Today a joint letter to Steve Reed MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government urges him to abandon the proposed definition of ‘Islamophobia’, now re-worded as ‘anti-Muslim hostility’.
The joint letter was signed by representatives of several different religions. Tim Dieppe, Head of Public Policy at Christian Concern signed it, along with Lord Singh, director of the Network of Sikh Organisations, Fiyaz Mughal, founder of Tel Mamma, and the Hindu Council UK.
Tim Dieppe, Head of Public Policy at Christian Concern said:
“This letter shows how widespread and serious concerns are about the government’s plans to adopt the proposed definition of anti-Muslim hostility.
“When there is such unity amongst representatives of very different religions, the government should sit up and listen.
“This letter shows that it is not only Christians who are concerned about the government’s plans to adopt an official definition of anti-Muslim hostility. Representatives of many other faiths share our concerns.
“Adopting this definition will serve to inhibit free speech in relation to Islam. Even though it is ‘non-statutory’, an official government definition will be adopted by multiple organisations and employers, and even by the police, and will mean that saying something deemed to express ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ could lose you your job. This will have a very chilling effect on free speech.
“As the joint letter states: ‘British Muslims and the public at large would be better served by consistent application of existing laws which treat everyone equally, not by special measures which elevate one group in society above others.’
“Any definition that gives protection to members of one religion that is not shared by other religions will serve to discriminate against members of other religions, and indeed against those of no faith at all.
“The government should act now and abandon plans to adopt an official definition of anti-Muslim hostility. It should instead inform Muslims that they are already protected in law from discrimination and harassment on the basis of their faith. No new definitions are needed.”
Notes for editors
The joint letter reads as follows:
Dear Secretary of State
We are writing to express our profound concerns regarding the government’s proposed definition of “Anti-Muslim Hostility”.
You have previously said that you will not accept any definition which restricts freedom of expression.
However, the definition as it stands threatens to do just that.
While the move away from a definition of “Islamophobia” is welcome, the language in the definition submitted by the working group is either unnecessary or so vague that it is open to misuse by those who seek to limit freedom of speech.
It is, for example, entirely unnecessary to include “engaging in or encouraging criminal acts” in any definition as this is something evidently covered by existing criminal law.
It is however this paragraph that is of the greatest concern.
“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.”
As you will be aware, Muslims are not a racial group. Islam is a global religion whose adherents come from a wide range of different races. This basic fact cannot be changed by government decree.
“Prejudicial stereotyping” is extremely vague terminology which would be subject to broad interpretation.
It is not difficult to see how criticism of halal slaughter, gender segregation or face coverings, all legitimate matters of public debate, could be captured by this definition leading to a chilling effect on free speech.
While the definition would be “non-statutory”, it would in practice be widely adopted across the public and private sectors as has been the case with the 2018 APPG definition. Indeed, the definition would appear to be pointless if this were not the case.
British Muslims and the public at large would be better served by consistent application of existing laws which treat everyone equally, not by special measures which elevate one group in society above others.
We urge you to abandon this proposal.
Signatories.
The proposed definition of anti-Muslim hostility was leaked to the BBC in December.
Tim Dieppe commented on the proposed definition here:
https://christianconcern.com/comment/proposed-definition-of-anti-muslim-hatred-released/
More recent comment from Tim Dieppe on the proposed definition is available here:
https://christianconcern.com/comment/increasing-opposition-to-islamophobia-definition/
For interviews: Tim Dieppe 075 3445 3445/ tim.dieppe@christianconcern.com