The Government’s “Anti-Muslim Hostility” Definition is Bad News for Sikhs

As a Sikh charity, the Network of Sikh Organisations, of which I am Deputy Director, has been left with little choice but to join the Free Speech Union’s judicial review proceedings against the Government’s new “anti-Muslim hostility” definition. The definition is bad news for free speech, but it also interferes with freedom of religion for other faiths. Last year, when the then deputy prime minister Angela Rayner announced the setting up a special Working Group on anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia, we wrote to the then ‘faith’ minister Lord Khan outlining reasons why a Sikh representative should be included. We were ignored. We weren’t even invited to give evidence to the Working Group at first. It was only following the leak of what appeared to be a secret and privately circulated online consultation for select groups and following uproar from several groups including the Free Speech Union that we were given a narrow opportunity to submit limited evidence. Even then, the consultation questions were narrowly framed and presumptive of a definition being necessary, and we were restricted to providing paragraph-long answers to complex ethical and moral issues. Moreover, the Working Group’s terms of reference said: “The Group will provide private advice for internal consideration by Ministers only. The work of the Group will not be made public.” So much for Labour’s commitment to transparent and open government.

So, how did the Government expect groups (like Sikhs) who they themselves acknowledge are “perceived to be Muslim” – words from the new non-statutory ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ definition – to participate and have an equal say? Indeed, Sikhs are both victims of ‘Islamophobia’ and accused of it. In the aftermath of 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a gas station owner from Arizona, became the first person murdered in retribution for Al Qaeda’s attack on the twin-towers. In 2015, there was an attempt to behead a Sikh heritage dentist in Wales, in ‘revenge’ for Lee Rigby, by a member of the since proscribed Neo-Nazi group National Action. But seminal moments in Sikh history, like the martyrdom of our ninth Guru, Tegh Bahadur in 1675, by the then Mughal ruler, are also perversely considered offensive to some Muslims. The Guru’s beheading stemmed from his stand against forced conversion of Hindus in Kashmir. In 2019, the BBC attempted to censor Lord Singh (our Director) for his Radio 4 Thought for the Day script outlining this historical truth for fear it “might offend Muslims“. He resigned as a matter of principle after 35 years of broadcasting. Notably, the BBC’s internal thought police acted following the publication of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims’ definition of “Islamophobia”. This absurdly stated an example of “Islamophobia” being: “Claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule.”

All faiths have equal protection against discrimination under the existing legal framework (the Equality Act 2010) and criminal law also provides protection for all religious groups. For example, some crimes proven to be motivated by hostility towards race and religion receive a sentence uplift under section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020. So, what then is point of a new “anti-Muslim hostility” definition? The Government backed definition is expected to be adopted widely in the public, private and charity sector – something being actively encouraged. It captures what is already criminal, but also worryingly states this will include “non-criminal conduct or behaviour” and that which “extends beyond the bounds of protected free speech”. So, will this not equate to a revival of those illiberal and chilling non-crime-hate-incidents? Something I thought we’d seen the back of, following a recent House of Lords vote on the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled by the FSU’s Lord Young and former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Hogan-Howe. Or a revival of blasphemy libel which was abolished by Parliament in 2008?

Clearly this new definition will interfere with our Article 10 rights to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In addition, it risks interfering with our Article 9 ECHR rights to freely manifest our religion and beliefs, and our Article 14 ECHR rights related to discrimination based on religion. Other faith groups and beliefs, like atheists, will be impacted too. This is because the new definition uses vague terms – “hostility”, “prejudicial stereotyping” and “negative characteristics” (none of which are defined in law) – leaving the accusation of “anti-Muslim hostility” wide open to interpretation and something that activists can deliberately weaponise. As Charles Moore argues: “Anti-Muslim hostility” is a non-legal term, so: “Guilt will be established not by fact, but by people who wish to make accusations.” In fact, this is akin to the weaponisation of the nebulous (and still deployed) term “Islamophobia” from the now defunct APPG definition – something we actively campaigned against, with the Government eventually informing us it was “not in line” with the Equality Act 2010.

Consider for a moment a Sikh employee protesting about halal meat and objecting to non-stun animal slaughter in the workplace. He explains why he requires an alternative, more humane option, in accordance with his beliefs and the Sikh Rehat Maryada (Sikh Code of Conduct), which prohibits halal consumption. If a complaint is made by another employee about this then the Human Resources department may well have to scrutinise it in line with the new “anti-Muslim hostility” definition and its accompanying guidance. Could this be classified as “prejudicial stereotyping” of halal consumers, even though Sikh protest is on legitimate grounds of animal rights and opposing superstitious rituals? Might this result in someone losing their job or being put on a disciplinary? The lack of clarity in the guidance opens the door to such application.

Consider also, a religious education teacher discussing Sikhism and choosing to focus on the martyrdom of the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur, or that of the fifth Guru, Guru Arjan. If he suspects a complaint could arise, will he choose to self-censor and prevent ‘offence’ in the first place, because the lesson risks being captured under “prejudicial stereotyping” of Muslims and as “non-criminal conduct and behaviour”? We simply don’t know – and therein lies the problem. After all, despite being told the new definition would not be used to shut down criticism of Islam, Keir Starmer called for Nick Timothy to be sacked for exactly that. With all this in mind, we are fearful our right to manifest our faith and speak freely about our history without interference is now at risk. Therefore, we’ve been left with no choice but to join the Free Speech Union’s judicial review proceedings as co-claimants’ against imposition of the government’s new “anti-Muslim hostility” definition.

Hardeep Singh is a freelance journalist, author and Deputy Director at the Network of Sikh Organisations.