Tim Dieppe comments on the increasing opposition to a definition that would silence criticism of Islam
‘Anti-Muslim hostility’ definition unlawful
The proposed government definition of ‘Islamophobia’, now re-worded as ‘Anti-Muslim hostility’, was leaked in December. I commented about it at the time, but more opposition to this newly proposed definition has now emerged.
Earlier this month, a new report from the Counter Extremism Group argued that the proposed definition is ‘unlawful’. The report argues that members of all faith groups have legal protection from discrimination or incitement. The point is that these protections apply to all equally. They protect the right to proselytise and practise a religion as well as the right for that same religion and its practices to be criticised without fear.
What the proposed definition of anti-Muslim hostility does is it goes beyond the law in giving Islam and Muslims special protection. In doing so it could constitute “unlawful discrimination towards members of other faith groups.”
The report notes that other minority faith groups, such as Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians, as well as Muslim groups regarded as unorthodox such as Ahmadis or Alevis, will perceive the adoption of an official definition of anti-Muslim hostility as “evidence of favouritism” towards Muslims or self-appointed Muslim community leaders. This will only serve to increase inter-communal tensions, rather than reduce them.
Evidence shows, that religiously aggravated hate crime is far more of a problem for the UK’s Jewish community than for Muslims. Anti-Muslim hate crime is wholly unacceptable, but rates are not increasing relative to the size of the Muslim population.
Hindus opposed
Late last year, the Hindu Council UK published a letter to Steve Reed MP, Minister for Communities, objecting to the proposed definition. The letter warns of “vague and undefined concepts” in the definition such as “prejudicial stereotyping”. It also complains that the definition conflates people with beliefs and ideas:
“By referring to ‘racialisation’ and ‘collective characteristics’, the definition risks treating a religion and its associated ideas, doctrines, and practices as if they were immune from critique.”
Hindus are rightly concerned that robust critical discussion of Islamic beliefs could be characterised as “prejudicial stereotyping” or “stirring up hatred”, even if such criticisms are rooted in truth.
The letter also raises concerns about how the definition will infringe freedom of speech and amount to a “de facto re-introduction of blasphemy protections.” It argues that the proposed definition will be weaponised by activists to shut down legitimate debate or lodge vexatious complaints. Adoption of special protection for Islam is also likely to foster resentment and the perception of unequal treatment of religions. The letter notes that the working group: “did not see fit to consult with fellow faiths” when constructing their definition.
Baroness Falkner objects to the definition
Baroness Falkner was head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission until last month. This month, she wrote an op-ed in The Times objecting to the proposed definition. Baroness Falkner identifies as a secular Muslim with a largely liberal outlook. She was born in Pakistan to a Muslim family and moved to the UK in 1976.
Baroness Falkner’s article was headlined: “Next Labour U-turn should be on defining Islamophobia”. She called the proposed definition “dangerous and divisive.” She argued that Labour is keen to win back the Muslim vote following losing some seats and having other majorities slashed at the last election.
With biting sarcasm, she said:
“Existing legal remedies for religious discrimination were apparently inadequate, ostensibly as they cover all religions, and clearly in this scenario Muslims needed special treatment.”
She then argued that: “the proposed definition is even worse than anticipated.” She notes that ‘hostility’ towards Muslims is now what the definition covers, but what constitutes ‘hostility’ is undefined in law and could be very broad indeed. She argues, therefore, that: “anything in any medium that may express opinion or mere observation could be captured as being anti-Muslim hostility.”
So:
“It is immediately evident that this will become a free speech and thought-control problem.”
She concludes:
“I, my relatives and friends know the freedoms we enjoy here aren’t available to us anywhere in the Muslim world. The last thing we want or need as a religious community is to become scapegoats in a political quest to save a few seats.”
Policy Exchange Report
Respected think tank Policy Exchange released a report earlier this month entitled: “A False Compromise: Why a definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” is as bad as or worse than a definition of “Islamophobia”. The report is authored by Sir John Jenkins and Andrew Gilligan. It contains a short endorsement by Baroness Falkner.
The report notes that there is no legal definition of “hostility”. Dictionary definitions include “not liking”, “not agreeing”, or being “opposed” to something. Being opposed to say the growth of Muslim schools could therefore constitute ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. “Hostility”, then is a far broader term than “hatred” and appears to encompass expressions of disagreement.
We also learn from this report that the leaked definition given to the BBC was incomplete. The proposed definition also includes a series of examples of speech which would not be deemed “hostile” to Muslims. These examples, we are told, are narrow, and do not include the important case of describing the grooming gangs as Islamic or Islam related, for which many people have been deemed Islamophobic. We learn also the definition states that “public bodies and companies will be free to adopt their own definitions of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’,” which may be even broader than the one proposed.
Policy Exchange argues that adoption of an official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” will in effect revive the highly controversial concept of “non-crime hate incidents”. An official definition will pressure police to record or sanction incidents of “anti-Muslim hostility”, so that such incidents become a new version of non-crime hate incidents, but a version which is only recorded of non-crimes against Muslims.
Breach of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The UK is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 19 of this covenant is about freedom of expression. The UN Human Rights General Comment No.34 on Article 19 of this covenant explains at §48:
“Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.”
Adopting an official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” will effectively prohibit expressing “lack of respect” for Islam and so breach this covenant. Furthermore, such official adoption of a definition will “discriminate in favour” of Islam, which also constitutes a breach of the covenant. In addition, “criticism of . . . religious doctrine and tenets of faith” is likely to qualify as expressing “anti-Muslim hostility” and so be prevented or punished in a further violation of this covenant. Sir Keir Starmer has repeatedly stated that he supports international law. Yet his government is planning to adopt an official definition which breaches international law.
Protests against Iran are Islamophobic
Former diplomat Sir John Jenkins told The Telegraph that the proposed definition risks silencing Iranian protestors. The protestors are, after all, protesting against a hard-line Islamic regime. Protesting against and Islamic regime therefore necessarily involves “hostility towards Islam” and would fall foul of the proposed definition.
Sir John, who was the Foreign Office’s director for the Middle East and North Africa, said:
“The connections between the Iranian regime and organised Islamism are absolutely central to what the regime is. Protests against the Islamic Republic take on an anti-Islamist flavour.”
Protests against the Hijab, for example, are protests against an Islamic practice, which would therefore be classed as expressions of “anti-Muslim hostility.”
Conclusion
Christian Concern has consistently opposed the adoption of a definition of Islamophobia. We signed a joint letter opposing the APPG definition in 2019. It is encouraging to see increasing opposition to the current proposed definition of anti-Muslim hostility. There are several very important reasons why the government should not adopt this definition. If the government wants to preserve freedom of speech and put a stop to two tier policing and justice then it should not adopt this definition. We hope and pray that the government sees sense and rejects the proposed definition choosing instead to explain to Muslims that they already have protection from discrimination in law.
