The Government is expected to publish a watered-down version of its long-awaited official definition of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred before the Christmas recess.
The working group established by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, has removed all reference to the term “Islamophobia”, instead opting for “anti-Muslim hostility” in an apparent attempt to placate critics — including the Free Speech Union — who have warned that the definition would have a chilling effect on free speech.
Rather than addressing those concerns, the draft definition is so expansive that it is almost certain to stifle legitimate criticism and challenge of Islam. The country now appears to be on course to have a de facto Muslim blasphemy law imposed by a Labour government — 17 years after the last blasphemy laws were abolished by the last one.
The draft definition of so-called “anti-Muslim hostility” reads as follows:
“Anti-Muslim hostility is engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation — whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated — which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their religion, ethnicity or appearance.
“It is also the prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics, to stir up hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.
“It is engaging in prohibited discrimination where the relevant conduct — including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions — is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.”
While the definition is non-statutory, there is little doubt that public bodies will enforce it with the same zeal and enthusiasm previously shown towards non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). Indeed, at a time when the Metropolitan Police has announced it will no longer investigate NCHIs, there is a real risk that police resources will instead be diverted towards overzealously recording reports of alleged anti-Muslim hostility that do not amount to criminal offences.
The UK has a long and proud tradition of religious tolerance and already has robust laws in place to protect all religions — including Islam — from hatred and discrimination. This point has been repeatedly made to the government by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) throughout the process.
The General Secretary and founder of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, has said: “The definition is unnecessary because it is already a criminal offence to stir up religious hatred and unlawful for employers or service providers to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion or belief. Granting Muslims additional protections not extended to people of other faiths will have the effect of increasing anti-Muslim hostility, not reducing it.”
If the government were genuinely serious about tackling anti-Muslim hatred, it would focus on enforcing existing laws rather than wasting taxpayers’ money on virtue-signalling gestures such as a non-statutory definition.
One of the most concerning aspects of the draft definition is its inclusion of “prejudicial stereotyping” as a form of anti-Muslim hostility. This could have the effect of shutting down legitimate discussion of sensitive but important issues, including Islamist extremism and the grooming gangs scandal. Moreover, the EHRC has rightly warned that race should not be included in the definition, as Muslims can belong to any racial group and are not defined as such in law.
A recent poll conducted by JL Partners found that a majority of Britons oppose the introduction of an official definition in any form. No matter how the government seeks to repackage or spin it, the public are not persuaded.
Labour’s watered-down definition will still undermine free speech.
Read more from Lord Young of Acton in The Telegraph.