1 February 2026
Hindu community leaders have issued the Prime Minister with a stark warning against an official definition of Islamophobia which they say will have a "significant chilling effect” on free speech.
The Hindu Council UK wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities, Steve Reed, who is adding the finishing touches to the definition setting out their concerns, namely the serious risk that it would suppress legitimate criticism of Islamist ideology. The group believe that the people will shy away from legitimate criticism of Islam for fear of falling foul of a “poorly defined standard of “anti-Muslim hostility”.
Parliament abolished blasphemy laws in 2008 – 18 years ago – yet this official definition of Islamophobia, now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” will introduce a Muslim blasphemy law. In the letter, the Hindu Council UK said: “By granting heightened protection to a religion-linked identity through concepts such as ‘racialisation’ and ‘collective stereotyping’, the proposed definition continues to risk shielding Islamic beliefs and practices from scrutiny in practice, if not in law.”
It went on to add: “This is especially troubling given that the UK deliberately abolished blasphemy laws to ensure that no belief system is beyond challenge.”
The Free Speech Union has long argued that any attempt to introduce an official definition of Islamophobia would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, particularly in silencing debate and discussion on important matters such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist extremism. This is set to be made even worse should the government include prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation as a form of anti-Muslim hate.
The Hindu Council UK believes that these terms are "vague and undefined” and exacerbate the chances and damage of unintended consequences.
The Government has decided to remove all reference to the term “Islamophobia” from the definition and replaced it with “anti-Muslim” hostility in a flawed attempt to address concerns of organisations such as the Free Speech Union. If anything, the new title has created even greater scope to threaten freedom of speech.
Although the definition is set to be non-statutory, it will be provided to public bodies and institutions, including schools, universities, hospitals and police forces who will no doubt adopt it zealously.
The letter went on to further highlight the fears that the Hindu community have in relation to their freedom of speech and ability to discuss historical persecution of Dharmic traditions under Islamic empires. The Council said: “For minority communities such as Hindus and other Dharmic traditions, this presents a serious risk. Narratives about historical persecution under Islamic empires, or discussion of contemporary Islamist ideology, could be suppressed out of fear of breaching a poorly defined standard of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’.
“Freedom of expression includes the right to offend, to challenge and to criticise ideas, indeed Hinduism encourages intellectual debates that has made it robust.
“Any definition that discourages lawful speech through fear of reputational or professional consequences undermines this foundational democratic principle as well as repressing free thought.”
The group, just like the Free Speech Union, is concerned that the definition could be used and exploited by activists or individuals to silence debate and lodge vexatious complaints. At the same time as we say goodbye to NCHIs – which have been a waste of police time and taxpayer money – police attention will now be drawn to policing non-hate, so-called “Islamophobic” incidents.
The Council has urged the government to adopt a “narrow, precise and legally grounded” approach which focuses explicitly on hatred, violence harassment, and unlawful discrimination against Muslims as individuals – not as a group. The letter warned that it would create a two-tier approach to different religions, stating: “The creation of a bespoke definition for one faith group without equivalent frameworks for others, this risks fostering resentment and the perception of unequal treatment, something Hindu and Sikh organisations have repeatedly warned against.”
