Serious concerns about the APPG ‘Islamophobia’ definition – the ability to freely discuss religion, speak openly about historical truths, and an amplification of a government hierarchy for different faiths

FAO: The Rt Hon Angela Rayner, Deputy-Prime Minister – Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

We want to raise our grave concerns about the APPG ‘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’.^[i] 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.^[ii]

Of course, we understand that the government needs to take steps to tackle anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant hatred in response to rioting in Southport and across our country in recent weeks. The targeting of mosques and asylum seeker hotels by hooligans and opportunistic thugs is reprehensible and should be universally condemned, as is the targeting of white people by Muslim counter protestors whom they perceived to be ‘far right’. But targeting criminality with a flawed definition of ‘Islamophobia’, would be counterproductive and there is no evidence it would reduce anti-Muslim hatred in any case. We agree with the National Secular Society (NSS) when they say, adoption of the APPG ‘Islamophobia’ definition, ‘will exacerbate tensions and threaten freedom to criticise religion.’^[iii]

All religions and beliefs already have equal protection under the law. The APPG ‘Islamophobia’ definition, which wrongly defines ‘Islamophobia’ as a form of ‘racism’ is deeply flawed, and something we’ve opposed along with a coalition of groups and individuals since 2019.^[iv] It has been opposed by some Muslim groups too, due to the conflation of race and religion, as well as confusion around the meaning of the term ‘Muslimness’. So much so, that a thinktank report highlighted how the Muslim community served by both Bradford and Barnet council, came up with an alternative definition in consultation with the council.^[v]Moreover, there are several alternative definitions of ‘Islamophobia’ in circulation. The largest Muslim student organisation – FOSIS – also opposes the APPG definition on the grounds that it conflates race and religion.^[vi]This, we submit, does not fit with The Equality Act 2010 – to borrow a phrase from the former government, this definition is simply ‘not fit for purpose’.

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,^[vii] 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.^[viii] 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. 

The APPG ‘Islamophobia’ definition refers to targeting ‘expressions of Muslimness’ – one aspect of the invented term ‘Muslimness’ would surely involve dietary requirements. If so, this would surely incorporate the consumption of halal meat. Sikhs are strictly forbidden to eat halal slaughtered meat (see Sikh Rehat Maryada– code of conduct),^[ix] it is because we believe halal slaughter, especially non-stun slaughter, is inhumane, and that 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 this definition, be deemed to be targeting ‘expressions of Muslimness’. If the government chooses to incorporate this flawed definition into law, a religious hierarchy will be promoted – one religion’s belief protected, another’s penalised, which would not be consistent with equality and human rights legislation. Article 9 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion asserts: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance’.^[x] A manifestation of the Sikh faith is the rejection of halal slaughter and meat. As Sikhs, we have every right to express our belief, which is protected in law.  Article 10 of the Human Rights Act on freedom of expression, protects the right to hold opinions and to express them freely without government interference. If the APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’ is to be adopted into law; it would almost certainly be incompatible with both Articles 9 and 10, rights set out in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). 

To illustrate the absurdity of the APPG definition further, the founder of Tell MAMA the anti-Muslim hate crime monitor, recently explained that his criticism of polygamy, practiced amongst some Muslims, would also be considered ‘Islamophobic’.^[xi] The word ‘Islamophobia’ is a deliberately vague and catch-all term. Moreover, the recently invented word ‘Muslimness’, is simply a flawed attempt to ascribe an ethnicity onto a faith. 

Deputy Prime Minister, we urge you to seriously consider the detrimental implications of this definition to free speech, not least the freedom to discuss religion, as well as the freedom to openly discuss historical truths. One thing is guaranteed, the British Sikh community will strongly resist any attempt to distort recorded history. Sikhs firmly believe that open discussion will help identify important ethical commonalities, which can make ours, a more tolerant and caring society. As our Director, Lord Singh of Wimbledon once put it: ‘religions should not be seen as barriers between people, but gateways to a greater understanding and enrichment of life’.

England and Wales already have primary legislation in place which prohibits the stirring up of religious hatred. See: Part 3A Public Order Act 1998. Section 29J of the Act exempts certain forms of speech from prosecution regarding religion:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

Applying the APPG’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’ as a form of hate speech would make Section 29J dead letter as it pertains to Islam. It would also create a tension in the law where Islam is treated more favourably than other religions, a state of affairs which would run afoul of Article 9 of the ECHR.

If the government were to incorporate this contested definition into law, it would create a hierarchy of religions in England and Wales and provide cover to extremists who want to shut down legitimate criticism, or inconvenient truths – historical or otherwise. The government would be in breach of existing equality and human rights law, and any such decision would almost certainly be subject to a judicial review. 

Yours sincerely,

Network of Sikh Organisations 

CC Lord Khan of Burnley 

CC Sikh MPs

^[i] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/22/extremists-exploit-islamophobia-tag-to-stifle-free-speech/

^[ii] https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/A-definition-of-Islamophobia.pdf

^[iii] https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2024/08/religion-phobia-definitions-must-be-avoided-nss-warns-government

^[iv] https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2019/05/islamophobia-definition-unfit-for-purpose-say-campaigners

^[v] https://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/islamophobia-revisited/

^[vi] https://fosis.org.uk/news/fosis-position-on-the-appg-definition-of-islamophobia/

^[vii] https://efacglobal.com/nigerian-anglican-primate-says-christians-are-facing-genocide-in-slow-motion/

^[viii] https://freespeechunion.org/banning-islamophobia-blasphemy-law-by-the-backdoor/

^[ix] https://old.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_one.html

^[x] https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-9-freedom-thought-belief-and-religion#:~:text=1.,2.

^[xi] https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/this-rush-to-define-islamophobia-will-harm-free-speech-hjsqvknnr