping combat hostility and discrimination to Muslims.
However, representatives of Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs have written to Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, urging him not to place one group above others.
They have also warned that the proposed definition was so vague that it could have a “chilling” effect on matters of public debate such as criticism of halal slaughter, gender segregation or face coverings.
That’s putting it very politely, not to say terrifiedly. Let’s talk about “criticism of” treating women as dangerous filthy whores who are always one glance away from letting men fuck them on the street.
I’ve come to the realisation that a large proportion are simply incapable of abstract thought*. So when we say that we oppose some idea or ideology they are genuinely incapable of believing us. No, we must be bigots who hate a particular person or group because that’s the only scenario they can imagine.
*This has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. I’ve met many genuinely intelligent people who have somehow convinced themselves that only emotions can be truthful and that any application of rationality or use of abstract ideas must be some sort of attempt at deceit. In that respect they are frightenly like the MAGA crowd even though they imagine themselves to be good, progressive people.
It’s a form of Romanticism, or maybe just Romanticism itself. Trust your gut, follow your heart, blah blah blah.