Writing for The Times, Fiyaz Mughal argues that the rush to define Islamophobia, in the wake of recent riots, will harm freedom of speech.
Mughal begins: “The eruption of hate and violence in the recent far-right riots has left many British Muslims frightened and shocked. It is totally understandable in this climate that there are urgent calls for an official definition of Islamophobia to be adopted to protect Muslims.”
“I fully agree, but I would strongly caution against the definition that Labour is considering, put forward by the all-party parliamentary group (APPG), for which the concise summary is: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
It is clear to me that racism and anti-Muslim hate often intersect. I know this after working for a decade on thousands of incidents. But in many cases, racism cannot be tangibly evidenced, because no racist comments were made and that is what a court will look at.
“The APPG definition tries to paint all cases of anti-Muslim hate as being racist, even though under law religiously aggravated offences are a separate matter. Trying to use both categories where there may be no evidence of racism is deeply troubling and, in essence, a fudge.
“Whoever drafted the definition used terminology that a horse and carriage could get through. What is “Muslimness”? The vagueness is alarming. For example, Islam allows polygamy in certain circumstances. This hateful practice is rare in Britain — but it does happen, under the radar. If I challenged someone in a polygamous marriage, could they call me an Islamophobe because I challenged their “Muslimness”?
“And what is the point of a definition that has no legal application? The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism does, since Jews are regarded as a racial and religious group in law. But Muslims are not, because they come from so many cultures and races.
“While those who developed the APPG definition say it has no legal application, I foresee that it will be bandied around on social media to threaten those who question such practices as polygamy with the label “Islamophobic”. It will curtail free speech with no tangible legal basis. Our current laws on hate speech allied to case law are more than enough.
Mughal concludes: “British Muslims have every right to push for a definition of anti-Muslim hatred after the sickening far-right riots. It is a call I resoundingly endorse. Wiser heads must now prevail to draw up a definition with true legal value that protects individuals and is free of the invidious blanket term “Muslimness”.”
Worth reading in full.
The FSU has long warned of any attempts to define Islamophobia.
In March, The FSU published an essay by Tim Dieppe, with a Foreword by Richard Dawkins, arguing that any attempt to define ‘Islamophobia’ will have a chilling effect on free speech.
Tim Dieppe, the Head of Public Policy at Christian Concern, believes that any attempt to define ‘Islamophobia’ and punish those responsible for it, whether by cancelling them or changing the law to make ‘Islamophobia’ a ‘hate crime’, would undermine free speech. That’s particularly true of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims’ definition, which is so broad that, among other things, it means anyone disputing Hamas’s description of Israel’s military operation in Gaza as a ‘genocide’ is guilty of ‘Islamophobia’.
Click here to read Tim Dieppe’s essay ‘Banning Islamophobia: Blasphemy Law by the Backdoor’.
