The working group on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred – established by former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner – has faced significant criticism since its formation, largely due to its lack of transparency.
The group’s initial call for evidence was not widely publicised, leading to the exclusion of numerous important stakeholders, including the Free Speech Union, ex-Muslims, think tanks and religious minority groups. Shutting out these voices renders the working group’s attempt to appear sincere little more than a farcical box-ticking exercise.
This exclusion harms not only the communities the group claims to represent but also some of the fundamental principles on which this country is built, namely free speech. It is clear that critics or perceived opponents of an official definition have been systematically shut out of the process.
Reports six weeks ago indicated that the working group had quietly delivered its recommendations to ministers, yet the Government has still not published them before Parliament. It has now emerged that officials in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) have invited “hand-picked” organisations to view and discuss the proposed definition.
Unsurprisingly, the Free Speech Union’s request to view and comment on the definition was rejected by MHCLG, which claimed that ministers need “a safe space” to consider policy options in private. The founder of Tell Mama – a charity that monitored anti-Muslim hate incidents for the Government for more than a decade – has also stated he has been shut out of the process. Perhaps this is because Fiyaz Mughal has warned that an official definition would “curtail free speech”?
Even the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was not invited to submit evidence to the working group. The EHRC has criticised the Government’s failure to engage relevant stakeholders, with a spokesperson stating that if ministers wish to proceed with a definition, “this should be subject to a full public consultation so that potential risks and benefits can be considered”.
The double standards on display from MHCLG are striking. Lord Young of Acton, General Secretary and founder of the Free Speech Union, said: “It’s a bit rich of MHCLG to refuse to disclose the definition on the grounds that ministers need ‘a safe space to consider policy options in private’, given that ministers and their aides have been showing it to various hand-picked groups of supporters.
“Either it’s confidential or it isn’t – and if it isn’t, why can’t they share it with us?
“The FSU is Britain’s leading free speech advocacy group, so if ministers want informed feedback on whether the definition will have a chilling effect on free speech, they really should share it with us. The whole process feels like a giant stitch-up.”
An official definition of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred would have a chilling effect on free speech and stifle legitimate challenge, discussion and criticism of Islam. It would make it harder to have important conversations about issues such as Islamist extremism and the grooming gangs scandals.
Under the last Labour Government, Parliament abolished blasphemy laws in England and Wales 17 years ago. Now, this Labour Government appears intent on resurrecting them.
In a free society, no religion should be placed on a pedestal or granted special protection. Doing so will silence legitimate debate and inflame community tensions.
The UK has a long and proud history of religious tolerance and already has legislation to protect everyone – regardless of their faith – from discrimination and hatred. Instead of wasting taxpayer money on an official definition of Islamophobia, the Government should focus on properly enforcing existing laws. As the EHRC has noted: “Legal protections against discrimination and hate crime already exist, so it is unclear what role a new definition would play in addressing discrimination and abuse targeted at Muslims. An official non-statutory definition risks being in conflict with existing legal definitions and provisions, resulting in inconsistency and potential confusion for courts and individuals.”
If the Communities Secretary is as committed to defending free speech as he claims, he should scrap the proposed definition entirely.
You can read more in the Telegraph.