Blogs Coffee House

If Ed Miliband makes ‘Islamophobia’ illegal, I volunteer to test the new law immediately

27 April 2015

12:57 PM

27 April 2015

12:57 PM

I am out of the country at the moment and I see that Ed Miliband has used the opportunity to ‘say’ in an interview with the ‘Muslim News’ that he will outlaw ‘Islamophobia’ if he becomes Prime Minister. I use ‘say’ because ‘Muslim News’ has never seemed to me an especially reputable outlet for news, Muslim or otherwise. And I say ‘Islamophobia’ in scare quotes because, well, the term deserves them.

There are many things to say about this, but allow me confine myself to three points:

  1. If Ed Miliband does become Prime Minister and chooses to make ‘Islamophobia’ illegal would he mind letting us know what he thinks ‘Islamophobia’ is? After all a ‘phobia’ is an irrational fear. The Charlie Hebdo staff were often called ‘Islamophobes’ before (and after) two Islamists went into their magazine’s office and shot most of them in the head. If there is such a thing as ‘Islamophobia’ and it is indeed an ‘irrational’ fear, would Ed mind telling us whether it was ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’ of the Charlie Hebdo staff to be fearful of elements of Islam? An answer before 7 May would be helpful.
  2. I cannot help noticing that some actual, serious ‘hate-speech’ occurred while Labour were last in power, yet nothing seemed to have been done. Consider this speech by Michael Adebolajo at a ‘Unite Against Fascism’ rally in 2009. What else was Adebolajo doing here other than inciting anti-non-Muslim violence and prejudice? Of course Michael Adebolajo actually followed words with deeds and went on to behead Drummer Lee Rigby. Where were the hate-speech laws that day?
  3. And finally, I hate to grandstand, but I suppose I should point out that if Ed Miliband were to become Prime Minister and were to decide to make what people call ‘Islamophobia’ illegal then I’m very happy to test the law straight away. Indeed I will immediately put on a gathering of academics, writers, Quranic-scholars and philosophers – Muslim and non-Muslim – to discuss Islam. It is possible that some of those gathered may disagree with the foundational claims of Islam. I, for instance, may repeat my belief – not being a Muslim – that it is highly unlikely that the Quran was ‘dictated’ by God. This is not only my belief. It is also the belief of Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Christians (some Anglican priests excepted), atheists and ex-Muslims, to name only a few minority groups. And so the problem Prime Minister Ed will find is that:

a) What I am saying is true.
b) The ‘Islamophobia’ industry will continue to describe this truth as ‘Islamophobia’.
c) Ed will have made ‘Islamophobia’ illegal.
d) Ed will have made the truth illegal.

This will be a problem, won’t it?

Anyhow – I must say that I’m not at all disheartened by the news from my homeland. Indeed I now have a sneaking desire for Ed to become PM and am rather looking forward to the results.

Show comments
  • Snowmuncher

    Excellent article.

  • BAAS

    I wonder when the native Brits become a minority (and they will) will they be able to call out the genocide for what it is?

    I hate to slippery slope but this is just the start of silencing the native population.

  • Blazeaway

    Last night, by chance, my area’s Labour candidate was on my street.

    I asked him about Labour’s proposal to criminalise ‘islamophobia’.

    Wouldn’t it mean the end of the freedom to question someone else’s beliefs, I asked him.

    No, he said. It would be part of a ‘suite’ of laws to tackle hatred.

    Who would decide whether something actually was insulting/offensive etc, I asked?

    The judge, he said.

    Upon what grounds, I asked.

    That would depend on how we phrased the law, he replied.

    Wouldn’t it be undemocratic and wouldn’t it chill the expression of legitimate views, I asked.

    But with that – and with no answer – he was gone. I think he thought I was a racist.

    So that’s it, minimal discussion with the public – and we will stamp out a fundamental element of democracy.

    I just thought I’d pass it on

  • Zionist lackey

    Do you know what Douglas? I agree with you and if you wish to challenge the Milliband folly. Then count me among you.

  • Wildflowers

    This is so worth a watch if you can spare a few minutes.

    “CNN’s Alisyn Camerota, in this joust with Pamela Geller, exemplifies the moral blindness of the West, and its eagerness to go gently into that good night, submitting to the dictates of killers.”

  • peter

    People with Ed Milliband’s mind-set are dangerous people, they are dangerous because they do not perceive that what they are saying is actually helping to achieve the agenda that directly opposes the process they are taking part in to achieve leadership.Fools,fools and thrice fools. You are the quislings spoken of in history.

  • Daniel 565

    Making the truth illegal is not a problem. Geert Wilders was put on trial for the things he said. It didn’t matter if it was the truth, what mattered was if it was insulting or not.

    • Martha Rigby

      But he won his case…. then. I wonder whether he would now, or whether he might if he were on trial in the UK

  • Jeremy Poynton

    They’ll vote as the Imam tells them to.

    • Martha Rigby


  • justsomeone

    “d) Ed will have made the truth illegal.”

    I don’t think that the politically correct even bother to pretend that you should be allowed to say something merely because it’s true. They’d relish a chance to make the point that if something isn’t politically correct you aren’t allowed to say it, regardless of whether it’s true or not.

    • Martha Rigby

      Does Ed even know what the truth is? Would he be able to recognise it if it poked him in the eye?

  • Rune Fardal

    “Islamophob” is a muslim humiliated by true critics, going out preaching hate to rationality and others belief.

  • Benjamin O’Donnell

    Bravo Douglas.

  • Andrew Gruffudd

    I would join you. I’m not especially anti Islamic, save where they seek to force others to their ways through petulance, violence and intimidation. Okay, I’m mostly anti Islamic. But the point is, you cannot single out a community for special consideration, especially when they get that consideration through bullying. Were milishambles to outlaw a rational fear, let alone an irrational one, he would lose any credibility he believes himself to have, he’d instigate riots on a scale which would make Tottenham seem like an hour in a flotation tank, and he’d raise up such an enmity against the Muslim population that they would go the same way as Henry II’s Jewish population.

    • Martha Rigby

      You should have written “shouldn’t” single out a community, etc etc. Labour obviously could and has.

      • Andrew Gruffudd

        Perhaps, but that’s a minor semantic point worthy of inclusion in the extreme pedantry group on faceache, of which I am a member. But pedantry brings the wider point of why this is unworkable, even were it desirable. Legalese exists so th at every possible nuance is taken out of the meaning of a law so written, but it has the effect of creating loopholes one could drive the proverbial coach and four through, if you know the law. Of course, they could claim islamophobia to mean any criticism or any such thing of Islam, but this will likely not survive into case law. The alternative, that it will be defined as per the dictionary, will be hard pressed to make it out of the chamber alive, without hoots of derision and the parliament act.

        • Martha Rigby

          Do you not agree that the very word “Islamophobia” is nonsensical – implying as it does a fear to the point of avoidance? How then could anyone legislate against it, unless they lost the word completely?

          And there are already laws against racial and religious hatred in the UK, although they seem to apply only when Muslims are hair-trigger offended.

          • Andrew Gruffudd

            Of course. This was my point. They would have to do a Queen of Hearts, whereby a word would mean what they want it to mean, or subterfuge by any other name.

  • John M

    Another “policy” that whilst Ed Miliband clearly thought about it long and hard, anyone else would realise is ridiculous in seconds.

    And that’s why he shouldn’t win. He is totally unsuitable intellectually, and clearly doesn’t think through his light bulb moments to the actual consequences of them – he just rehearses the soundbite and goes to camera… that is no way to run a country

  • tamimisledus

    Here is another similar critique of Miliband’s intent to put the nefarious interests of islam before the UK and its citizens. Make your views known anywhere and everywhere.

  • lordbuckethead

    Muhammad married Aisha aged 6 and consummated the marriage when she 9.

    That makes Muhammad a paedophile.

    So does stating that (ie an historical fact) make me an islamaphobe?

    • Dauer_Gast

      So called hate-speech laws always have the goal of surpressing the truth.

  • Martin

    Last month I was in Kenya. I found that lots of the Christians there were “islamaphobes”. Then days after I left Al shabaab massacred 147. I guess their fear was justified.

  • amicus

    As an atheist, isn’t Miliband guilty of offending Islam?

    • Benjamin O’Donnell

      As an atheist, he’s guilty of being bloody suicidal with this policy.

  • Picquet

    Please allow me to join you. As a committed atheist, I strongly object to the notion of any law purporting to give any elf or pixie legal status, along with those damned ‘cherubs’. Nobody has yet come up with a credible statement of difference between them. I’m on the side of the syllabubs, mind.

  • Lydia Robinson

    Expect a lot more of the Blair project to eliminate free speech and turn us into the Fourth Reich should this turd be elected. God help us. I hope Douglas will lead the Citizens’ revolt.

  • Hzle

    “would Ed mind telling us whether it was ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’ of the Charlie Hebdo staff to be fearful of elements of Islam? An answer before 7 May would be helpful”

    Thank you. That needs saying over and over again.

    I’ve said similar things in the Guardian CiF section, about how Islamophobia is not the same thing racial hatred, but a fairly understandable fear of a religion, and had my comment deleted more than once.

    Indeed the amount of deletion of opposing views that goes on in the Guardian and BBC websites is another topic all of its own – but for now thankyou for a fine piece

    • Picquet

      Your comment was only deleted because the Moderator cared for you. It was a statement of love, not of censoriousness.

      • Hzle

        Damn – moderated myself there!

    • cartimandua

      Mostly they don’t let people who don’t toe the party line to speak at all.

  • Nexialist

    I wonder what the PM would have done about that Jamaican Muslim ‘converso’ bouncer/thug Trevor Brooks (Abu Izzadeen) in 2006 and his tantrum when the then Home Sec John Reid, had the temerity to enter the Muslim protectorate of Leyton and speak to the ‘community’ on terror matters. Trevor’s message ‘How dare you come to a Muslim area’ was hardly a peaceful gesture of welcome, rather a defiant declaration of intolerance and racial sectarianism against the ‘kuffar’. Hate speech? You effing bet. Shame ‘bruiser’ Reid didnt have the political balls in 2006 to round up all the islamist nut jobs in London and elsewhwere and begin a serious and sustained programme of mosque clearances, closures, arrests and deportations. He might have saved us a lot of prison places, criminality, benefit fraud, trojan horses, Rotherams and the 2000 plus psychos presently engaged in slaughtering Christians et al in Syria and Iraq. Typical of the treacherous, ‘dhimmi’, Labour political elite.

    • Martha Rigby

      Cherchez le spondulicks. Arab money even then on the condition that governments didn’t offend the hair trigger sensitivities of Trevor Brooks and his ilk.

  • Innit Bruv

    Instead of worrying about Ed Milliband you should be campaigning for the prosecution of Lord Janner, Mr Murray !!!!
    You seem to have time for a dodgy mayor in Tower Hamlets who happens to be Muslim but not for the former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
    Or maybe you view electoral fraud as a greater offence than child abuse.
    PS: to the usual idiots: I AM NOT A MUSLIM !!

    • FactsWillOut

      No, you’re a brain-dead leftist.

      • Innit Bruv

        No what? Are you saying there shouldn’t be a campaign for the prosecution of Lord Janner?

    • logdon

      No, just a dhimmi.

      • Innit Bruv

        And you’re just plain dim….

        • logdon


          I bet that took some thinking?

          Two days of hard mental slog, eh?

    • MC73

      Fuck off jew-hater.

      • Peter Stroud

        You do not have to hate Jews to wish to see justice done. Or do you think alledged crimes should not be prosecuted?

        • Martha Rigby

          No, you just have to want to prosecute Janner for allegations of paedophilia, don’t you, rather than because he is a Jew.

      • Innit Bruv

        Calling for the prosecution of Lord Janner makes you a Jew hater.
        Interesting and revealing comment !!
        If it were a Muslim peer instead, would calling for his prosecution make me an “Islamophobe” or a Paki hater?
        If it were a Muslim peer instead, people like you. along with the likes of Douglas Murray, Melanie Phillips and Rod Liddle would be writing about little else.
        Double standards or what….

        • MC73

          You and I both know what you are, so I refer you to my original comment.

          • Innit Bruv

            I am sure you can do better (or maybe not).
            Try responding instead to what are some perfectly valid observations

            • MC73

              No. Fuck off, Jew hater and lover of religious fascism.

              • Innit Bruv

                You obviously can’t do better…
                ps: I’m an atheist, the last thing I love is religious fascism.
                As usual anything that contradicts some of the more stupid Speccie readers automatically makes you a “Guardianista”, a “brain-dead lefty”, a Muslim or in your case a Jew hater.
                Try thinking outside the box, you halfwit!!!

                • MC73

                  You seem to be under the impression I am arguing with you. I am not. I am telling you to fuck off.

                • Innit Bruv

                  Not ……. off anywhere soon !!!
                  On the contrary, I am back.
                  Back to wind up useless clodhoppers like you, jackass !!!

        • Martha Rigby

          You do come across as a tad obsessed.

    • cartimandua

      There is no way for a person with severe dementia to ever have a fair trial. They cannot defend themselves.

      • Innit Bruv

        In May 2011 Lord Janner wrote an article for the DailyTelegraph
        entitled “N… criminal deserves no sympathy” in which he argued that old age or ill health should not prevent John Demjanjuk from facing prosecution for historic crimes.
        The same should apply to Lord Janner.
        PS: N… refers to Germans of a particalar political peruasion in WWII.
        Using the actual word can get your comment blocked

        • Martha Rigby

          Again, what’s your preoccupation with Janner, other than that he is a Jew?

    • Martha Rigby

      Then what’s your interest in singling out Jews? (I agree with you totally about the prosecution of Lord Janner, but because he is likely a paedophile rather than because he is a Jew).

      • Innit Bruv

        There is nothing in my post about prosecuting Lord Janner because of his religious persuasions…
        Should have gone to Specsavers….

  • Innit Bruv

    Once again an comment criticising Douglas Murray gets blocked.
    So much for free speech. Je suis Charlie? My foot !!!

  • Cecil Henry

    Do you support White Genocide Ed?? You know:


    The West cannot be defined simply by the rejection of Islam or as a collection of legal norms. It is a culture created by a specific people and it will be destroyed if that people is dispossessed. Europeans everywhere have the self-evident right to secure their homelands for themselves, without regard to the claims others make upon it.

    That is the crime. It is white Genocide. IT is state violence. Politicians past and present must be held accountable. ;Just obeying orders’ is not an excuse.

  • Innit Bruv

    Is an article criticising Douglas Murray about to be blocked yet again?

  • ExpatDavid

    I think that many more of us will be joining you. I fact, if a large number do, we can bring the courts to a standstill.

  • Cheradenine

    But you’re OK with making antisemitism illegal, am I right Douglas? And your paycheck dependency prevents you from seeing how the successful establishment of the idea that it is somehow the proper role of government to combat and criminalise antisemitism has inevitably led on to this latest initiative on “Islamophobia”. As always, the two groups of Semitic separatists work hand in hand against us.

    • Genie Balham

      Semites are an ethnicity. Islam is a religion. One you inherit from your parents. The other you LEARN. Religion is a NOT inherited.

      • Martha Rigby

        Hi Genie. Islam is a totalitarian belief system, more like a cult than a religion like, say, C of E or Judaism. It ticks almost all the first-order requisites of cults, too.

    • Martha Rigby

      Who precisely is this “us”?

      I ask because I know the paranoia of the conspiracy theorist when I come across it and they make it easy to recognise them.

      Islam kills Jews and Christians and anyone else not Muslim. Unless you are a Muslim paranoid conspiracy theorist (and they seem to be ten a penny) then Islam will mandate for your killing too, so what precisely is your point?

      • Cheradenine

        This “Us” is Europeans/Christians. My point is that over the decades it is largely Jews who have put in place the legal/cultural infrastructure that supports the public drive for “multiculturalism” and “diversity”. This includes its “hate speech” suppression mechanisms. These laws that criminalise free expression are what prevent us talking honestly about Islam and therefore defending ourselves against the threat it presents to us.

  • SonOfGud

    Of course, Islamophiliac Fetishism is so much more…… progressive

  • Perdita

    Written with your usual crisp incisions, Douglas Murray. You’re great!

    • David

      A national treasure – like Eric Morecombe!

  • tamimisledus

    You may think that Islamophobia is a recently invented concept, but you would be wrong. Yes,the word was invented within the last fifty years or so. But the concept has been around since the birth of islam and has been used by muslims in pretty much the same way ever since. Any criticism of islam (de facto islamophobia) has always been used as an excuse to suppress those critics. When and where muslims were in positions of power, they would use it as an excuse to invade, subjugate and dispossess their critics of their life, and/or liberty and/or possessions. Where they were not ascendant, they would claim that they were being unjustly maligned and that they deserved to be treated with dignity and respect, claiming that they respected anyone opposed to islam. However, once they reached a position of power, it was back to subjugation of their critics.
    Of course, muslims in the UK are not yet in a position of power. But be reassured, once they reach that position of power, the wraps will come off, and it will be back to the invading and plundering of non-muslims which allah tell them is their right and duty,
    This stage of the muslim plan for taking over the UK must be opposed in every way possible. Otherwise, it may well be too late.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    One particularly nasty side-effect of this proposed foolishness will be the repetition of what happened in Rotherham, and similar incidents in other parts of the country. If a major aggravating factor in these cases was the Police’s fear of political incorrectness, then imagine their even greater reluctance to do the right thing, if a greater reluctance is possible, under the threat of ant-Islamophobic laws. The result could be even more widespread child abuse than we already have.

    Welcome to Airstrip One.

  • tamimisledus

    In case you missed it here is the take of Jihad Watch and its readers on Ed’s move against democracy.

  • Mort

    uck it we ar4e all ruined, we have weak pollies whom to be told i would not want next to me in a gun fight.. we are awash with stupid ideas of equal which actually means the race to the bottom for the dumbest.. go figure

  • tamimisledus

    muslim Sadiq Khan led Ed’s campaign for Labour leadership, no doubt gaining Ed much support amongst the muslim community. This is payback time. Ed is now returning the favour by undertaking to support the cause of islamofascism in the UK. Because the whole ;purpose of criminalising islamophobia is to suppress any criticism of the beliefs of muslims who will be able to maintain their deception on the population of the UK and the West in general.
    This the absolute evil deception that “muslims mean us no harm”, and have “no intention of imposing on the UK a sharia state” which will serve the muslims, and only the muslims, at the expense on non-muslims.
    And as can be seen in many of the comments below, nothing could be further from the truth.

  • jan

    Dear Mr. Miliband,
    Please explain how you intend to oppose anti-Semitism AND ban Islamophobia? These two goals are mutually exclusive. Muhammad was anti-Semitic. There are 90 disparaging and hateful remarks in the Quran in regard to the Jews. Here are a few:
    [2.88] Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief.
    [2.98] Allah is their enemy.
    [5.60] Allah made them apes and swine
    [5.78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed.
    [4.50] They forge a lie against Allah, and this is sufficient as a manifest sin.
    [4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things and for their hindering many (people) from Allah’s way.
    [4.161] And their taking usury and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for them a painful chastisement.
    [5.13] But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away.
    Will you therefore be banning the Quran? Perhaps you could clarify this minor matter of detail.

    • WTF

      An excellent summation of Islamofacism that seeks to make us all submit to its preachings and control our very freedoms. Our ancestors didn’t fight for these freedoms we enjoy today just to hand it over to a fascists state supporting a fascist cult !

  • Mort

    44 million ppl descend on hampstead and totterridge, upsets lefty marxist bbq

  • Mort

    Ack! nero comes to mind as does end of boom and bust and good old Gordie Brown.. of course it will never happen… but then again in different time warp universe it could.. or maybe just here.. we keep getting told 4% of the UK pop are islamic/muslim why are we pandering or are we still on track to be the country that follows common purpose on the race to the bottom… nuts

  • andyrwebman

    The vile left have shown their hand – anyone caring for free speech at all should shun them!

    • Mort

      start by shunning libdems(what a false name that is)

  • Dan O’Connor

    ” Anti-Discrimination ” . is = the selectively enforced criminalisation of any Whites being able to discriminate between that which is beneficial for the survival of their own communities, cultures, nations ,heritage, ethnic group, civilzation, race and demographics and that which is harmfull and destructive
    Asia for the Asians , Africa for the Africans. White countries belong to anyone and everyone,
    Anti-Discrimination is the suicide ideology of Western man.