I once belonged to the Labour party. I was the publicity officer for Edinburgh University Labour club and had on my wall a Labour poster with the words of Amos 5:24 “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” something which greatly amused the SNP student publicity officer when he came to negotiate a debate! He outed me as a Christian – and then said that he was Free Church (at the time I was Baptist!).
Although I left the Labour party many years ago I still retained an affection for it, for much of its history and for some of its politicians. So it is with a degree of sorrow that I have watched its demise into a ‘brutish, authoritarian cult’. However even knowing what I know about the current Labour party – when yesterday’s news came out I thought it was ‘fake news’, a spoof, an ironic comment from a pro-Labour comic.
Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been suspended by the Labour party for Islamaphobia. Philips, one of the most noted anti-racism campaigners in the UK is in effect being suspended because of his ‘racism’. Has he been a hypocrite? Has he changed his mind and in his later years morphed into a racist? After all Jennie Formby, Corbin’s hatchet woman, and Labour’s General Secretary, has declared that he has been suspended as a matter of urgency to ‘protect the party’s reputation”. I have two questions. How do you protect a reputation that is already in tatters? And why the urgency over remarks that were made in public years ago?
The answer to the latter is fairly straightforward. Its called revenge. A party led by a man who has invited advocates of the anti-Jewish blood libel which is being investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has suspended the former head of that Commission for Islamaphobia.
Abuse or Islamaphobia?
What did Mr Phillips say? He spoke about the Rotherham men who abused at least 1300 mainly working-class girls as being Pakistani Muslims – who were partially enabled to do so because social workers, police and others were scared to tackle the issue lest they be accused of racism. Remember that Labour also got rid of Sarah Champion the local Rotherham MP as Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities for also pointing this out. For Labour avoiding the charge of racism or Islamaphobia was apparently more important than preventing the sexual abuse of working-class girls.
Phillips also made comments about some Muslims not wearing poppies on Remembrance Sunday and about the significant amount of support within the Muslim community for the Charlie Hebdo killers. None of these statements were false. Nor was the statement that ‘Muslims are different’ (that’s kind of the point of being a Muslim – like being a Christian – we claim to be different!) nor that Muslims were seeking to create a ‘nation within a nation’. Again anyone who knows anything about Islam knows that this is in many cases true. Islam is not just a religion it is a political ideology. There is no separation of mosque and state in Islam.
But whilst Islam IS a religion and a political ideology- it is NOT a race. So how can Phillips be accused of being a racist? Would the Labour party charge anyone who is critical of Christianity with racism? No chance.
There is a deep irony in this latest turn of events. Phillips was the head of the Runnymede Trust when it invented and popularized the concept of ‘Islamaphobia’. Now his child has all grown up and is eating him!
A Brutish Authoritarian Cult?
The Labour Party has moved far from its working class roots, largely founded upon Christian socialism. It is now a party of the woke, bourgeois middle class whose idea of social justice is more to do with sexual libertarianism tinged with a flavouring of Green environmentalism, than it is to do with economic justice and real dignity for the poor. This is a party that is led by people who cannot tell us what a woman is, (witness Dawn Butler’s bizarre ‘babies are born without sex’) – but they can tell us there are 100 plus genders. A party that boasts about caring for the working class, whilst despising them. A party that cannot tell us when human life begins but does know when it should end. A party that is so ignorant about racism that it ends up suspending a ‘person of colour’ who has spent his whole life fighting racism.
That earlier quote about it being a ‘brutish, authoritarian cult’? That came from Trevor Phillips. He is right. As was John Lennon – when he summarized perfectly the middle-class progressive attitudes to the working class in his ‘Working Class Hero’.
“Keep you doped with religion, and sex, and T.V.
And you think you’re so clever and classless and free”
It’s a shame that the party of Keir Hardie, Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, Michael Foot, John Brown, Donald Dewar and Gordon Brown has come to this. Is the Party over? It should be.
Islamaphobia – Christian Today
If it is, either another legitimate Opposition needs to emerge without delay, or democracy itself – which requires a functioning alternative Government to be available for election – will also be “over”.
It shocks Americans that a Christian can be a Labour member. I remind them the good Doctor belonged, and get blank looks.
The Labour Party in my view have definitely departed from their working class routes. So much of it (although obviously not all) seems to middle-class people claiming to speak on behalf of the working classes, whose opinions are so different from official party policy. Also its all about LGBT and identity politics rather than actual economic and social equality (access to education and work, housing, taxes, welfare payments)
Hardly newsworthy when there is 300 Islamaphobia in the Conservative Party?
What is Islamaphobia?
I believe the proper word is ‘Islamophobia.’
(This is a purely semantic clarification. I have no idea what the term means, either, other than that it appears any criticism of Islam or Muslims can be saddled with the epithet).
I wish we could seperate out the word “woke” from the other derogatory associations. Woke is defined as being awake to injustice in society especially around racism. Christians should of all people be the most woke. Raised from death in sin to be alive in Christ, sleepers called to wake up with the promise that Christ will shine on us. So we should be woke to the pain, suffering and injustice caused by sin, woke to the fact that we are part of the cause, woke to the fact that only Christ can bring true justice
Words evolve. Woke is no longer just about racism – it is far more. In fact it now has almost nothing to do with racism. You need to keep up!
I run in fairly left wing circles and have not once heard the word ‘woke’ used – I’ve only ever heard it used by people in a derogatory tone. It’s like ‘snowflake’, another meaningless derogatory word lazily used by writers and commentators for cheap effect and to stifle debate.
But I thought Woke was supposed to be about ant-racism – yet you move in left wing circles and have never heard it used? Are they not ant-racist?
It’s ironic that you say it is about ‘shutting down debate’ – the progressive left (if you prefer that term to woke) are all about shutting down debate. You can’t say that – it is offensive, homophobic, transphobic, hurt my feelings etc. Woke is a real thing – as is the tyranny that goes along with it. To refuse to allow the term to be used – is in effect to do the very thing you say you are complaining against – stifle debate and shut down any criticism.
As for shutting down debate – this article may help you see how the Woke do that – https://unherd.com/2020/03/ten-devious-ways-to-shut-down-debate/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups%5B0%5D=18743&tl_period_type=3
Frederick, I’ve never heard of someone being told that because they are a snowflake they are not allowed to express a viewpoint. But as David says (with examples that don’t go far enough), that is what the left does. Calling someone homophobic, for example, may not, by itself, shut down debate. But sacking them for supposedly being homophobic (simply because they have a different viewpoint, not because they have an irrational fear) is debate-stifling. Taking them to court because they support biblical/traditional marriage is debate-stifling. A newspaper saying that it won’t publish views opposed to the climate change alarmism is debate-stifling. Blockading conservative meetings so that attendees can’t get in is debate-stifling. Disinviting conservatives from speaking at public events is debate-stifling. Telling an employee (me) that he’s not allowed to share his (anti-transgenderism) views with his work colleagues is clearly intended to stifle debate.
That’s all coming from the left, not from people who might use the term “snowflake” to pretty-accurately describe someone who gets upset that you dare to have a different view to them.
Philip, we can all play the I have never heard/have heard game. So here is some direct personal experience. My political views are centre right but I have experienced as much in terms of attempts to shut down/ discourage debate from the right as the left. I’ve had people suggest that my views on things like racism are driven by my (presumably left wing) political views and not Scripture. Across US and UK Christians raising concerns about abuse jave been told to keep quiet.
“Philip, we can all play the I have never heard/have heard game. So here is some direct personal experience.”
Good. So you can put me in the position where I can no longer say that I have never heard of someone being told that because they are a snowflake they are not allowed to express a viewpoint.
Except that although you claim to have experienced it, you give no examples. I gave the examples of people being sacked, taken to court, refusing to publish letters from an opposing viewpoint, blockading meetings, withdrawing invitations, and being told that I must not share my views at work.
You gave no examples matching those, so my comment that I have never heard of such stands.
Run that one past me again. You no more gave examples than I did.
“You no more gave examples than I did.”
Seriously? Here they are numbered for your convenience:
1. Sacking them for supposedly being homophobic (simply because they have a different viewpoint, not because they have an irrational fear).
2. Taking them to court because they support biblical/traditional marriage.
3. A newspaper saying that it won’t publish views opposed to the climate change alarmism.
4. Blockading conservative meetings so that attendees can’t get in.
5. Disinviting conservatives from speaking at public events.
6. Telling an employee (me) that he’s not allowed to share his (anti-transgenderism) views with his work colleagues.
I could easily add to that list, and I could cite instances for each example (multiple instances in most cases).
Now, apart from a vague reference to “attempts to shut down/ discourage debate from the right”, what examples have you given? (Suggesting that your views have a wrong motive is not a case of suppressing views.)
Oh, when you said examples I assumed you meant dated specific examples not just a list of types of things. You will notice I gave examples too from experience, just starting with my own experience. Look this comes down to a very simple question. Do you believe racism exists? Do you believe it is morally eviil? Do you think it is wrong to claim that people whomspeak out against racism must also be pro LGBTQ? If the answer to those questions is yes then why are you seemingly so desperate for a fight?
“…I assumed you meant dated specific examples not just a list of types of things.”
I didn’t give dates and names (but could have), but they were examples of specific cases.
“You will notice I gave examples too from experience, just starting with my own experience.”
As I asked, apart from a (single) vague reference to “attempts to shut down/ discourage debate from the right” (what sort of attempts? How was debate discouraged?), what examples have you given?
“Look this comes down to a very simple question.”
I’ll answer that question below, but no, that was not the question. I was challenging Frederick’s claim that ‘snowflake’ was used to stifle debate, partly by saying that I’d not encountered that, and partly by showing that it is the left that tries to shut down debate.
“Do you believe racism exists? Do you believe it is morally eviil?”
Of course. Although I don’t believe that in Western countries there is much institutional racism left. Except “reverse” racism.
“Do you think it is wrong to claim that people whomspeak out against racism must also be pro LGBTQ?”
Of course. But most people “speaking out about racism” are actually wrongly labelling things as racism (e.g. being opposed to Islam, which of course is not a race), or are imagining racism where it doesn’t exist. And those people are frequently (not “must also be”) pro LGBT+.
“If the answer to those questions is yes then why are you seemingly so desperate for a fight?”
Given that you challenged my response to Frederick, maybe I should be asking you that question! But of course the answer is that that was not what I was addressing, as I have explained above.
Though that is as much about how it has been used pejoratively as it is about how it is used intentionally. NBC not saying that it is possible to keep it. Just expressing a wish/regret. Though maybe words can be recovered and redeemed
I heard the interview yesterday and everything he said is just factually true. Islam is not a race, it is a religion with politics. It does have a world view but all of us have world views even if we do not realise it. the labour party are in a mess and I cannot see how they are going to turn this around.
It seems to me that the way the words Islamaphobia and homophobia are generally used have nothing to do with phobia which I understand to be an irrational fear of something. If that is the case we need to ditch or expose the misuse of these words. Any fear someone had of an Islamist jihadis would be unlikely to be irrational.
David, I think you are making assumptions about how and where a word is used. Positively it still seems to be used primarily in relation to race and in the US quite openly/ proudly by evangelicals around the ML50 conference. In terms of the wider and evolved term it seems the evolution as a catch all comes primarily from those using it perjoratively. I am now more likely to see it used on social media from the right. Frederick is right and as Tim Farron wrote the other day, both left and right can have their “politically correct” methods for shutting down debate (just as churches and networks can too). One of the risks is when we endorse the wider and perjorative use of a word and then wrap it up with other issues is that we do hinder conversations about racism, abuse etc. This happened the other year when people objecting to the concerning racial tones of a certain conference flyer were conflated in with those objecting to its stance on
I am not making any assumptions – I know how the word is used and I know how I use it. Evangelicals in the US (particularly those that want to be seen as progressive) tend to be behind the times and are always playing catch up. My world is not restricted to the US or its evangelicalism. Woke is now widely used as shorthand for progressive liberal.
“When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean – no more no less” – Humpty Dumpty
By you David!!! It’s a serious point what do we do when people own a word positively and then very quickly it gets taken over for wider pejorative purposes. As I said the broader def tens to be used as a label against rather than for. Why the need to go on the attack about US evangelicals… there are plenty of solid people not trying to be progressive just with an issue with racism and abuse. There is a real problem at the moment that people speaking up on these issues are lumped into some kind of liberal camp.
Why the need to go on attack about US evangelicals – because many (not all) have enormous difficulty in seeing the world through anything other than US eyes – and demand that we all adapt to your language and whatever cultural war you are going through at the time. I speak up plenty about racism and won’t let anyone label me either way. And I am certainly not going to be confined in my language by the nuances and self obsession of the US culture wars.
I’m from Britain David!
Goodness! All this discussion about the past tense of “wake”! 🙂
According to Merriam Webster which has a page about it in their “Words We’re Watching” section…
“Woke is a slang term that is easing into the mainstream from some varieties of a dialect called African American Vernacular English (sometimes called AAVE). In AAVE, _awake_ is often rendered as woke, as in, “I was sleeping, but now I’m woke.”
“It can be hard to trace slang back to its origins since slang’s origins are usually spoken, and it can be particularly difficult to trace a slang word that has its origins in a dialect. Woke’s transformation into a byword of social awareness likely started in 2008, with the release of Erykah Badu’s song “Master Teacher”:”
I’ve not included the lyrics, but it includes the repeated phrase “I stay woke”.
The article continues:
“Stay woke became a watch word in parts of the black community for those who were self-aware, questioning the dominant paradigm and striving for something better. But stay woke and woke became part of a wider discussion in 2014, immediately following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The word woke became entwined with the Black Lives Matter movement; instead of just being a word that signaled awareness of injustice or racial tension, it became a word of action. Activists were woke and called on others to stay woke.
“Like many other terms from black culture that have been taken into the mainstream, woke is gaining broader uses. It’s now seeing use as an adjective to refer to places where woke people commune: woke Twitter has very recently taken off as the shorthand for describing social-media activists. The broader uses of woke are still very much in flux…”
I’m not sure what that proves Philip. The discussion about the word arose because I expressed the sentiment that I wished we did not lump it in with a whole range of issues. Obviously I,was not just initiating a technical discussion about the meaning of a word. The bigger point was that we need to be careful about lumping in genuine concerns about race, abuse etc with the broader so called progressive movement
It was mainly to give some factual background to the term. It supports that the term originated around race-related justice issues, but also, as David said, that the use of it is in flux.
The fact that it started around BLM “justice” issues does make me wonder just how much it was about justice, though.
I tnink we have the historical background covered. That still doea not answer my point which was that if we lump in issues such as racism with LGTBQ then we lose the genuine Biblically obedient campaign with disobedience. We lump in godly men and women who believe God’s Word with those seeking to undermine it.
But run that one by me again – how does a link to BLM put justice motives into question
Not sure I understand your point? Those who undermine the Bible’s teaching on race are doing exactly the same as those who undermine the bible’s teaching on sex and sexuality.
My point is that those speaking up against racism are obeying Scripture. Thisebsupporting LBGTQ are attacking Scripture. Lumping both together as politically correct wokeness is wrong. What’s not to get.
Comapare like with like. Those speaking up against racism are obeying Scripture. Lost speaking up against LGBTQ ideology are obeying Scripture.
“But run that one by me again – how does a link to BLM put justice motives into question”
Because the BLM is a left-wing political organisation that was founded following the shooting of a black teenager by a Hispanic neighbourhood watch captain who was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges over the event, but which many people assumed or claimed was the result of racism, for which there was little to no evidence.