Head of Public Policy Tim Dieppe explains why a definition of Islamophobia would silence discussion about grooming gangs
Last month, Christian Concern published a detailed report by respected academic Dr Mark Durie into UK grooming gangs and Islam. In the report, Dr Durie argues that Islam is more associated with grooming gangs than ethnicity. He highlights eight aspects of Islamic law and theology that are used to justify the abuse of grooming gangs. The report is detailed and carefully argued.
Dr Durie joined me for a livestream discussion about the report which has since had over 3,000 views. In the livestream he was challenged on some of the conclusions and arguments made in the report and responded with clarity and confidence and evident expertise in the subject matter. A proposed definition of Islamophobia could effectively silence discussion of the report.
Government considering a definition of Islamophobia
Earlier this year, the government set up a working group tasked with proposing a definition of ‘Islamophobia’. I wrote at the time that the working group terms of reference discriminates against Christians because its objective only mentioned taking into account the perspectives and priorities of British Muslims.
This implied that the views of Christians or any other religions did not need to be considered. Furthermore, proposing a definition of Islamophobia gives Muslims special treatment not afforded to any other religion.
If the government adopts an official definition of Islamophobia this definition will be applied to all public bodies, and adopted by councils, businesses, political parties and other organisations. Many people will want to avoid allegations of being Islamophobic according to this definition on pain of losing their jobs. While this will not involve a change in the law, so there will be no new criminal offence, the risk of losing your job is serious enough to silence most people.
Proposed definition is secret
The process and output of the working group remain secret. However, it was reported in October that a new definition has been proposed by the working group. Baroness Gohir, a prominent member of the working group urged the government to accept this secret definition or risk sending a message that “Muslims don’t matter”.
Shadow minister for equalities, Claire Coutinho, posed a written question to the government asking it to publish the names of organisations or stakeholders that have seen the still secret proposed definition. The government answered, admitting that it had engaged with some stakeholders but refusing to name who it had engaged with. It has clearly shown the definition to some activist groups but is still shy of letting the public know what has been proposed. We are faced with the very real possibility of the government announcing that it has adopted an official definition of Islamophobia without any public scrutiny of the definition before it is adopted.
Stereotyping Muslims in the definition
The Telegraph reported last week that stereotyping grooming gangs as Muslim could fall foul of the proposed definition of Islamophobia. The proposed definition is said to include “prejudicial” stereotyping or racialisation of Muslims designed to incite racial hatred.
If the proposed definition does include ‘stereotyping’ this will certainly restrict free speech in relation to Islam. Dr Durie’s report would be deemed stereotyping since it argues that Islam is more associated with grooming gangs than ethnicity. This would have the effect of silencing any discussion about connections between Islam and grooming gangs by any public body.
The proposed definition is said to prefer term ‘anti-Muslim hate’ rather than ‘Islamophobia’. This is a welcome improvement since it makes clear that the ‘hatred’ is against Muslims as people rather than against Islam the religion. The definition is also said to have removed any reference to ‘Muslimness’ which is a vague term without any clear definition. Other aspects of the proposed definition are said to mirror criminal legislation and are therefore not likely to further limit free speech. The fact remains that the proposed definition remains secret, and we don’t really know what it actually says.
Silencing discussion of grooming gangs
In October, five grooming gang survivors resigned from the National Inquiry panel citing concerns about plans to widen the scope of the inquiry amongst other issues. Ellie-Ann Reynolds specifically said:
The final turning point for me was the push to widen the remit of the National Inquiry in ways that downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse.
Various other victims have previously described the religious nature of the abuse they suffered. This includes in some cases being forced to learn the Qur’an, having forced sharia marriages, being forced to wear Islamic dress, amongst other things. Grooming gang whistleblower Maggie Oliver lost patience with the inquiry stating that it “is just the latest in a long line of attempts to conceal the truth around ‘grooming gangs’”.
Part of the reason for publishing Dr Durie’s report was to lend academic support to the victims who know from experience that there was a clear religious motivation for the abuse they suffered. If a definition of Islamophobia is adopted that includes stereotyping, then no government inquiry would be able to examine the religious motivations or justifications of grooming gang abuse without being accused of being Islamophobic. An inquiry would not even be able to consider Dr Durie’s report. This is a serious problem that the government needs to respond to.
Pray and act
We await publication of the proposed definition of Islamophobia or ‘Anti-Muslim hate’. I hope that the government decides that no new definition is necessary. If the proposed definition merely repeats what existing law says then that will be something of a relief. It looks likely, however, that stereotyping Muslims will form part of the definition. We therefore need to pray and act to stop the government from adopting this definition. Do write to your MP raising your concerns about the proposed definition and asking them to oppose its adoption.
Read Dr Mark Durie’s report by clicking below.
