The word has not gained the same currency as ‘antisemitism’ because its original one was fundamentally flawed, and subsequent iterations inadequate.
I have intentionally used the structure of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism, since it has become an industry standard.
The first in a mini-series of three pieces on this site about anti-Muslim prejudice – and what the Government and Party should do about it.
The attack is a salutary reminder that all terrorists, by definition, believed in something and have a cause.
It is damaged beyond repair by poor definitions, confusion and misuse. The term harms Muslims.
Government dialogue with an organisation doesn’t mean Ministers rewarding it. Rather, it means engaging with it.
It would be even more irresponsible than David Cameron putting an undefined “Leave the EU” option on the 2016 ballot paper.
The disease affecting Labour about Jews is now affecting the Conservatives about Muslims.
I personally don’t care if someone burns a copy of the Quran, provided they bought it and do so without creating a fire or smoke hazard. But it is illegal in the UK.
The only obligation of an MP is to exercise their best judgement. If they believe it is in the national interest to withdraw Article 50 so we can stay in the EU they should make that decision.
Last year’s general election saw Labour decisively re-open a lead which we had worked hard to reduce in 2010 and 2015.
The definition has been consistently attacked by self-described “Anti-Zionists” as attempting to shut down criticism of Israel, when it does no such thing.
After negotiations with the rest of the EU have been completed, the final agreement must be brought back to Parliament.
I am fed up to the back teeth with people pronouncing that such terrorist atrocities have nothing to do with the perpetrators’ religious views.
Politicians like Geert Wilders who want to ban the Quran and who treat all Muslims as “the enemy within” are doing ISIS’s work for them.