Our letter (15th Dec 2025) to Steve Reed OBE MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
Re: ‘Islamophobia’/anti-Muslim hatred definition – transparency and public scrutiny of Working Group definition/recommendations
Dear Secretary of State,
We follow up on our concerns with reference to the Working Group tasked to define ‘Islamophobia’/anti-Muslim hatred and our pre-action letter dated 19th September 2025.
We understand from media reports that the Working Group has devised a definition which has been shown to select groups external to the Working Group. We also understand that the government has dropped the word ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Muslimness’ from any definition and is instead choosing to define ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. Although we note the terms ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘anti-Muslim’ have been used interchangeable since the Working Group was set up, so this still risks censoring criticism of religion. The implications of this are serious, and in our previous correspondence, we highlighted the example of the Boston councillor denied Mayorship based on legitimate concerns.
‘Hostility’ is also vague, and the Crown Prosecution Service indicate it is not defined in law, so is interpreted via its ordinary meaning, which includes: ‘ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, and dislike.’ This is replacing two words open to subjective interpretation, with another and remains cause for concern. That is if, ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Muslimness’ have been dropped.
Any government endorsed definition will have serious social and legal implications on civil society, it may even impact social cohesion – pitting groups against one another. We therefore urge the government to be open and transparent about the definition decided upon, moreover explicitly commit that a non-statutory definition will not be adopted by public authorities, until it has faced wider public consultation, scrutiny and approval.
We also request the government clarify what considerations have been given to the decision in the employment tribunal judgement – Lee vs Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (2025). This upholds free expression and the view that criticism of certain Islamic doctrines is valid and protected under the Equality Act 2010.
Sikh teachings promote equality for all. As we’ve previously outlined all faiths are already equally protected under law and special definitions for some groups, serves to marginalise others, perpetuating a hierarchical policy approach for different religious groups. If the government is defining ‘anti-Muslim hostility’, why is there no Working Group for Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and indeed those of no-faith?
Since 2018, the NSO has been engaged in the scrutiny of the all-party-parliamentary group (APPG) definition of ‘Islamophobia’. We gave evidence to the APPG on British Muslims and cited in their report Islamophobia Defined. Over the years we’ve been clear anti-Muslim discrimination must be tackled, like discrimination against any faith and those of no faith. The existing legal framework provides protection for all faiths from discrimination as outlined in the Equality Act 2010. Criminal law also provides protection for all religious groups. For example, some crimes proven to be motivated by hostility towards race and religion receive a sentence uplift under s.66 of the Sentencing Act 2020. This applies to all faiths.
In short, our opposition to the vague word ‘Islamophobia’ is based on its subjectivity. It would be as absurd, for example, if Sikhs used the word ‘Sikhophobia’ to describe anti-Sikh discrimination. We consistently refer to events in 1984, as the anti-Sikh genocide. A phobia is an irrational fear, however, ‘Islamophobia’ encompasses not only anti-Muslim discrimination, but also legitimate criticism of Islam, the bad behaviour of some adherents of Islam, as well as, when non-Muslims – like Sikhs, Rastafarians or Coptic Christians face backlash following jihadist attacks. ‘Islamophobia’ has often been deployed to shut down free and open discussion about matters of significant public interest, like ‘grooming gangs’, extremism and issues such as polygamy, misogyny and doctrinal hatred of non-believers or kuffars.
Last year, we outlined our concerns to the former Deputy-Prime Minister, Angela Rayner and the then faith minister, Lord Khan of Burnley. To his credit Lord Khan confirmed to us the APPG definition was ‘not in line’ with the Equality Act 2010, despite being adopted by Labour, The Mayor of London and many Labour led councils. However, neither Rayner or Khan addressed our central concerns that the word ‘Islamophobia’ itself would impact religious freedom for Sikhs and other faiths, thus creating a hierarchy of religions in England and Wales. When we later heard about Angela Rayner’s Working Group on ‘Islamophobia’/anti-Muslim hatred was being set up, we requested to be part of it, not least because Sikhs face the negative reverberations of Jihad both here and in the US, where the first murdered in retribution for 9/11 was a Sikh.
On several occasions during our correspondence with government, we also expressed serious concerns that a broad, non-statutory definition of ‘Islamophobia’; will interfere with the ability of Sikhs to freely manifest their religion and beliefs.
To provide context we illustrate with the following examples: (this is by no means an exhaustive list)
i. This year, Sikhs around the world will mark the 350th anniversary of the martyrdom of
the ninth Guru of Sikhism, Guru Tegh Bahadur, who gave his life defending the freedom
of belief of Hindus who were being forced to convert to Islam under the sword by one
of India’s Mughal rulers. Simply recounting this historical truth would be deemed
‘Islamophobic’ according to the APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’. The APPG
definition gave as an example of Islamophobia: ‘claims of Muslims spreading Islam by
the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule’. Sikhs revere their martyrs
or shaheeds, and we always commemorate martyrdom anniversaries or Shaheedi
Purabs, including those of two Sikh Gurus.
ii. The APPG ‘Islamophobia’ definition refers to targeting ‘expressions of Muslimness’.
One aspect of the term ‘Muslimness’ would surely involve dietary requirements. If so,
this would surely incorporate the Islamic requirement to consume only halal meat.
Sikhs are strictly forbidden to eat halal slaughtered meat (see Sikh Rehat Maryada –
code of conduct), because halal slaughter, especially non-stun slaughter, is
inhumane, and praying over an animal at the time of slaughter is an act of superstition.
Just asserting these facts and alternative beliefs, would, by virtue of the APPG
definition, be deemed to be targeting ‘expressions of Muslimness’.
Regrettably, we have not had a satisfactory response from the government to assuage our concerns that any non-statutory definition of ‘Islamophobia’ will impact our freedom as Sikhs (and that of other faiths) to practice our faith and talk freely about our history without fear of censorship or potentially risk criminal investigation into so called ‘hate’ crime. In short, any non-statutory definition of ‘Islamophobia’ breaches our right under law to practice and manifest our religion without interference or sanction – an inalienable human right.
We therefore objected to the Communities Secretary’s decision to appoint the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Definition and are now challenging the lawfulness of any decision that has been made or will be made to accept any non-statutory definition of ‘Islamophobia’ on the following grounds:
i. Ground 1: Any definition of Islamophobia that interferes with the right of the Sikh
community (and other communities) to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest religion
or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance, engages Article 9(1) of the
European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”);
ii. Ground 2: Any “non-statutory” definition of Islamophobia that engages Article 9(1)
does not meet the requirement of being prescribed by law, and cannot therefore
impose a justified limitation on Article 9(1) rights for the purpose of Article 9(2) of the
ECHR;
iii. Ground 3: Any definition of Islamophobia will place Sikhs, as well as members of other faiths, at a
disadvantage, and will therefore be discriminatory for the purpose of Article 14 of the ECHR.
We hope to resolve this matter without lodging a claim. However, if British Sikhs’ rights to practise their religion, observe their cultural history, or express opposition to objectionable beliefs are challenged, pursuing legal action against the government will be considered a necessary course of action.
Earlier this week our Director Lord Singh of Wimbledon contributed to a debate on Israel: Royal College of Defence Studies, earlier this week. He said:
‘My Lords, a UN report has found clear evidence of Israeli genocide in Gaza. There is also a campaign of terror by Israelis in the West Bank against Palestinians. Would the Minister agree that the Government of a country that carries out such atrocities should be unequivocally condemned rather than supported in their mission?’
The Minister, Baroness Chapman of Darlington disagreed with the framing of Israel’s actions as genocide. However, The United Nations commission inquiry referred to by Lord Singh, is clear that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, suggesting there are reasonable grounds to conclude four out of five genocidal acts defined under international law have been carried out since Israel’s response to the October 7th massacre by Hamas. This comes in the wake of a letter earlier this month from the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy to the chair of the UK Parliament’s International Development Committee, in which the United Kingdom concluded Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza.
Jagjit Singh from the US recently wrote to the NSO on the matter, we share his words in full below:
The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy have disgraced themselves before history. By sending weapons to Israel, they have not only abandoned morality but actively abetted mass murder. Israel, morally bankrupt and intoxicated by impunity, is deliberately blocking massive humanitarian aid—food, water, medicine—while its bombs and bullets shatter Palestinian lives. This is not self-defense. This is the cold machinery of genocide.
How can Washington justify arming a regime that starves children in plain sight? How can Europe, scarred by the Nazi Holocaust, sanction crimes that so grotesquely echo its darkest past? The world swore “Never Again.” Yet, through American weapons and European complicity, “Never Again” is happening again—this time to Palestinians.
Every American must face this truth: silence is complicity, and complicity is guilt. Our government, in our name, is underwriting the murder of innocents. Enough is enough. Stop the weapons. Open the borders for food and medicine. End U.S. and European protection for Israel’s horrific crimes.
History will remember who stood against this horror and who allowed it to continue. The time to act is not tomorrow, not someday—but now.
Anti-Muslim hatred like hatred towards any other group must be tackled. However, we have campaigned against defining the vague and problematic term ‘Islamophobia’, since a definition was formulated by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims (there are several in circulation). We warned ‘Islamophobia’ is a catch-all term – indeed, it captures anti-Muslim hatred, but also criticism of religion, the bad behaviour of some adherents, and when non-Muslims (like Sikhs, Coptic Christians) are subject to prejudice based on mistaken identity. We gave evidence to the APPG in 2018 and are referenced in the report that launched the contested definition Islamophobia Defined.
Last year we wrote to the deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner indicating we would be forced to take legal action if the government adopted the disputed APPG definition. The definition defines ‘Islamophobia’ as ‘a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness’. We stated adoption would not only serve to create a hierarchy of religions in England and Wales, but risk censoring seminal moments in Sikh history – like the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, and the Sikh prohibition on consumption of ritually slaughtered meat like halal. Both would fall foul of the definition the Labour party, The Mayor of London and many Labour councils have already adopted. Lord Khan responded on behalf of Angela Rayner confirming the APPG definition was ‘not in line’ with The Equality Act 2010.
In February this year, we wrote to Lord Khan on hearing about Angela Rayner’s Working Group to define ‘Islamophobia’ (a non-statutory definition). We requested inclusion of a Sikh representative on the group given:
‘Sikhs have faced a significant backlash following Islamic extremist attacks here and overseas. The first person killed in retribution for 9/11 was a Sikh. The first place of worship to be targeted after the 7/7 bombings was a gurdwara in Kent. A former Sikh heritage minister had a pig’s head thrown in his drive, and there was an attempted beheading of a Sikh dentist in Wales by a member of a now proscribed far-right organisation (National Action), in revenge for Lee Rigby. Sikh women have also been targeted with bigotry. Sikhs are targets for both far-right white nationalists and Islamic extremists.’
Lord Khan did not respond to our request, nor provide an explanation why Sikhs and others, should not be included. Earlier this month, we again wrote to Angela Rayner:
‘We have had no response to our letter [to Lord Khan] dated 14th February 2025, and were hoping your office would heed our request for a more inclusive faith approach. If not, please provide us with reasons why Sikhs and other victims of so-called ‘Islamophobia’, should not be included.’
Historical freedom of information data from the MET police, indicates non-Muslim victims (and those of no recorded faith), like Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and Buddhists are recorded as victims of ‘Islamophobic’ hate crime. We went on:
‘The government’s decision to conduct a national inquiry into grooming gangs must surely now be taken into consideration. We believe in justice for all victims. Sikh girls have also been targeted by Pakistani Muslim heritage men. The issue was highlighted in Baroness Casey’s national audit further to representations made by us. Given the importance of this issue, and censorious claims (from some quarters), suggesting merely discussing the heritage of perpetrators in ‘grooming gang’ cases amounts to ‘Islamophobia’, we need assurances that any definition the Working Group comes up with will protect Article 10 Rights. We believe it’s right, as had been suggested by others, to halt the work of the Working Group until completion of the national inquiry into ‘grooming gangs’. Victims and survivors of these horrendous crimes must surely come first, and any definition that risks stifling open discussion, will only serve to harm social cohesion, not enhance it.’
We urged the deputy prime minister to be inclusive of Sikhs within the Working Group, warning:
‘ongoing marginalisation of other communities will only reinforce the view that the government is perpetuating a hierarchical policy approach when it comes to Britain’s faith groups.’
Following pressure from the Free Speech Union (FSU), the government extended the consultation period (and widened consultees) for defining ‘Islamophobia’ to 20th July 2025. Prior to this, the consultation appeared to have been shared with select groups only, which risks creating an element of bias. At least one member of the Working Group, appears to support the concept of conflating race and religion, a central flaw in the APPG definition. Ascribing race, an immutable characteristic, onto a belief system through ‘expressions of Muslimness’, is clearly unworkable.
Last week our Director, Lord Singh of Wimbledon attended a meeting in parliament hosted by Dominic Grieve KC, who is chairing the ‘Islamophobia’ Working Group. Grieve provided a glowing foreword to the report which launched the contested APPG definition. Lord Singh emphasised the need for equal treatment for all groups as taught by the Sikh Gurus.
In what were considered barbaric times, the Sikh Gurus bravely criticised rituals, superstitions and the denigration of women, taught by the religions of the day. At the same time, they incorporated some teachings of Hindu and Muslim saints in the Guru Granth Sahib (the Sikh scriptures) to emphasise uplifting ethical commonalities. They invited a Muslim saint to lay the foundation stone of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, which has doors at each of its four sides to signify a welcome to anyone from any geographic or spiritual direction. Today we should all follow their courageous and enlightened example.
Earlier this week a group of 37 cross party peers wrote to Dominic Grieve KC, warning about the implications a non-statutory definition would have on free speech. Some of their recommendations, echo requests made in our correspondence with the government.
The NSO is still awaiting a response from the deputy prime minister’s office.
We are saddened to hear about the passing of Fauja Singh In 2011, he became the world’s oldest person to run a full-length marathon at 100 – an inspiration to both young and old alike. Singh was a former poster boy for Adidas. We extend our heartfelt condolences to friends and family at this difficult time. #faujasingh
We’ve received the following message from Harmander Singh: ‘It is with the utmost sadness that I can confirm our icon of humanity and powerhouse of positivity Fauja Singh has passed away in India. He succumbed to injuries caused by a vehicle while crossing the road close to his home. His running club and charity Sikhs In The City will be devoting all of its events until the Fauja Singh Birthday Challenge on Sunday 29 March 2026 to celebrate his life of success and achievements and doubling the efforts to raise funds to building the Fauja Singh Clubhouse on the route in Ilford where he used to train. Please watch the video interview he gave before he went to India just before Covid lock down at http://sikhsinthecity.org clicking on the tab Clubhouse Appeal.’ Harmander Singh Fauja Singh’s Coach Info@sikhsinthecity.org
We, organisations from across the moral, political and ideological spectrum, including faith groups and secular organisations, write to express serious concern about the UK Government’s ongoing efforts to adopt a non-statutory definition of “Islamophobia”. At a time of rising tensions, deepening mistrust, and urgent social challenges, this move risks fuelling division rather than fostering social cohesion.
We strongly oppose racism and discrimination in all their forms. We also recognise the many benefits of living in a multiethnic and multifaith society. But adopting an official definition of “Islamophobia” will do little to tackle prejudice and much to exacerbate problems by encouraging censorship, identity-based grievance, and the policing of speech.
The proposed definition blurs the crucial distinction between race and religion. Islam is a belief system that, like all others, must be open to scrutiny, criticism, mockery and even condemnation. Equating criticism of Islam with racism misrepresents the nature of both and undermines long-standing principles of free expression.
We have already seen the dangers of this confusion. The term “Islamophobia” has been used to silence legitimate concerns, particularly around issues such as grooming gangs, women’s rights, and religious influence in education. Former Bristol University professor Steven Greer faced life-threatening abuse following baseless accusations of Islamophobia. In Batley, a teacher remains in hiding after showing an image of the Prophet Muhammad during a lesson on free speech, with little institutional support or public defence. Acts of protest such as publicly burning the Qur’an are increasingly framed as “Islamophobic”, effectively reviving blasphemy norms in all but name. Yet blasphemy laws were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008, and in Scotland in 2021. Labelling religious offence as “hate” risks granting special protections to ideas and beliefs, in direct conflict with democratic principles of open debate.
Far from protecting Muslims from harm, definitions like this often empower self-appointed community gatekeepers and stifle the diverse range of views that exist within Muslim communities themselves. Reformist, liberal, ex-Muslim, and secular Muslim voices are particularly vulnerable to being labelled and excluded.
It also sets a precedent for the creation of similar definitions for other groups, turning public policy into a battleground of identity-based grievance and competing victimhood. This risks fragmenting society further and undermining equal treatment before the law.
For the reasons given above, we urge the government to abandon its endeavour to define Islamophobia; ‘anti-Muslim hatred’ is clear, sufficient and already covered in law.
The Equiano Project
Don’t Divide Us
National Secular Society
Fiyaz Mughal, Founder of Muslims Against Antisemitism
Academics for Academic Freedom
Christian Concern
Hardeep Singh, deputy-director, Network of Sikh Organisations
Sikh heritage MPs voted against a national inquiry into ‘grooming gangs’, the NSO says this is morally wrong
At the beginning of the year the Conservative party submitted an amendment (attached to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill) for the purpose to set up a national inquiry into ‘grooming gangs’. It was voted down by 364 votes to 111 votes. Labour has a majority government, and many MPs voted along party lines, and this includes many of the Sikh heritage MPs within the Labour party.
Indeed, the issue of group-based child sexual exploitation by men of predominantly Pakistani Muslim heritage is an issue that has not only impacted the white-working class (and some middle class) girls in places like Rotherham, Telford and Rochdale – but also Sikh and Hindu communities too. This has regrettably led to vigilante reprisals from a small section of the Sikh community, like in Leicester in 2013, and was a contributing factor that led to major civil unrest between Sikh and Muslim communities in places like Slough in the 1990s. The disorder culminated with the Chalvey (in Slough) riot in 1997, and Fiona Mactaggart – (former MP for Slough) said, ‘the town when I stood [for election] was a troubled place, rival gangs of Sikh and Muslim youth were trying to kill each other on our streets’.
Given the national scale of the problem with ‘grooming gangs’, which some estimate to have been operating in 50 towns and cities across the UK, plus the irrefutable fact that Sikh girls are also targeted by abusers, we believe it is morally wrong for Sikh heritage MPs to have voted against the proposal to set up a national inquiry. They have shown poor judgment, herd mentality and a lack of moral clarity, in what we can only view as a betrayal of victims and survivors.
The following Sikh heritage MPs voted against the amendment which would have allowed a set-up of a national inquiry into ‘grooming gangs’:
Jas Atwal MP (Ilford South)
Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough)
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East)
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick)
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West)
Satvir Kaur (Southampton Test)
Dr Jeevan Sandher (Loughborough)
Sonia Kumar (Dudley)
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield)
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East)
No vote recorded:
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
Baggy Shanker (Derby South)
As reported in the Times, we wrote to the Home Secretary to encourage her and Baroness Louise Casey to look at both race and religion as contributing factors motivating these horrific crimes. We copied the correspondence to Sikh heritage MPs. To date, we’ve had no response. Although we are of the understanding, that privately, at least one Sikh heritage MP has spoken up about the targeting of Sikh girls with Labour colleagues. If only they had the courage to air their views in public.
Complaint to Radio 4 – Sunday programme with Edward Stourton
The Sunday programme on Radio 4 with Edward Stourton on 12th January 2025 refers to the Hindu Council UK and the Sikh Association UK objecting to the ‘misleading’ word ‘Asian’. In terms of accuracy, for the record, there is no Sikh Association UK that we are aware of, the presenter is likely referring to us – the Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) who have worked with the Hindu community since 2012, in raising objection to the word ‘Asian’, and our director had a letter in the Times last week which can be read here:
Nazir Afzal responds to the question of Hindu and Sikh objections to ‘Asian’ with the following:
‘I’ve got no problem with what you call it, but I think the Hindu community and the Sikh community (those leaders) need to have a look at themselves as well. Just two years ago Sikh Women’s Aid which is the main body run by women to protect women who are suffering abuse within the Sikh community published their report on abuse within the Sikh community and could you believe it was really really bad; so bad actually that they didn’t want to put their name to it, they reached out to me and said Nazir would you do the foreword for our report, I said why are you asking a Muslim man or British Muslim man to do the report, they said firstly, if we put our names to it they are going to come for us, and secondly we couldn’t find a Sikh man that would put his name to it. As I said, it takes different forms in different communities, but I think British Pakistani men were more engaged in other communities, but in other parts of the country you’ll find a different picture.’[i]
To be clear Sikh Women’s Aid (SWA) focuses on violence against women and girls which is related to domestic, spiritual and sexual violence within the Sikh community. This is different to the subject of the debate which was group-based child sexual exploitation (or ‘grooming gangs’) like in Telford, Rotherham and Rochdale (to name a few), and which has been perpetrated by majority Pakistani Muslim men and the victims have been primarily white working-class girls.
Indeed, domestic violence (and abuse within faith settings) affects all communities, so Mr Afzal presumably believes the Muslim and Christian communities should also get their house in order on this issue too? Moreover, some domestic abuse from within the Muslim community may well be justified with the interpretation of foundational Islamic texts,[ii] cited by some Imams. The presenter failed to challenge Mr Afzal, firstly in making the distinction between the different issues being discussed, which we believe were deliberately conflated. Second, the presenter should have also been informed of the fact that both Hindu and Sikh communities have also fallen victim of ‘grooming gangs’ too and targeted by men from within the Pakistani Muslim community. The BBC have made a documentary on the issue of British Sikh girls being targeted.[iii] The kidnap, forced conversion, and forced marriage of girls from Christian, Hindu and Sikh communities in Pakistan is well documented.
Indeed, Mr Afzal did write a foreword (there were several) for SWA’s 2021 report From Her, Kings are Born – Impact and prevalence of domestic and sexual violence in the Sikh/Panjabi Community – authored by Sahdaish Pal and Sukhvinder Kaur. However, it is simply not true the authors did not want to put their name to the report, they did. Second, when Mr Afzal says that no Sikh man would put their name to the same report – again this is simply not true – there were three.[iv] Gurdwara Aid’s Mandip Singh and the late Gurdeep Singh gave a joint foreword, and The National Sikh Police Association’s president – Harvinder Singh Rai wrote one for the report too. So, this needs to be corrected and put on record too. We understand Mr Afzal has not attended any SWA conferences but posted a post on X (formerly known as Twitter) at the time of the 2021 report.[v]
We deserve a right of reply and the opportunity to set the record straight on air ourselves, based on the various inaccuracies, deflection and false information conveyed to the listeners of your flagship programme.
