Islamophobia-phobia 

Not only am I Islamophobic (I freely admit that I fear the rise in the number of Muslims in our country and the likely effect on our culture), but I am also Islamophobia-phobic. That is, I fear the introduction of an officially defined and recognised entity called ‘Islamophobia’.

Anyone in any doubt that such a definition will be introduced needs to wake up. The Labour government has been working on this since their election. They have been busy gathering evidence of Islamophobia and will appoint an Islamophobia Tsar (surely it should be an Islamophobia Shah? – perhaps Naz is available?!).

Some say that this is simply a blasphemy law being introduced ‘by stealth’. I disagree. It is a full frontal effort to introduce a blasphemy law, and they are brazen about it because they really don’t care what people think. It will ‘curb free speech’, some say, while others say it will lead to ‘self-censorship’. Of course it will. This is precisely the point.

Our growing Muslim population almost. exclusively originate in countries that are not democracies and have limited to non-existent freedom of speech. This makes them hypersensitive to adverse comments about their repulsive religion which has no compatibility with western Christian and democratic values.

And which party do our incoming Muslims mainly vote for? The Labour Party, of course, and in the face of rising support among Muslim ‘communities’ for the Green Party and pressure from their Muslim voter base, the Labour Party are pandering to a vocal but identifiable minority united by a wish to turn the UK into a Muslim state. Moreover, they can turn a bit nasty when the occasion presents itself.

The hypocrisy is staggering given that Christianity and Christians come in for endless ridicule and abuse, especially when they propagate their faith or stand up for what they believe in, such as demonstrating near abortion clinics. Even if they are demonstrating in their heads.

Blasphemy laws were abolished long ago, and in any case, they only protected the established churches north and south of the Scottish border. The Roman Catholic Church was not protected by blasphemy laws. Roman Catholics and Protestants may well have had common grievances against blasphemers if an aspect of their shared theology were criticised, but the Roman Catholic Church had no recourse to law over a blasphemy against something specific to their theology. The proposals for a definition of Islamophobia – one which will, presumably, be enforceable – offers a specific religion protection from criticism of its precepts, its practices and its people. This is a blasphemy law on steroids.

Whilst Islam is detestable, most Muslims are not. As a Christian I recognise that we share many common values regarding, for example, the family. Some Muslims are as opposed to abortion as Roman Catholics and the strictest Muslims, those who take most offence at their religion being criticised, would be among those.

But you will search in vain for any evidence of Muslims protesting outside abortion clinics. Their strategy is longer term. When the Caliphate comes and Sharia law is imposed it will be time to start addressing these issues. Interesting, in this regard, is the support from prominent Muslim MPs to restrict protest outside abortion clinics. Is this because the sight of Christians praying and rosary beads being rattled offends them?

Returning to the definition of Islamophobia that is likely to be adopted, it includes many things that are already covered by UK law such as incitement to violence. But it also contains a clause about anti-Muslimish words or whatever being directed at someone who is ‘perceived to be Muslim’. This, essentially, means that you can be accused of Islamophobia for insulting someone who is not even Muslim and who was not offended by anything you said. Mind you, if someone thought I was Muslim, I would be offended.

Presumably the ‘perceived to be Muslim’ does not include a bearded bigot in a thobe shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’, wearing a suicide vest and wielding a machete. Unless, of course, Zack Polanski has had one magic mushroom too many, black-faced and donned fancy dress. You can never be sure.

Still, one must not be cynical. The government assures us that the new definition will protect harmony, preserve free speech and avoid creating a de facto blasphemy law. And if you believe that, I have a rather fine thobe, a spare copy of the Koran and free subscription to My Cousin Monthly for sale.

Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!

Please follow and like us: