Head of Public Policy Tim Dieppe comments on the recognition by Lord Khan that the APPG’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’ is in conflict with the Equality Act
Warnings about the APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’
I have repeatedly warned of the dangers of the notorious APPG definition of Islamophobia since it was first proposed by the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims back in 2018. Most recently, I wrote a report for the Free Speech Union entitled: Banning Islamophobia: Blasphemy Law By The backdoor. Professor Richard Dawkins kindly wrote the foreword to that report in which I warned that adopting that definition of Islamophobia would effectively prohibit valid criticism of Islam or Muhammad. Yet this definition has been formally adopted by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, several other political parties, and multiple local councils. Recently, there have been renewed calls for it to be formally adopted by the government into law.
Open letter to Angela Rayner
Earlier this month, the Network of Sikh Organisations wrote an open letter to Deputy-Prime Minister, Angela Rayner MP – Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, raising specific concerns about the APPG ‘Islamophobia’ definition. The letter warns that: “Adoption of this contested definition into law would have serious implications on free speech, not least the ability to discuss historical truths.” It concludes by threatening a judicial review if the government were to formally incorporate this definition into law.
One problem with the APPG definition is that it defines ‘Islamophobia’ as “rooted in racism” and “a type of racism”. I and others have frequently pointed out, however, the rather obvious fact that Islam is not a race. It is a religion. People from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds are Muslims, and Muslims themselves do not see themselves as anything like a separate race. The Sikh letter makes this point, and argues that this conflation of race and religion does not fit with The Equality Act 2010.
Reply concedes definition contradicts Equality Act
The Network of Sikh Organisations has now received a reply to their letter from Lord Khan who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Faith, Communities and Resettlement. He was copied into the letter to Angela Rayner.
Lord Kahn’s letter concedes the point about the APPG definition conflicting with the Equality Act 2010, saying:
“As you have mentioned, the definition proposed by the APPG is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, which defines race in terms of colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins.”
This is a very significant concession since the government cannot now adopt a definition of Islamophobia which they have stated is in conflict with the Equality Act 2010. This is likely to mean that plans to adopt the APPG definition of Islamophobia into law have finally hit the buffers. No government will adopt a definition which is recognised to conflict with the Equality Act 2010.
Concerns remain
Concerns remain, however. Lord Khan’s letter does not back away from saying that the government is seeking to formalise a definition of Islamophobia. It states:
“Defining Islamophobia is a complex issue, and we want to ensure that any definition comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives and implications for different communities. This Government is actively considering our approach to tackling Islamophobia through a more holistic lens, and will provide further information on this in due course.”
It is not clear what is meant by ‘a more holistic lens’ for tackling as yet undefined ‘Islamophobia’. While the conflation of religion and race is admitted to be a problem with the APPG definition, Lord Khan’s letter makes no mention of any of the other problems with this definition, not least that it is defined as targeting “expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Rooting a definition in perception opens the door to a whole range of interpretations and will certainly serve to inhibit freedom of speech when it comes to Islam.
‘Anti-Muslim’ is a better term
Later in Lord Khan’s letter he makes reference to “anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant hatred.” This is encouraging to see since I and others have argued that ‘anti-Muslim’ is a much clearer term to use in these contexts. Indeed, any definition of ‘Islamophobia’ is likely to conflate attitudes towards Muslims as individuals with attitudes towards Islam the religion. Criticism of the religion must be allowed if our society is to retain free speech in relation to Islam. It is better, therefore, not to define ‘Islamophobia’ at all, but instead to use the term ‘anti-Muslim’ which makes clear that it is directed against Muslims rather than against the religion.
Where next for defining ‘Islamophobia’?
A question remains over what all those political parties and organisations that have formally adopted the APPG definition of Islamophobia will now do? Will the Labour Party drop this definition from its code of conduct? What about the Liberal Democrats and all those local councils? Surely they can’t continue with a definition that stands in conflict with the Equality Act?
I suspect the Labour Party will wait for the government to come up with an alternative definition and then replace the APPG definition with that one. Other organisations may follow suit. It all depends on the government coming up with an alternative definition. But that, as Lord Khan’s letter admits, is not easy if you want to preserve free speech.
The best hope is that this government ends up giving up on trying to define ‘Islamophobia’ and recommends using the term ‘anti-Muslim’ instead. That is where the last government got to. As expected, however, the new government is intent on reversing this decision.
Nevertheless, the admission by Lord Khan that the APPG definition conflicts with the Equality Act is a big deal. It should have dealt a death blow to adopting that definition. Let’s hope it has set back plans to formally define ‘Islamophobia’ in law at all.
