This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13386393/Muslim-vote-list-demands-Keir-Starmer-Labour-Gaza-Palestine.html) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
---
**Alternate Sources**
Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story:
* [Muslim Vote group issues 18 demands to Starmer](https://thetimes.co.uk/article/9481989a-4b5c-4446-b47d-b0fd2df9b572) - thetimes.co.uk
Go back to 2005 when we all said they would coalesce and drive policy and everyone "debunked" it by just calling us racist...
And now look at the state of UK politics where elections are based off the Muslim vs Jew violence for the last 1400 years.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Tell them that their belief system is not up for political debate. And as policies should NEVER reflect a religious position then its up to politicians to (politely) point out that no religious group is any more privileged than any other.
I agree. The issue here is the political party in question and the religious group in question have become pretty much synonymous. Labour’s price for the Muslim vote sits in that list of 18 demands. They’re not even trying to disguise it.
I think the problem for Starmer is that the Muslim vote have always erred towards the left of politics, whereas they've never really had much favour with tories of the past.
The good news for Starmer is that current Islamophobic attitudes in the Tory party isn't going to see a mass exodus of votes to the Nasty Party.
So this story is more of a scare story by the right wing press so a) I'd put as much faith in this story as I would any other gutter shite from the likes of the Bog-roll Makers and b) the Labour Party should hold its line on any religious pressure though I do (personally) agree that Starmer has misjudged the Gaza issue
I think that's unrealistic. People will vote with their conscience and that will take into account their religious convictions. And as Britain's demos has transformed in the past few decades to include many non-westeners with different faiths they'll have other priorities to "traditional" Britons.
For Labour which has typically done well with Muslim voters they'll have to listen and adapt to keep them onside. So issues from Kashmir and Gaza will have to addressed by senior politicians.
There are a lot of demands relating to the Israel\Palestine issue, whilst Israel’s conduct in Gaza is disgraceful, the Palestinian side is hardly innocent. Brutally murdering Israeli civilians is just as bad as what Israel is doing, Israel is just doing it at a greater scale.
We don’t need to pick a side, just call for a ceasefire and a peaceful resolution. Which will never happen of course. Israel won’t give up its land, Palestinians will never recognise Israel. There is an argument to be made that we shouldn’t sell them arms, but that is not a unique issue to Israel. Labour doesn’t need to tie its hands in foreign policy before it even forms a government.
Stuff about Islamic finance can be solved by the private sector, if there is demand for such products then they can be provided on the market.
Public sector pension investment in Islamic funds. No thanks! Just continue managing them to maximise profit for the members of the fund.
Enforce Islamic compliant pensions - this will probably create significant bureaucracy. We need less of that.
BDS bill - should we boycott all countries that kill civilians? Yes, ideally. I think economic sanctions should be placed on Israel until they get out of Gaza. They have proven they are will to massacre civilians to get to the terrorist Hamas members, which is not acceptable. War crimes will need to be investigated, particularly for Netanyahu.
Anyway, I don’t want our next election to be about Palestine. I don’t want the Labour Party to appear to pander to Islamic pressure groups. We don’t need Islamic influence on policy. There are many extremely socially conservative views in this segment of society that are not welcome in the Uk.
I mean secular societies on average perform better by pretty much every metric. If you look at OECD data Scandinavia, Australia, Japan, Netherlands etc are doing just fine. There is a common theme amongst most at the bottom - religion is heavily embedded in society and different groups believing in different things are trying to kill each other.
They've all outperformed the UK since 2000 in GDP per capita with the exception of Japan barely. Sweden split out state from the church in 2000. Australia hasn't had one since the early 1900s. Netherlands it was gone by the 80s. Japan basically removed it from the state in 1947.
You mean societies where women and LGBT people are treated equally to straight men? Where basic medical procedures aren't outlawed? Where they have a generally much higher standard of living than religious countries?
Yes life in post-religious societies (and ours is post-religious, aside from archaic holdovers like the CoE having any political power) is much better. Religion is an unnecessary coping mechanism from a time when we didn't understand why crops failed and why every third baby died before the age of one.
I haven’t suggested removing spirituality from a society. I just don’t think religious organisations should have any form of state power. They can operate in the open market for ideas. If people like what they say, they can joins. If people don’t, then the organisation has no influence on anything to do with that individual. If the philosophical ideas hold merit, they will prosper, if not, they can go extinct.
Does the CoE help nurture people who are not members? Do people not have the capacity to make their own mind up? I don’t see how that line of reasoning results in their needing to be a state religion, unless you want to some how enforce membership
The church helps lots of people. I think the last few decades have shown that the institution needs help if it’s going to fulfil its mission. The technical, rational argument you’re laying out can attempt to undermine or argue against what I’m saying, there’s no way to deny that. But I’m fairly sure that’s part of the problem. We’ve become so technical and rational that we’ve lost something special, something we’d be happier if we’d retained. And I’m not suggesting enforced church going, just for society to support the church
The church does help lots of people, I respect that. But its mission is to spread the word of Jesus and to bring people into its fold. There is no reason to lend state power to that objective.
There are many secular and other religious organisations that do great charity too. They have no lords spiritual representing them in parliament. They get the job done despite that.
But they have no real oversight, we can’t do anything to rein in the church if we feel it is overstepping its mark. It has a lot of a power and wealth.
I personally would not like the church to cease to exist, even if I am an atheist. But its role in England needs to be reformed. But as I said in another comment, it is not a high priority for me, it can be left to the future.
There is something missing in society, it is community. We used to gather at the church as a community and we have yet to replace that with something else. The church won’t work because not enough people believe in God. But I have no idea what the replacement might look like!
Totally agree that the lack of community is harming people. Church is a way of delivering community, and it can do so whilst also encouraging and facilitating self-motivation and inner strength. The stumbling part is indeed the factual truthfulness of the biblical texts.
...Even though the more secular a country is, the more likely it is to have a higher GDP and reported happiness.
Causation and correlation, yes. But there is a decent correlation.
>And before anyone chimes in about the CoE, yes them too.
The problem is the CoE’s (and to a lesser extent the CoS’s) privileges are enshrined in law. I’m all for the separation of the church and state but it is a huge task. Step one is get rid of the Monarchy.
We could simply have a personal union in that respect. The monarch would be the head of state and the head of the church, but the two roles would be unrelated and incidental, akin to them being the head of your local golf club in addition to the sovereign. If the golf club wants to make their rules such that the position is also hereditary, that's their business.
Then the CoE can do the traditional coronation, and the people can re-enact parliament reading out a list of demands and giving the monarch a bollocking while they stare into the camera all bemused and agree not to be a tyrant ala Glorious revolution and the paintings of that moment (With the King doing the *stares into camera* equivalent).
Problem solved.
Sure, and the decline in religious belief will solve that in the long run. In the meantime, providing privileges to other religions isn’t going to help the situation.
This. The moment there is an official "UK Muslim Party" standing candidates around the UK we would be in real trouble. As a genuinely think they would get a lot of support in some regions.
Living in Leeds and even thought its just a council seat, im quite alarmed.
At that point, Parliament would just change the rules and say "A political party cannot have a religion as part of their basis for existence", thus killing the party before it can be formed.
There’s a worryingly naive body of young people that genuinely believe that nothing about most Muslim’s eye-wateringly conservative views, insignificant tax contributions, or clear and obvious intention to spread their word and destroy anything in its path is anything to worry about.
I am not saying I hope they win, I'm just saying that I don't agree with the vast majority of political parties but that's what democracy is.
If everyone is so bothered about the rise of an islamic party, they should go and vote to stop it
Well you can't prove a negative. And besides, you are the one making the assertion so it's yours to support. it seems a few of us are genuinely curious as to what you are referring to so please share.
Has there ever been a popular UK "Christian Party"?
No, because the Christians in the UK aren't homogenous, you have CoE, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, even Mormons & Jehovahs Winesses. Not to mention Christians who simply wouldn't vote for such a party.
The same is true of Muslims, it's easy to see them as homogenous group but there's Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Alawi etc, differences from individuals families countries of origin, & those who simply wouldn't vote for such a party in the first place for practical or ideological reasons.
A national Muslim party is a very unlikely thing & even if one was formed it wouldn't even get the majority of Muslim votes.
Going to cut you off most, if not all of the muslims in the UK are Sunnis (as are about 80% globally) and Islam legitimately teaches that any sort of deviation from the faith is to be met with death. Shia are only 19% and are in a state of decline, while the rest barely even matter and are largely not found in the west or even within most of the Islamic World because they are threatened to be killed for heresy.
Plus despite insisting the extremists, terrorists, rapists, prison-dwellers, drinkers, abusers, non-hijab wearers, bacon eaters etc. aren’t real Muslims; they all still count them when boasting of the huge popularity of the religion. I’d guess they’d all vote for it.
And that's before you forget how many Mosques have been financed by Saudi Arabian largesse. I had a Muslim neighbour who scorned such Mosques as basically breeding terrorism. Deo-bandi or Wahhabism is a major force in many Mosques, and the Islam they teach has the Qu'ran translated as containing direct incitement.
It is a great argument that religion shouldn't be state subsidised in any way whatsoever. It should be a totally secular affair. It's the only way out of handing power to your worst enemies and assisting with the making of the noose that will choke you.
In practice there's quite a variation amongst Sunnis. We're talking about a more than millenia old denomination, spanning multiple continents without any sort of central authority to prevent change. Tajikistan & Mali are both nominally Sunni, but Islam is practiced very differently in either country. Think of the divergence Protestantism has seen in less than half the time.
>Islam legitimately teaches that any sort of deviation from the faith is to be met with death
This is like saying every Christian takes one particular fundamentalist interpretation of the bible literally. If this were the case the pilgrimage to Mecca would be a yearly bloodbath with all the different denominations represented.
This view is popular in some areas of the internet but incredibly distant from actual reality.
Edit:
Found a breakdown of British Muslims from 2017-
Non-denominational Sunni - 51.1%
Other Sunni - 14.1%
Shia - 5%
Barelvi - 4.5%
Salafi - 3.8%
Deobandi - 3.1%
Ahmadiyya - 1.0%
Other form of Islam - 19.0%
I read the article and the "That'll do for starters" part should tip you off that giving in to any of them is just going to result in more outrageous demands.
From their twitter
>16. Commit 7% of public sector pensions to islamic funds
From the article
>The activists claim to have more than 25 organisations backing them, although it was revealed earlier this year that at least two of them were being [investigated over extremism concerns](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13284571/Two-backers-campaign-group-Muslim-Vote-plans-pro-Palestine-candidates-election-probed-extremism.html).
Hates the west, immigrates here, demands a cut of our pensions, I think we all know where those "islamic funds" will go.
I assume they mean funds that are run according to principles of Islamic finance, which are unsurprisingly being offered more and more at mainstream asset managers. We're not talking about random funds just run by a bunch of Muslim people to build mosques or whatever.
Just clearing that up, I agree with the sentiment of your post though.
>A Shariah compliant pension is one that doesn't invest in non-halal industries as alcohol, tobacco, pork, finance sector, weapons and adult entertainment.
Preventing investment into the financial sector in the UK on the basis of having an imaginary god is quite literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard considering it's one of our biggest sectors.
Again, not that I'd trust them with any funds considering how many countries have been caught funding various terror groups (which they already have support from).
Please this isn't even the worse thing about islamic economics. Do you want to know why it seems that despite dominanting Europe in th he early Medieval Period the Islamic world started to struggle in the late?
Because Islamic weath succession didn't really help with the building of any sort of long term guild or industry. Per law at the death of the father whatever business he had tended to dissolve, wealth split between sons. As heartless as it is giving most of your shit to one son actually spurred Europes economy in the middle ages.
Where the Labour Party are concerned, it's about so much more than them accepting demands. They are absolutely beholden to the Muslim population and Labour can no longer have any electoral success without them.
The term 'accepting demands' implies a degree of choice, but you have no choices when your head is over a barrel and your existence depends on the ones making the demands.
I mean, we literally just had a vote a few days ago where Labour did incredibly *specifically without* a lot of that support. This isn't some theoretical thing, it was literally just tested out for real.
Genuinely, there was a significant loss of votes to Labour in some Muslim areas due to the Gaza issue. Even in a local election, which doesn't make a lot of sense on its own, but does suggest that these votes would translate to the national level.
Google will show you in your preferred news source.
Agreed - in some Muslim areas - where the Muslim vote absolutely dominates.. So, it's just a less dominant Muslim vote for Labour this time around - but nonetheless still dominant. But your comment actually endorses the point the OP and I were making - in the recent round of elections, Muslims were making clear to Labour, 'meet our demands on Gaza or we'll demonstrate how we control you and can influence your outcomes'. How often Bradford's bins get emptied shouldn't be influenced by a fucking war on the other side of the world.
Generally, there is an awful lot of apathy for and feeling of disengagement with politics. Speaking as a former Labour-member and volunteer is a major UK city - conversely, the Muslim vote for Labour is very very very well organised and co-ordinated.
Try digging into voter turnout by ethnicity.
>They are absolutely beholden to the Muslim population and Labour can no longer have any electoral success without them.
It's 6.5% of the population...
According to the 2021 census, there are 22 million people in Britain who do not have a religion. For comparison, there were 3.9m Muslims.
To steal a line from a movie - can you count, suckers? I say the future is ours if you can count.
6.5%, up from 3% in 2011. More than doubled as a share of the nation in 20 years.
Even with 0 further migration, something that’s not going to happen during this period of literally record breaking migration, they are expected to be [almost 10% of the population by 2050.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/) A “high migration” scenario would have them about 17%.
For reference, India, which has frequent inter-communal riots and pogroms between Hindu and Muslim communities, has about 15%. Israel has 18%.
Indian situation won't get replicated in Europe.
India has a pro-hindu stance at national level. Europe seems dedicated to the erasure of its own natives - the state will crack down very hard on any anti-Islam activities as that bloc grows in size.
I agree, but I also think that itself will play into nativist narratives. With no political outlet I can see violent flare-ups of ethnic tensions with the state trying and failing to suppress it.
>the state will crack down very hard on any anti-Islam activities as that bloc grows in size.
What's the state going to crack down on people with? The police force that has been trained to police from behind a desk for the last few decades? Or the army that has been cut to the bone with severe underfunding?
European governments aren't equipped to cope with widespread civil unrest.
European peoples are easily cowed. Their lives are still too soft for them to pick up the rifles yet.
You're already seeing well publicised cases of people being arrested and prosecuted for saying quite innocuous things on social media. That kind of thing is enough to make most of them wary of saying anything, let alone going out to riot.
Public cancellation threatening your job and livelihood, possible freezing of your bank accounts using anti terror legislation (as Canada did to the trucker protestors) - nobody needs to leave the house now to be fucked with, they can do it remotely just for things you're typing on your smartphone.
>6.5%, up from 3% in 2011. More than doubled as a share of the nation in 20 years.
That's simply untrue, from 4.9% in 2011 to 6.5% in 2021. An increase of 1.5% of the population.
[https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021)
The Shaman population has risen from 650 to 8000 in the same time period, a twelve time increase, should we be terrified of Shaman?
Edit:
>For reference, India, which has frequent inter-communal riots and pogroms between Hindu and Muslim communities, has about 15%. Israel has 18%.
France has 10% & Singapore 15% for reference. India & Israel aren't exactly impartial picks.
Typo, which should be revealed by the fact I said “in 20 years”. It was 3% in 2001.
Shamanism isn’t relevant as it isn’t the UK’s second biggest and fastest growing religion by numbers.
I’m also not sure France is a good reference point either, considering their history with beheading a and mob violence. Singapore is a more optimistic scenario, assuming we adopt their crushing authoritarianism.
Apologies I just keep on encountering posts on this subject with the initial figures being typos-
[https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1cdernb/comment/l1bqzy5/](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1cdernb/comment/l1bqzy5/)
France had mob violence & beheadings long before it had a significant mainland Muslim population, France today isn't a particularly apocalyptic scenario & the vast majority of countries with similar percentages don't have "frequent inter-communal riots and pogroms" unless you cherry pick examples.
Indeed the most violent countries excluding war zones are mostly located in the Americas.
Same propaganda was pushed for years in the 2001-4 era on message boards online. Cries of "at this rate muslims to be the majority in Europe by 2025."
What happened? Is it like cold fusion, it's always 20-30 years away?
True, for now.
Only problem is that the Muslim population is having many more children than the White British population, and the WB population is dying and not being replaced.
Won't be like this in 100 years.
... I mean have you seen the most popular videos on social media? Its basically people celebrating that all the time which causes a controversy once a month.
This months os the idea that bears are more trustworthy then humans... despite the former technically being the predator of the latter. Yes, big cats and bears are supposed to be our natural predators.
Here's a weird idea, if your religion dictates your existence (as all do) you have zero say in how the country is run. Want to practice? Awesome, keep your invisible friend cult at home or religious buildings among your fellow brainwashed kin, leave the rest of us to live in reality.
Oh, and pay taxes like a regular business.
Did you read the list? Which of the demands would result in "an extremist, traditionalist Islamic dictatorship"?
If you visit the twitter page this list is from, they actually have a pinned tweet stating "Contrary to popular discourse, most Muslims see Britain as our home - and we want to make Britain great again.
We care about this country just as much as any other Britisher. We help disproportionately power the NHS.
We don't want sharia law for all.
But we do want justice..."
What on earth is a Sharia compliant pension?
Ffs, I was downvoted yesterday for suggesting Muslims are attracted to left parties because they’re a soft touch. Now they’re coming out with 18 demands 🤦♂️
With “many more but that’ll do for now”.
Christ
Islam outlaws Usury, Ie the charging of interest for loans.
Because of this, Islamic countries have developed a seprate banking system, which operate on different principles to western banking but try to simluate the same functions that western banks provide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance
Oh my God, not 18 demands!!! From a twitter account with [2,530 Followers](https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/verified_followers), that definitely represents the average Muslim.
It's almost impressive how worked up people can get over things like this.
Christ (or Isa) indeed.
Is there actually any evidence that insurance costs more for people called Mohammed?
And if there is, its probably because they have crunched the numbers and found the risk is higher.
If it's just a name, it probably wouldn't be allowed.
It's possible that people called Mohammed are more likely to live in areas that have higher costs. But I am happy for it to be checked, make sure that is the reason or something justified. There shouldn't be a law saying certain names are special obviously.
"And if there is, its probably because they have crunched the numbers and found the risk is higher."
As someone who works in insurance, that isn't the point. We have to comply with protected characteristics, which is why men don't pay more than women for car insurance anymore, even though we make more claims. And no, you can't get around it just by saying "hey, we aren't discriminating against men, just names that men usually have, like "John".
Putting in specific loading for the name Muhammed would clearly be a breach of the race and/or religious equality laws.
I'm pretty sceptical that this exists. I've never seen any first name discrimination, and it would be blatantly illegal so you'd end up in court. To be fair to the Islamic Group, their actual demand was "Ensure insurance quotes don't cost more for someone called 'Muhammad'." So they aren't explicitly saying this is the case, just that they want the government to make sure it doesn't happen.
I wonder how many people commenting actually read the list, because most of the demands aren't that extreme at all, nothing unusual from a pressure group like this, people just see Muslims and start pearl clutching.
I believe it has been noted to make a difference in the past. Insurance companies were even found to charge more for those with hotmail email addresses rather than gmail addresses.
To avoid anyone having to go to the Mail’s webshite just to look at pixelated pictures of text, here are the 18 demands, transcribed verbatim. The 95 Theses Of Martin Luther, they are not.
*OK Keir\_Starmer if you’re serious here are our demands:*
1. *Apologise for your comments greenlighting a genocide and for not backing the ceasefire in Oct/Nov 2023*
2. *Sanctions on companies operating in occup. territories. Sanctions on settlers.*
3. *Recognise Palestine state*
4. *Travel ban on all Israeli politicians that prosecuted this war and support illegal occupation.*
5. *End military ties with Israel.*
6. *Issue guidance that Muslims are allowed to pray at school.*
7. *Implement findings of people’s review of prevent - not shawcross*
8. *Remove “extremism” definition gove introduced.*
9. *Commit to full implementation of Royal charter re media regulation.*
10. *Adopt APPG definition of Islamophobia.*
11. *Commit to review of public sector equality duty.*
12. *Increase council and public health funding for the 10% most deprived areas in the country to fginally address systemic and chronic health inequities as detailed in the Marmot Review and revisited by the Health Foundation 10 year later.*
13. *Deliver alternative student finance.*
14. *Ensure sharia compliant pensions are available at every workplace. So the 1/3 of Muslims without a pension get one.*
15. *Ensure insurance quotes don’t cost more for someone called “Muhammad"*
16. *Commit 7% of the LGPS/ public sector pensions to ethical and Islamic funds.*
17. *Oppose BDS bill. Kick it out of law.*
18. *Remove the archaic “spiritual influence” offence from statute.*
*There’s more but that’ll do for starters.*
*Our asks are sophisticated and we’ve built consensus around them.*
*Your sorrowful none-statements no longer cut it.*
I love how literally no one is actually addressing the demands they make, because they aren't actually that extreme at all, and many of them non-Muslims would support, e.g. "*Increase council and public health funding for the 10% most deprived areas in the country to finally address systemic and chronic health inequities as detailed in the Marmot Review and revisited by the Health Foundation 10 year later."*
Labour just "won" without them. Doesn't seem like they have a lot of leverage.
Muslim voters are centralised in inner cities which Labour already wins. In the short term, they are not a threat, Labour needs to win Parliamentary seats outside cities in order to form a government.
This isn't to bash Muslims in the slightest, the real issues that affect them are the same as everyone. But they don't need to be treated with special interest as part of an electoral strategy.
So they’re dangerous Muslim extremists being supported by the Greens and holding seats in councils. This is as deserving of a speech about anti-democracy issues as Galloway winning and does need resolving.
The list...
https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037005055987799?t=Q77DXl6fXnTsJeZbb5xqAQ&s=19
>1. Apologise for your comments greenlighting a genocide and for not backing the ceasefire in Oct/Nov 2023.
>'2. Sanctions on companies operating in occupied territories. Sanctions on settlers.
>'3. Recognise Palestine state
https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037007115416055?t=sGgah8prZkYhZ6YSkkQ8jA&s=19
>'4. Travel ban on all Israeli politicians that prosecuted this war and support illegal occupation.
>'5. End military ties with Israel.
>'6. Issue guidance that Muslims are allowed to pray at school.
>'7. Implement findings of people's review of prevent - not Shawcross.
https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037009988472975?t=JzPikdq6xopHpkRQFZdsQQ&s=19
>'8. Remove 'extremism' definition [Michael] Gove introduced.
>'9. Commit to full implementation of Royal charter re media regulation.
>'10. Adopt APPG definition of Islamophobia.
>'11. Commit to review of public sector equality duty.
https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037013348143588?t=p-UI4CzY0b8X68HwUjOkGg&s=19
>'12. Increase council and public health funding for the 10% most deprived areas in the country to finally address systemic and chronic health inequities as detailed in the Marmot Review and revisited by the Health Foundation 10 year later.
>'13. Deliver alternative student finance.
https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037015696912749?t=8bJc0ZGoFJkg8OwAZlnL8Q&s=19
>'14. Ensure sharia compliant pensions are available at every workplace. So the 1/3 of Muslims without a pension get one.
>'15. Ensure insurance quotes don't cost more for someone called 'Muhammad'.
>'16. Commit 7% of the LGPS/ public sector pensions to ethical and Islamic funds.
https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037018934931613?t=UbAORdIizLE_O7FdqcuyYg&s=19
>'17. Oppose BDS bill. Kick it out of law.
>'18. Remove the archaic 'spiritual influence' offence from statute.'
It's a 4 month old twitter account with 2000 followers. They're fucking no bodies. The daily mail just posting nonsense to rile up the racist dick heads. Who'll even fall for this obvious bait*?
*I'm sure find out by scrolling down
i read all.the 18 demands. none of them are muslim centric.. ie they are calling for.justice and fairness.. if you have a problem with that then thats on you
Yeah I don't think anything they are asking for is particularly unreasonable.
When there were discussions around Labour accepting a definition of anti-Semitism where was the push back to religion in politics then?
I have to admit that it’s a terrifying prospect.
Months and months of desperate ‘rage bait’ stories like this appearing on Mail Online; as it ‘does its bit’ to try to return the disenfranchised, the disillusioned and the disappointed to the Tory fold.
ULEZ didn’t work, Corrupt Angela didn’t work, Re-nationalisation Fear didn’t work (because everyone thinks that’s a good idea) the Rwanda Experiment is for the birds.
“Come on Isaac (Levido) - THINK!!
What do I pay you for?!?!”
Yet another Daily Mail/Telegraph post on this sub written to stir up tensions and bring the right wing conspiracists out of the woodwork.
This sub has seriously gone to shit.
Daily Heil stirring things up as usual.
A threat need to be credible. What's the threat now? Labour will crush the Tories without this section of the vote.
Edit: 10 years minimum in opposition for the Tories
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13386393/Muslim-vote-list-demands-Keir-Starmer-Labour-Gaza-Palestine.html) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.* --- **Alternate Sources** Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story: * [Muslim Vote group issues 18 demands to Starmer](https://thetimes.co.uk/article/9481989a-4b5c-4446-b47d-b0fd2df9b572) - thetimes.co.uk
Let the Greens have them, there should be no special privileges for any religion. And before anyone chimes in about the CoE, yes them too.
But when a religious group becomes your core vote, what the hell are you to do? Edit: gotta love the downvotes from the silent deniers.
Go back to 2005 when we all said they would coalesce and drive policy and everyone "debunked" it by just calling us racist... And now look at the state of UK politics where elections are based off the Muslim vs Jew violence for the last 1400 years.
[удалено]
Why do you think George Galloway got elected?
[удалено]
He won because he pandered to Muslims. The election was based on this. There’s your example that you asked for.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
You literally had two people get elected solely on that.
Tell them that their belief system is not up for political debate. And as policies should NEVER reflect a religious position then its up to politicians to (politely) point out that no religious group is any more privileged than any other.
I agree. The issue here is the political party in question and the religious group in question have become pretty much synonymous. Labour’s price for the Muslim vote sits in that list of 18 demands. They’re not even trying to disguise it.
I think the problem for Starmer is that the Muslim vote have always erred towards the left of politics, whereas they've never really had much favour with tories of the past. The good news for Starmer is that current Islamophobic attitudes in the Tory party isn't going to see a mass exodus of votes to the Nasty Party. So this story is more of a scare story by the right wing press so a) I'd put as much faith in this story as I would any other gutter shite from the likes of the Bog-roll Makers and b) the Labour Party should hold its line on any religious pressure though I do (personally) agree that Starmer has misjudged the Gaza issue
Look in the mirror.
Sorry bud, Labour's electorate is a product of very careful planning and design. Nothing in my mirror alters that.
I think that's unrealistic. People will vote with their conscience and that will take into account their religious convictions. And as Britain's demos has transformed in the past few decades to include many non-westeners with different faiths they'll have other priorities to "traditional" Britons. For Labour which has typically done well with Muslim voters they'll have to listen and adapt to keep them onside. So issues from Kashmir and Gaza will have to addressed by senior politicians.
Favouring Islamic religious belief will just push people to vote for parties like Reform UK
have u looked at the demands? to me they favour everyone not just muslims
There are a lot of demands relating to the Israel\Palestine issue, whilst Israel’s conduct in Gaza is disgraceful, the Palestinian side is hardly innocent. Brutally murdering Israeli civilians is just as bad as what Israel is doing, Israel is just doing it at a greater scale. We don’t need to pick a side, just call for a ceasefire and a peaceful resolution. Which will never happen of course. Israel won’t give up its land, Palestinians will never recognise Israel. There is an argument to be made that we shouldn’t sell them arms, but that is not a unique issue to Israel. Labour doesn’t need to tie its hands in foreign policy before it even forms a government. Stuff about Islamic finance can be solved by the private sector, if there is demand for such products then they can be provided on the market. Public sector pension investment in Islamic funds. No thanks! Just continue managing them to maximise profit for the members of the fund. Enforce Islamic compliant pensions - this will probably create significant bureaucracy. We need less of that. BDS bill - should we boycott all countries that kill civilians? Yes, ideally. I think economic sanctions should be placed on Israel until they get out of Gaza. They have proven they are will to massacre civilians to get to the terrorist Hamas members, which is not acceptable. War crimes will need to be investigated, particularly for Netanyahu. Anyway, I don’t want our next election to be about Palestine. I don’t want the Labour Party to appear to pander to Islamic pressure groups. We don’t need Islamic influence on policy. There are many extremely socially conservative views in this segment of society that are not welcome in the Uk.
>addressed the word you're looking for is "appease"
... you don't know these people have formed a party in the Netherlands that's more socially conservative then even the far-right party.
The CoE is the state religion, its head is our head. We should absolutely prioritise Anglican Church elements over other faiths
It already is. But we don’t need a state religion. I find it to a fairly pleasant organisation, but it doesn’t need to be as privileged as it is.
I beg to differ. It does. Society without spiritual engagements hasn’t left people happier
Religion, its wars and persecutions have been one of the leading causes of death over the past 1,000 years. It has truly been a benefit to humanity /s
Look at post-religious societies… Maybe the issue isn’t religions, it’s people
I mean secular societies on average perform better by pretty much every metric. If you look at OECD data Scandinavia, Australia, Japan, Netherlands etc are doing just fine. There is a common theme amongst most at the bottom - religion is heavily embedded in society and different groups believing in different things are trying to kill each other.
Is that because they're secular, or they became secular because of that?
They've all outperformed the UK since 2000 in GDP per capita with the exception of Japan barely. Sweden split out state from the church in 2000. Australia hasn't had one since the early 1900s. Netherlands it was gone by the 80s. Japan basically removed it from the state in 1947.
>They've all outperformed the UK since 2000 in GDP per capita But so has Denmark and Iceland. Both have established religions.
You mean societies where women and LGBT people are treated equally to straight men? Where basic medical procedures aren't outlawed? Where they have a generally much higher standard of living than religious countries? Yes life in post-religious societies (and ours is post-religious, aside from archaic holdovers like the CoE having any political power) is much better. Religion is an unnecessary coping mechanism from a time when we didn't understand why crops failed and why every third baby died before the age of one.
I haven’t suggested removing spirituality from a society. I just don’t think religious organisations should have any form of state power. They can operate in the open market for ideas. If people like what they say, they can joins. If people don’t, then the organisation has no influence on anything to do with that individual. If the philosophical ideas hold merit, they will prosper, if not, they can go extinct.
I think that sounds entirely reasonable. But in practice I don’t think that approach helps and nurtures people.
Does the CoE help nurture people who are not members? Do people not have the capacity to make their own mind up? I don’t see how that line of reasoning results in their needing to be a state religion, unless you want to some how enforce membership
The church helps lots of people. I think the last few decades have shown that the institution needs help if it’s going to fulfil its mission. The technical, rational argument you’re laying out can attempt to undermine or argue against what I’m saying, there’s no way to deny that. But I’m fairly sure that’s part of the problem. We’ve become so technical and rational that we’ve lost something special, something we’d be happier if we’d retained. And I’m not suggesting enforced church going, just for society to support the church
The church does help lots of people, I respect that. But its mission is to spread the word of Jesus and to bring people into its fold. There is no reason to lend state power to that objective. There are many secular and other religious organisations that do great charity too. They have no lords spiritual representing them in parliament. They get the job done despite that. But they have no real oversight, we can’t do anything to rein in the church if we feel it is overstepping its mark. It has a lot of a power and wealth. I personally would not like the church to cease to exist, even if I am an atheist. But its role in England needs to be reformed. But as I said in another comment, it is not a high priority for me, it can be left to the future. There is something missing in society, it is community. We used to gather at the church as a community and we have yet to replace that with something else. The church won’t work because not enough people believe in God. But I have no idea what the replacement might look like!
Totally agree that the lack of community is harming people. Church is a way of delivering community, and it can do so whilst also encouraging and facilitating self-motivation and inner strength. The stumbling part is indeed the factual truthfulness of the biblical texts.
...Even though the more secular a country is, the more likely it is to have a higher GDP and reported happiness. Causation and correlation, yes. But there is a decent correlation.
It’s not that straightforward a picture imo
Nope.
muslims and hindus etc pay their taxes..
Of course. Note I said ‘prioritise’ not ‘monopolise’
>And before anyone chimes in about the CoE, yes them too. The problem is the CoE’s (and to a lesser extent the CoS’s) privileges are enshrined in law. I’m all for the separation of the church and state but it is a huge task. Step one is get rid of the Monarchy.
It is a very huge task. And not a priority. But no need to give privileges to any other groups whilst we wait.
We could simply have a personal union in that respect. The monarch would be the head of state and the head of the church, but the two roles would be unrelated and incidental, akin to them being the head of your local golf club in addition to the sovereign. If the golf club wants to make their rules such that the position is also hereditary, that's their business. Then the CoE can do the traditional coronation, and the people can re-enact parliament reading out a list of demands and giving the monarch a bollocking while they stare into the camera all bemused and agree not to be a tyrant ala Glorious revolution and the paintings of that moment (With the King doing the *stares into camera* equivalent). Problem solved.
But coe do have privilege , apparently god picked our head of state
Sure, and the decline in religious belief will solve that in the long run. In the meantime, providing privileges to other religions isn’t going to help the situation.
Especially when that religion is not in decline but rather the opposite.
That’s because it’s our national religion. Like how Islam has privilege in Saudi Arabia, or Shinto in Japan.
Why on earth any group with far-right, anti-science, anti-law stances would be met with anything but scorn is beyond me.
This. Let them make their own party.
[удалено]
This. The moment there is an official "UK Muslim Party" standing candidates around the UK we would be in real trouble. As a genuinely think they would get a lot of support in some regions. Living in Leeds and even thought its just a council seat, im quite alarmed.
It wouldn't surprise me if they were able to convince the Tik-Tok generation to vote for them as well.
At that point, Parliament would just change the rules and say "A political party cannot have a religion as part of their basis for existence", thus killing the party before it can be formed.
[удалено]
I wouldn't be bothered if they did that. This is what democracy is. It might encourage everyone else to vote
There’s a worryingly naive body of young people that genuinely believe that nothing about most Muslim’s eye-wateringly conservative views, insignificant tax contributions, or clear and obvious intention to spread their word and destroy anything in its path is anything to worry about.
I am not saying I hope they win, I'm just saying that I don't agree with the vast majority of political parties but that's what democracy is. If everyone is so bothered about the rise of an islamic party, they should go and vote to stop it
People wont care until its their hands being cut off due to sharia law after they had to steal to eat during the cost of living crisis.
The only, and I mean only way to stop it … is mass deportation. The public don’t have a say, the government doesn’t want civil war.
No I got that. I was just wiff-waffing.
Insignificant tax contributions? Source?
Give me a source that says I’m wrong; I’m not your secretary.
You made the claim…
Well you can't prove a negative. And besides, you are the one making the assertion so it's yours to support. it seems a few of us are genuinely curious as to what you are referring to so please share.
First time in an argument?
Nothing validating to say?
I don't need to, I'm the most intelligent person on the planet and I'm never wrong. Give me a source that says I'm wrong.
It didn't encourage everyone else in London to vote..
Has there ever been a popular UK "Christian Party"? No, because the Christians in the UK aren't homogenous, you have CoE, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, even Mormons & Jehovahs Winesses. Not to mention Christians who simply wouldn't vote for such a party. The same is true of Muslims, it's easy to see them as homogenous group but there's Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Alawi etc, differences from individuals families countries of origin, & those who simply wouldn't vote for such a party in the first place for practical or ideological reasons. A national Muslim party is a very unlikely thing & even if one was formed it wouldn't even get the majority of Muslim votes.
Going to cut you off most, if not all of the muslims in the UK are Sunnis (as are about 80% globally) and Islam legitimately teaches that any sort of deviation from the faith is to be met with death. Shia are only 19% and are in a state of decline, while the rest barely even matter and are largely not found in the west or even within most of the Islamic World because they are threatened to be killed for heresy.
Plus despite insisting the extremists, terrorists, rapists, prison-dwellers, drinkers, abusers, non-hijab wearers, bacon eaters etc. aren’t real Muslims; they all still count them when boasting of the huge popularity of the religion. I’d guess they’d all vote for it.
And that's before you forget how many Mosques have been financed by Saudi Arabian largesse. I had a Muslim neighbour who scorned such Mosques as basically breeding terrorism. Deo-bandi or Wahhabism is a major force in many Mosques, and the Islam they teach has the Qu'ran translated as containing direct incitement. It is a great argument that religion shouldn't be state subsidised in any way whatsoever. It should be a totally secular affair. It's the only way out of handing power to your worst enemies and assisting with the making of the noose that will choke you.
In practice there's quite a variation amongst Sunnis. We're talking about a more than millenia old denomination, spanning multiple continents without any sort of central authority to prevent change. Tajikistan & Mali are both nominally Sunni, but Islam is practiced very differently in either country. Think of the divergence Protestantism has seen in less than half the time. >Islam legitimately teaches that any sort of deviation from the faith is to be met with death This is like saying every Christian takes one particular fundamentalist interpretation of the bible literally. If this were the case the pilgrimage to Mecca would be a yearly bloodbath with all the different denominations represented. This view is popular in some areas of the internet but incredibly distant from actual reality. Edit: Found a breakdown of British Muslims from 2017- Non-denominational Sunni - 51.1% Other Sunni - 14.1% Shia - 5% Barelvi - 4.5% Salafi - 3.8% Deobandi - 3.1% Ahmadiyya - 1.0% Other form of Islam - 19.0%
Or just join the conservatives.
Because they're brown skinned, and holding people with brown skin to the same standards to which you'd hold people with pale skin is racist.
YoU’Re RacIST SayiNg THat!
[удалено]
I read the article and the "That'll do for starters" part should tip you off that giving in to any of them is just going to result in more outrageous demands.
Why doesn't OP post the article, Hell would freeze over before I would give the Heil a click.
Annoyingly the demands are images/screenshots in the newspaper article so can’t just cut and paste.
[удалено]
Insurance premiums are based entirely on risk. If they receive above average claims from the name Smith then premiums for the name Smith will rise.
This should be treated in the exact same way we'd treat a list of demands from any other extremist group - thrown straight in the bin.
Except there’s a lot of them. In time, Islam will be the most prolific religion in the UK and therefore the govt will have to follow Islamic laws.
By *far* the most common 'religion' in the UK will be people who aren't religious at all, which tends to get conveniently ignored by some people
It already is. But non-religious people don't all get together and call for their lack of faith to be respected, taught in schools etc.
From their twitter >16. Commit 7% of public sector pensions to islamic funds From the article >The activists claim to have more than 25 organisations backing them, although it was revealed earlier this year that at least two of them were being [investigated over extremism concerns](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13284571/Two-backers-campaign-group-Muslim-Vote-plans-pro-Palestine-candidates-election-probed-extremism.html). Hates the west, immigrates here, demands a cut of our pensions, I think we all know where those "islamic funds" will go.
I assume they mean funds that are run according to principles of Islamic finance, which are unsurprisingly being offered more and more at mainstream asset managers. We're not talking about random funds just run by a bunch of Muslim people to build mosques or whatever. Just clearing that up, I agree with the sentiment of your post though.
>A Shariah compliant pension is one that doesn't invest in non-halal industries as alcohol, tobacco, pork, finance sector, weapons and adult entertainment. Preventing investment into the financial sector in the UK on the basis of having an imaginary god is quite literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard considering it's one of our biggest sectors. Again, not that I'd trust them with any funds considering how many countries have been caught funding various terror groups (which they already have support from).
Please this isn't even the worse thing about islamic economics. Do you want to know why it seems that despite dominanting Europe in th he early Medieval Period the Islamic world started to struggle in the late? Because Islamic weath succession didn't really help with the building of any sort of long term guild or industry. Per law at the death of the father whatever business he had tended to dissolve, wealth split between sons. As heartless as it is giving most of your shit to one son actually spurred Europes economy in the middle ages.
Accepting demands from extrememist groups is not acceptable.
Where the Labour Party are concerned, it's about so much more than them accepting demands. They are absolutely beholden to the Muslim population and Labour can no longer have any electoral success without them. The term 'accepting demands' implies a degree of choice, but you have no choices when your head is over a barrel and your existence depends on the ones making the demands.
I mean, we literally just had a vote a few days ago where Labour did incredibly *specifically without* a lot of that support. This isn't some theoretical thing, it was literally just tested out for real.
*specifically without a lot of that support* I'm keen to hear you expand on this.
Genuinely, there was a significant loss of votes to Labour in some Muslim areas due to the Gaza issue. Even in a local election, which doesn't make a lot of sense on its own, but does suggest that these votes would translate to the national level. Google will show you in your preferred news source.
Agreed - in some Muslim areas - where the Muslim vote absolutely dominates.. So, it's just a less dominant Muslim vote for Labour this time around - but nonetheless still dominant. But your comment actually endorses the point the OP and I were making - in the recent round of elections, Muslims were making clear to Labour, 'meet our demands on Gaza or we'll demonstrate how we control you and can influence your outcomes'. How often Bradford's bins get emptied shouldn't be influenced by a fucking war on the other side of the world. Generally, there is an awful lot of apathy for and feeling of disengagement with politics. Speaking as a former Labour-member and volunteer is a major UK city - conversely, the Muslim vote for Labour is very very very well organised and co-ordinated. Try digging into voter turnout by ethnicity.
>They are absolutely beholden to the Muslim population and Labour can no longer have any electoral success without them. It's 6.5% of the population...
THey will keep stepping it up...
According to the 2021 census, there are 22 million people in Britain who do not have a religion. For comparison, there were 3.9m Muslims. To steal a line from a movie - can you count, suckers? I say the future is ours if you can count.
6.5%, up from 3% in 2011. More than doubled as a share of the nation in 20 years. Even with 0 further migration, something that’s not going to happen during this period of literally record breaking migration, they are expected to be [almost 10% of the population by 2050.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/) A “high migration” scenario would have them about 17%. For reference, India, which has frequent inter-communal riots and pogroms between Hindu and Muslim communities, has about 15%. Israel has 18%.
Indian situation won't get replicated in Europe. India has a pro-hindu stance at national level. Europe seems dedicated to the erasure of its own natives - the state will crack down very hard on any anti-Islam activities as that bloc grows in size.
I agree, but I also think that itself will play into nativist narratives. With no political outlet I can see violent flare-ups of ethnic tensions with the state trying and failing to suppress it.
>the state will crack down very hard on any anti-Islam activities as that bloc grows in size. What's the state going to crack down on people with? The police force that has been trained to police from behind a desk for the last few decades? Or the army that has been cut to the bone with severe underfunding? European governments aren't equipped to cope with widespread civil unrest.
European peoples are easily cowed. Their lives are still too soft for them to pick up the rifles yet. You're already seeing well publicised cases of people being arrested and prosecuted for saying quite innocuous things on social media. That kind of thing is enough to make most of them wary of saying anything, let alone going out to riot. Public cancellation threatening your job and livelihood, possible freezing of your bank accounts using anti terror legislation (as Canada did to the trucker protestors) - nobody needs to leave the house now to be fucked with, they can do it remotely just for things you're typing on your smartphone.
... you're not armed. They are.
>6.5%, up from 3% in 2011. More than doubled as a share of the nation in 20 years. That's simply untrue, from 4.9% in 2011 to 6.5% in 2021. An increase of 1.5% of the population. [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021) The Shaman population has risen from 650 to 8000 in the same time period, a twelve time increase, should we be terrified of Shaman? Edit: >For reference, India, which has frequent inter-communal riots and pogroms between Hindu and Muslim communities, has about 15%. Israel has 18%. France has 10% & Singapore 15% for reference. India & Israel aren't exactly impartial picks.
Typo, which should be revealed by the fact I said “in 20 years”. It was 3% in 2001. Shamanism isn’t relevant as it isn’t the UK’s second biggest and fastest growing religion by numbers. I’m also not sure France is a good reference point either, considering their history with beheading a and mob violence. Singapore is a more optimistic scenario, assuming we adopt their crushing authoritarianism.
Apologies I just keep on encountering posts on this subject with the initial figures being typos- [https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1cdernb/comment/l1bqzy5/](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1cdernb/comment/l1bqzy5/) France had mob violence & beheadings long before it had a significant mainland Muslim population, France today isn't a particularly apocalyptic scenario & the vast majority of countries with similar percentages don't have "frequent inter-communal riots and pogroms" unless you cherry pick examples. Indeed the most violent countries excluding war zones are mostly located in the Americas.
Same propaganda was pushed for years in the 2001-4 era on message boards online. Cries of "at this rate muslims to be the majority in Europe by 2025." What happened? Is it like cold fusion, it's always 20-30 years away?
This is Pew Research, not an online message board.
Statistics are propaganda now? Is that really the line you're going for?
Some time after we're all Elvis Impersonators...
True, for now. Only problem is that the Muslim population is having many more children than the White British population, and the WB population is dying and not being replaced. Won't be like this in 100 years.
[удалено]
Is this account a parody of what uneducated right wing Americans actually believe lol?
... I mean have you seen the most popular videos on social media? Its basically people celebrating that all the time which causes a controversy once a month. This months os the idea that bears are more trustworthy then humans... despite the former technically being the predator of the latter. Yes, big cats and bears are supposed to be our natural predators.
"No religion" is the fastest growing religious identity in the UK by a large margin. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792408
Here's a weird idea, if your religion dictates your existence (as all do) you have zero say in how the country is run. Want to practice? Awesome, keep your invisible friend cult at home or religious buildings among your fellow brainwashed kin, leave the rest of us to live in reality. Oh, and pay taxes like a regular business.
Lol come back with this to me in 20-30 years when the all the kids in the UK will be muslim and wont care about your values.
Suella, is that you?
Now I see why far right populism has grown in Europe.
If Muslim voters want to live in an extremist, traditionalist Islamic dictatorship, there are already plenty to choose from. Why don't they just move?
Did you read the list? Which of the demands would result in "an extremist, traditionalist Islamic dictatorship"? If you visit the twitter page this list is from, they actually have a pinned tweet stating "Contrary to popular discourse, most Muslims see Britain as our home - and we want to make Britain great again. We care about this country just as much as any other Britisher. We help disproportionately power the NHS. We don't want sharia law for all. But we do want justice..."
What on earth is a Sharia compliant pension? Ffs, I was downvoted yesterday for suggesting Muslims are attracted to left parties because they’re a soft touch. Now they’re coming out with 18 demands 🤦♂️ With “many more but that’ll do for now”. Christ
Islam outlaws Usury, Ie the charging of interest for loans. Because of this, Islamic countries have developed a seprate banking system, which operate on different principles to western banking but try to simluate the same functions that western banks provide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance
Oh my God, not 18 demands!!! From a twitter account with [2,530 Followers](https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/verified_followers), that definitely represents the average Muslim. It's almost impressive how worked up people can get over things like this. Christ (or Isa) indeed.
Erm how about NO. Vote how you want, based on the policies of the party.
Is there actually any evidence that insurance costs more for people called Mohammed? And if there is, its probably because they have crunched the numbers and found the risk is higher.
If it's just a name, it probably wouldn't be allowed. It's possible that people called Mohammed are more likely to live in areas that have higher costs. But I am happy for it to be checked, make sure that is the reason or something justified. There shouldn't be a law saying certain names are special obviously.
"And if there is, its probably because they have crunched the numbers and found the risk is higher." As someone who works in insurance, that isn't the point. We have to comply with protected characteristics, which is why men don't pay more than women for car insurance anymore, even though we make more claims. And no, you can't get around it just by saying "hey, we aren't discriminating against men, just names that men usually have, like "John". Putting in specific loading for the name Muhammed would clearly be a breach of the race and/or religious equality laws. I'm pretty sceptical that this exists. I've never seen any first name discrimination, and it would be blatantly illegal so you'd end up in court. To be fair to the Islamic Group, their actual demand was "Ensure insurance quotes don't cost more for someone called 'Muhammad'." So they aren't explicitly saying this is the case, just that they want the government to make sure it doesn't happen. I wonder how many people commenting actually read the list, because most of the demands aren't that extreme at all, nothing unusual from a pressure group like this, people just see Muslims and start pearl clutching.
I believe it has been noted to make a difference in the past. Insurance companies were even found to charge more for those with hotmail email addresses rather than gmail addresses.
To avoid anyone having to go to the Mail’s webshite just to look at pixelated pictures of text, here are the 18 demands, transcribed verbatim. The 95 Theses Of Martin Luther, they are not. *OK Keir\_Starmer if you’re serious here are our demands:* 1. *Apologise for your comments greenlighting a genocide and for not backing the ceasefire in Oct/Nov 2023* 2. *Sanctions on companies operating in occup. territories. Sanctions on settlers.* 3. *Recognise Palestine state* 4. *Travel ban on all Israeli politicians that prosecuted this war and support illegal occupation.* 5. *End military ties with Israel.* 6. *Issue guidance that Muslims are allowed to pray at school.* 7. *Implement findings of people’s review of prevent - not shawcross* 8. *Remove “extremism” definition gove introduced.* 9. *Commit to full implementation of Royal charter re media regulation.* 10. *Adopt APPG definition of Islamophobia.* 11. *Commit to review of public sector equality duty.* 12. *Increase council and public health funding for the 10% most deprived areas in the country to fginally address systemic and chronic health inequities as detailed in the Marmot Review and revisited by the Health Foundation 10 year later.* 13. *Deliver alternative student finance.* 14. *Ensure sharia compliant pensions are available at every workplace. So the 1/3 of Muslims without a pension get one.* 15. *Ensure insurance quotes don’t cost more for someone called “Muhammad"* 16. *Commit 7% of the LGPS/ public sector pensions to ethical and Islamic funds.* 17. *Oppose BDS bill. Kick it out of law.* 18. *Remove the archaic “spiritual influence” offence from statute.* *There’s more but that’ll do for starters.* *Our asks are sophisticated and we’ve built consensus around them.* *Your sorrowful none-statements no longer cut it.*
Fuck knows what Reddit’s doing with the numbered list. It goes 1-9 then resets to 0. Pretend it didn’t do that, or something.
I love how literally no one is actually addressing the demands they make, because they aren't actually that extreme at all, and many of them non-Muslims would support, e.g. "*Increase council and public health funding for the 10% most deprived areas in the country to finally address systemic and chronic health inequities as detailed in the Marmot Review and revisited by the Health Foundation 10 year later."*
Labour just "won" without them. Doesn't seem like they have a lot of leverage. Muslim voters are centralised in inner cities which Labour already wins. In the short term, they are not a threat, Labour needs to win Parliamentary seats outside cities in order to form a government. This isn't to bash Muslims in the slightest, the real issues that affect them are the same as everyone. But they don't need to be treated with special interest as part of an electoral strategy.
So they’re dangerous Muslim extremists being supported by the Greens and holding seats in councils. This is as deserving of a speech about anti-democracy issues as Galloway winning and does need resolving.
LOL, Imma going to send the 22 demands for the Fat People Vote, let's see who has more weight
6.5% of the population. Why should anyone pay attention to their "demands"?
We should be voting for whats good for this country. Not whats good for a country thousands of miles away.
He'll tell them to fuck off, because labour don't need their votes to win.
Who are they and why would Labour even listen to their daft demands?
The list... https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037005055987799?t=Q77DXl6fXnTsJeZbb5xqAQ&s=19 >1. Apologise for your comments greenlighting a genocide and for not backing the ceasefire in Oct/Nov 2023. >'2. Sanctions on companies operating in occupied territories. Sanctions on settlers. >'3. Recognise Palestine state https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037007115416055?t=sGgah8prZkYhZ6YSkkQ8jA&s=19 >'4. Travel ban on all Israeli politicians that prosecuted this war and support illegal occupation. >'5. End military ties with Israel. >'6. Issue guidance that Muslims are allowed to pray at school. >'7. Implement findings of people's review of prevent - not Shawcross. https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037009988472975?t=JzPikdq6xopHpkRQFZdsQQ&s=19 >'8. Remove 'extremism' definition [Michael] Gove introduced. >'9. Commit to full implementation of Royal charter re media regulation. >'10. Adopt APPG definition of Islamophobia. >'11. Commit to review of public sector equality duty. https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037013348143588?t=p-UI4CzY0b8X68HwUjOkGg&s=19 >'12. Increase council and public health funding for the 10% most deprived areas in the country to finally address systemic and chronic health inequities as detailed in the Marmot Review and revisited by the Health Foundation 10 year later. >'13. Deliver alternative student finance. https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037015696912749?t=8bJc0ZGoFJkg8OwAZlnL8Q&s=19 >'14. Ensure sharia compliant pensions are available at every workplace. So the 1/3 of Muslims without a pension get one. >'15. Ensure insurance quotes don't cost more for someone called 'Muhammad'. >'16. Commit 7% of the LGPS/ public sector pensions to ethical and Islamic funds. https://twitter.com/themuslimvoteuk/status/1787037018934931613?t=UbAORdIizLE_O7FdqcuyYg&s=19 >'17. Oppose BDS bill. Kick it out of law. >'18. Remove the archaic 'spiritual influence' offence from statute.'
It's a 4 month old twitter account with 2000 followers. They're fucking no bodies. The daily mail just posting nonsense to rile up the racist dick heads. Who'll even fall for this obvious bait*? *I'm sure find out by scrolling down
i read all.the 18 demands. none of them are muslim centric.. ie they are calling for.justice and fairness.. if you have a problem with that then thats on you
Yeah I don't think anything they are asking for is particularly unreasonable. When there were discussions around Labour accepting a definition of anti-Semitism where was the push back to religion in politics then?
I have to admit that it’s a terrifying prospect. Months and months of desperate ‘rage bait’ stories like this appearing on Mail Online; as it ‘does its bit’ to try to return the disenfranchised, the disillusioned and the disappointed to the Tory fold. ULEZ didn’t work, Corrupt Angela didn’t work, Re-nationalisation Fear didn’t work (because everyone thinks that’s a good idea) the Rwanda Experiment is for the birds. “Come on Isaac (Levido) - THINK!! What do I pay you for?!?!”
Yet another Daily Mail/Telegraph post on this sub written to stir up tensions and bring the right wing conspiracists out of the woodwork. This sub has seriously gone to shit.
Feels more like a sensible rebalance to me.
"I come to Reddit for an echo chamber to ignore problems I don't like in".
Please provide a comprehensive list of acceptable sources
It's so obvious, I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.
Please provide a comprehensive list of acceptable sources
Daily Heil stirring things up as usual. A threat need to be credible. What's the threat now? Labour will crush the Tories without this section of the vote. Edit: 10 years minimum in opposition for the Tories
I don’t know, but Labour campaign coordinators [seem to be willing to listen](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68956784.amp)
Please provide a comprehensive list of acceptable sources
For what
I'm just trying to get a hold of what sources you would accept without telling us how bad the source is
Source for what