Proposals for an official definition of 'Islamophobia' were rejected by the Government yesterday. Downing Street said the suggested definition had not been broadly accepted, adding: This is a matter that will need further careful consideration. '
The definition had been proposed by a parliamentary campaign group, the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims. It wanted the Government to define Islamaphobia as rooted in racism or a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or
perceived Muslimness.
Ministers are now expected to appoint two independent advisers to draw up a less legally problematic definition, the Times reported.
A parliamentary debate on anti-Muslim prejudice is due to be held today in
Parliament.
The criticism of the definition has been published in an open letter to the Home Secretary Sajid Javid:
Open Letter: APPG Islamophobia Definition Threatens Civil Liberties
The
APPG on British Muslims' definition of Islamophobia has now been adopted by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats Federal board, Plaid Cymru and the Mayor of London, as well as several local councils. All of this is occurring before the Home Affairs
Select Committee has been able to assess the evidence for and against the adoption of the definition nationally.
Meanwhile the Conservatives are having their own debate about rooting out Islamophobia from the party.
According to the APPG definition, "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness".
With this definition in hand, it is perhaps
no surprise that following the horrific attack on a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, some place responsibility for the
atrocity on the pens of journalists and academics who have criticised Islamic beliefs and practices, commented on or investigated Islamist extremism.
The undersigned unequivocally, unreservedly and emphatically condemn acts of
violence against Muslims, and recognise the urgent need to deal with anti-Muslim hatred. However, we are extremely concerned about the uncritical and hasty adoption of the APPG's definition of Islamophobia.
This vague and
expansive definition is being taken on without an adequate scrutiny or proper consideration of its negative consequences for freedom of expression, and academic and journalistic freedom. The definition will also undermine social cohesion -- fuelling the
very bigotry against Muslims which it is designed to prevent.
We are concerned that allegations of Islamophobia will be, indeed already are being, used to effectively shield Islamic beliefs and even extremists from criticism, and
that formalising this definition will result in it being employed effectively as something of a backdoor blasphemy law.
The accusation of Islamophobia has already been used against those opposing religious and gender segregation
in education, the hijab, halal slaughter on the grounds of animal welfare, LGBT rights campaigners opposing Muslim views on homosexuality, ex-Muslims and feminists opposing Islamic views and practices relating to women, as well as those concerned about
the issue of grooming gangs. It has been used against journalists who investigate Islamism, Muslims working in counter-extremism, schools and Ofsted for resisting conservative religious pressure and enforcing gender equality.
Evidently abuse, harmful practices, or the activities of groups and individuals which promote ideas contrary to British values are far more likely to go unreported as a result of fear of being called Islamophobic. This will only increase if the APPG definition is formally adopted in law.
We are concerned that the definition will be used to shut down legitimate criticism and investigation. While the APPG authors have assured that it does not wish to infringe free speech, the entire content of the report, the
definition itself, and early signs of how it would be used, suggest that it certainly would. Civil liberties should not be treated as an afterthought in the effort to tackle anti-Muslim prejudice.
The conflation of race and
religion employed under the confused concept of 'cultural racism' expands the definition beyond anti-Muslim hatred to include 'illegitimate' criticism of the Islamic religion. The concept of Muslimness can effectively be transferred to Muslim practices
and beliefs, allowing the report to claim that criticism of Islam is instrumentalised to hurt Muslims.
No religion should be given special protection against criticism. Like anti-Sikh, anti-Christian, or anti-Hindu hatred,
we believe the term anti-Muslim hatred is more appropriate and less likely to infringe on free speech. A proliferation of 'phobias' is not desirable, as already stated by Sikh and Christian organisations who recognise the importance of free discussion
about their beliefs.
Current legislative provisions are sufficient, as the law already protects individuals against attacks and unlawful discrimination on the basis of their religion. Rather than helping, this definition is likely
to create a climate of self-censorship whereby people are fearful of criticising Islam and Islamic beliefs. It will therefore effectively shut down open discussions about matters of public interest. It will only aggravate community tensions further and
is therefore no long term solution.
If this definition is adopted the government will likely turn to self-appointed 'representatives of the community' to define 'Muslimness'. This is clearly open to abuse. The APPG already
entirely overlooked Muslims who are often considered to be "insufficiently Muslim" by other Muslims, moderates, liberals, reformers and the Ahmadiyyah, who often suffer persecution and violence at the hands of other Muslims.
For all these reasons, the APPG definition of Islamophobia is deeply problematic and unfit for purpose. Acceptance of this definition will only serve to aggravate community tensions and to inhibit free speech about matters of
fundamental importance. We urge the government, political parties, local councils and other organisations to reject this flawed proposed definition.
- Emma Webb, Civitas
- Hardeep Singh, Network of Sikh Organisations (NSOUK)
- Lord Singh of Wimbledon
- Tim Dieppe, Christian Concern
- Stephen Evans, National Secular Society (NSS)
- Sadia Hameed, Council of
Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB)
- Prof. Paul Cliteur, candidate for the Dutch Senate, Professor of Law, University of Leiden
- Brendan O'Neill, Editor of Spiked
- Maajid Nawaz, Founder, Quilliam International
- Rt. Rev'd Dr Gavin
Ashenden
- Pragna Patel, director of Southall Black Sisters
- Professor Richard Dawkins
- Rahila Gupta, author and Journalist
- Peter Whittle, founder and director of New Culture Forum
- Trupti Patel, President of Hindu
Forum of Britain
- Dr Lakshmi Vyas, President Hindu Forum of Europe
- Harsha Shukla MBE, President Hindu Council of North UK
- Tarang Shelat, President Hindu Council of Birmingham
- Ashvin Patel, Chairman, Hindu Forum
(Walsall)
- Ana Gonzalez, partner at Wilson Solicitors LLP
- Baron Desai of Clement Danes
- Baroness Cox of Queensbury
- Lord Alton of Liverpool
- Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali
- Ade Omooba MBE, Co-Chair National
Church Leaders Forum (NCLF)
- Wilson Chowdhry, British Pakistani Christian Association
- Ashish Joshi, Sikh Media Monitoring Group
- Satish K Sharma, National Council of Hindu Temples
- Rumy Hasan, Academic and author
-
Amina Lone, Co-Director, Social Action and Research Foundation
- Peter Tatchell, Peter Tatchell Foundation
- Seyran Ates, Imam
- Gina Khan, One Law for All
- Mohammed Amin MBE
- Baroness D'Souza
- Michael
Mosbacher, Acting Editor, Standpoint Magazine
- Lisa-Marie Taylor, CEO FiLiA
- Julie Bindel, journalist and feminist campaigner
- Dr Adrian Hilton, academic
- Neil Anderson, academic
- Tom Holland, historian
- Toby Keynes
- Prof. Dr. Bassam Tibi, Professor Emeritus for International Relations, University of Goettingen
- Dr Stephen Law, philosopher and author
