Mick Hartley

Kishwer Falkner, happily, is not staying silent after her time as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Here she is in the Times today:

Exactly 45 minutes after the government published its definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” came the first attempt by a politician to weaponise it against speech he dislikes. Iqbal Mohamed, the pro-Gaza independent MP for Dewsbury & Batley, asked the communities secretary Steve Reed how the new definition would be applied to the “escalating hostility” of what MPs said about Muslims in parliament and “what sanctions” would be enforced against those who transgress.

Did Reed repeat the assurances he’d just given that the definition would have no effect on free speech? Did he slap down this naked attempt at censorship? No. He said Mohamed was “right to point to the huge concern we should all share about the unacceptable level of hostility and abuse directed at Muslims”.

As a Muslim myself, I think I am qualified to agree that abuse — hate speech — and discrimination against us are unacceptable. But as a former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), I also know these things are already illegal.

Why do activists want a definition? The consequence will be to curtail criticism of Muslims, strengthen activists’ armoury and increase their power.

The charge of anti-Muslim hostility has been used in the past to attack the BBC’s Emma Barnett, for scrutinising the Muslim Council of Britain, and South Yorkshire police, for their actions after the grooming scandal in Rotherham. The concept of “Islamophobia” has been used to smear the author of the key report on Rotherham grooming gangs, Baroness Casey of Blackstock, and my predecessor as chair of the EHRC, Sir Trevor Phillips. Now such charges will have greater force, backed by a definition and a government-appointed “special representative”. Policy Exchange has exposed how activists will use a definition to undermine immigration rules and counterterrorism laws.

Ministers have also published a “social cohesion strategy” saying that “a key part of being a UK citizen is tolerance and openness to views … different from our own” and stating it will never allow laws on “so-called blasphemy”. Yet as so often with this government, it does the opposite of what it says. A definition of anti-Muslim hostility is a key step towards a blasphemy law. Tolerance for different views seems to be one way. A definition restricts what you can do and say about Muslims in ways that do not apply to speech or actions about people of any other faith. It is a two-tier policy — the enemy of equality and of community cohesion — in its purest form.

We know how it’s going to work. Any idiot knows how it’s going to work. Any idiot apart from the Labour government idiots, that is.