The Labour government has just made a significant concession to the view that the notorious definition of ‘Islamophobia’ proposed by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG) back in 2018 poses a risk to freedom of speech and belief, acknowledging for the first time that it is in conflict with equalities law.
Christian Concern’s Head of Public Policy, Tim Dieppe first highlighted the potential significance of the move here.
Dieppe has repeatedly warned of the dangers of the APPG’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’. Most recently, he wrote a report for the Free Speech Union (FSU) titled: Banning Islamophobia: Blasphemy Law By The Backdoor, in which he warned that any attempt to define ‘Islamophobia’ and punish those responsible for it, whether via civil penalties or changing the law to broaden the definition of ‘hate speech’ to include ‘Islamophobia’, would have a chilling effect on free speech.
Yet the APPG’s definition has been formally adopted by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party (SNP), and the Green Party, along with one in seven local authorities in England, five Welsh councils, eight local authorities in Scotland, and over 30 MPs and dozens of academics. (The Conservative Party has not adopted this definition, citing concerns over its potential impact on free speech).
Recently, there have been renewed calls for the Labour government to formally adopt the APPG definition, after the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, confirmed in the House of Commons that the government is “actively considering” its approach to tackling ‘Islamophobia’.
Following that announcement, the Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) wrote to Rayner, to raise “grave concerns” about the threat posed to free speech by the APPG definition.
While recognising that the government needs to take steps to tackle anti-Muslim hatred, the NSO’s letter makes clear that if the government “chooses to incorporate this flawed definition into law, a religious hierarchy will be promoted – one religion’s belief protected, another’s penalised, which would not be consistent with equality and human rights legislation”. Any such decision would, they said, “almost certainly be subject to a judicial review”.
The NSO has now received a reply to their letter from Lord Khan who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Faith, Communities and Resettlement. He was copied into the letter to Angela Rayner.
Lord Kahn’s letter concedes the point about the APPG definition conflicting with the Equality Act 2010, saying:
“As you have mentioned, the definition proposed by the APPG is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, which defines race in terms of colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins.”
Writing for Christian Concern, Dieppe describes this as “a very significant concession”, since the government cannot now adopt a definition of Islamophobia which they have stated is in conflict with the Equality Act.
So what will all the political parties and organisations that have formally adopted the APPG definition do now? Can they persist in applying a definition that stands in conflict with the Equality Act? Dieppe continues:
“I suspect the Labour Party will wait for the government to come up with an alternative definition and then replace the APPG definition with that one. Other organisations may follow suit. It all depends on the government coming up with an alternative definition. But that, as Lord Khan’s letter admits, is not easy if you want to preserve free speech.”
Our best hope, he says, is that Labour ends up giving up on trying to define ‘Islamophobia’ and recommends using the term ‘anti-Muslim hatred’ instead, which is much clearer language to describe hate crime specifically against the Muslim community, and has the advantage of making clear that it is directed against Muslims as individuals rather than against Islam as a religion. That is where the last government got to.
That’s the (potentially) good news. The bad news is that Lord Khan’s letter also suggests that the government is seeking to formalise a definition of Islamophobia:
“Defining Islamophobia is a complex issue, and we want to ensure that any definition comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives and implications for different communities. This Government is actively considering our approach to tackling Islamophobia through a more holistic lens, and will provide further information on this in due course.”
Commenting on this section of the letter, Dieppe remarks:
“It is not clear what is meant by ‘a more holistic lens’ for tackling as yet undefined ‘Islamophobia’. While the conflation of religion and race is admitted to be a problem with the APPG definition, Lord Khan’s letter makes no mention of any of the other problems with this definition, not least that it is defined as targeting “expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.
“Rooting a definition in perception opens the door to a whole range of interpretations and will certainly serve to inhibit freedom of speech when it comes to Islam.”
Defining ‘Islamophobia’ too broadly is a threat to free speech for non- Muslims and Muslims alike. The APPG definition in particular is not fit for purpose and should be dropped by those who have adopted it. In a free society, we must be free to debate and criticise any and all beliefs.
