This 'anti-Muslim hostility' definition has serious problems. Here's why.

On Monday, the proposed government definition of anti-Muslim hostility was leaked to the BBC.

Earlier this year, the government set up a working group to come up with a definition of Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred. Baroness Gohir, a prominent member of the working group has confirmed that the definition leaked to the BBC is the one that the group proposed to the government in October. It had been kept secret since then, while the government has deliberated and consulted with various groups.

The Telegraph reported that the government was planning on announcing it on Monday. On seeing the news of the horrific terrorist attack on Bondi Beach they had second thoughts.

The proposed definition

The full proposed definition, which is now of "Anti-Muslim hostility" reads as follows:

"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."

The problems

The first paragraph of this definition merely says that some things are criminal acts: violence, vandalism etc. We already know that they are criminal acts. Muslims rightly enjoy full protection in law from these acts. We don’t need any new definition to explain this. Saying that criminal acts are criminal acts adds nothing to what we already know.

It’s the second paragraph where it gets more sinister. What exactly is “prejudicial stereotyping”? It is not clear. And it is this lack of clarity that will surely be exploited by activists. If I said that “Muslims don’t eat pork,” would that be prejudicial stereotyping? There is nothing in the definition to say not. Certainly, someone could claim that this was said to stir up hatred. What if I said: “Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians”? That looks likely to fall foul of the definition to me. And we have only just got started. It is not difficult to suggest a whole host of perfectly fair and reasonable statements about Muslims that would fall foul of this definition.

We haven’t even got to Islamic teaching and beliefs. Can we say anything about Islamic teaching on polygamy or jihad, for example? Surely someone could claim that was stereotypical. What about discussing possible links between Islam and grooming gangs? Last month we (Christian Concern) released a detailed academic paper by Dr Mark Durie on UK Grooming Gangs and Islam. In the paper, Dr Durie carefully argues that the religion of Islam has more connection with grooming gangs than ethnicity. That kind of academic discussion would certainly fall foul of the definition. I suggest you read the paper while you still can!

‘Racialisation’

Then the definition includes the word “racialisation”. This is a deliberate attempt by activists to liken criticism of Islamic beliefs and practices as a type of racism – even though Islam is not a race.

We met this problem before in the notorious APPG definition which was formally adopted by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party. It defined Islamophobia as “a type of racism.” Last year the government was forced to admit that this definition conflicts with the Equality Act precisely because this is not how the Equality Act 2010 defines race. This was an embarrassing admission for the government to make given that the Labour Party still retains this definition in its code of conduct.

This is why the government set up the working group – to propose an alternative definition that would not conflict with existing law. It looks to me that the working group has entirely failed in this objective.

This definition will curb free speech

So, we are left with a new definition which is hardly an improvement on the old one. One consolation is the abandonment of the term "Islamophobia". I have long argued that the term conflates the religion of Islam with Muslims the people. The very term itself implies that the religion of Islam should be free from scrutiny or criticism. It seems that on this point the government and the working group have listened and backed down.

That is little consolation, however, when the new definition will clearly serve to curb free speech in relation to Islam. The lack of clarity in the definition will be exploited by activists.

It is little comfort to note that this definition will not be statutory. While it may not be a crime to say something that falls foul of this definition, it could well cost you your job and your professional reputation, and land you with a non-crime hate incident against your name.

If the government adopts this definition, it will quickly be adopted by all public services, schools, hospitals, the civil service, the police, the judiciary etc. Activists will pressure other organisations and corporations to adopt it. We will very soon have a de facto Islamic blasphemy code.

Police already act as if we have an Islamic blasphemy code

The fact is that we are virtually already living in that scenario. The police have arrested street preachers for questioning what the Qur’an says, or for displaying a sign reading “Love Muslims, Hate Islam, Jesus is love and hope.” What possible crimes are these?

Let’s not forget that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) saw fit to arrest and charge a man with burning a copy of the Qur’an. The original charge included an alleged offence of harassing the “religious institution of Islam” – as if that was already an offence in law! Not content with losing the case, the CPS has now persisted in appealing to get him convicted.

It seems that the authorities need little encouragement to enforce an Islamic blasphemy code even before one exists. The adoption of this definition will only serve to make things worse and to encourage police in arresting and charging people for offending Islam or Muslims.

A crucial point in our history

We are at a crucial point in Britain’s great history. Will we adopt an Islamic blasphemy code in this once very explicitly and self-consciously Christian nation or not? I hope and pray not. I am grateful that this proposed definition was leaked before the government planned to announce it. Perhaps this is a sign of God’s mercy? Now we need to pray and work to ensure that the government recognises the problems it will cause and backs down from adopting it.