The definition

 “Anti-Muslim hostility is engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their religion, ethnicity or appearance. “It is also the prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics, to stir up hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals. “It is engaging in prohibited discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.” British Muslims are already protected from discrimination and harassment in law. The terms ‘anti-Muslim hatred’ or ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ are clear and sufficient in themselves. Any definition of ‘Islamophobia’ risks conflating criticism of the religion of Islam with hatred or hostility towards Muslims. 

Problems with the definition

The first paragraph of the definition largely repeats what is already illegal. Criminal acts are illegal by definition. There is no need for this aspect of the definition, because it is already law. It adds nothing to what we all already know. It is the second paragraph where the worst dangers lurk. What exactly constitutes “prejudicial stereotyping”? Or stating that Muslims have “set characteristics”. If I said: “Muslims don’t eat pork.” – would that count? There is nothing to indicate it wouldn’t. A whole load of other statements could fall foul of this definition. Here are some:

• “Muslims don’t drink alcohol.”
• “Muslims believe in Allah.”
• “Muslims believe Muhammad was a prophet.”
• “Muslims believe the Qur’an.”
• “Muslims don’t believe the Trinity.”
• “Muslims don’t worship the same God as Christians.”
• “Muslims don’t worship Jesus.”
• . . .

This doesn’t even get into claims about what Islam teaches – such as polygamy, for example, let alone jihad! It is clear that many, many statements about Muslims could fall foul of this definition, even though they are true and legitimate things to say. If the government adopts this as its official definition it will be a very significant moment in this country. While it will not actually be a blasphemy law, it will effectively be a blasphemy code in relation to Islam. It won’t actually be a criminal offence to say something which falls foul of this definition, but you could lose your job and have your speech recorded against you as a non-crime hate incident. Anyone working in any government organisation, the whole public sector, police and the courts will start to implement this definition. This includes schools, the NHS, the civil service etc. Activists will pressure companies and private businesses to adopt this definition. We will then have what amounts to de facto blasphemy laws. Already, we have the police and the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuting people for burning a copy of the Qur’an and arresting street preachers for questioning what the Qur’an says. This is not happening to people who question what the Bible says! Adopting this definition will only serve to increase the intimidation that people already feel, and which causes most people to self-censor any criticism they may have of Islamic beliefs or practices. This is what it is like to live in a totalitarian society. Adoption of this definition must be stopped. Do write to your MP pointing out that this will be a serious infringement of free speech and urging them to tell the government not to adopt this definition. The lack of clarity in this definition means it is wide open to exploitation by activists, and that is exactly what we will see if it is adopted.