Mick Hartley

The Network of Sikh Organisations, concerned about the impact of proposed legislation against "Islamophobia", have written to Angela Rayner:

We want to raise our grave concerns about the APPG [All Party Parliamentary Group] ‘Islamophobia’ definition which has already been adopted by the Labour party and incorporated into its governing body’s code of conduct. Adoption of this contested definition into law would have serious implications on free speech, not least the ability to discuss historical truths. The former home secretary Sajid Javid argued adopting the APPG definition would ‘risk creating a blasphemy law via the backdoor’. Meanwhile, former Labour MP Khalid Mahmood co-authored a report outlining how the definition has already been weaponised to shut down those accused of offending some members of the Muslim community….

As a representative organisation of British Sikhs, we are particularly troubled that one of the working examples of ‘Islamophobia’ which accompanies the APPG definition, includes the words: ‘…claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule..’ On the face of it, this is a devious attempt at historical revisionism. Islam did indeed spread ‘by the sword’, and the subjugation of minority groups under Islamic rule continues to this day. Take the recent ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs in Afghanistan as an example, or the massacre of Yazidis by ISIS, the reference to the ‘genocide in slow motion’ of Christians by the Archbishop of Nigeria, or the appalling treatment and persecution of minority faiths in Bangladesh and Pakistan. If the government choses to incorporate this definition into law, then discussing the history of the Indian subcontinent, and the persecution of religious minorities across the world today, in countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria will be absurdly equated to ‘racism’.  This would be counterproductive, cause disquiet and perversely persecute truth tellers.

Moreover, seminal moments in Sikh history will be censored and considered ‘racist’, like the martyrdom of our 9^th Guru, Tegh Bahadur, or 5^th Guru, Arjan. This has been emphasised in a report by the Free Speech Union (FSU) – Banning Islamophobia: Blasphemy Law By The Back Door. By shutting down historical truths about current and historical religious persecution, the government will create a hierarchy of religions. Images of Sikh martyrs are displayed in some gurdwaras across the UK. Many of these would be deemed ‘Islamophobic’ – equated to ‘racism’ and potentially subject to criminal complaint. However, we’d be free to talk about the crusades and early Christian antisemitism, without fear of being censored by complaints of ‘Christianophobia’. The right to openly discuss religions, their beliefs and history, is a basic tenant of public debate and the free exchange of ideas. This essential freedom is critical to safeguarding pluralism and broadmindedness. It is, we are sure you’ll agree, the bedrock of a civilised, free and liberal society. 

Any adoption of the APPG definition into law, would be untenable and would serve to create religious discrimination, which is likely to be subject to legal challenge in the form of a judicial review. We believe more free speech is the answer, not less. Yes, there are difficult conversations to have about historical truths, or specific aspects of religion, but shutting them down, is not the solution. We believe describing prejudice against Muslims as ‘anti-Muslim’ is much more accurate (and compliant with existing law), as would be the description of prejudice against Sikhs, Hindus and Christians as ‘anti-Sikh’, ‘anti-Hindu’ or ‘anti-Christian’. Our country needs a level playing field for all faiths and none, not preferential treatment for select groups. 

Well said. As has been pointed out often enough, to legislate against "Islamophobia" would be to introduce a blasphemy law by the back door – for just the one religion. It's clear enough why Islamic groups would support such a move, but not at all clear why a supposedly progressive secular organisation like the Labour Party would choose this particular path.