Tim Dieppe comments on the government’s leaked definition of ‘anti-Muslim hatred’
Yesterday, the proposed definition of ‘Islamophobia’ which has been kept secret for weeks, but has been shown to multiple sympathetic campaigners, was published by the BBC.
The government set up a working group to propose a definition earlier this year, and their work has been kept secret from the public.
The definition has shifted away from the term ‘Islamophobia’ which is a welcome change, but it still poses very significant problems for free speech.
The definition
The full proposed definition, which is now of ‘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.”
No new definition needed
I have long argued that no new definition is needed. British Muslims are already protected from discrimination and harassment in law. The terms ‘anti-Muslim hatred’ or ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ are clear and sufficient in themselves. Any definition of ‘Islamophobia’ risks conflating criticism of the religion of Islam with hatred or hostility towards Muslims. The proposed definition does not fall into this particular trap, no doubt because of how successfully this has been explained by us and others.
The timing of the publication of this definition could not be worse. The Telegraph reports that the government planned to publish its proposed definition on Monday but realised that publication in the immediate aftermath of the Bondi Beach bloodbath by antisemitic Islamic terrorists would not look good.
So, it has held back on a public announcement. Even this government recognises that proposing to curb criticism of Islam in the light of blatant Islamic terrorism would not be a good look.
Problems with the definition
The first paragraph of the definition largely repeats what is already illegal. Criminal acts are illegal by definition. There is no need for this aspect of the definition, because it is already law. It adds nothing to what we all already know.
It is the second paragraph where the worst dangers lurk. What exactly constitutes “prejudicial stereotyping”? Or stating that Muslims have “set characteristics”.
If I said: “Muslims don’t eat pork.” – would that count? There is nothing to indicate it wouldn’t.
A whole load of other statements could fall foul of this definition. Here are some:
- “Muslims don’t drink alcohol.”
- “Muslims believe in Allah.”
- “Muslims believe Muhammad was a prophet.”
- “Muslims believe the Qur’an.”
- “Muslims don’t believe the Trinity.”
- “Muslims don’t worship the same God as Christians.”
- “Muslims don’t worship Jesus.”
- . . .
This doesn’t even get into claims about what Islam teaches – such as polygamy, for example, let alone jihad! It is clear that many, many statements about Muslims could fall foul of this definition, even though they are true and legitimate things to say.
What is racialisation?
Then there is the question of “racialisation”. What exactly does this mean? Islam is not a race and does not see itself as a race. Islam is a religion, not a race. This is about beliefs, not racial characteristics. Being Muslim is about choosing certain beliefs. Whereas you cannot chose your ethnicity or racial characteristics. Thus, while it should be entirely valid and fair to criticise someone’s beliefs, it is not fair or valid to criticise someone merely on the basis of their skin colour. We must be free to scrutinise and challenge ideas or beliefs of any and every religion or worldview. Islam should not be exempt from this on a fake basis that it is racial.
Activists are keen to liken ‘Islamophobia’ or ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ to racism – in order to shut down criticism of Islam. If they can deem criticism of Islamic beliefs or practices as a form of racism, then this will serve to put such criticism out of bounds. It is not entirely clear how to read this definition, but you can be sure that activists will exploit it to deem criticism of Islam as racism. If the government adopts this definition, then it will be playing into these activists’ game plan.
The notorious APPG definition of Islamophobia defined Islamophobia as “rooted in racism” and “a type of racism.” The Network of Sikh Organisations wrote to the then Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner MP, last year pointing out that Islam is not a race and that therefore this definition conflicts with the Equality Act. The government was forced to admit that, yes Islam is not a race within the terms of the Equality Act, and so the APPG definition is in conflict with the Equality Act. If ‘racialisation’ remains in the new definition, it will also conflict with the Equality Act. The government surely cannot adopt a definition which clearly conflicts with existing law.
What is bias?
In the final paragraph we have: “the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.” Well, who defines what these alleged biases are?
What if a school decides to ban Islamic prayers in the school playground? That could be deemed a bias intended to disadvantage Muslims. This has happened, of course. The Michaela School in Brent was taken to court for banning Islamic prayer rituals at the school. Fortunately, the school won. If this definition had been in place, the judge might have been pressed to take a different view.
Would it be biased to insist a witness remove their veil in court? Would it be biased to argue that the burka ought to be banned in public? Would it be biased to suggest that all religious marriages should be registered in law so as to protect the rights of Muslim women? Would it be biased to call for lower numbers of Muslim immigrants, or to suggest that Islam is influencing our culture in negative ways, especially in relation to free speech?
Curbing Free Speech
So, as I have shown, the new definition is hardly better than the old one. In a similar manner, it will serve to curb free speech in relation to Islam. This should not really be a surprise since members of the working group set up to propose a new definition supported the old APPG definition.
If the government adopts this as its official definition it will be a very significant moment in this country. While it will not actually be a blasphemy law, it will effectively be a blasphemy code in relation to Islam. It won’t actually be a criminal offence to say something which falls foul of this definition, but you could lose your job and have your speech recorded against you as a non-crime hate incident. Anyone working in any government organisation, the whole public sector, police and the courts will start to implement this definition. This includes schools, the NHS, the civil service etc. Activists will pressure companies and private businesses to adopt this definition. We will then have what amounts to de facto blasphemy laws.
Already, we have the police and the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuting people for burning a copy of the Qur’an and arresting street preachers for questioning what the Qur’an says. This is not happening to people who question what the Bible says! Adopting this definition will only serve to increase the intimidation that people already feel, and which causes most people to self-censor any criticism they may have of Islamic beliefs or practices. This is what it is like to live in a totalitarian society.
Adoption of this definition must be stopped. Do write to your MP pointing out that this will be a serious infringement of free speech and urging them to tell the government not to adopt this definition. The lack of clarity in this definition means it is wide open to exploitation by activists, and that is exactly what we will see if it is adopted.
