The government rejected a proposed definition of Islamophobia on 16 May, saying that combining race and religion would cause ‘legal and practical issues’.
The definition, ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’, was proposed after a six-month inquiry. Communities Secretary James Brokenshire said the def-inition was out of line with the Equality Act 2010 and had ‘potential consequences for freedom of speech’. The government will appoint two new advisers to examine the issue further.
Islam is not a race
The Equality Act 2010 defines ‘race’ as comprising colour, nationality, and national or ethnic origins, none of which would encompass a Muslim or Islamic practice. Conservative MP Sir John Hayes said: ‘The report essentially identifies Islamophobia as an exercise in racism, which presumes that the Muslim peoples of this country, or any country, are a race. Given that Islam is a reli-gion, that proposition is of itself contentious, and has been described as such by some critics of the report.’ He added that Muslims come from all groups of people, and to ‘describe them as a race is of itself a bold, and some would argue contentious, view, yet that is what the report does by identifying Islamophobia as a matter of anti-racism.’
England’s first Muslim MP, Khalid Mahmood, said the definition would divide the country more and lead to increased segre-gation of Muslim communities. Mahmood, a Labour MP, said: ‘I am for equality for all – but I oppose this. We as Muslims should be proud of who we are and try to move away from a victim mentality.’
The definition has been adopted by pol-itical parties including Labour, Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish Conservatives.
Letter
The government response came after more than 40 religious leaders and experts warned in a letter to Home Secretary Sajid Javid that the definition could be a ‘backdoor blasphemy law’ that would limit free speech. Signatories included the National Secular Society, Richard Dawkins, Brendan O’Neill, Network of Sikh Organisations, Council of ex-Muslims of Britain, a range of Hindu councils across the UK and a number of prominent Christians and members of the House of Lords.
Would Christians have similar support from Dawkins et al ? Regardless, it was a way for Christians to take a joint stand on a probable curtailment of freedom of reli-gious expression, and arguably of freedom of expression as a whole. For even journalists have been called Islamophobic for doing reasonable and justifiable research into Islam.
