Labour’s Islamophobia definition ‘unlawful’
Defining ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ risks illegally discriminating against other faiths, report warns
Sir Keir Starmer’s plans for a new definition of Islamophobia risks breaking the law by illegally discriminating against other faith groups, counter-extremism experts have warned.
The proposals could also backfire by inflaming tensions among other minority faith groups who might perceive it as favouring Muslims, says the analysis by the respected Counter Extremism Group (CEG), a research centre.
The report, by Dr Daniel Allington of King’s College, which was backed by a panel of experts including legislators and police, comes ahead of the publication of Labour’s official definition of anti-Muslim hostility.
Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, is finalising the new definition based on a draft from an advisory group, headed by Dominic Grieve, the former Tory attorney general, which was submitted to the Government in October.
The non-statutory definition is aimed at providing guidance for behaviour codes that public bodies, councils and businesses could adopt to combat prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards Muslims.
The group’s definition has avoided the word “Islamophobia” and instead called it “anti-Muslim hostility” so that it focuses on hate towards Muslims rather than Islam. It follows concerns over its potential impact on free speech and fears of a back-door blasphemy law.
However, the CEG report claimed that any definition was unnecessary because existing UK equality, hate and human rights laws already provided adequate protection for members of all faith groups, including Muslims.
[…]
‘Serious unintended consequences’
It added that existing laws also safeguarded free speech because, while protecting the right to practise and promote a religion, they also underpinned the right to criticise religions and their associated practices.
“Attempts to ‘go beyond the law’ in protecting the sensibilities of any one faith group could potentially constitute unlawful discrimination towards members of other faith groups, and for this reason should be guarded against,” it concluded.
It also said a definition of anti-Muslim hate officially introduced by Government could have “serious unintended consequences”, because it was likely that councils, schools and police would use it as if it was a “statutory” definition when it was non-statutory.
The Telegraph: continue reading
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
But Starmer is a lawyer; he knows how to break laws. That’s what he does.