Labour’s Islamophobia Definition “Will Curb Free Speech”
A new official definition of Islamophobia could “inhibit” free speech about Muslims and their religion, the Government’s own counter-terrorism tsar Jonathan Hall KC has warned. The Telegraph has more.
Jonathan Hall, KC said Sir Keir Starmer’s proposed definition, to be unveiled on Monday, could stop people from freely criticising Islam or issues affecting its followers.
Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, told the BBC: “The worry will be with loose language, people will feel inhibited about talking about things that they do think which are genuinely important today.”
He also warned that it could fail to stop anti-Muslim attacks. He said a similar definition for antisemitism had failed to prevent a rise in attacks on Jews and that he was sceptical a similar new definition for anti-Muslim hatred would be any different.
Ministers have already watered down the definition by avoiding the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’, after concerns that it could limit free speech and lead to the creation of a blasphemy law by the backdoor.
The non-statutory definition is aimed at providing guidance for behaviour codes that public bodies, councils and businesses could adopt to combat prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards Muslims.
An advisory working group – which Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, headed – produced the initial draft and submitted it to the Government in October.
It is understood that ministers have struck out references to the “racialisation” of Muslims amid concern it is a vague term that could be weaponised to silence critics of the religion.
However, it still states that anti-Muslim hatred will include “the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics, to stir up hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals”.
Hall questioned the entire premise of a definition. “The IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition, which is the antisemitism definition – which has been adopted since 2016 – has not, in practice, reduced antisemitism or indeed terrorist attacks,” he said.
“And you could say, what is the upside of an anti-Muslim hate definition? It hasn’t worked for Jews. I do wonder whether it will work for Muslims. There is no doubt about it, Muslims are targets of terrorist attacks and attack planning.”
Hall said it was important that the definition should include examples of free speech that were not anti-Muslim hatred as people would otherwise be worried about discussing “uncomfortable” topics around Muslim culture, migration and Islamism.
He said his second concern was that it could lead to the same problems as had been experienced over non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) where offensive language online had resulted in police investigations such as the arrest of Graham Linehan, the comedy writer, over trans comments.
“Will the definition look at the intention of the person who’s speaking, or will someone be able to say, I perceive what you’re saying as hatred,” he said.
“We’ve already gone through this rather foolish cycle about non-crime hate incidents, the arrest of Graham Linehan, and where people don’t intend to be hostile to me, but I perceive what you’re saying as hostile.
“So will the definition look at the intention of the speaker, or will these allegations of hatred be allowed to be made whether the person actually was hating or not?”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Of course it will curb free speech. That’s the whole idea. I mean, you’re not going to define “Islamophobia” just so that you can identify “it” – the intention has to be to then use it to stop people saying “Islamophobic” things. Isn’t that what supporters of this kind of initiative want? They don’t believe in “free speech” if it’s what they regard as “hate speech” (much like most other people it seems, they only believe in “free speech” if people are not saying things they violently disagree with).
This man seems inordinately chuffed and is really laying it on thick about the supposed hardships Muslims face in society. Wouldn’t you think that if life for Muslims in Britain was that bad they’d be happier moving to a Muslim majority country?
”Fundamentalist Afzal Khan MP, an associate of the Muslim Council of Britain, is orgasmic on “a historic day” with a published definition of anti-Muslim hostility” blasphemy law.”
https://x.com/sirwg202110/status/2031083258742513688
Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all suicide bombers are Muslims.
A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Muslims have enslaved over 30 million people throughout history, taking millions of women as sex slaves who would rarely survive a year, killing all boys above age 11.
Rape gangs in the present day, and between 1979 and April 2024, Islamist terrorist attacks caused at least 249,941 deaths worldwide, with 66,872 recorded incidents.
Well said. This ‘religion’ is a danger to any society it enters. The safe number of this ideology in your land is 0.
My biggest concern is that any non-statutory definition providing guidance for behaviour codes will be used unthinkingly by the many jobsworths who just want hard and fast rules they can enforce.
Absolutely crucial point!
Let’s even assume that Govt intend this dreck to be just “guidance”, to be considered and applied with sense and discretion. (Work with me, this is a thought-experiment…).
If that were true, the “guidance” would still be grabbed with both hands by all the HR/hall-monitor types who just love having something “official” to whack people with, and applied indiscriminately. And the Govt will throw up their hands and go “not me guv, we never meant it that way”, and do sweet FA.
See also: the Online Safety Act.
It’s interesting that he’s prioritising this superfluous rubbish over proscribing the IRGC, as the EU did in January.
Even Chancellor Merz puts Starmer to shame here;
”Heckler shouts Free Palestine during German Chancellor Merz speech. He confidently responds with “WE STAND WITH ISRAEL” followed by powerful words. Crowd erupts in applause! He knows that “Free Palestine” is the new “Heil Hitler”
https://x.com/koshercockney/status/2030717343077147015
Hmm, maybe this has something to do with it. Is it normal or appropriate for somebody to be this tactile with a country’s leader? This is surely not their first rodeo;
”The way the Palestinian “ambassador” strokes the British prime minister here is really creepy.”
https://x.com/EylonALevy/status/2029133373956936030
Starmer likes to touch Trump – shoulder, forearm. That creeped me out. Not so sure about the rest of the world leaders as I tend to switch channels when the stuffed git appears.
Yeah, well it would get him thrown off a tall building if he did that in Gaza.
Well he’s not called Queer Stalin for nothing.
Starmer is a puppet for every anti-West ideology.
This is the direct result of unchecked immigration over the past 30 years of millions of incomers from Arab/Muslim countries. As their numbers increased they have become more outspoken and aggressive in their demands. Now, instead of integrating and respecting our laws, they want laws passed to accommodate their demands and deny freedom of speech to the general population. And our gutless politicians quake in their shoes and capitulate. I look forwad to the day when a Muslim country passes a law which defines Christianophobia and bans people in that country from freely criticising Christianity.
I saw an estimate that by 2050 the country will be 50% Muslim. Long before we get to that point there will be pressure put on women and how they dress. Our own feeble Political Class will likely side with Muslim demands that Mini Skirts are not to be worn. At first it will be round Mosques, but eventually to everywhere else—-I can see one day soon that the humble mini skirt may become a symbol of FREEDOM. —–Once the minis skirt goes then so does freedom.
They can invent all the preposterous definitions they like – nobody’s obliged to adopt them. Remember, this is a front bench that thinks a woman can have bollocks and the only ‘working people’ in this country are those on PAYE. I have a mate who thinks they never went to the moon: I’m afraid delusional 2hats are just a part of life.
Do you think we went to the moon 🤔
Of course. It’s just that NASA forgot how it was done.
By that definition I’m a delusional twat as, I imagine, are quite a significant percentage of the general population. Not that that proves anything. I’ve listened to the arguments from the so-called conspiracy theorists and I’ve listened to the counterarguments – some of which stack up, some don’t – but one thing sticks in my mind above all else, and it never seems to get mentioned: apparently, we went to the moon 57 years ago, why haven’t we been back since 1972? The technology to get there is vastly superior (it would look alien technology to an engineer in 1969), the technology to get us there is vastly cheaper (silicon production costs are similar to production of grain in 1969), the incentive to mine anything useful must be greater, as must the incentive to build settlements for deeper exploration into space (or prisons for nasty dissenting voices). Yet we haven’t been back in 54 years. Doesn’t that strike you as unexplainably odd?
Unless you can precure a local rocket fuel supply to refuel then the basic laws of physics will demand that every stage of your space trip is lighter than the last. So mining on the Moon is impossible, and currently any idea of a trip to Mars is one way, because it would be impossible to take off with enough fuel for a 2 way trip .
That’s not actually true. Every journey requires enough fuel to reach the destination; that’s not the same as every journey requiring less fuel than the previous journey. Besides, what’s being mined and the weight/volume of that will obviously be of major significance. It also shouldn’t be beyond our imagination to see some kind of fuel reserve station being created and stocked over time. Anyway, I stand by my point.
You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. I actually said lighter. The reason why the Saturn rockets broke into pieces, and half of the moon lander was left behind was so that less fuel was required. Human Innovation and technology can’t beat hard physics especially with exponential curves. This is also a basic reason why net zero can’t work, there is too much hard physics against it, although this won’t stop the fanatics continuing ruining everything. Unfortunately there are two many people in charge without a basic appreciation of science. They are therefore vulnerable to scientific quakery. Hence also the COVID nonsense and climate change crap when there is clear evidence of their being periods when the earth had little if any ice caps and co2 concentration was much higher.
Two schools of thought about that;
1 – when the astronauts got there, they discovered that they had conpany up there. Lots of company.
2 – we have been back to the moon, just not publicly.
Further school of thought – rockets are, publicly, the only way to get off the earth. What the public aren’t informed about is the technology to get off the earth without the need for rockets has been around – and in use – for a long time.
3. We never landed in the first place.
This is not news. It was the objective.
What’s this: ‘There is no doubt about it, Muslims are targets of terrorist attacks and attack planning.” when was the last time a terror plot against Muhammadans was carried out? This establishment figure is kow towing to Muhammadanism again. They cannot help themselves but kiss the Rs of Muhammadans.
If nothing is done, there will be civil war and it is coming soon. We have Muhammadans riding horses on patrol in Manchester, and charging a crowd of anti Iranian regime people. And the Gestapo (police) did nothing. We are already in the foothills of a civil war with this ideology whose history is jammed with invasions, death and bloodshed. I suppose that will get me arrested by this filthy communist government.
The reason why antisemetic attacks have not gone down is because a mainstream interpretation of the Qur’an believes that the inbuilt antisemitism within the text and Hadith still applies. It is quite literally there and Hamas and the Islamic regime act on it. The rise in the legitimate fear of Islam is that people are finally waking up to this, as the Islamic population in our country starts being confident enough to start imposing it’s beliefs on the rest of us.
It has been said that it will prevent moderate Muslims from speaking out against extremist Muslims.
A phobia is an intense and irrational fear of something. Thus the term Islamophobia, used in the context of supposed hate, is inappropriate, whether or not the fear is irrational. But then fear speech doesn’t have quite the same ring.
I’m just glad that my taxes are going towards this great work.
That’s the whole point of it.
Islam and Muslims ….. the Religion of Peace which mustn’t be criticised for fear of what they might do …….
Islam is not just a RELIGION. It is a POLITICAL and LEGAL system as well/ —So if something is POLITICAL then people must be free to criticize or disagree with it. —–Disagreement is NOT HATE
Definition of Anti Muslim hatred.
Anyone who is not a Muslim
Folks, britain is a lost country. Admit it…..lost. Half the time I cannot make out what fire it is trying to put out before the next one erupts. Been here for 29 yrs. never saw a soupçon of prosperity, only a continual decline for the majority of Uk citizens at the expense of socialism.
There was a time when native Britons had some pride in their country. Not the sort of pride that tells the rest of the world “We’re better than you”, but more the knowledge that we were capable of doing things well and could help make the world a better place for the people living in it. Not anymore. We’re more likely these days to feel either embarrassed or apologetic as we watch our “leaders” diminishing the country on the international stage.
“The non-statutory definition is aimed at providing guidance for behaviour codes that public bodies, councils and businesses could adopt to combat prejudice,”
Aaaaaaah… “non-statutory”; “guidance”; “could adopt”… brings me right back to the Good Times in 2020-2022; all that non-statutory COVID “guidance” which everyone was entirely free to adopt or not.
These bozos are just obsessed with legislating away Bad Things with Nice Words. The entire mess of politics and society, they imagine, can be captured and controlled by uttering, publishing and enacting the Right Words, which will pick out just the Bad Things and leave the OK Things alone.
When anyone points out that this just doesn’t work, they get all huffy and indignant; we have no idea how hard it is to reduce the entirety of society to Words of Power.
(No-one is allowed to point out that if they find the job that hard, perhaps they should refrain from doing the equivalent of trying to dig the Channel Tunnel with a knitting needle).
See also: anything to do with t’Internet, or any other trendy moral panic.
So, with the abolition of the blasphemy laws we can slag off Christianity, but doing the same to Islam will be criminal offence! I have a short reply to that borrowed from Top Gear presenter James May, two words, seven letters and three of them are f.