ABERDEENSHIRE Council has sparked controversy by voting to defer on agreeing a definition of Islamophobia.
The Tory-LibDem led administration voted to wait until the next council cycle to find an agreement due to concerns of there being “negative consequences of adopting a definition”.
And some councillors supporting the agreement have questioned this as the definition proposed has already been agreed upon by other local councils across the UK.
The definition was based on the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims’ interpretation of Islamophobia.
READ MORE: Alister Jack defends saying 'suck it up' to 'grumbling' Deidre Brock
The definition reads: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
And now any future agreement has been deferred to the next business services committee meeting, which, due to summer recess, is likely to happen in late August or early September.
Gwyneth Petrie, leader of the SNP councillors in Aberdeenshire, said the administration had “kicked this down the road by two or three months” which was “crazy”.
She added that there was no clear reason for the move to defer other than “for the sake of it”.
However, she went on to invite those voted to defer to come forward and make their reasoning clear.
The decision also disappointed Fatima Joji, the only Muslim councillor in Aberdeenshire who described the move as a “cop out”.
Joji said: “I felt really disappointed and as the only Muslim councillor, felt let down by my colleagues in the council group who decided to defer for this flimsy reason.
“Everyone has the right to feel safe where they live and everyone has the right to expect that their representatives are uprholding that right on their behalf.”
When asked why she thought why an agreement had been deferred, she said: “Some of the views that have come from the councillors, I’m just a bit worried. Some of the language that was used to justify deferring it, I feel we have a lot to address in terms of how we educate ourselves on issues that affect marginalised communities.
“Probably because our area is less diverse than other areas, people don’t see it or understand it. I think it’s incumbent on councillors to go out there and find these answers.”
Council leader Mark Findlater declined to comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel