(Photo: Getty/iStock)
Concerns have been raised that a proposed new definition of “Islamophobia” could encompass even simple statements of fact about Islamic practice.
Earlier this year the government set up a working group to define the term. No further information was made available until the BBC got hold of a copy of the definition and published it.
The working group has opted to move away from the term “Islamophobia”, preferring instead, “Anti-Muslim hatred”.
The draft definition states: “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.”
Tim Dieppe, writing for Christian Concern, has warned that the definition “poses very significant problems for free speech”.
Dieppe welcomed the decision to move away from the term “Islamophobia”, saying that this lessened the risk that criticism of Islam as a religion or set of beliefs would come under the definition.
However, he also argued that Muslims are already protected by existing law: “The first paragraph of the definition largely repeats what is already illegal. Criminal acts are illegal by definition.”
More concerning, the content of the second paragraph, which deals with “prejudicial stereotyping” or the “set characteristics” of Muslims is fraught with danger, Dieppe warns.
“If I said: ‘Muslims don’t eat pork.’ – would that count? There is nothing to indicate it wouldn’t,” he said.
Dieppe continued, “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.”
Dieppe also raised concerns about regarding Muslims, who have chosen a set of religious beliefs, as a race deserving of special protection and at rules aimed at preventing bias against Muslims.
“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,” he said.
“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.”
