Four years ago, a teacher at Batley Grammar School in West Yorkshire showed his pupils a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad during a religious studies class.
The subsequent images we saw were repugnant: angry young men outside the school, many hooded and masked, intimidating staff, parents and pupils. The campaign of abuse levelled at the teacher — who was delivering a lesson approved by the school – was unimaginable.
Suspended from teaching and forced into police protection, he hasn’t been able to return home, and to this day remains an exile in his own country.
Were his actions Islamophobic? Of course not. He was simply trying to teach his class about free expression — something we used to consider a public good. Free speech should be a fundamental right in any free and democratic country, yet in 21st century Britain it’s become impossible to show a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.
It may be distasteful to some, but no religion should be beyond mockery or criticism. In a free society you have the right to be offended and to offend.
That’s why the British public should be deeply concerned that the Government is currently consulting on a new official “definition of Islamophobia”, drawn up behind closed doors by a working group chaired by Dominic Grieve KC (notably the only non-Muslim member).
It was a disgrace that the British state failed to defend the Batley Grammar School teacher at the time. But what’s worse is that it now seems determined to repeat the same mistake on a far larger scale. For months, this working group has been shrouded in secrecy. The consultation it launched was given solely to pre-selected groups. It promises “evidence-based” conclusions, yet won’t release the evidence, and no-one seems to know the identities of these hand-picked organisations.
When my colleague Nick Timothy pressed ministers on who was involved, and whether this included the Muslim Brotherhood (proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UAE, but bizarrely not here in Britain), the Government refused to say. It is not unreasonable to be worried that the Government may be consulting with those who were involved with the Muslim Action Forum, the group that spearheaded the protests outside Batley Grammar School.
It took some great grassroots campaigning from Nick, Claire Coutinho, the Free Speech Union and others to get ministers to open the consultation to the public at all. And even then, Angela Rayner only did so for one week. At the time of writing, there are four days to go.I encourage you to fill out the form with Nick’s suggested answers — or your own — here.
None of this is the action of a Government committed to transparent public discourse.
Because the Government refuses to comment on the group’s work, we don’t know the exact scope of this new definition. Without proper public scrutiny, the catch-all label ‘Islamophobic’ risks being imposed on us all, and could even be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Islamic cultural practices such as cousin marriage.
While the group insists this is a “non-statutory” definition, its chair, Dominic Grieve has said he wants it “embedded in university speech codes” and to be used “to curb ‘micro-aggressions’”.
That sounds eerily like a gag order in all but name.
Ministers should know better, especially given the recent exposure of mass institutionalised sexual abuse that has scarred so many communities across the country. As the Casey Report made clear, it was fear of being called racist or Islamophobic that deterred so many local authorities from tackling the grooming and rape gang scandal for decades, leaving girls and women to suffer while men were able to get away with the most heinous crimes.
Under this new definition of Islamophobia, how many public servants would remain silent for fear that speaking up would result in them becoming a pariah? And, as a result, how many victims — the little girls and boys brutally raped, mostly by British-Pakistani Muslim men — would continue to be tormented? Would never see justice?
Many are also rightly worried this could amount to a blasphemy law by the back door. Britain abolished blasphemy as an offence back in 2008 for good reason. But this new definition threatens to place one religion, Islam, on a pedestal.
We’re already witnessing this kind of intolerant tolerance in action. Back in November, Labour MP Tahir Ali stood up in Parliament and openly called for blasphemy laws to prohibit the desecration of religious texts and figures revered in Abrahamic religions.
Thankfully, no such law was passed.
And yet, just last month, Hamit Coskun was convicted under the Public Order Act 1986 after burning a Qur’an outside the Turkish consulate in London. An unsavoury act, no doubt, but one that should never be treated as a criminal offence in a free society. But when I asked the Home Secretary a simple yes or no question — whether it should be a criminal offence to desecrate a Qur’an or any holy text — she could not answer.
That’s the most insidious part. No law has changed yet we are already seeing a chilling effect with critics of Islam already being dragged through the courts for simply expressing themselves. The United Kingdom is renowned across the world as a nation that values passionate debate – both in public and private. We don’t disrespect people unnecessarily, but we will always be open to frank and honest debate.
If free speech means anything, it must include the freedom to question, to mock, and even to offend, without being labelled a bigot or a criminal. That principle is not negotiable. And if ministers won’t stand up for it, the public must. Before it’s too late.
Four years ago, a teacher at Batley Grammar School in West Yorkshire showed his pupils a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad during a religious studies class.
The subsequent images we saw were repugnant: angry young men outside the school, many hooded and masked, intimidating staff, parents and pupils. The campaign of abuse levelled at the teacher — who was delivering a lesson approved by the school – was unimaginable.
Suspended from teaching and forced into police protection, he hasn’t been able to return home, and to this day remains an exile in his own country.
Were his actions Islamophobic? Of course not. He was simply trying to teach his class about free expression — something we used to consider a public good. Free speech should be a fundamental right in any free and democratic country, yet in 21st century Britain it’s become impossible to show a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.
It may be distasteful to some, but no religion should be beyond mockery or criticism. In a free society you have the right to be offended and to offend.
That’s why the British public should be deeply concerned that the Government is currently consulting on a new official “definition of Islamophobia”, drawn up behind closed doors by a working group chaired by Dominic Grieve KC (notably the only non-Muslim member).
It was a disgrace that the British state failed to defend the Batley Grammar School teacher at the time. But what’s worse is that it now seems determined to repeat the same mistake on a far larger scale. For months, this working group has been shrouded in secrecy. The consultation it launched was given solely to pre-selected groups. It promises “evidence-based” conclusions, yet won’t release the evidence, and no-one seems to know the identities of these hand-picked organisations.
When my colleague Nick Timothy pressed ministers on who was involved, and whether this included the Muslim Brotherhood (proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UAE, but bizarrely not here in Britain), the Government refused to say. It is not unreasonable to be worried that the Government may be consulting with those who were involved with the Muslim Action Forum, the group that spearheaded the protests outside Batley Grammar School.
It took some great grassroots campaigning from Nick, Claire Coutinho, the Free Speech Union and others to get ministers to open the consultation to the public at all. And even then, Angela Rayner only did so for one week. At the time of writing, there are four days to go.I encourage you to fill out the form with Nick’s suggested answers — or your own — here.
None of this is the action of a Government committed to transparent public discourse.
Because the Government refuses to comment on the group’s work, we don’t know the exact scope of this new definition. Without proper public scrutiny, the catch-all label ‘Islamophobic’ risks being imposed on us all, and could even be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Islamic cultural practices such as cousin marriage.
While the group insists this is a “non-statutory” definition, its chair, Dominic Grieve has said he wants it “embedded in university speech codes” and to be used “to curb ‘micro-aggressions’”.
That sounds eerily like a gag order in all but name.
Ministers should know better, especially given the recent exposure of mass institutionalised sexual abuse that has scarred so many communities across the country. As the Casey Report made clear, it was fear of being called racist or Islamophobic that deterred so many local authorities from tackling the grooming and rape gang scandal for decades, leaving girls and women to suffer while men were able to get away with the most heinous crimes.
Under this new definition of Islamophobia, how many public servants would remain silent for fear that speaking up would result in them becoming a pariah? And, as a result, how many victims — the little girls and boys brutally raped, mostly by British-Pakistani Muslim men — would continue to be tormented? Would never see justice?
Many are also rightly worried this could amount to a blasphemy law by the back door. Britain abolished blasphemy as an offence back in 2008 for good reason. But this new definition threatens to place one religion, Islam, on a pedestal.
We’re already witnessing this kind of intolerant tolerance in action. Back in November, Labour MP Tahir Ali stood up in Parliament and openly called for blasphemy laws to prohibit the desecration of religious texts and figures revered in Abrahamic religions.
Thankfully, no such law was passed.
And yet, just last month, Hamit Coskun was convicted under the Public Order Act 1986 after burning a Qur’an outside the Turkish consulate in London. An unsavoury act, no doubt, but one that should never be treated as a criminal offence in a free society. But when I asked the Home Secretary a simple yes or no question — whether it should be a criminal offence to desecrate a Qur’an or any holy text — she could not answer.
That’s the most insidious part. No law has changed yet we are already seeing a chilling effect with critics of Islam already being dragged through the courts for simply expressing themselves. The United Kingdom is renowned across the world as a nation that values passionate debate – both in public and private. We don’t disrespect people unnecessarily, but we will always be open to frank and honest debate.
If free speech means anything, it must include the freedom to question, to mock, and even to offend, without being labelled a bigot or a criminal. That principle is not negotiable. And if ministers won’t stand up for it, the public must. Before it’s too late.