According to a group of cross-party peers, lecturers, researchers and students at British universities could face disciplinary action if they violate the Government’s new definition of islamophobia.
A government working group has been established to provide a new, “non-statutory” definition of Islamophobia. Although the definition will not be directly enforceable in law, the hope appears to be that it will be implemented in the official policies of government departments and universities. The definition is intended to combat the “unacceptable rise” in anti-Muslim hate crime, but critics worry that it could make it hard to criticise Islam as a doctrine and end up having the effect of a blasphemy law.
The chairman of the working group, former attorney general Dominic Grieve, reportedly told the peers that he hoped the new definition would be “embedded in university speech codes and curb ‘microaggressions’”. In response, more than 30 peers wrote a letter to Grieve expressing concern that “any member of a university that says or does something that falls foul of the definition would face potential penalties”.
This is valid concern, and although we do not yet know what the new definition will look like, there are several worrying signs. As previously reported by CAF, a 2019 all-party parliamentary group published an extremely broad definition of Islamophobia which Grieve praised as “an important contribution”. Thankfully, the then government rejected that proposal for being too expansive.
Moreover, Grieve’s reported wish to “curb microaggressions” suggests that the new definition will be anything but limited. After all, there is nothing “micro” about real bigotry and harassment, which means that the group is probably concerned with much more subtle expressions of this particular phobia. This could include criticisms of certain Islamic doctrines or even allegations against certain people who happen to be Muslim.
In their letter, the peers raise the example of Trevor Phillips who was temporarily suspended from the Labour over accusations of Islamophobia in 2020, after the Party adopted its own non-statutory definition. According to reporting at the time, Phillips’ transgressions included “expressing concerns about Pakistani Muslim men sexually abusing children in northern British towns”, comments about “the failure of some Muslims to wear poppies for Remembrance Sunday” and criticising those who expressed sympathy “in an opinion poll towards the ‘motives’ of the Charlie Hebdo attackers”.
Phillips’ suspension was eventually lifted, but the investigation lasted for more than a year, and it is difficult to imagine that it did not deter other Labour MPs from speaking about the same topics. If an equally sloppy definition is embedded in university speech codes, the same effect would be felt amongst academics.
As the peers write: “The fact that your definition will be ‘non-statutory’ does not mean it will not have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly if it enjoys the stamp of government approval and various organisations feel obliged embed it in their equity, diversity and inclusion policies, as well as workplace training course.” They add that “if taken up, [the definition] will have wide-ranging implications for what people in public life, and those who work for public bodies, or attend schools or universities, are able to say about Muslims and the religion of Islam, with – inevitably – serious repercussions for those who fall foul of the definition, even if those repercussions fall short of criminal prosecution.”
A spokesperson from Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner’s department, said that the Government is “absolutely committed to defending freedom of speech, and any proposed definition must be compatible with the right to freedom of speech and expression”. This is incoherent. If the Government is really committed to the cause of free speech, it should disband the Islamophobia working group and bin any recommendations already made. At the very least, it should publish any recommendations it receives from the group and invite public criticism of it before even considering implementing them.
None of this means that harassment of or discrimination against Muslims should be accepted, but we do not need a formal definition of “Islamophobia”. Existing legislation already prohibits harassment and discrimination based on protected characteristics, including race and religion. Indeed, the Government’s approach may damage the cause it seeks to promote. As the peers point out in their letter, there is a risk that if the definition is adopted, the Government “will feel it has done something to address the problem when in fact it has not, and neglect other, more effective ways of tackling it”.