Head of Public Policy Tim Dieppe comments on news that Labour is planning to row back on defining ‘Islamophobia’
The Telegraph reported over the weekend that Labour plans not to go ahead with a definition of ‘Islamophobia’ over fears it could threaten free speech. It reports that the working group tasked with proposing an official definition has proposed substituting ‘Islamophobia’ with ‘anti-Muslim hate’. It also reports that there is no reference to ‘Muslimness’ in the proposed definition.
The working group was set up earlier this year, tasked with proposing an official government definition of ‘Islamophobia’. I wrote at the time that no new government definition is needed. ‘Anti-Muslim’ is clear and sufficient and crucially makes clear that it is discrimination or hatred against Muslims as people that is the issue, not criticism of Islam the religion which must be allowed.
APPG definition not fit for purpose
This came after the government was forced to admit that the notorious APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’ conflicts with the Equality Act because it defines Islamophobia as a type of racism even though Islam is not a race.
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 remains the one adopted by several mainstream political parties, including the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. It is notoriously vague in that ‘expressions of Muslimness’ is unclear and undefined and, if that wasn’t vague enough, it is the perception of Muslimness that counts.
I also wrote earlier this year that the objective of the working group is discriminatory because it was tasked with developing a definition of Islamophobia that reflects the perspectives of British Muslims. No one else’s perspectives count for anything.
Process is secret
The process and output of the working group remains entirely secret.
Neither the government nor the working group have said what the proposed definition actually says. We are relying on an anonymous source who has spoken to a journalist. If the proposed definition does not use the word ‘Islamophobia’ then this is progress since the very word conflates criticism of Islam with discrimination against Muslims. If it avoids using the term ‘Muslimness’ then that is progress too since that term is incredibly vague. Unfortunately, we just do not know.
The secrecy means that it is just not open to proper public scrutiny. We face the prospect of the government adopting an official definition of ‘Islamophobia’ which hardly anyone has seen before it is adopted. This in itself is terrifyingly totalitarian. It is certainly not the practice of an open democratic government.
Labour politicians can’t be trusted to protect free speech
We understand that the proposed definition has been submitted to Communities Secretary Steve Reed for a final decision. This very same Steve Reed signed a letter in 2021 addressed to Labour leaders of local councils urging them to adopt the APPG definition of Islamophobia as soon as possible. No concerns for freedom of speech were raised. We know then that Steve Reed cannot be trusted to protect free speech with a definition of ‘Islamophobia’.
The new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has also previously been an active supporter of the APPG definition of Islamophobia. Only last month, when asked in Parliament whether she would now disown that definition she declined to do so. Unfortunately, then, we can’t trust her to protect free speech either.
In fact, all Labour MPs know that if they say something that could be deemed Islamophobic according to the APPG definition they risk being sanctioned by the Labor Party for breaching their code of conduct. This is the situation we are in. Most MPs are already beholden to what is in effect an Islamic blasphemy code.
Raising concerns is ‘scaremongering’
Baroness Gohir is a prominent member of the working group which comprises four Muslim members chaired by Dominic Grieve who wrote the foreword to the report proposing the APPG definition.
A Muslim online news source reported that a proposal was submitted by the working group earlier this month.
Baroness Gohir was reported as urging the government to adopt this definition and “not be bullied” into ignoring the recommendations. She accused those criticising the process and the need for a definition of scaremongering, stating: “And I think that was really done to scare the government into not adopting a definition.” She claimed that if the government does not accept the proposed definition, then it will risk sending a message that “Muslims don’t matter.”
Such language is very concerning. Baroness Gohir is saying that raising legitimate concerns about free speech in relation to adopting a definition of ‘Islamophobia’ is scaremongering. She doesn’t think people have a right to object or to raise serious concerns. This says a lot about her attitude to free speech.
Used to shut down debate
Nick Timothy MP has been outspoken in his opposition to defining Islamophobia. He gave a keynote speech at Policy Exchange this week which I attended. He noted that the term ‘Islamophobia’: “has been thrown around and used to attack and silence legitimate political opinion for years.” He argues that the purpose of the campaign to get Islamophobia defined and recognised is “to allow campaigners, some of them extremists, to shut down debates affecting Islam or Muslims by claiming it is racist.” As he put it:
“Anything that goes beyond existing laws, confusing criticism of religion with racism, confusing the protection of people with the protection of ideas, will still be unacceptable, whatever it is called.”
Absolutely. Really, we need no new definition at all. Any definition will privilege Islam over other religions thus exacerbating perceptions of two-tier policing and justice.
EHRC says no new definition needed
This week it was reported that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has written to the government saying that an official definition of Islamophobia is not needed because there are already protections for Muslims under equalities legislation. It argued that creating an official definition of Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred would clash with existing legal provisions. An EHRC spokesman is reported as saying:
“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.
“Should the Government proceed with the adoption of a definition, we advise that this should be subject to a full public consultation so that all the potential risks and benefits can be considered.”
The letter from the EHRC is quoted as saying:
“We are also concerned about the impact of a non-statutory definition on freedom of expression. There is a risk that a new definition could create a chilling effect or lead to the unlawful restriction of protected political speech and that it could cause harm to community cohesion if it is perceived as stifling legitimate criticism of a particular group, as well as engaging the courts through litigation.”
The EHRC is also said to have warned the government that considering a proposed definition could be unlawful because it was bypassing the EHRC’s statutory duty to advise on religious discrimination. The EHRC has urged the government to launch a full consultation on the definition in order to avoid the legal risks posed by adopting an official definition.
However, a spokesperson for the communities department told The Times, that a consultation was not necessary.
Some groups have threatened a judicial review if the government does adopt an official definition which privileges Islam over other religions.
The EHRC is absolutely right on this and this ties in with what Christian Concern has been saying all along. No new definition is needed, and adoption of any definition will privilege Islam over other religions and only exacerbate community tensions.
We are grateful for this intervention from the EHRC. We now wait to see what the government will do. Our prayer is that the government sees sense and decides not to adopt any definition of Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred.
