Has the Islamophobia ‘Working Group' of MPs already made up its mind?

Spectator

20-06-2025

Sir John Jenkins was invited by the Government-appointed 'Working Group' to offer his views on a proposed definition of 'Islamophobia'. Here is his response to Dominic Grieve, the Group's chair:
Dear Dominic Grieve,
It is kind of you to seek my views on 'whether a definition [of Islamophobia] would be helpful'. I have some fundamental reservations about both the process you are overseeing and its likely trajectory. I owe you the courtesy of explaining what these are. I remain unconvinced that anything I might say would make a difference to the Working Group on Anti Muslim Hatred/ Islamophobia Definition's deliberations. But I am always open to being persuaded otherwise.
The charge of special treatment may in fact increase hostility towards Muslims, not reduce it
First, with regard to process: the creation of the Working Group was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner on 28 February and given a six-month timeframe in which to deliver a report. We are now over half-way through that period and very little information about the work of the Group has entered the public domain. I note that the Terms of Reference (TORs) specify that all discussions will be strictly confidential. On a matter of such public policy significance, this is highly unusual. As matters stand, the absence of transparency is bound to raise serious questions about accountability. This must surely damage the credibility of its conclusions.
Second, the precise nature of the Working Group is unclear to me. The TORs talk about 'technical experts'. But the question of 'Islamophobia' is both heavily contested and subjective. In every definition I have seen – including that of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, to whose 2019 report you contributed an introduction – it is treated as a matter of 'lived experience'. You described it as such yourself in February. I do not understand how anyone can be a 'technical expert' on such experiential matters. What is needed instead is surely expertise in European law and jurisprudence (which must be the operational framework for such issues), Islamic jurisprudence (which is highly complex and varied but provides a context for some of the more extravagant claims in this area), the philosophy of liberty and the history of both western and Islamic political thought – plus a healthily sceptical attitude to critical theory and an intellectually rigorous approach to both social constructivism and what Marxists used to call 'reification'.
I should also have thought that the membership of such a group would need to be diverse, representing different viewpoints, normative commitments and experiences. After all, if the government were to adopt a definition of Islamophobia, it would affect everyone in the country, of whatever ethnicity, faith or political persuasion. The Group's TORs go some way to recognising this – as indeed did the APPG Report. Yet every single member – apart from you – appears to be Muslim. Muslims, of course, have an entirely understandable interest in the matter: but so does everyone else.
Against that background, I am concerned that the Working Group may have begun its work with its conclusions pre-determined. The TORs make clear that its objective is 'to develop a working definition' not to decide whether to have one or not. As you will know from my own publicly stated position on this issue, I believe that the case for accepting this – as a first principle – is far from proven. This is, of course, a commonly held view not just in this country but across Europe and across political divides. Yet it seems that the Working Group has, without argument, decided otherwise.
That it has done so would seem to be in keeping with what I understand to be your own public position. The 2019 APPG Report claimed a definition of Islamophobia was needed to prevent 'negative attitudes that would not be classed as crimes by police' and to set 'appropriate limits to free speech' when talking about Muslims. Throughout the report there are frequent suggestions that this would need to be 'legally-binding'. Akeela Ahmed, a member of the current Working Group, is actually quoted as saying that 'a definition with legal power is required, one that could be implemented by the government and the police.' Even if the definition were not legally binding, it would still probably operate in much the same way. In the supportive foreword which you wrote, you 'greatly welcome[d]' the report and added, 'that action is needed I have no doubt.'
Then there is the question of how you believe my own views would help shape the current debate. As you will remember, when I and my colleagues at Policy Exchange contested the conclusions of the APPG at the time, you publicly described our report as in large part 'total, unadulterated rubbish.' I have not changed my views on this matter. I daresay the same is true of you.
Against that backdrop, it is hard not to wonder whether the real purpose of the Group's approach to me is not so much because they welcome challenge but instead to help legitimise a pre-ordained conclusion, by claiming that they consulted those on all sides of the debate – before proposing a definition which they then seek to present as a compromise.
As I have said, my position is a matter of public record, but I am happy to restate it here. Hatred of and discrimination against Muslims are emphatically wrong – but are already illegal. It therefore remains unclear to me exactly what the definitional, policy or legal problem might be that a new, government sponsored definition of Islamophobia is trying to address. What then is its purpose?
The government has periodically insisted that it will be 'non-statutory' and will maintain freedom of speech. The current TORs for your Working Group make the same claim. But they also explicitly talk about determining the 'appropriate and sensitive language' for discussing issues in this space. And the aim of many of the activists who seek such a definition is clearly to achieve legal enforceability.
Whether a definition is legally binding or not, of course, the impact is clear. You will recall that Sir Trevor Phillips (whom I note you have also invited to speak to the Working Group) was suspended from the Labour Party in 2020 for 'Islamophobia'. The suspension was both absurd and later lifted. But it illustrates the problem.
I do not understand how anyone can be a 'technical expert' on such experiential matters
Whatever form of words is chosen, and whatever legal status it has to start with, any definition will have serious consequences. It will almost certainly turbocharge 'cancel culture'. Indeed, I have heard it described as potentially the most retrograde step in this country since Sir Robert Walpole's government in 1737 granted the Lord Chamberlain's office powers to licence theatrical scripts. And it will inevitably reduce social trust and heighten social tensions. In this regard, the debate over whether a definition would be legally binding is something of a red herring. Its effect would inevitably be to shrink even further the space for open debate.
Moreover, this initiative comes at a time when the government is at pains to rebut the charge – not just in this country but from the Trump administration – that it operates a 'two-tier' policy in various areas. But unless it literally restates the existing legal protections covering all faiths, any official Islamophobia definition will be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone.
The charge of special treatment may in fact increase hostility towards Muslims, not reduce it. It will certainly strengthen divisive extremism on all sides – not just from the populist right, but also the growing Islamist challenge to mainstream parties. That, too, is likely to harm both community cohesion and Muslims more generally.
It is unlikely to alleviate Islamist discontent – it will stoke it, creating new opportunities for grievance politics, challenge and attack in every institution and workplace. Even without the force of an official definition, claims of Islamophobia are already used to close down legitimate debate and deter investigation of alleged wrongdoing, as in Rotherham or Batley, with disastrous results all round, including for the wider Muslim community itself.
I have little confidence that the Working Group will approach these questions with an open mind. As I said at the beginning of this letter, I should be happy to be proved wrong on both points.
Yours sincerely,
Sir John Jenkins
Senior Fellow, Policy Exchange
How Not to Tackle Grooming Gangs: The National Grooming Gang Inquiry and a Definition of Islamophobia is published today