More than three dozen members of Britain’s House of Lords have warned the Labour government that its proposed definition of “Islamophobia” will have “a chilling effect on free speech” with “serious repercussions for those who fall foul of the definition.”
The whole process is farcical and neither democratic nor open to scrutiny.
The letter addressed to Dominic Grieve, chair of the Working Group on Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred, is demanding that the government drop the word “Islamophobia” from its definition and make the definition public so that parliament can debate it before it is accepted.
The alarm sounded by the 37 peers in their letter of July 14 intensifies the strong criticism from lawmakers who have been accusing the government of rigging the consultation on the definition by clandestinely inviting Islamist groups to contribute to the definition of “Islamophobia.”
Peers from different parties who signed the letter and Conservative members in the House of Commons have also complained that the Working Group includes only Muslims. The only non-Muslim member is the group’s chairman, Grieve, a practicing Anglican. In response, the authors call for Grieves to broaden the member of the working group “to make it more credible.”
Definition Creates New Religious Discrimination
The eight-page letter inquires why the Working Group has not included members of free speech advocacy organizations, as well as representatives of other major world religions.
The “monocultural character” of the group indicates that the definition it frames will proscribe “legitimate criticisms” as well as “accurate observations” of Islam, such as the historical fact that it has, at times, been imposed on oppressed populations by force, the Lords warn.
“By neglecting hatred directed at other racial and religious minorities,” a government-approved definition of Islamophobia would “exacerbate community tensions in cities like Leicester, which has already seen outbreaks of civil disorder between Hindus and Muslims,” they add.
The letter argues that privileging an “Anti-Muslim Hatred” definition is unfair to adherents of other religions, since there is no “definition of Anti-Christian, Anti-Hindu, Anti-Sikh or Anti-Buddhist hatred.”
Privileging Islam Over Other Religions
Lord Toby Young of Acton.
(Photo by By Raj Curry - Flickr via Wikimedia.)
“If the government were to approve similar definitions of Christo-phobia, Hindu-phobia, Sikh-phobia and Buddhist-phobia, that would mean people felt they couldn’t criticize those religions either,” Lord Young of Acton, a signatory to the letter, told Focus on Western Islamism (FWI).
“The way to work out our difference and forge a common sense of British identity is by engaging in free and open dialogue, not by clamping people’s jaws shut,” Lord Young stressed, noting that people would be “unwilling to criticize the religion of Islam for fear of negative repercussions.”
A state-endorsed “Islamophobia” definition would stifle free speech even if it is “non-statutory,” since the government wants to embed it “in university speech codes and curb ‘microaggressions,’” the letter notes. Hence, “various bodies would feel obliged to embed it in their equity, diversity, and inclusion policies, as well as workplace training courses.”
“Privileging Islam in this way will only increase perceptions of two-tier justice and two-tier policy under this Labour government. If they succeed, the consequences to our culture will be monumental,” Tim Dieppe, who leads the public policy division at Christian Concern, told FWI.
“If the government was interested in community cohesion, it would not privilege one religion over all others, nor would it push for a definition against widespread serious concerns,” Dieppe, a leading campaigner against the Islamophobia definition, stated.
Shutting Down Discussion of Islamist Grooming Gangs
Kevin Hollinrake, Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, challenged Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, in parliament on the same day as the peers’ letter, noting that Grieve had “previously stated a preference for a definition of Islamophobia that would shut down talk of religion in cases like the grooming gangs scandal.”
Highlighting the mostly Muslim composition of the Working Group, Hollinrake raised concerns over the “predetermined and biased” nature of the group’s report and recommendations, asking why the government was unwilling to make the Working Group’s report available to the public.
Responding to Hollinrake, Rayner refused to commit to making the report public, stating that the group would “submit its findings to Ministers” only as set out in the terms of reference. The terms state: “All advice provided by the Group will be private for Ministers and will not be made public.”
Working Group’s Links With Islamists
“The whole process is farcical and neither democratic nor open to scrutiny,” Dieppe told FWI, since “they have set up a biased group, refused requests for free speech advocates or other faith representatives to join the Working Group, and have also allowed the Working Group to set up a sham call for evidence without even publicizing it.”
The Working Group will report to the Minister for Faith and Communities, who is Lord Khan. In February, Khan kissed the ring of a Deobandi Islamic extremist in Burnley, Dieppe revealed, adding that Khan also met with Maulana Tariq Jamil, a leading Pakistani scholar of the hardline Tablighi Jamaat, which has its European headquarters in Dewsbury in Yorkshire.
During the House of Commons debate, Conservative lawmaker Nick Timothy asked Rayner for a “guarantee that no Muslim Brotherhood affiliates will participate in the consultation on the definition of Islamophobia.”
“I am not going to provide a running commentary on the work of the independent group. The government have a non-engagement policy with the MCB [Muslim Council of Britain]. That position has not changed,” Rayner said, refusing to specify if other outfits linked to the Muslim Brotherhood had been invited to participate in the consultation.
Lawmaker Blasts “Rigged” Consultation
On July 3, Timothy stated in parliament that the consultation was “rigged” and “an invitation to participate in the consultation was sent only to hand-picked organizations, the identities of which the government refuses to disclose.” He noted that the MCB appeared to have been invited.
“Labour is playing with fire with Islamic blasphemy laws in Britain,” Timothy wrote in a July 16 post on X. “First, the abuse of the Public Order Act to prosecute critics of Islam. Second, an “Islamophobia” definition.”
A U.K. court convicted atheist Hamit Coskun, who burned a Qur’an, of violating laws against promoting public disorder while motivated by a “deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers,” FWI reported in June.
In a letter to Rayner dated June 18, Claire Coutinho, a Conservative member of parliament, wrote, noting that the Working Group’s recently leaked call for evidence “appears only to have been shared privately with a select group of stakeholders.”
“I even asked the Minister [in charge of Labor’s Islamophobia definition] to include grooming gangs victims, free speech campaigners, and counter terror experts in the group drawing up the definition. He refused,” Coutinho later posted on X on July 13.
Sikhs Join Fight Against Islamophobia Definition
Meanwhile, in a July 15 statement, Britain’s Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO) explained how the government had rebuffed its repeated requests for a “more inclusive faith approach.”
The NSO statement contested the definition of “Islamophobia” as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness.” It would further risk “censoring seminal moments in Sikh history — like the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur [by the Mughal emperor Aurangazeb], and the Sikh prohibition on consumption of ritually slaughtered meat like halal.”
“Special definitions for some groups and not others, especially using vague catch-all terms like ‘Islamophobia,’ serve not only to create a hierarchy of religions, but also provide cover for extremists, who want to shut down legitimate discussion on religion, historical truths and issues like grooming gangs,” Lord Singh of Wimbledon, director of the NSO, told FWI.
FWI asked the MCB if it had been included in the consultation but did not receive a response.
