A new non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility has been adopted by the UK Government.
New guidance, which is not legally binding and “does not change or override the law”, defines anti-Muslim hostility as “intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts” directed against Muslims “because of their religion”.
The Government definition also includes “the prejudicial stereotyping” of Muslims with the intention of encouraging hatred against them and “engaging in unlawful discrimination” intending “to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life”.
Freedom of speech ‘fundamental’
Released in tandem with the Government’s social cohesion action plan, the guidance states: “Everyone should feel able to contribute to the exchange of ideas that supports a free and thriving society, participate in academic and political discussion and feel able to raise concerns.”
It points out the importance of bearing in mind “the fundamental right of every person in the United Kingdom to exercise freedom of speech and expression within the law”.
Criticising and even ridiculing or insulting Islam and its practices is protected, including “portraying it in a manner that some of its adherents might find disrespectful or scandalous”.
Also protected is the fundamental right to raise “concerns in the public interest” and “contributing to debates in the public interest, including academic and political debate.”
The Government has committed to “adopting this definition”, referring to it “when developing and revising relevant policy” and encourages “relevant organisations, employers and sectors to do the same”.
Gospel freedom
Christian Institute Director Ciarán Kelly observed: “There is no need for this. It may be an improvement on the original, but the vague language still makes it more likely that criticism of, and opposition to, Islam will be presented as ‘prejudice’ and ‘hostility’.
“We will hold the Government to its reassurances that everyone remains free, under law, to robustly criticise all religions and beliefs – including Islam. It remains to be seen whether the guidelines will be understood and applied that way.”
“Christians must and will declare Jesus Christ as God incarnate, the only way of salvation and the Lord of all creation without censure or hindrance. We shall continue to hold out this truth to everyone, without exception”.
Dangers
The Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Jonathan Hall KC questioned whether “local authorities, libraries, universities, charities, museums have the strength and inclination to resist becoming organs of self-censorship?”
He added: “It will be hard for local organisations, short-staffed and possibly under pressure from activists and entryists, to keep their focus on intentional hatred which is or ought to be the essence of the definition.”
“In the real world,” Hall warned, “people need tangible examples of what is and what is not acceptable. Vague examples of acceptable speech such as ‘raising concerns in the public interest’ does not cut the mustard.”
Two-tier policy
Writing in The Times, Baroness Falkner of Margravine — formerly the Chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission — argued that one of the consequences of adopting a definition “will be to curtail criticism of Muslims, strengthen activists’ armoury and increase their power”.
“A definition restricts what you can do and say about Muslims in ways that do not apply to speech or actions about people of any other faith. It is a two-tier policy — the enemy of equality and of community cohesion — in its purest form.”
Govt urged to ditch ‘deeply flawed’ Islamophobia definition
CI: ‘Attempts to define Islamophobia endanger free speech and public safety’
Equality watchdog advises Govt to ditch plans for ‘Islamophobia’ definition