'Anti-Muslim hate' definition: Towards the Islamisation of Britain?

On Monday, the government released its new official definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This new definition comes with plans to appoint a Special Representative on anti-Muslim hostility whose task will be to “champion efforts across the UK to tackle hostility and hatred directed at Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim.”

As a Christian, I am, of course, opposed to hatred and hostility against anyone. The question here is whether the government should be giving special treatment to Muslims in this regard, and how these terms are defined.

Discriminatory against those of other faiths

The fact is, firstly, that this new definition does constitute special protection for Muslims and is therefore discriminatory against those of other faiths or worldviews.

The new definition, as the government’s own document states, goes beyond what the law already does to protect Muslims, Christians, Jews, and everyone else from discrimination and harassment. The definition, it says, “also sets out non-criminal conduct or behaviour which would constitute anti-Muslim hostility.”

Special provision for Muslims in this way is highly unlikely to improve social cohesion. It will only exacerbate the perception, indeed the reality on the ground, of two-tier justice and policing in the UK.

It also serves to undermine the fundamental, and Biblical principles of one law for all and equality before the law.

Already, even without an official government definition, we have seen a street preacher arrested for questioning what the Qur’an says, and another street preacher arrested after saying that Christians worship a different God to Muslims. We have also seen the police getting involved when a school pupil dropped his copy of the Qur’an in Wakefield.

And we have seen the Crown Prosecution Service persist in trying to convict a man for burning a copy of the Qur’an as an act of political protest.

Fortunately, the courts declined to convict him. How much worse will all this get now that we have an official government definition which will only encourage and empower activists in society to act to shut down or even prosecute criticism of Islam?

'Anti-Muslim hostility'

While I am pleased that the government has avoided using the term "Islamophobia" for its definition, "anti-Muslim hostility" is hardly a better term.

The word "hostility" is more broadly defined than "hatred" and can include expressions of disagreement. Certainly, that is how activists will interpret it.

The definition includes “prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim … with the intention of stirring up hatred against them.” Who decides whether my stereotyping was intended to stir up hatred? If I say: "Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God", you can be sure that some activists will understand this as prejudicial stereotyping intended to stir up hatred.

Cause for concern

Indeed, it is the use of this definition by activists that we should be concerned about.

The government’s independent reviewer of counter terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, has raised concerns about how this definition could "inhibit" free speech about Islam. He asked: “How far are people going to be allowed to push definition effectively in their own political interests?” You can be sure that activist Muslims will attempt to push this definition as far as they possibly can to shut down criticism of Islam.

Such pressure will also be applied to the new Special Representative on anti-Muslim hostility. Activists forced the Batley school teacher into hiding for trying to teach a lesson on free speech. Activists forced the cancellation of The Lady of Heaven film, deeming it blasphemous. This definition will only serve to embolden such Islamic activists.

As if to prove the point, immediately after the definition was announced, Muslim activist MP, Iqbal Muhammad, was asking how it will be applied to Members of Parliament and the House of Lords, and what sanctions will apply to Parliamentarians who fall foul of it. He clearly wants to restrict what can be said about Islam in Parliament. The Government minister responding did not push back on this aim.

The Government has repeatedly stated that this new definition will not restrict free speech. Such reassurances are meaningless within the context of adopting a new definition protecting Muslims.

What is the purpose of such a definition if it is not to go beyond the law in restricting what can be said?

The definition document does include examples which it says are specifically protected, including “criticisms of a religion or belief” and “ridiculing or insulting a religion or belief”. These are welcome to see. However, exempting “raising concerns in the public interest”, begs the question of what is in the public interest and who defines that?

Christian Concern published an academic report last year exposing the Islamic nature of grooming gangs and arguing that Islam is more associated with grooming gangs than ethnicity. Is this discussion in the public interest? Over the years, many people have attempted to shut down precisely this discussion arguing that it is racist or Islamophobic. Certainly, they would say that it is not in the public interest to raise concerns about the Islamic nature of grooming gang abuse. I am not confident, even now, that the national inquiry into grooming gangs will properly assess the Islamic nature of the abuse since it was excluded from the draft terms of reference.

Limiting free speech

Adoption of this definition will serve as an additional chilling factor curbing discussion of concerns about the influence of Islam in our culture.

It will exacerbate concerns about two-tier justice in society.

It will be weaponised by activists to shut down debate and stigmatise those who raise legitimate concerns about Islam.

In the end it will help no-one, but Islamist activists. It marks another step towards the Islamisation of Britain.