(Photo: Getty/iStock)
Christian commentators have reacted with dismay to the government’s newly announced definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”, formerly known as “Islamophobia”.
Representatives of various faith groups, including Islam, have previously urged the government to drop its plans, saying the definition would be used to stifle free speech.
Tim Dieppe, of Christian Concern, has argued that the new definition could itself represent a breach of equality law, in that it provides special protection to Islam and Muslims not afforded to other religions.
Meanwhile, writing for Christian Today, evangelical leader David Robertson warned the definition might even be used one day to silence those attempting to preach the Gospel to Muslims.
“I can see a day coming in the not-too-distant future when … writers like me will be prosecuted under the Islamophobia blasphemy law for spreading hate against Muslims. But preaching Christ and his word is not hatred, nor is it any kind of phobia. It is Christian love,” he said.
The final version of the new definition is as follows:
“Anti-Muslim hostility is intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts – including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated – that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim, including where that perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance.”
“It is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.”
“It is engaging in unlawful 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.”
The government has sought to give assurances that this definition, which is non-statutory, will not threaten freedom speech, saying: “A definition must not and will not prohibit free speech nor stop issues being raised in the public interest.”
Others disagree. Christian commentator Adrian Hilton said on X, “The saving grace of this definition of anti-Muslim hostility is that it is non-statutory. But as public institutions (including universities and schools) adopt it, I think the application will have a detrimental effect on the freedom of expression, especially if policed by those with a mission.
“To warn of the dangers of Muslim bloc voting and creeping sharia may constitute negative characteristics observed of a collective.
“To write or say that Mohammed is a false prophet is easily perceived as harassment or intimidation directed at Muslims because of their religion. It doesn’t augur well at all for any examination of the socio-cultural and religious dimensions of rape gangs.”
Dieppe has stood by his earlier concerns, stating on X, “The positives are relative to how bad it could have been. Tough words on blasphemy are meaningless when accompanied with a proposed definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ which effectively introduces a blasphemy code to appease the Muslim activists.”
The government’s own anti-terrorism tsar, Jonathan Hall KC, has also raised concerns, telling the BBC, “The worry will be with loose language, people will feel inhibited about talking about things that they do think which are genuinely important today.”
A number of MPs have spoken out. Nick Timothy, Conservative MP for West Suffolk and shadow justice secretary, called it a “very predictable betrayal” by Labour.
“Labour said they would protect free speech. But the whole point of this definition is to attack our freedom to criticise, satirise and scrutinise ideas,” he said.
He added that he will “ignore” the definition and “advise the whole country to do the same”.
Shadow equalities minister, Claire Coutinho MP, said, “The Government’s Islamophobia definition has had a rebrand, but the underlying challenges remain the same. Its loose wording will shut down public services trying to combat grooming gangs, FGM and terrorism, and yet it will do nothing to change the law on harassment and abuse.
“With ethnonationalism and sectarianism on the rise, it is important that we hold on to the principle that we are all equal before the law. Anything else will just breed more resentment and division.”
