A new official definition of Islamophobia could “inhibit” free speech about Muslims and their religion, the Government’s own counter-terrorism tsar Jonathan Hall KC has warned. The Telegraph has more.
Jonathan Hall, KC said Sir Keir Starmer’s proposed definition, to be unveiled on Monday, could stop people from freely criticising Islam or issues affecting its followers.
Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, told the BBC: “The worry will be with loose language, people will feel inhibited about talking about things that they do think which are genuinely important today.”
He also warned that it could fail to stop anti-Muslim attacks. He said a similar definition for antisemitism had failed to prevent a rise in attacks on Jews and that he was sceptical a similar new definition for anti-Muslim hatred would be any different.
Ministers have already watered down the definition by avoiding the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’, after concerns that it could limit free speech and lead to the creation of a blasphemy law by the backdoor.
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.
An advisory working group – which Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, headed – produced the initial draft and submitted it to the Government in October.
It is understood that ministers have struck out references to the “racialisation” of Muslims amid concern it is a vague term that could be weaponised to silence critics of the religion.
However, it still states that anti-Muslim hatred will include “the prejudicial stereotyping 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”.
Hall questioned the entire premise of a definition. “The IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition, which is the antisemitism definition – which has been adopted since 2016 – has not, in practice, reduced antisemitism or indeed terrorist attacks,” he said.
“And you could say, what is the upside of an anti-Muslim hate definition? It hasn’t worked for Jews. I do wonder whether it will work for Muslims. There is no doubt about it, Muslims are targets of terrorist attacks and attack planning.”
Hall said it was important that the definition should include examples of free speech that were not anti-Muslim hatred as people would otherwise be worried about discussing “uncomfortable” topics around Muslim culture, migration and Islamism.
He said his second concern was that it could lead to the same problems as had been experienced over non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) where offensive language online had resulted in police investigations such as the arrest of Graham Linehan, the comedy writer, over trans comments.
“Will the definition look at the intention of the person who’s speaking, or will someone be able to say, I perceive what you’re saying as hatred,” he said.
“We’ve already gone through this rather foolish cycle about non-crime hate incidents, the arrest of Graham Linehan, and where people don’t intend to be hostile to me, but I perceive what you’re saying as hostile.
“So will the definition look at the intention of the speaker, or will these allegations of hatred be allowed to be made whether the person actually was hating or not?”
Worth reading in full.
See Related Article Below
This ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ definition is truly sinister
he government’s new official definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ is 144 words long. But in a sign that even ministers now realise what a mess they have made, it is followed by a further tortuously pleading 1,400 words which ‘must be read together’ with it.
You will be relieved to hear, according to this ‘accompanying text,’ that the definition is no threat at all to ‘the fundamental right of every person in the UK to exercise freedom of speech,’ or to ‘academic and political discussion,’ or to ‘criticisms of religion or belief,’ or to ‘debates in the public interest.’
If this were not a threat to free speech, the government would not need to say so
To which I reply: qui s’excuse, s’accuse (he who excuses himself, accuses himself). If this were not a threat to free speech, the government would not need to say so. And to which I also reply: for the state to publish a list of examples of permitted speech sets a deeply sinister precedent, and on subjects far wider than Muslims. Is only speech ‘in the public interest’ now to be allowed? Who decides what the public interest is? Doesn’t freedom mean the right to say something that’s not in the public interest, too?
Because of the war, and because it was wrapped in with a ‘community cohesion’ strategy that has some potentially good bits, the publication of this definition hasn’t caused as much of an immediate outcry as it normally would have done. But make no mistake: it will do.
Because freedom of speech is not the only problem. The government is acutely sensitive to charges of ‘two-tier’ policy – rejecting, for instance, the Sentencing Council’s scandalous demand that ethnic minority criminals be treated better.
Yet here is an obvious and open act of two-tier policy. Hatred and discrimination against Muslims are emphatically wrong – but are already illegal. The only purpose of an additional definition must be to create special protections for one faith which do not apply to those of other faiths or none.
It will not alleviate Muslim discontent – it will stoke it, creating new opportunities for grievance politics, challenge and attack in every institution and workplace. It will strengthen divisive extremists on all sides – not just the populist right, but also the growing Muslim populist challenge to mainstream parties. That, too, will be harmful to community cohesion. In short, it risks making Muslims less safe, not more.
True, the May government did adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. But that text explicitly uses language akin to that of Britain’s existing hate crime laws, which apply equally to all faiths. It was agreed in international discussions over many years, rather than cooked up by a private working group after Labour panicked about losing Muslim votes. And, of course, it has done nothing to stem the rise in anti-Semitism.
Finally, as if the definition itself were not bad enough, there will also be – as The Spectator revealed and Policy Exchange analysed on Friday – a ‘special representative for anti-Muslim hostility,’ a post likely to go to an activist who will constantly press for even more restrictions, and even more expansionary wording of the definition.
The Islamist groups who campaigned for the definition – with an explicit agenda of suppressing criticism of themselves – haven’t got all they wanted yet. But they are the winners here. The announcement explicitly says that the definition ‘may need to evolve over time.’
The Spectator; 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.
Leave a Reply