Yvette Cooper has used the term “Islamophobia” to describe the actions of some rioters behind the current violence on Britain’s streets for the first time, reports the Telegraph.
The Home Secretary condemned far-Right rioters who have targeted mosques. They did so despite there being no evidence that the suspect in the Southport killings was linked to the Muslim community.
It follows a backlash from Labour MPs who had criticised Ms Cooper and Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, for not having already described the unrest as Islamophobic.
The term currently has no single agreed meaning, but Labour has previously signalled support for defining it as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
Ms Cooper was asked on ITV’s Good Morning Britain why Islamophobia had not already been used by the Government when discussing the violence.
She replied: “You’re right that there has been a range of different things driving this, including far-Right extremism. We have certainly seen some targeted attacks on mosques, and that clearly reflects Islamophobia, and people shouldn’t be targeted for their faith or for the colour of their skin.
“We’ve also seen some looting, some response of local criminals just getting involved at the periphery on streets as well. None of these people speak for Britain.”
On Sunday, the Home Office announced that extra police and security forces will be deployed to protect mosques under new emergency security measures.
Appearing on the same programme before Ms Cooper, Zarah Sultana said the Labour leadership must do more to call out hatred against Muslims.
Ms Sultana, one of the MPs suspended by Labour for six months after rebelling over the two-child benefit cap, said: “This question about naming it as Islamophobia is really important, because that allows us to shape our response.
“If we’re not identifying what is happening, the language that is being used and what this is about, we’re not going to be able to address this fundamentally.”
Ed Balls, the Good Morning Britain presenter who is Ms Cooper’s husband, pointed out his wife and Sir Keir had condemned attacks on mosques as “terrible”.
When Mr Balls said: “I don’t know if they used the word ‘Islamophobic’.” Ms Sultana replied: “They didn’t.”
Asked whether she believed it was important to “control and manage” migration, she said: “I think it’s really important to reassure the communities that are most affected by the violence that we’re seeing.
“And I have to ask, why is there such controversy around calling it Islamophobic when we know Muslim communities are being targeted? We know the language that is being used. Why is it so hard to use that word? That is my question.”
It’s a question the FSU is happy to help Ms Sultana answer.
In a recent research briefing for the FSU, Banning Islamophobia: Blasphemy Law by the Backdoor, Tim Dieppe, the Head of Public Policy at Christian Concern, pointed out 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 have a chilling effect on free speech.
That is particularly true of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslim’s definition, which has been adopted by the Labour Party and states:
Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.
The APPG report in which this definition was first proposed claims that the intention is not “to curtail free speech or criticism of Islam as a religion”, but its proposals nonetheless pose a threat to free speech.
Tellingly, there is no attempt to define ‘Islam’ in the APPG report. What they have done instead is racialise Islam as to make ‘Islamophobia’ a form of racism. The idea is to define ‘Islamophobia’ as ‘cultural racism’, making it unacceptable to criticise Islamic culture or practices. By this definition, viewing a culture that gives less rights to women as inferior to one where women have more rights would be ‘Islamophobic’. Expressing that it is better for women not to have to cover their faces would also be ‘Islamophobic’. Once we agree to the concept of ‘cultural racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ defined in this way, we lose the freedom to criticism Islamic culture.
That might sound far-fetched, but the report in fact implies that some criticisms of Islam might be out of bounds altogether, noting that: “…the recourse [to] a supposed right to criticise Islam results in nothing more than another subtle form of anti-Muslim racism…” [our italics].
The APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’ also threatens the teaching of history: Islamophobia, we’re told, includes “claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule”, which could, for instance, rule out criticising the actions of Boko Haram or Hamas. Even accusing Muslim majority states of exaggerating a genocide makes you an Islamophobe, meaning anyone who questions the Hamas government’s description of Israel’s military operation in Gaza as a ‘genocide’ is, according to the APPG definition, Islamophobic.
Finally, it is a threat to press freedom in that journalists reporting on Islamic related stories are frequently accused of ‘Islamophobia’ and pressured to avoid covering Islamic aspects of news stories.
In his essay, Tim Dieppe concludes with a call for all political parties, local authorities and other groups to abandon the proposed APPG definition.
We should continue to be vigilant against anti-Muslim hatred, but consign the word ‘Islamophobia’ to the dustbin of history. No religion should obtain a privileged position in society by preventing open criticism of its beliefs or practices. This is harmful to the functioning of a free and democratic society.
You can read Tim Dieppe’s report in full here.
