The Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) has written to the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, to raise “grave concerns” about the threats posed to free speech by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) definition of ‘Islamophobia’ (Times).
The NSO’s letter makes clear that any adoption of “this flawed definition into law” would be “untenable and would serve to create religious discrimination, which is likely to be subject to legal challenge in the form of a judicial review”.
While recognising that the government needs to take steps to tackle anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant hatred, the NSO points out that “targeting criminality with a flawed definition of ‘Islamophobia’ would be counterproductive and there is no evidence it would reduce anti-Muslim hatred in any case.”
“We believe more free speech is the answer, not less,” they say, adding: “Yes, there are difficult conversations to have about historical truths, or specific aspects of religion, but shutting them down is not the solution.”
The NSO’s intervention comes after the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, confirmed in the House of Commons earlier this week that the Government is “actively considering” its approach to tackling ‘Islamophobia’.
Asked by Lee Anderson MP to explain “what the Government’s definition of Islamophobia actually is”, she replied:
“A new definition must be given careful consideration so that it comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives and considers the potential implications for different communities. We are actively considering our approach to Islamophobia, including definitions, and we will provide further updates in due course.”
Also present during the debate was Afzal Khan, the Labour MP for Manchester Rusholme, who recently wrote to Sir Keir Starmer “urging him to host meetings with Muslim community leaders and to formally adopt a definition of anti-Muslim prejudice put forward by the APPG [All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims]”.
This is a reference to a November 2018 report by the APPG, which urged the government to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Might this be the definition the Government is now “actively considering”?
In opposition, Labour endorsed this definition and incorporated it into its governing body’s code of conduct. Indeed, Wes Streeting – now the Health Secretary – was its chairman. (It was also embraced by the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Scottish Conservatives, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Greens – although it was rejected by the national Conservative Party).
Earlier this year, the then shadow Women and Equalities Minister Anneliese Dodds chided “senior Conservatives” for refusing to accept the APPG’s definition. “To tackle the scourge of Islamophobia, we must name it,” she said.
The Home Secretary Yvette Cooper also used the term “Islamophobia” to describe the actions of some rioters behind the recent civil unrest.
This followed a backlash from Labour MPs who had criticised Ms Cooper and Sir Keir Starmer for not having already described the unrest as ‘Islamophobic’.
For instance, when the Labour MP Zarah Sultana was asked on ITV’s Good Morning Britain 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? … Why is it so hard to use that word? That is my question.”
The difficulty with the APPG’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’ was highlighted in a recent research briefing for the FSU by Tim Dieppe, the Head of Public Policy at Christian Concern.
In Banning Islamophobia: Blasphemy Law by the Backdoor Tim points out 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.
That is particularly true, Tim says, of the APPG definition, which broadens the definition of racism to include ‘cultural racism’, thereby inhibiting discussion of cultural practices. He continues:
“It 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.”
We urge all our members and supporters to read Tim Dieppe’s timely essay, as well as Richard Dawkins’ Foreword. In spite of being ill-thought out and not fit for purpose, the APPG’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’ is gaining traction and is likely to become more widely adopted in the near future, including by the Government. We all need to be prepared for this new front in the ongoing war against free speech.
You can read Tim’s research briefing by clicking here.
Tim Dieppe has also summarised his argument for Spiked which you can read here.
