Image 01 Image 03

UK Police: Proposed Islamophobia Definition to ‘Undermine Counter-Terror Operations’ 

UK Police: Proposed Islamophobia Definition to ‘Undermine Counter-Terror Operations’ 

The term “could be used to challenge legitimate free speech on the historical or theological actions of Islamic states.”

The new Islamophobia definition proposed by an all-party British parliamentary group could undermine police efforts in countering Islamic terrorism, the UK police warned.

The legal adoption of the term could hamper law enforcement officers from going after terrorists and those spreading jihadist propaganda, UK’s National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), a body representing country’s police chiefs, said.

The definition conflates hate-speech and legitimate criticism of Islam, according to the police body. “As it stands, this definition risks shutting down debate about any interpretation of the tenets of Islam which are at odds with our laws and customs, which in turn would place our police officers and members of the judicial system in an untenable position,” NPCC chief Martin Hewitt wrote in a letter addressed to Prime Minister Theresa May.

The definition empowers suspected jihadis and jeopardizes counter-terror operations. It “would potentially allow those investigated by police and the security services for promoting extremism, hate and terrorism to legally challenge any investigation and potentially undermine many elements of counter-terrorism powers and policies on the basis that they are “Islamophobic’,” head of UK counter-terror policing, Neil Basu, advised.

British newspaper Independent reported the letter expressing the concerns of the UK police chiefs:

Police leaders have raised concerns that a proposed definition of Islamophobia will undermine counterterror operations and threaten freedom of speech.

In a letter to the prime minister, the head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) said the change could “undermine many elements of counterterrorism powers and policies”, including port stops, bans on terrorist groups and propaganda, and the legal duty requiring schools, councils and the NHS to report suspected extremism.

NPCC chair Martin Hewitt said: “We take all reports of hate crime very seriously and will investigate them thoroughly; however, we have some concerns about the proposed definition of ‘Islamophobia’ made by the All-Party Parliamentary Group [APPG] on British Muslims.

“We are concerned that the definition is too broad as currently drafted, could cause confusion for officers enforcing it and could be used to challenge legitimate free speech on the historical or theological actions of Islamic states.

“There is also a risk it could also undermine counterterrorism powers, which seek to tackle extremism or prevent terrorism.

The Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, and Scottish Conservatives adopted the definition. Prime Minister May has so far refused to adopt the proposal, but the government has faced mounting pressure from British politicians — including members of her own party — and British Muslim groups.

Former Conservative party co-chair Sayeeda Warsi slammed the police for criticizing the Islamophobia definition, calling NPCC chief Hewitt’s letter an “irresponsible scaremongering.” Warsi, who has repeatedly faced accusations of making antisemitic remarks, also wants an inquiry into ‘Islamophobia’ within the Conservative party.

Britain is home to some 25,000 Islamists “who could pose threat” to the country, a 2017 intelligence assessment found. Hundreds of Islamic State terrorists traveled back to Britain after committing heinous war crimes in Syria and Iraq. Around 400 ISIS returnees were availing “taxpayer-funded right to return bid,” a recent report in the UK daily Telegraph said.

The security services, already overwhelmed by the surging Islamism across the UK, will face new legal hurdles if Islamophobia is enshrined in the British law. A state-sanctioned definition of Islamophobia, as proposed by the lawmakers, will prevent law enforcement from understanding the true nature of jihad warfare, an existential threat to the West, by deliberately criminalizing free inquiry into the theological roots of Islamic terrorism.

UK talkshow host Maajid Nawaz wants the term “Islamophobia” scrapped

[Cover image via YouTube]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


tarheelkate | May 17, 2019 at 7:23 am

The term “Islamophobia” is one of the premiere propaganda successes of our time, and a highly malevolent one.

A person who shoots innocent people gathered at a mosque can properly be accused of having an extreme and irrational hatred of Muslims.

Someone who disagrees with Islamic doctrine and practice, and says so, is exercising free speech. This is not a “phobia.”

Terence G. Gain | May 17, 2019 at 8:09 am

Given Britain’s absurd accommodation of Muslims this decision is surprising, but very welcome.

Given Islam’s doctrine and history of conquest and the fact that every Muslim has a religious duty to spread Islam until the whole world is Under Allah, fear of Islam is very prudent. An ideology that demands laws banning criticism should be criticized on that account alone. An ideology that regards itself as supreme to all others without any evidence to justify such self-regard is irrational. An ideology whose adherents routinely resort to violence to resolve disagreements is unenlightened and should be challenged.

    The decision of the national police group to publicly oppose is somewhat surprising, but in the end my only surprise will be if it derails laws and regulations in Britain defining “Islamophobia”. As tarheelkate points out, suspicion of Islamists is not an irrational, unreasoned fear. We often see a counter that the Bible has many instances of violence by Christians, which is true. But those are historic instances and are not current doctrine. The various Christian churches do not call for expansion of the faith by violent means, while Islam has never disavowed the call to spread Islam by any means necessary, including violence and war. Even those Imams who say there is no such doctrine, or disavow the use of violence, have a problem. They may individually abhor the violence of Jihadists and truly wish Muslims would avoid violence completely, but it is legitimate to lie to kafirs, so rational people should take that into consideration in assessing the position of the person.

      fscarn in reply to Edward. | May 17, 2019 at 9:45 am

      Instances of violence in the Bible are descriptive (“this is what happened”); those found in the Qur’an are prescriptive (“this is what you as Muslims are to do”).

      The following from, Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?
      by Raymond Ibrahim,

      Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. God clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that—history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law. In short, biblical accounts of violence are descriptive, not prescriptive.

      This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Old Testament—commanded by God and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence and intolerance have become standardized in Islamic law and apply at all times. Thus, while the violence found in the Qur’an has a historical context, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Qur’anic verses, better known as the “sword-verses”:

      Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. [Qur’an 9,5]

      Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day, and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled. [Qur’an 9,29]

        Valerie in reply to fscarn. | May 17, 2019 at 11:04 am

        There is a strain of perversion in current-day Islam.

        How else are we to interpret a story about their Prophet’s refusal to have have his portrait painted (to avoid having it become an object of worship) that has become an excuse for murder?

Let them reap what they sow!

Total surrender, like true cowards.

“The definition empowers suspected jihadis and jeopardizes counter-terror operations.”

That’s exactly what it’s supposed to do. Complainers names will be marked down so they can be dealt with later.

4th armored div | May 17, 2019 at 9:13 am

think about the damage to the USA that only TWO islamics are doing here!

we need to declare Islam an enemy of Humanity.

want to see the future, just look at how for 70 years the Islamics will not come to peacefully accept the ONLY Jewish State in the world.

Be afraid – very afraid of this IDOLolegy of supremacy.
the left believes that the islamics can be used to spread leftist programs – instead what would happen is the opposite.

bring on the flour sacks to cover women, etc.

not a sarcastic post.

I’m shocked the police have time to complain since they spend all their time getting cooking tools off the street.

Once the Brits actually implement BREXIT, they will have a much freer hand to deal with subversive Mulsim groups.

This prohibition of “islamophobia” — meaning any criticism of Islamists, is the first step in the process of instituting blasphemy laws.

JusticeDelivered | May 17, 2019 at 12:37 pm

Oberlin smeared Gibsons, go to review sites like this one to rate Oberlin:

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 17, 2019 at 7:21 pm

Then maybe there is hope for this case.

Christian Student Forced to Write Islamic Conversion Creed Appeals Case to Supreme Court