Our head of Public Policy, Tim Dieppe, discusses the concerning new government group set up to provide a definition of Islamophobia.
The government announced at the end of February, coinciding with the start of Ramadan, that it was setting up a new Working Group tasked with providing the government with a definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia. I wrote at the time that ‘Anti-Muslim’ is clear and sufficient, and so no new definition is needed.
The fact that the government has even set up a Group to provide a special definition of Anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia is in itself discriminatory against all other religions or worldviews. This will give Muslims, and most likely Islam too, special treatment by the government, justifying two-tier policing and two-tier justice by authorities.
Membership of the Group
This week the government has released the membership of the new Group. As already announced, Dominic Grieve KC, former Conservative attorney general, will chair the working group.
He wrote the foreword to the original APPG report proposing the notorious APPG definition of Islamophobia, which has been widely criticised for restricting freedom of speech in relation to Islam. His appointment as chair is not encouraging for those concerned about free speech.
There are only four other members of the Group, far fewer than the 16 members anticipated in the press. Notably, Qari Asim, who was touted as a member of the Group, is not actually a member of the Group. This is a minor victory as we criticised his shortlisting, citing his previous track record of opposition to free speech.
The four members are Professor Javed Khan, Baroness Shaista Gohir, Akeela Ahmed, and Asha Affi. Javed Khan is former CEO of Barnado’s children’s charity.
Shaista Gohir is CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK. Akeela Ahmed is Co-Chair of the new British Muslim Network along with the notorious Qari Asim. Asha Affi is described as an independent consultant.
In short, there is plenty of charity and campaigning expertise, but little in the way of legal expertise, except for Dominic Grieve KC. All the members are Muslims, so there is no voice for other faith groups in this important Group.
Discriminatory objective
The objective of the Group is:
“To develop a working definition of Anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia which is reflective of a wide range of perspectives and priorities for British Muslims.”
Straightaway we see that Muslims are given special treatment. The objective needs to reflect the priorities of British Muslims. It does not need to reflect the priorities of anyone else! Only Muslim views matter here. Don’t expect this Group to consult with anyone else then – they have effectively been told to disregard other views.
Definition must cover non-Muslim victims of Islamophobia
In a somewhat Orwellian manner, the proposed definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia must protect non-Muslim victims. The Terms of Reference states that Islamophobia can affect non-Muslim communities that are perceived to be Muslim. It states: “communities like Sikh, Hindu, Jain and Buddhists” are “mistakenly identified as Muslim.”
The proposed definition that the Group comes up with must not just cover unacceptable treatment of Muslims, but also of “anyone who is perceived to be Muslim.”
It looks like the definition must therefore include the word ‘perception’ in it so as to include treatment of those “perceived to be Muslim.” But perception is subjective. This was one of the problems with the notorious APPG definition, which defined Islamophobia as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
This makes the definition rooted in subjective perception. This is no way for government definitions to proceed.
A Freedom of Information request from 2017 did find that as many as 25% of recorded ‘Islamophobic hate crimes’ were committed against non-Muslims. The majority of those victims of Islamophobic crimes who were not Muslims, but whose faith was nevertheless known, were actually Christians. Yet the terms of reference for the working group makes no mention of Christians or Christianity.
It is hard not to see this as a deliberate omission given that Christianity is still far and away the largest faith group in Britain. Could they really think Christians can ever be mistaken for Muslims? All of this serves to illustrate just how ill-conceived the whole concept is, and what little regard for Christians and Christianity this government has.
Non-statutory definition
We are told:
“The Group’s proposed definition will be non-statutory and will provide the government and other relevant bodies with an understanding of unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities.”
Even though it is non-statutory, this will be used to inform the police and the criminal justice system of what counts as anti-Muslim/Islamophobic. It will have significant influence across society.
The terms of reference also state:
“Any proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression – which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents.”
This is intended to reflect existing law, though even here the terms of reference have actually watered down what British law states.
Section 29J of the Public Order Act reads:
“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”
Notice how the Terms of Reference omits terms like ‘ridicule’ and ‘abuse’. It also omits the freedom to proselytise and to urge adherents to cease practising their religion. Any new definition must also allow for these things, even though they are not explicitly stated in the Terms of Reference.
Secretive
The Terms of Reference state: “All advice provided by the Group will be private for Ministers and will not be made public.” This is in direct contravention of open government, and seems designed to avoid being subject to public discission, or even Freedom of Information requests.
Advice and recommendations are to be hidden from the public so as to avoid scrutiny. What possible motive for avoiding scrutiny could there be? Not only is the group mandated with only considering the views of Muslims, non-Muslims are also not even entitled to know what advice this Group is providing to the government. This is yet further special privileging of Muslims.
Faith minister influenced by extremist cleric
The new working group will report to the Minister for Faith and Communities, who is Lord Khan. Lord Khan was forced to admit last September that the APPG definition of Islamophobia conflicts with the Equality Act. This is most likely why this new Group has been set up to come up with an alternative definition.
Just last month, Lord Khan kissed the ring of a Dobandi Islamic extremist in Burnley. The gesture signifies acceptance of the ring-bearer’s leadership and guidance and is a mark of love and affection. Lord Khan was meeting with Maulana Tariq Jamil, a leading Pakistani scholar of Tablighi Jamaat (or TJ) – which has its European headquarters in Dewsbury in Yorkshire.
TJ espouses a hard-line view of Islam with no compromise with Western values. Jamil is known for refusing to condemn terrorism. He also said that coronavirus was spread in the West partly due to the immodesty of Western women, though he later apologised for this statement.
Robert Jenrick, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, queried why a Government Minister was “meeting with a cleric who has made extreme outbursts.” Jenrick continued: “His actions undermine community cohesion. We need full answers and an account of what happened.” This is very unlikely to be forthcoming.
Privileging Muslims
The Group has just six months to deliver a working definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia. After this period, Ministers will review and confirm next steps. In case there is any doubt, the Terms of Reference repeat that “The work of the Group will not be made public.”
So, we will be kept in the dark about how this Group is progressing and what possible definitions have been discussed.
The best hope here is that the Group concludes, as I have long suggested, that ‘Anti-Muslim’ is clear and sufficient. This is looking very unlikely since they must also cover non-Muslims perceived as Muslims. Yet any new definition must also comply with existing law.
I would very much like to be an observer in this Group. I think they’ve been given an impossible task.
But it is also a dangerous task. Even without a government definition, Christians have been arrested for legitimate criticism of Islam. For example, Ian Sleeper was arrested for displaying a sign reading “Love Muslims, Hate Islam”. What possible crime did he commit?
An official definition will legitimise yet more discrimination against Christians and others brave enough to criticise Islam in public. Enough already. But the government seems intent on going down this track. Expect more discrimination to come.
Sign our petition to protect free speech.
