Head of Public Policy Tim Dieppe comments on the government’s move to adopt an official definition of ‘Islamophobia’
The government has set up a new working group tasked with providing the government with a definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia. Adopting an official definition of ‘Islamophobia’ is very concerning as it is likely to inhibit free speech in relation to Islam and will privilege Islam over other religions and ideologies in this respect.
‘Anti-Muslim’ is clear and sufficient
It is interesting to see the government include the phrase ‘anti-Muslim’ within its announcement today.
I have argued repeatedly before that the term ‘anti-Muslim’ is clear and sufficient. This term makes clear that it is about Muslims the people rather than Islam the religion. People should not discriminate against Muslims merely because they are Muslims, nor hate them either.
We can and should condemn anti-Muslim discrimination and hatred. However, there is no need for a working group to define ‘Anti-Muslim Hatred’ – this is entirely clear. It is covered by existing laws and definitions and there is no need for a further definition.
It is defining ‘Islamophobia’ that would require a working group.
The very term ‘Islamophobia’ is problematic since it conflates ‘Islam’ the religion, with Muslims the people. Allegations of ‘Islamophobia’ have been used to silence or criticise legitimate criticism of Islam the religion, which does not imply any hatred or discrimination against Muslims as people. Adopting an official definition of ‘Islamophobia’
The APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’
In 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims produced a report proposing a definition of Islamophobia that has been widely adopted. The APPG definition reads as follows:
Islamophobia is rooted in racism and it a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.
This definition is notoriously vague and expansive. Firstly, Islam is not a race, so ‘Islamophobia’ clearly should not be defined as a “type of racism.” Secondly, ‘Muslimness’ is vague and undefined. It could include doctrines or practices of Muslims which should be open to legitimate criticism. Thirdly, ‘perceived Muslimness’ is even vaguer, and roots the definition in subjective ‘perception’. As long as someone perceives me to be Islamophobic then, by definition, I am.
There are many more problems with the APPG definition which I expanded on more fully in my report for the Free Speech Union last year. In spite of these various, serious and fairly obvious problems, the definition was rapidly adopted by organisations across the country. Most concerningly by political parties. The APPG definition had been formally adopted by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, Plaid Cymru, and the Scottish Nationalists. It has also been formally adopted by dozens of local councils. This means that politicians and others who say something deemed to be ‘Islamophobic’ risk being suspended, disciplined or expelled from their political party. Most MPs today are operating under a de- facto Islamic blasphemy code. They know that criticism of Islam deemed Islamophobic could result in their expulsion from the party.
Conflicts with the Equality Act
Last September, the government was forced to admit that the notorious APPG definition conflicts with the Equality Act. Lord Khan, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Faith, Communities and Resettlement responded to an open letter from the Network of Sikh Organisations to Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government raising concerns about the APPG definition of Islamophobia. In his reply, Lord Khan said:
“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.”
While it was pretty obvious from the start that Islam is not a race, and therefore ‘Islamophobia’ cannot be defined as a type of racism, this is was a very significant admission by the government. The government recognises recognised that the APPG definition is in conflict with existing law. It cannot, therefore, adopt this definition as an official government definition.
Nevertheless, no political party has dropped its adoption of the APPG definition since this concession was made. Nor, to my knowledge, has any local council. I expect they don’t want to drop the APPG definition without having something to replace it with. They are probably very concerned about the reaction from the Muslim community if they merely drop this definition.
It is very likely that the admission that the APPG definition of Islamophobia conflicts with the Equality Act has now forced the government to look for another definition. However, The Telegraph reports that: “Ministers will have to decide whether to adopt [the APPG definition], subsume elements of it into a new version or come up with a complete alternative.”
Dominic Grieve to chair
Former Conservative attorney general, Dominic Grieve KC, will chair the new working group. This does not bode well since he wrote the foreword to the original APPG report which proposed the notorious APPG definition. He therefore appears to be blind to the free speech implications that definition, and so cannot be trusted to understand how another definition is likely to inhibit free speech.
Qari Asim touted as a member
The government announcement does not say who else will be on the working group. The Telegraph previously reported that Qari Asim is shortlisted to be a member of the group. Qari Asim was appointed by the previous government to advise on defining Islamophobia. He was later dropped in 2022 after he supported protests against the film The Lady of Heaven. The letter from the government advising him that his appointment had been withdrawn states:
“Resolving the situation, as you made clear, meant cancelling screenings.
You wrote that “in some places we have been successful and those cinemas will no longer be showing the movie”. Your support for further action was made clear.
You advertised “a protest [that] has been organised in Leeds” and provided details of its timing and location.
This clear involvement in a campaign to limit free expression is incompatible with the role of a government adviser.”
As well as being involved in a campaign against free expression, Qari Asim has stated that he would like polygamy legalised, inheritance to favour male heirs, and that he supports Islamic finance which is based on a modern radical interpretation of the Qur’an. Qari Asim has also said that all depictions of Muhammad are prohibited which is a very hard-line stance on the issue.
It would be extraordinary if Qari Asim was appointed to the new working group having been dropped by the previous government because of his involvement in a campaign against freedom of expression.
No definition should be adopted
If the government does adopt an official definition of Islamophobia this will constitute an official form of special treatment for Islam. There is no such official protection for any other faith or worldview. It would, in effect, legitimise two-tier policing whereby police arrest people for criticising Islam, but not for criticising Christianity or any other religion. This will only serve to damage community cohesion and trust between different communities.
Please sign our petition calling on the government not to adopt a definition of Islamophobia.
