MCB opposes amendments

The Muslim Council of Britain, self-appointed leaders of the Muslim community, have spoken out against the proposed amendments to the Religious Hatred Bill. They do not go into any detail about why they don’t like the amendments, preferring to make bald assertions rather than arguments.

Iqbal Sacranie:

The amendments – if accepted – will mean that British Muslims will continue to remain second-class citizens and denied the same level of legal protection that is given to some racial and religious groups including Jews and Sikhs under existing racial incitement laws.

They claim that opponents of the bill have misleadingly claimed that it will prevent criticism of ridicule of religion, and that “this is demonstrably untrue to anyone who as read the actual wording of the Bill.” Yet this is exactly what the amendments are designed to make clear. So why the objection? Got something against clarity, Iqbal?

6 Responses to “MCB opposes amendments”

  1. G. Tingey says:

    Of course Iqbal is against clarity – and honesty – he is a religious leader after all ….
    And he might not be allowed to get away with his usual religious blackmail either.

  2. Dan Factor says:

    Given that the MCB never bother to agrue with people who criticise their beliefs or that of other Muslims and prefer to label anyone who objects to Islamic clerics who condone killing gays as “Islamaphobes” it’s of no real surprise they do not wish this Bill which will further restrict criticism of their faith to be watered down.

  3. Andy says:

    I like your phrase “self appointed” — I think the MCB are increasingly fall out of favour with their constituents ..

  4. jamal says:

    The opposition is justified. To restrict ones speech and religious expression is to infringe ones human rights. The MCB are opposing this as we all know that it will be used primiarilly against Muslims, as are the rest of the related terror laws!

  5. Andy Gilmour says:

    Errr, jamal, if I’m reading your comment correctly, I think you’re not quite clear on a couple of points:

    1) The “religious hatred” bill is a woeful piece of legislation that will restrict free speech, etc. As you said, this is terrible all round.
    2) The amendments to the bill are designed to stop it being used for this purpose. They are, as Sellar & Yeatman would have had it, a “Good Thing”.
    3) The MCB are opposing these amendments. Thus they are supporting the original, bad, human-rights-infringing bill.
    4) They are, therefore, a “Bad Thing”.



  6. Monitor says:

    Glad to have you on side against the MCB on the religious hatred bill, Jamal.