The UK government has announced a new working group tasked with defining ‘Islamophobia’, a move Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner described as a “crucial step” in tackling what she called an “unacceptable rise” in anti-Muslim hate crime.
The group will be chaired by former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve KC, who has previously acknowledged that it is “extremely difficult“ to define Islamophobia while safeguarding free speech. However, Grieve also wrote the foreword to the controversial 2018 All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims’ report on ‘Islamophobia’, lending his support to a definition that has been criticised for restricting open debate. His role in Ms Rayner’s ‘Islamophobia council’ therefore raises questions about whether the government will reconsider the APPG’s approach or merely repackage it.
One notable aspect of the government’s press release announcing the ‘Islamophobia council’ is that it consistently refers to “Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia”. Definitionally, the two are not the same.
‘Anti-Muslim hatred’ refers to hostility, discrimination, or violence against individuals because they are Muslim. Such acts are already covered by existing hate crime and discrimination laws, which criminalise incitement to violence, harassment, and discriminatory treatment. ‘Islamophobia’, however, as framed by the APPG, extends far beyond this, encompassing expressions of ‘Muslimness’ and even critiques of Islamic beliefs and practices. By conflating the two, the APPG’s definition risks turning legitimate scrutiny of religious doctrines into a form of prohibited hate speech, with severe implications for free expression.
The APPG’s 2018 definition states that “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. This wording has been widely criticised for equating criticism of Islamic beliefs with racial discrimination. And not just ‘criticised’. The risk has even been recognized by the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in Giniewski v France (2006) that laws restricting criticism of religious doctrines can have a chilling effect on democratic debate and must be carefully constrained under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Maintaining a distinction between race and religion is therefore crucial: religious beliefs, unlike innate characteristics such as race, must remain open to discussion, critique, and debate.
At the Free Speech Union (FSU), we fear that any official definition, particularly one derived from the APPG, could have a chilling effect on legitimate public debate. Such an approach risks undermining the safeguards enshrined in the Waddington Amendment to the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), which explicitly states: “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.”
By preventing hate speech laws from being misused as a backdoor blasphemy law, the amendment – Section 29J – ensures that free expression is not curtailed under the guise of protecting religious sensitivities.
If a broad definition of Islamophobia is formally adopted – one that conflates criticism of a religion with racial hatred – it could override these protections in practice, even if not in law. This could mean that questioning certain aspects of Islam or discussing controversial issues such as Islamist extremism or grooming gangs risks being deemed incitement under the racial hatred provisions of the POA.
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, recently told Parliament that Labour’s adoption of the APPG definition may have stifled discussion on grooming gangs.
According to Badenoch, the definition makes it difficult to acknowledge the overrepresentation of Pakistani-heritage men in such crimes, despite statistical evidence supporting this claim. The APPG report itself explicitly lists “stereotypes and tropes about Islam, such [as] sexual profligacy and paedophilia or Islam and violence, and their modern-day iteration in the ‘Asian grooming gangs’” as Islamophobic abuse.
The chilling effect of this expansive definition is already evident in public debate. Data from 43 police forces in England and Wales shows that men of Pakistani descent are up to four times more likely to be responsible for child sex grooming offences than the general population. Yet, when Suella Braverman, then Home Secretary, highlighted this issue in 2023, she faced backlash, including a ruling from the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upholding a complaint against her.
Ann Cryer, a former Labour MP who first spoke out about predominantly Pakistani-heritage grooming gangs in the 2000s, later said she was often “shouted down as a racist” for raising the issue. Likewise, Sarah Champion, a Labour MP who wrote about the problem in Rotherham, faced such intense accusations of Islamophobia that she resigned from Labour’s frontbench in 2017. Andrew Norfolk, the journalist who exposed the Rotherham abuse scandal, was similarly accused of having an anti-Muslim agenda.
As Andrew Gilligan pointed out in the Spectator, the APPG report’s proposed tests for distinguishing between “reasonable criticism” and “Islamophobia masquerading as legitimate criticism” are so broad that they could be difficult to police. If Grieve’s group mirrors the APPG’s broad framework for defining Islamophobia, speech restrictions would rely on subjective assessments of motive rather than objective standards.
The APPG definition has already been adopted by the Labour Party and numerous public bodies, including 52 local councils. In practice, it has led to individuals facing censure or disciplinary action for lawful statements about Islam or its adherents. A South Kesteven councillor was investigated for allegedly Islamophobic social media posts after her council adopted the definition. In another case, a Boston, Lincolnshire councillor was blocked from becoming mayor after raising concerns about Islamic practices in Qatar during the 2022 World Cup. These cases illustrate how a broad definition of Islamophobia can silence dissent and penalise individuals for expressing views that, while controversial, remain lawful under Article 10 ECHR.
If politicians, journalists, and members of the public fear being accused of Islamophobia for raising legitimate concerns about certain issues, there is a real risk of self-censorship. This is particularly concerning in areas where local councils that have adopted the APPG definition are also those where grooming gangs have been operating. If councillors or local officials hesitate to speak out about such crimes for fear of falling foul of a non-statutory definition, the consequences for justice and transparency could be severe.
Some within the Muslim community have also expressed misgivings about the definition’s potential misuse. Former Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, and counter-extremism expert Haras Rafiq warn that Islamist groups could weaponise it to suppress legitimate scrutiny.
Rafiq argues that existing hate crime laws already protect Muslims from bigotry, making a new definition unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. “Introducing a broad, non-legally binding definition risks creating a chilling effect on free speech that could lead to confusion about what someone can and cannot say in our liberal democracy,” he said.
The government insists any definition will be “compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression”. However, even a non-statutory definition could shape institutional policies, creating an environment where accusations of Islamophobia are used to silence debate. These definitions, though unenforceable in law, often find their way into employment policies, council guidelines, and university codes of conduct, leading to disciplinary measures. The risk is that a definition framed as mere guidance becomes a de facto speech code, enforced through institutional pressure rather than law.
If the aim is to tackle anti-Muslim hatred, existing laws already criminalise hate speech, incitement to violence, and discrimination. The real test is whether the government will protect free speech, or entrench the chilling effect of the APPG definition.
There’s more on this story here.
