Mick Hartley

Talking of wrong-headed but seemingly progressive policies which the next Labour government might well choose to implement, here's Ed Husain at the Spectator – Don’t outlaw ‘Islamophobia’:

‘One of the things that’s coming up over and over again is Islamophobia,’ says Keir Starmer in a campaign video, talking to Sadiq Khan. ‘We need to say over and over again that Islamophobia is intolerable… and I think there’s more we can do in government. There’s certainly stuff online that needs tackling much more robustly than it is at the moment.’ The video shows the London mayor nodding in agreement. He tells Starmer: ‘Your experience as a prosecutor means you’ll be thinking about the strategy we can use.’

It's intolerable to criticise Islam? To say anything derogatory about one particular religion? Because that's what's being said here.

But it’s not the strategy they should be worrying about so much as the unintended consequences. Outlawing ‘Islamophobia’ – as Starmer, with a massive majority, could easily do – makes no sense. I’m both a Muslim and a historian of Islam and I find the whole notion of Islamophobia to be wrongheaded, an etymological fallacy.

The notion of Islamophobia was invented to mirror homophobia and draw parallels with anti-Semitism. But the word itself is inherently flawed. Both homophobia and anti-Semitism are directed against specific peoples. ‘Islamophobia’ is a fear of ideas, beliefs and attitudes. Violence or discrimination against adherents of any religion is obviously indefensible, but it should also go without saying that in a free society people should be at liberty to criticise or mock any organised religion. No intelligent Muslim should place the word ‘Islam’ and the word ‘phobia’ together in a single phrase. This is why the word did not exist until relatively recently. Islamophobia has been largely promoted by Islamists and jihadists, to protect them from scrutiny.

But Starmer looks all set to go ahead. As with gender ideology, he's been fooled into thinking that this is some kind of progressive policy, protecting a disadvantaged minority. It isn't. 

If you look into the forces demanding that Britain outlaws Islamophobia, you find the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-western global movement dedicated to destroying Israel and removing all Arab and Muslim governments; an organisation that is openly homophobic and misogynistic….

Offence is needed for freedom, and citizens of open societies must learn to become resilient. Criticism and discussion are the harbingers of progress. Muslims do not need to be patronised with excessive legislation.

Today it is ‘Islamophobia’. What’s next? Are we to be prohibited from questioning the gender inequality of literalist Islam: wife-beating, the unfairness of divorce laws, inheritance disparity, reactions to apostasy? Islamophobia laws are a step backwards, making it harder for reformist forces in Islam. This is something that today’s secular politicians struggle to comprehend.

Kemi Badenoch put it well back in February, in response to Annaliese Dodds' demand that the Tories tackle "the scourge of Islamophobia":

We use the term “Anti-Muslim hatred”. It makes clear the law protects Muslims. In this country, we have a proud tradition of religious freedom AND the freedom to criticise religion. The definition of “Islamophobia” she uses creates a blasphemy law via the back door if adopted.

As I said some years back:

The charge of Islamophobia deliberately obscures that separation between a person and their beliefs. It accepts the Islamic vision of an immutable union of person and religion. We should refuse to accept those terms. A person's ethnic origins may be Pakistani, Arab, Kurd, European, whatever, and to criticise or abuse them for that is racist and unacceptable. Their beliefs, whether in Islam, Scientology, UFOs, or any other ideology, creed or cult, is an entirely different matter, and should be open to criticism, debate, scepticism, up to and including ridicule. That's the way we do it, and that's what we should be defending. Worship who or what you want, wear what you want, think what you want, but don't expect to be spared from being offended by the opinions and beliefs of others. The charge of Islamophobia is, precisely, an attempt to make criticism of Islam illegitimate – and that attempt should be resisted. We should be free to criticise Islam just as we criticise Christianity, socialism, capitalism, or any other system of beliefs.

The fact that the most well-known Islamic apostate, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is under constant police protection, that Ibn Warraq, author of "Why I am Not a Muslim", has to write under a pseudonym, and that cartoons of Mohammed still attract death threats and Facebook bans, suggests how far we still have to go. The aim should be, at least for those Muslims resident in the West, that they feel as free to abandon the faith of their parents (or not to, of course) as Christians, atheists, and all the rest of us are free now to make our own choices. As long as Islamophobia is accepted as a legitimate term of criticism, we won't start making any progress.