On the first day of Ramadan, February 28th, the government announced a new working group to provide a “definition of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia”. The group, to be chaired by Dominic Grieve, a former Conservative attorney-general, is likely to find itself wading into controversy. This comes at a time when Britain has been attacked by America’s vice-president, J.D. Vance, for backsliding on free speech. Now some worry that “Islamophobia” is being used to shield Islam from criticism, under the banner of protecting Muslims from discrimination.
Defining such things is tricky (even though the definition will be used only to provide guidance and will not become law). The Labour Party nearly tore itself apart over the definition of antisemitism. As for Islamophobia, in 2018 an influential report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG) described it as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. It provided a list of examples including, for instance, claiming there is “a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims”.
Islam is not a race, however, and critics (including the Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch) suspect the over-broad definition reflects an attempt to stifle legal criticism of Islam. “In the last five years the conflation of criticism with bigotry, and the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ to attack people with whom you disagree, have become both more prevalent and more menacing,” said a paper by Policy Exchange, a right-leaning think-tank, last year. In its foreword Sajid Javid, a former home secretary, suggested “this definition would risk creating a blasphemy law via the backdoor”. Such critics say the phrase “anti-Muslim hatred” should be used instead.
The Conservative government did not adopt the APPG’s definition but, in 2019, the Labour Party did. So did 52 local councils in England. This has led to a “chilling effect” on free speech, says Martyn Frampton of Queen Mary University of London, a co-author of the Policy Exchange report.
In 2020 the Labour Party suspended Sir Trevor Phillips, a former head of the equality watchdog, for, among other things, saying in a speech that Muslims “see the world differently from the rest of us”. Professor Steven Greer of Bristol University was accused in 2020 by the university’s Islamic Society of being Islamophobic when he included factual statements in his classes such as: “Islam spread rapidly through war, conquest, trade and conversion.” He was exonerated, but the university, which had adopted the APPG definition, failed to openly support him.
Few deny that Britain has a problem of anti-Muslim hatred. The Muslim Council of Britain welcomed the working group at a time of an “alarming rise of hate crimes” against Muslims. It said it supports the APPG definition, noting that opposition to it often comes from “groups with a documented history of hostility towards British Muslims”. But some worry about efforts to dismiss as “Islamophobic” any reference to the Muslim identity of those who commit certain serious crimes. Sir Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, said in 2024 that 75% of its counter-terrorist work is dealing with Islamist terrorism. (Muslims make up 6.5% of the population of England and Wales.) “How can we deal with any of these problems if we cannot discuss the Muslim identity of the suspects for fear of being called racist?” asks Mr Frampton.
The Equality Act already protects people from discrimination on the basis of religion. With the working group, Labour may hope to placate disaffected Muslim voters. The government says its definition must be compatible with free speech, including the right to “insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents”. That is eminently reasonable—as is Mr Grieve. He faces a difficult task.■
For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in Britain, sign up to Blighty, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.