Quakers know something about religious discrimination, because of the sufferings our forebears endured.

Standing for religious freedom then is instinctive to us, but not just for us, but for all.

That means freedom for everyone, including for our Muslim and Jewish neighbours.

A great deal of the outcry about the idea of a definition of Islamophobia seems to boil down to people wanting to be Islamophobic without pushback.

It is telling that many deny Islamophobia is even a thing.

It is tragic that most media reporting this don't care about the double standards.

It's probable both the IHRA and Jerusalem definitions of antisemitism could be improved. I imagine the authors of both would be among the first to say that.

The backlash against a definition of Islamophobia though doesn't seem to be about the detail, but about whether there should be one at all.

Of course we need free speech. Of course we need to name and reign in religious bigotry. And of course we need to be able to protect human rights.

A working definition (which is literally that) gives those of us who earnestly want to stand against racism and religious bigotry some guidance.

The debate about the IHRA vs the Jerusalem definition of antisemitism is largely about how to discuss political & nationalist expressions of the faith, in the context of human rights abuses.

With the Islamophobia definition though people are just saying they want to criticise Islam.

Violence is never right. Killing is never right. Targeting people because of who they are is never right.

We give thanks for all those, from all backgrounds, who have come together to oppose hatred and promote living together peacefully. It is vital that we all continue to do so.

Thank you. I will amend.