Government’s attempt to redefine ‘Islamophobia’ faces fierce pushback
STEVE WATSON
Ministers in the UK are steeling themselves for a storm of criticism as Communities Secretary Steve Reed prepares to unveil a new official definition of “anti-Muslim hate” this week.
Critics, led by the Free Speech Union, warn that the expansive terminology risks creating a de facto blasphemy law, stifling legitimate debate on issues like grooming gangs and Islamist terrorism.
Ministers braced for Islamophobia law backlash https://t.co/vHc9Fp7d6O
— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) December 15, 2025
The shift away from the term “Islamophobia” aims to provide guidance for public bodies, councils, and businesses in combating prejudice against Muslims. Yet, according to leaked drafts, it could label prejudicial stereotyping or “racialisation designed to incite hate” as hateful acts, potentially encompassing discussions that highlight patterns in crimes predominantly involving Muslim perpetrators.
ANY official definition of Islamophobia will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. It could also be illegal.
Communities Secretary Steve Reed has reportedly finalised the official definition of Islamophobia, which is expected to be published this week.
It is understood… pic.twitter.com/TvZbYxDl3Y
— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) December 15, 2025
The Free Speech Union has been vocal in its opposition, arguing that any official definition will inevitably chill free speech.
In a post on X, the organization stated: “An official definition of Islamophobia would stifle free speech, particularly discussion of important topics such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist terrorism.”
“Blasphemy laws were abolished in 2008 — 17 years ago. This government appears intent on resurrecting them and is due to publish the long-awaited definition this week. No religion in a free society should be beyond legitimate criticism or challenge,” the post added.
An official definition of Islamophobia would stifle free speech, particularly discussion of important topics such as the grooming gangs scandal and Islamist terrorism.
Blasphemy laws were abolished in 2008 — 17 years ago. This government appears intent on resurrecting them and…
— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) December 15, 2025
Toby Young, General Secretary and founder of the Free Speech Union, described the move as prioritizing one faith over others, alienating broad swaths of the population.
“Prioritising Islam over other faiths will confirm the view of white working-class voters that they’re being treated like second class citizens in their own country, while Muslim community groups in marginal Labour constituencies like Birmingham Yardley will condemn the definition for not including the word ‘Islamophobia’,” Young said. He added: “It’s a fudge that will please no one.”
The warnings echo broader concerns from legal experts and watchdogs. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has cautioned that adopting such a definition could break the law by imposing a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression and harming community cohesion.
In a letter to Reed, the EHRC highlighted potential “inconsistency” and “confusion” for courts, noting that existing laws already protect against discrimination and hate crimes.
“It is unclear what role a new definition would play in addressing abuse targeted at Muslims, given that legal protections against discrimination and hate crime already exist,” the commission stated.
Jonathan Hall, KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has also opposed the definition, arguing it targets a religion rather than protecting individuals. He warned of “overzealous” enforcement by authorities, which could threaten free speech through “spongy or inaccurate” interpretations.
Government sources insist the definition won’t inhibit raising public interest concerns, even sensitive ones. A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesman emphasized: “This work has always been about stamping out hatred and we’ve been clear from the beginning that we would never consider a definition that stifles free speech or stops concerns being raised in the public interest. This will remain at the forefront of our minds as we review the definition.”
Despite these assurances, the Free Speech Union points to the abolition of blasphemy laws in 2008 as a hard-won victory now under threat.
Their campaign urges citizens to contact MPs via a tool on their website to oppose the measure, underscoring that “we already have laws that protect against religious discrimination and hatred. We do not need a return to blasphemy laws 17 years after their abolition.”
The UK’s push reflects a pattern of governments weaponizing terminology to police thought, often at the expense of open debate.
As the Free Speech Union warns, this “fudge” risks alienating everyone while eroding core freedoms.
In a truly free society, no topic should be off-limits, and no faith shielded from scrutiny. Defending speech now means pushing back against these creeping restrictions before they silence us all.
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
This article (UK To Introduce ‘Anti-Muslim Hate’ Definition) was created and published by Modernity and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Steve Watson
••••
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