Labour’s Islamic blasphemy code is a sop to the sectarians

The UK government has formally adopted an official definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. There was no debate in parliament and no opportunity to vote on it before it was adopted last night. Nor was it in the Labour Party’s election manifesto. And no wonder – the purpose of this definition is to give special protections to Islam that other religions and worldviews do not have. There is no other way to understand it.

The new definition avoids using the contentious term ‘Islamophobia’, recasting this instead as ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. A serious problem with this is that ‘hostility’ can be interpreted to mean just about any disagreement. Dictionary definitions include ‘not liking’, ‘not agreeing’, or being ‘opposed’ to something. Being opposed to, say, the growth of Muslim schools could therefore constitute ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. One can easily see how activists will quickly weaponise this term to silence any objections to Islamic doctrines or demands.

According to the definition, anti-Muslim hostility includes ‘prejudicial stereotyping’ of Muslims, ‘with the intention to encourage hatred against them’. It is not clear who will decide whether hatred is intended to be stirred up or how this will be decided. Doubtless, some Muslims will claim that any stereotyping is intended to stir up hatred. There are a lot of legitimate statements that could therefore fall foul of this. What if I say that Muslims don’t drink alcohol? Or that Muslims don’t worship the same God as Christians? Or that Muslims are increasingly demanding more influence in society – as demonstrated by the government’s adoption of this very definition? Any such statement could be understood to be prejudicial stereotyping intended to stir up hatred. Certainly, this is how activists could interpret them.

The definition is full of hidden snares. Anti-Muslim hostility is said to include ‘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’. Well, who defines what these alleged biases are? If a school decides to ban Islamic prayers, you can be sure that activists would describe it as bias intended to disadvantage Muslims. Would it be biased to argue that the burqa ought to be banned in public? Would it be biased to suggest that Islam is affecting our culture in negative ways, not least in relation to free speech? Activists will certainly say so.

The definition does include some important caveats. For example, it ‘must not and will not prohibit free speech nor stop issues being raised in the public interest’. Other examples of protected speech include ‘criticisms of a religion or belief, including Islam, or of its practices, or critical analyses of its historical development’. It also protects ‘ridiculing or insulting a religion or belief, including Islam, or portraying it in a manner that some of its adherents might find disrespectful or scandalous’. These are encouraging to see, but it is concerning that such things need to be spelt out.

The new definition looks even more ridiculous in light of recent events. Former diplomat Sir John Jenkins has raised concerns that the proposed definition risks silencing Iranian protesters on the grounds that any criticism of the ayatollahs’ regime in Tehran would likely imply ‘hostility towards Islam’. ‘The connections between the Iranian regime and organised Islamism are absolutely central to what the regime is’, he said. ‘Protests against the Islamic Republic take on an anti-Islamist flavour.’

The concerns don’t stop there. The government’s own counter-terror advisor, Jonathan Hall, has said that the proposed definition could ‘inhibit’ criticisms of Islam. ‘How far are people going to be allowed to push definition effectively in their own political interests?’, he asked. There is no doubt that this is precisely what activists will do. They will try to use this definition to restrict what can be said about Islam.

I have consistently argued that no new definition is needed. Existing laws already protect Muslims and others from discrimination or harassment because of their religion. Giving special additional protection to Muslims is in itself discriminatory, and may well be unlawful as a result.

The government also proposes to police this definition by appointing a new ‘anti-Muslim hostility tsar’, whose job it will be to ‘champion efforts across the UK to tackle hostility and hatred directed at Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim’. This is ominous. We can rest assured that a well-paid bureaucrat, armed with a legion of staff, will suddenly find ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ anywhere and everywhere.

While this new definition is non-statutory, it will be used by all government organisations, the police and the courts. The government wants schools, the NHS and other employers to adopt it. It may not be a criminal offence to say something which falls foul of this definition, but it could well cost you your job. This will, then, amount to a de facto blasphemy code.

It seems all but certain that the government’s new definition will only make a bad situation worse. In recent years, the Crown Prosecution Service has attempted to prosecute people for burning a copy of the Koran as an act of political protest. Police have arrested street preachers for questioning what the Koran says. Officers even got involved when a school pupil had a copy of the Koran knocked out of his hands at a school in West Yorkshire, leading to the suspension of four students. With the adoption of an official definition, such clampdowns will only become more frequent.

The government has come at this question from entirely the wrong angle. Rather than giving in to the demands of the UK’s increasingly assertive Muslim voting bloc, Labour should be standing up for the principles of free speech and secularism. The latest definition is yet another capitulation from a government that has made an art form of appeasement.

Tim Dieppe is head of public policy at Christian Concern.