Mick Hartley

Good to see Kishwer Falkner, former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, now ready to speak out on matters of importance – as, for instance, on the government’s proposed Islamophobia legislation. In the Times today:

Another day, another government U-turn. Some can be justified by changed circumstances, others are simply the product of political weakness despite that huge majority.

But if there is one policy that cries out to be ditched, it is the Labour attempt to define Islamophobia for public usage. This has not yet registered on the Labour backbencher’s survival Geiger counter, but from what we know it is both dangerous and divisive for them and for the rest of us.

In the last election a handful of Muslim “independent” candidates surprisingly won relatively safe Labour seats. In constituencies with similar demographics other Labour MPs, such as Wes Streeting and Jess Phillips, survived with narrow margins. The lesson taken was that the Muslim “vote bank” had to be recaptured. Hence the contortions in government about coming up with something that might tilt the electoral balance in its favour. Enter Islamophobia/“anti-Muslim hatred”.

It is, in other words, a craven attempt to recapture the block Muslim vote. And block vote it often is, too. We’ve heard how preachers at the mosques tell their congregation how to vote; how men tell their wives how to vote. Not all – but enough.

The former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner set up a working group to guide further action on tackling religiously motivated hate. It was to prevent “unacceptable” incidents of anti-Muslim hatred, without saying what was unacceptable or to whom. Existing legal remedies for religious discrimination were apparently inadequate, ostensibly as they cover all religions, and clearly in this scenario Muslims needed special treatment.

One year on, the proposed definition is even worse than anticipated, as Policy Exchange exposes in a damning new report.

The government has belatedly discovered that religion and belief discrimination laws will squarely challenge its definition, and has therefore dropped both the terms “Islamophobia” and “hatred”. We are now told that “hostility” towards Muslims (or those perceived to be Muslim), based on their religion, ethnicity or appearance is what will land one in trouble. What’s more, this will cover physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated “hostility”. So, anything in any medium that may express opinion or mere observation could be captured as being anti-Muslim hostility.

Leaving aside this reinforcement of two-tier justice, where only one religious group is deemed worthy of additional protections, what of “hostility” as a concept? It is undefined in law but used in cases alleging discrimination and criminal wrongdoing. Although it will not be legally binding it will have significant implications in employment disputes, as there is a propensity towards over-caution and gold-plating in the DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) industry.

In the numerous laws that cover hostility as a factor in wrongdoing, the meaning is that of the dictionary: ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment or dislike can all be elements of “hostility”. There is no need to assess intent or to prove motivation if hostility itself is proven.

It is immediately evident that this will become a free speech and thought-control problem.

A year ago I called for an inquiry into grooming gangs and referenced the fact that many Muslim or Pakistani men who had raped white girls held culturally regressive attitudes towards women, hence their casual disregard for the latter’s rights. That, it seems, could be captured as anti-Muslim “hostility”. I had arguably articulated ill-feeling, unfriendliness and potential dislike of these men and their attitudes. The late Andrew Norfolk, the Times reporter, himself faced allegations of Islamophobia in covering those cases.

And what of the recent claim by the historian Tom Holland that “Islam is uniquely indigestible for secular societies”? Telling people their religion is indigestible in British society could surely be construed as hostility.

We’ve recently learnt that the relevant institutions who failed the murdered child Sara Sharif were cowed by fears about racism in their approach towards safeguarding her. The West Midlands police ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from Birmingham could be justified on the basis of trying to avoid “anti-Muslim hostility”, elevating the views of that community above other considerations.

The government’s proposal also seeks to define Muslims as a racial group. In law, currently, religious belief protections are not race-based. Moreover, defining Muslims as a race goes against the tenets of Islam itself: the Muslim Ummah (a global brotherhood) firmly transcends race and nationality. Pity white Muslims who will now have to define themselves through hijabs or beards rather than their own religious adherence, to gain this added protection.

What does this convoluted definition amount to? Beyond the hope that Muslim voters will be seduced to believe they have foolproof protections to combat all the unfairness they encounter in life, it will increase prejudice, albeit hidden. When the balance of equality is broken to favour one side, resentment on the part of those restricted, particularly where free speech and thought are imperilled, this becomes a rallying cause.

I, my relatives and friends know the freedoms we enjoy here aren’t available to us anywhere in the Muslim world. The last thing we want or need as a religious community is to become scapegoats in a political quest to save a few seats.

Room for plenty more U-turns. The puberty blocker trial; the Chagos hand-over; approval of the new mega Chinese Embassy; retail business rates. The list goes on and on…