The problem with defining Islamophobia
Government criticised for rejecting working definition that has been adopted by Labour, Lib Dems and Scottish Tories
The Government has rejected an official definition of Islamophobia following a warning from police that it would undermine anti-terrorist operations.
The definition was set out in a report published in December by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness,” the report says.
That definition was accepted by Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Conservatives and London Mayor Sadiq Khan. However, a government spokesperson this week said that the wording needs “further careful consideration”.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The veto comes after National Police Chiefs’ Council chair Martin Hewitt sent a letter - leaked to The Times - to the prime minister warning that antiterrorism policing would be threatened if litigants could bring court cases accusing police forces of Islamophobia.
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, a Conservative member of the group behind the definition, called Hewitt’s intervention “extraordinary and disturbing”.
She continued: “This is one of the most extensive pieces of work done in this area. We issued an open call for evidence, parliamentarians took reams of written evidence, including from the Crown Prosecution Service, we took days of oral evidence, including from those working in hate crime.”
In an article for The Guardian, another member of the group, Labour MP Wes Streeting, writes: “It was clear from the evidence we gathered, that what we’re up against goes wider than anti-Muslim hatred.
“It is structural, often unconscious, bias.”
Freedom of speech
The Government has voiced concerns that the definition could hinder freedom of speech, prompting the Muslim Council of Britain to respond that it was “truly astonishing the Government thinks it knows better than Muslim communities”, reports BuzzFeed News.
The organisation added: “If this free speech rationale is true, it would mean that the Government believes that defining the racism that targets Muslims or expressions of Muslimness somehow impinges on free speech. Defining anti-Semitism does not do so, but defining Islamophobia does.”
However, an open letter signed by over 40 academics, writers and campaigners argues that the proposed wording is “unfit for purpose”, the BBC reports. The letter warns that the “uncritical and hasty adoption” of the definition would bring in “a backdoor blasphemy law” , “aggravate community tensions” and “inhibit free speech about matters of fundamental importance”.
Neil Basu, head of counterterrorism policing, said the definition “risks creating confusion, representing what some might see as legitimate criticism of the tenets of Islam - a religion - as a racist hate crime, which cannot be right for a liberal democracy in which free speech is also a core value”.
But Labour’s Streeting rejects those claims, saying the group’s report “makes it crystal clear that our definition does not preclude criticism of Islam or Islamic theology”.
Meanwhile, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Harun Khan, claims the criticisms are disingenous. “Being critical of Islam or any religion does not make you an Islamophobe,” he said. “You are only an Islamophobe if you use the language of racism targeting expressions of Muslimness.”
Non-legally binding
The question of whether the definition would be legally binding is also contested.
In an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Warsi acknowledged that it would not. Instead, the definition would simply be guidance “along the lines of the working definition of anti-Semitism as adopted three years ago by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance”, says The Times.
But this lack of legal status “throws up a whole range of potential discrimination issues that could trigger judicial reviews”, Jonathan Cooper, a human rights barrister, told the newspaper. He said that the proposed definition “creates a lack of clarity”, adding: “It is not the right way of approaching this fundamental problem.”
Fellow barrister Kirsty Brimelow QC, former chair of the Bar’s Human Rights Committee, agrees that the debate around the proposed definition is “unclear”. If its purpose is to move Islamophobia into the category of racial discrimination, rather than religious discrimination, “this would not affect the discrimination laws already in place and would arguably be unnecessary”, she said.
Brimelow points out that Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights already prohibits discrimination in people’s freedom to practise and adhere to a religion.
Existing legislation also criminalises acts that are racially or religiously aggravated, or motivated by hostility towards a member of a particular racial or religious group, Brimelow told The Times.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
'Make legal immigration a more plausible option'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
LA-to-Las Vegas high-speed rail line breaks ground
Speed Read The railway will be ready as soon as 2028
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Israel's military intelligence chief resigns
Speed Read Maj. Gen. Aharon Haliva is the first leader to quit for failing to prevent the Hamas attack in October
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Will Aukus pact survive a second Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question US, UK and Australia seek to expand 'game-changer' defence partnership ahead of Republican's possible return to White House
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Women led Iran's protests. What will new elections mean for them?
Talking Points The protests, and the backlash, loom over the polling
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Why are Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiators anxious about Ramadan?
Today's Big Question The threat of violence during Islam's holiest month could upend the fragile effort to forge a lasting cease-fire
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
It's the economy, Sunak: has 'Rishession' halted Tory fightback?
Today's Big Question PM's pledge to deliver economic growth is 'in tatters' as stagnation and falling living standards threaten Tory election wipeout
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Why your local council may be going bust
The Explainer Across England, local councils are suffering from grave financial problems
By The Week UK Published
-
Rishi Sunak and the right-wing press: heading for divorce?
Talking Point The Telegraph launches 'assault' on PM just as many Tory MPs are contemplating losing their seats
By Keumars Afifi-Sabet, The Week UK Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published