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.
[ENDS]