Labour must abandon its project to define Islamophobia

Times

3 days ago

In February, under the stewardship of the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, the government established a parliamentary working group to come up with an official definition of 'Islamophobia'. Since then, there have been multiple warning signs that this ill-conceived project was on the wrong track. Meeting in private, the group solicited evidence from only a small number of interested parties. Concerns that any definition of Islamophobia would prejudice free speech and academic freedom were naively downplayed, as too were plausible objections from opposition parties that the definition would introduce anti-liberal blasphemy prohibitions by a legislative backdoor.
Most worryingly, the group's chairman, the former attorney-general Dominic Grieve, praised a bizarre report authored by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims: it claimed that the public discussion of the 'grooming gangs' had been an example of recent 'anti-Muslim racism'.The government has now been forced to delay its working group's deadline till the autumn, after its online consultation form was leaked on social media. Unsurprisingly, that leak led to the group being inundated with responses from the public. That expression of public concern should be taken by Labour as a signal that their ill-thought-through plans ought to be abandoned altogether.
There are problems both in practice and principle with trying to circumscribe allegedly Islamophobic speech and action. Any definition broad enough to satisfy its proponents will inevitably be couched in language so generic and vague as to have a chilling effect on speech that is merely critical of religion or culture. Even non-statutory guidance tends to have this anti-liberal effect, because its force and remit is often subject to confusion. Though Labour's working group was set up in response to evidence of instances of anti-Muslim criminality, to point to this concerning increase is simply a distraction. Britain, by comparison with other liberal democracies, already has a surfeit of laws covering hate speech. Such existing laws should be properly enforced, rather than free and open speech subject to sinister restrictions.
When it comes to codifying Islamophobia there is a specific danger that legitimate criticism of religion will be conflated with bigotry. These days, it is the outspoken proponents of free speech who need protection, rather than their alleged victims. Recently, Professor Steven Greer, an academic at the University of Bristol, was subject to a vindictive social media campaign, forced to disguise himself in public and eventually to retire, after vexatious complaints from students that his university module on human rights law contained Islamophobic material. Instead of publicly supporting him, Professor Greer says that his employers put his life in danger for fear of being perceived to be anti-Muslim. The recent audit by Baroness Casey of Blackstock into the grooming gangs scandal has revealed how a slew of officials culpably turned a blind eye to appalling child abuse and rape allegations for fear of appearing prejudiced.
Such evidence of officials' cowardice rightly draws public outcry. To think that now is the time to impose on the public speech-policing guidance that seeks to prioritise 'appropriate and sensitive language' to the detriment of free speech is a folly. Britain must remain a country in which even offensive speech is legally protected. The government should abandon the attempt to control it.