This week, the government has come under pressure for the way in which it is planning to formulate an official definition of Islamophobia. We have consistently warned about the dangers to free speech of adopting a definition of Islamophobia which is likely to amount to an Islamic blasphemy code. As the pressure has intensified on the government, Tim Dieppe reviews where we are up to and what the latest state of the process is.
Working Group set up to propose a definition
In March, the government set up a Working Group tasked with proposing an official government definition of Islamophobia. It is not tasked with considering whether a definition is needed; that conclusion has already been reached, and without any consultation or debate. I wrote back in March about how the Terms of Reference of this Working Group discriminate against Christians both by privileging Islam over all other religions and by saying that the Group is only required to take into account the views of British Muslims.
The Terms of Reference also allow the group to operate in secret and state that: “All advice provided by the Group will be private for Ministers and will not be made public.” This is highly unusual and contrary to open government. There are also serious questions about the membership of the Group which comprises four Muslims, chaired by Dominic Grieve. Grieve wrote the foreword to the original APPG report proposing the notorious APPG definition of Islamophobia. One member, Akeela Ahmed, has stressed that “a definition with legal power is required, one that could be implemented by the government and the police.” This does not bode well for free speech.
Call for Evidence not advertised to everyone
Last month, on the same day that Baroness Casey published her damning review into Group-Based Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, the Working Group quietly put out a call for evidence on a proposed definition of Islamophobia. It was so quiet that it was not even publicly announced, which is, to say the least, highly questionable. Certain groups and individuals were invited to respond, but most people were not. Christian Concern was not invited to respond, in spite of our long track record of speaking publicly about the problems with creating such a definition.
Details of the call for evidence were leaked by various people, and Shadow Minister for Equality, Claire Coutinho, wrote an open letter to Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner raising serious concerns about the process, and asking which organisations and individuals were invited to respond. She also asked who decided that the call for evidence would be open for just four weeks, and whether this is legal. Further, she asked whether the general public would be allowed to submit evidence and whether all responses will be published. To my knowledge, Angela Rayner has yet to reply to this letter.
It then emerged that members of the British Muslim Network were invited to respond to the call for evidence on the definition of Islamophobia. Akeela Ahmed, who is a member of the Working Group is also co-Chair of the British Muslim Network, together with the notorious Qari Asim. So now we have a member of the Working Group which has not invited the general public to respond to its call for evidence, using her own network to garner responses to the call for evidence from people who will be entirely sympathetic to her views. Surely this is both a breach of due process and a conflict of interests? But the Working Group appears to have no such concerns.
Threatened with Judicial Review
The Telegraph subsequently reported that the Free Speech Union has also written to Angela Rayner raising concerns about the process. Lord Young, in his letter, said that the consultation questions appeared “heavily weighted” in favour of a “predetermined outcome”, endorsing a definition “closely aligned” with the notorious APPG definition of Islamophobia. The letter pointed out: “Key groups that would challenge the impact on free speech and provide alternative views had not been invited to submit evidence – such as Christian Concern, The Christian Institute, Adam Smith Institute, and Equality and Human Rights Commission.” The letter threatened to bring a judicial review in the High Court if the Deputy Prime Minister presses ahead with formulating a definition.
Questions in Parliament
In Parliament, Nick Timothy MP asked some questions about this, putting further pressure on the government. He said that the Muslim Council of Britain appears to have been invited to respond to the call for evidence in spite of it being subject to a government policy of non-engagement. Here is yet another breach of due process. Timothy also asked which organisations were invited to take part in the consultation. In response, Lucy Powell MP claimed that “all Government consultations are open and transparent, and the findings will be published and brought to the House in due course.” This appears to be a misleading statement at best, since the consultation at that point was neither open nor transparent. Will all the findings be published as she promised? I’m not holding my breath.
Earlier, Nick Timothy asked a written question requesting publication of a list of organisations that were invited to provide evidence to the Working Group on Islamophobia. Alex Norris MP responded by taking refuge behind the terms of reference of the ‘independent working group’ which enable it to operate in secret, and so refused to answer the question.
Definition could stop discussion about Islamist influence
Towards the end of last month, The Times reported that Lord Walney warned that the government’s new Islamophobia definition could stop experts warning about Islamist influence in Britain. Lord Walney was formerly the government’s Independent Adviser on Political Violence and Disruption, in which capacity he wrote a review on the subject. He said that the government should drop the term ‘Islamophobia’ or risk “protecting a religion from criticism” rather than protecting individuals. I agree with this point. My consistent view has been that no new definition is needed. The term ‘anti-Muslim hatred’ is sufficient and clear, and references individual Muslims rather than the religion of Islam.
Sir John Jenkins declines to meet the Working Group
On 27 May, Sir John Jenkins, former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, received an email inviting him to meet with the Working Group on Islamophobia. Sir John declined the invitation, and instead wrote a letter to Dominic Grieve, Chair of the Working Group, explaining his refusal to meet. The letter was published online by The Spectator, and also as an Annex to a Policy Exchange report.
Sir John’s letter is a withering critique of both the process and the objectives of the Working Group. He comments on the secrecy of the activities of the Working Group and states that this is “highly unusual” and “is bound to raise serious questions about accountability” which will “surely damage the credibility of its conclusions.”
Sir John also comments on the lack of diversity in the membership of the group, and expresses his concerns that “the Working Group may have begun its work with its conclusions predetermined.” He reminds Dominic Grieve that in Parliament Grieve described an earlier Policy Exchange report about the APPG definition of Islamophobia and authored by Sir John as “total and unadulterated rubbish.” Sir John says, “I have not changed my views on the matter. I daresay the same is true of you.”
Sir John suggests that the “real purpose of the Group’s approach” is “to help legitimise a pre-ordained conclusion by claiming that they have consulted those on all sides of the debate – before proposing a definition which they then seek to present as a compromise.” He stresses: “Hatred of and discrimination against Muslims are emphatically wrong – but are already illegal.” What then is the purpose of a new definition? What will it capture that is not already captured in law?
Sir John argues that any new definition will “almost certainly turbo-charge ‘cancel culture’.” Indeed, he writes: “The charge of special treatment may in fact increase hostility towards Muslims, not reduce it.” And, “any official Islamophobia definition will be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone.” Sir John is absolutely correct in these observations, but there is no sign that Dominic Grieve cares about these highly concerning implications.
A non-statutory definition will still restrict free speech
The government has repeatedly stated that the proposed definition will be non-statutory. This is intended to pacify people into thinking that it will have no real effect. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that no new law will come into effect and that there will therefore be no new criminal offence. It does not therefore follow that an official government definition will not cause serious problems for free speech. Any member of Parliament or civil servant or employee of a government agency will be expected to comply with the official definition – on pain of losing their jobs! This amounts to a blasphemy code. Many other organisations are likely to adopt the definition too, with similar effects. The police will formally adopt the definition, thus preventing them from alluding to Islamic motivations for any crimes or terrorism. The effects will be wide-ranging and have a seismic impact on our culture.
Furthermore, any government report or inquiry will have to abide by the definition. Notably, this would include the forthcoming national inquiry into grooming gangs, which would thereby be prohibited from considering any religious motivations for these offences. I wrote about this earlier this year where I provided evidence of the Islamic connection and showed how the APPG report suggests that saying Muslims are responsible for grooming gang offences is Islamophobic. This is why many are calling for work on a definition to be halted until that inquiry is completed. The recent Casey Review into Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse briefly discussed whether “cultural factors” are “at play” in some of these offences. It found “many examples of organisations avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist, raising community tensions or causing community tension problems.” Imagine how much more avoidance there would be with an official definition of Islamophobia!
More questions not answered
Nick Timothy wrote to Dominic Grieve this week with a whole list of questions about the legitimacy of the Working Group, and on whether he still endorses the APPG definition. He also asks questions about what counts as Islamophobic in Dominic’s view. For example, “Is it Islamophobic to show images of Muhammad?” or “Is it Islamophobic, as the [APPG] report says, to say Islam was spread by the sword or that minority groups have been subjugated to Muslim rule?” Will Dominic deign to reply?
Also this week, Claire Coutinho met with the Minister in charge of defining Islamophobia. The minister refused to suspend work on a definition until the grooming gang inquiry has completed. He also refused requests to have advocates for free speech, counter terrorism experts, or representatives of grooming gang victims on the Working Group. He further refused to confirm that he would publish the results of the call for evidence when it is complete.
Call for Evidence extended
Doubtless in response to all this pressure, the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG) put out a statement about the “Islamophobia Working Group Definition” this week, finally publicly advertising the call for evidence. The deadline for responding to the call for evidence has also quietly been extended from 13 July to 20 July. This is just one extra week, but it is doubtless in response to pressure in Parliament and elsewhere. These are the first signs that the government is feeling the pressure on this subject. We know that they also have pressure from Muslim activists to adopt a definition. Pressure against adopting a definition will need to increase further to put a halt to this.
There is still time to follow our guide for responding to the call for evidence if you haven’t yet done so. It really only takes around 10 minutes. In addition, it is worth writing to your MP querying the process and making some of the points above so that MPs recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. In politics, pressure matters. We need to make our voices heard on this while we still can. The danger of the government adopting an Islamic blasphemy code is very real, and the repercussions will be felt by all of us.
