hypochondriac

What if you dislike the religion but you're also not a fan of many of those who purport to be followers of the religion but engage in activities that some other followers would disavow?

It's not a pointless rabbit hole, it's the very foundation of the entire point I was making and a leading reason for the problem. The interpretation of the term is why there is an issue and like I said, the article I posted which you have ignored explains that well. We won't agree you're better off agreeing to disagree. My hope is that a definition is not adopted officially and if it is it is repealed as soon as another government gets in power.

Of course that exists who would suggest otherwise? The issue is that bringing in any term needs to be very tightly defined so that it is not misapplied. There's a decent argument for not having a definition outlined here: Labour’s watered-down ‘Islamophobia’ definition will still undermine free speech "It said anyone using the phrases “Muslim grooming gangs” and “Asian grooming gangs” was an “Islamophobe”." "It includes “prejudicial stereotyping” as a form of anti-Muslim hatred, and that could inhibit a social worker or school teacher in a Muslim area from drawing attention to child sexual exploitation, not to mention female genital mutilation or forced marriages." "The danger of any definition, however carefully drawn, is that it will make people think twice before referring to Muslims doing anything wrong, prioritising them above people of other faiths. Indeed, that perception – that the Government is granting Islam a privileged status – may itself fuel anti-Muslim hatred. Recent polling by JL Partners found that only 20 per cent of the public is in favour of an official definition, with 31 per cent thinking it a wholly or somewhat “bad” thing." "Defenders of this initiative point to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which was adopted by Theresa May’s government in 2016 and endorsed by all her Conservative successors. Why should Jews have an official, state-approved definition of anti-Semitism, but not Muslims of anti-Muslim hatred? The obvious rejoinder is that Jews are more likely to be the victims of violent attacks. There’s also the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument. If Muslims, then why not similar protections for Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists? Except they’re not necessary because stirring up religious hatred is already prohibited by the Public Order Act 1986 and discriminating against people on the basis of their religion or belief is prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. To my mind, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is more defensible because it was produced by an alliance of 35 governments around the world committed to Holocaust education, Holocaust remembrance and Holocaust research, not a working group convened by a now disgraced Labour politician. But if the object of the exercise is to reduce attacks on British Muslims, the experience of British Jews in the wake of October 7 2023 tells us that rolling out state-approved definitions of racial and religious hatred doesn’t work. In 2024, the Community Security Trust recorded 3,528 anti-Semitic incidents in the UK, the second-highest annual total on record, and 1,521 in the first half of 2025."

I know you like to tell everyone on the forum what I believe but I'm quite capable of answering for myself.

Well there we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think the word is irrelevant at all and fear of being labelled with that word is one reason for why the rape gangs have persisted for as long as they have. People don't understand what is meant by it and that is the very root of the problem because it has been misapplied both unwittingly and wilfully by people with an agenda. My criticism of block voting is universal, it just so happens that this constituency contained a high number of Muslim voters and there are concerns that they were block voting along religious lines so it very much is relevant to this discussion.

It's not confined to a minority of bad faith actors though. The definition posted above defines it as a dislike of Islam. We know that there have been religious groups using it to try to get legitimate criticism silenced and we know that justice has been delayed or denied due to fear of being labelled Islamophobic. Attempting to bring in an official definition of the word IMO will do much more harm than good due to what I already posted. Violence or open discrimination against someone because they are a Muslim is already illegal and as far as I am aware is already prosecuted.

Supporters of the term like to pretend it means something it does not to try to make it sound like people who oppose the term are suggesting that violence or criminal acts committed against an individual because they are a Muslim are not a thing. That's clearly not the case.

You can't and it's why postal voting is so open to abuse. It should be polling stations only IMO unless there are exceptional circumstances and tightly controlled so that how you vote is secret. That wouldn't solve the problem but it would reduce it. Obviously Labour will never look to bring that in unless the Greens usurp them entirely and it coercion no longer benefits them.

The issue is the misapplication of the word and how it is used in practice. Like I said, if you want to strictly define it to mean hatred of a Muslim because they are a Muslim then I'm not sure there would be too much disagreement. That isn't how it is defined though as @trousers has pointed out. It's used to shut down and prevent legitimate criticism of Islam and the objectionable actions of some Muslims.

If Islamophobia means a hatred of a person simply because they are a Muslim then that would be more understandable. That isn't what I have been led to believe from many people talking about the definition though.

According to Labour it's "Muslimness or perceived Muslimness." I genuinely don't know what that means.

Very difficult to prove. If it gets significantly worse it's only going to fuel the rise of parties like Reform.

TBF it is still technically democracy, I'd say it's a perversion of the electoral process and hasn't really been seen in this country before. I'm not sure what the answer is but it's potentially a big and growing problem.

The point is do people think it is a good or bad thing that a community could have patriarchs that instruct large groups of people who to vote for. You can argue the degree that it happens but it's unarguable that it does happen and that it is likely to get worse and become more of a thing.

Many people have an aversion to many aspects of Islam. It doesn't make them 'islamophobic'

Yes because there's examples of block voting, family voting and religious communities caring more about issues in other countries and religious issues than things relevant to the UK. You brought up Islamophobia again. Next time you want to mention it feel free to refer back to my above post in order to satisfy you with my answer.

Why do you have to be such a bellend all the time? Nothing you've said makes me uncomfortable I'm very open about my beliefs. You're well aware of my view on Islamophobia, I'm not sure why you had to bring it up put of the blue in this thread because I never mentioned it. There are plenty of reasonable and rational reasons to not be a fan of Islam. That's not a phobia. In my opinion Islamophobia is a nonsense word with as yet no official definition that is used by people with an agenda to try to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. This differs from anti Muslim hate crimes and violence which is abhorrent and should be condemned. The above has little to no relevance to this discussion.

Amen to that. Wouldn't be a surprise if this reverts to Labour again at that point when they have a new leader.

I agree with this tweet. Will be interesting to see if the traditional green voter will now change.

In what way is this result worse for Farage than Starmer?

Could we possibly try to have a sensible discussion without the silliness? I haven't gone out of my way to insult or misrepresented you I was attempting a reasonable discussion.

It's pretty difficult when the traditional parties are loathed so much and have let the country down to the degree that no one wants them in power. I can see why even non Muslim traditional Labour voters would consider the Greens just to give them something different on the left. There aren't many other places to turn which is a pretty sad state of affairs.

TBF I said Labour would keep the seat so I was clearly wrong.

One among many other policies. Are you suggesting that sectarianism did not play a part and that family voting wasn't an issue? Plenty of more moderate voices are claiming the opposite

Who was the politician that brought up some airport in Pakistan or wherever as if that was a concern for a UK politician? More of that would be terrible tbh.