In an alarming development, Sir Keir Starmer has opened the door to a law banning ‘Islamophobia’, as defined by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims.
The Prime Minister was asked in the Commons by the Labour MP Tahir Ali if he would commit to “prohibiting the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions”.
Sir Keir responded by maintaining that his Government was committed to tackling all types of hatred including “Islamophobia in all its forms”.
“Desecration is awful, and I think it should be condemned. We are committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division including, of course, Islamophobia in all of its forms,” he told MPs.
You can read the essay we published on the shortcomings of the APPG’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’ here.
The philosopher Kathleen Stock has also addressed the issue in a column for The Sunday Times. Here’s an extract:
In the Commons last week a medieval-sounding concept made a comeback under modern cover. The Labour MP Tahir Ali began his question to the prime minister by noting that it was “Islamophobia awareness week” — so far, so very 21st century — but then suddenly plunged the House backwards in time. Specifically, he suggested the government consider introducing “measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions”.
Rising to answer, the prime minister offered a spirited rejection of blasphemy laws in the UK, emphasising the vital roles of freedom of conscience and expression in a liberal democracy. Only joking — of course he didn’t. In fact he appeared to concede much of Ali’s point. “Desecration is awful and I think it should be condemned across the House,” he solemnly intoned. “We are committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including Islamophobia in all of its forms.”
This exchange was interesting because it brought something buried in talk of Islamophobia out into the light. Most definitions of the term connect it to racism. The all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, for instance, whose definition is endorsed by Labour, says that Islamophobia is “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. And this, I think, is how most people use it — as a shorthand for rejecting a particular form of racist prejudice.
But Ali’s proposal to criminalise blasphemy was not about racism but simply a move in favour of religious protectionism, all the way down. And despite his ecumenical talk of “Abrahamic religions”, the use of the I-word made clear that his main concern was outlawing disrespect to the Quran and its contents, rather than the Christian or Hebrew Bibles. Meanwhile, Starmer’s meek response illustrated the way many in power will make concessions to illiberal Islamists, if only to avoid the perception of racist taint.
Quite obviously, though, from even the most half-hearted of liberal perspectives it would be a disaster to sacralise religious precepts in law, whether emanating from Muhammad or anybody else. This is not just for the sake of the free speech of atheists, but also for the basic freedoms of other believers, whose convictions may directly entail a positive lack of respect for things that rival religions call holy. It is not as if the Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — all get along famously.
Starmer is right, up to a point, that desecration of your religion — in the sense of someone showing disrespect towards the ideas and objects you personally think of as sacred — is awful, or at least can feel that way. But equally, given the very same set of convictions, desecration of someone else’s religion may seem not only acceptable but even perhaps a matter of spiritual necessity. That is just how religions often roll.
Unless we start to disentangle racial prejudice against ethnic minorities, many of whom tend to be Muslim, from criticism of Islamic teaching, we risk sleepwalking into accepting new blasphemy laws because we are too embarrassed to look racist by protesting against them. As others have pointed out, there are already de facto blasphemy regulations operating in some areas, as shown by the case of the Batley teacher still believed to be in hiding for showing a caricature of Muhammad to his class in 2021. Such shameful episodes are similarly caused by our collective failure to insist aloud that you can cause religious offence to Muslims without being racist, and that the right to do so is fundamental to the British way of life.
Replacing the term “Islamophobia” with something less ambiguous would be a great start. But, equally, we need to get rid of internalised blasphemy laws too. In other words, we need to become much less frightened of offence generally. For once someone is disproportionately frightened of causing it, it seems inevitable that he will also be frightened of being seen to stand up for offensive people or against laws that would criminalise offence, in case either of those things offends someone too.
It is clear that over the past few years there has been an increase in fear of offence, alongside enhanced attempts to control speech so that it doesn’t occur. The concept of “hate speech” is now established in the lexicon, and it is common to hear influential figures complaining about “inflammatory” or “toxic” language well before they get round to criticising the intellectual substance of what is being said.
Very often the need to discuss an important issue clearly, unambiguously and freely, as the argument takes you, is greater than the need not to upset certain groups of people by the words you use. When it comes to addressing social problems, policing offensive statements — religious or secular — should be the least of our worries.
Worth reading in full.
