Where Unity Is Strength
Header

The government definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’

March 11th, 2026 | Posted by admin in Current Issues | Press Releases | Sikhism - (0 Comments)

The government definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ and the appointment of an ‘Islamophobia’ tsar will foster resentment and marginalise other faiths

All faiths and beliefs should be treated equally

Steve Reed MP (communities secretary)

At the beginning of the week the government announced their repackaged definition of ‘Islamophobia’, replacing it with the term ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. The accompanying guidance refers to the UK’s, ‘values of freedom, fairness, tolerance, and respect.’ But the guidance and the definition itself raise serious concerns about ‘fairness’ to Britain’s mosaic of faith groups, including when it comes to equal treatment and parity between such groups in public policy. The obvious questions arise, if government have a special Working Group for one faith, what about the others? If a special ‘Tsar’ is appointed to protect the interests of one faith, why the exclusivity? The government guidance refers to Sikhs. They inform us that Sikhs, Hindus and ‘those who have left Islam’, suffer ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. Although a superficial mention, Sikh suffering is at least acknowledged, and rightly so, given the backlash Sikhs[i] and gurdwaras have received following 9/11 (the threat comes from both Neo-Nazi’s and Islamic extremists). But why was no Sikh, or Hindu, or indeed representative of any other faith, appointed onto the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Definition? 

Another serious question is what is the point of this all? The existing legal framework provides sufficient 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. So, criminal offences motivated by hostility based on religion and belief are already treated as hate crimes. So, why do we even need a non-statutory definition for ‘Anti-Muslim hostility’[ii] in the first place? 

The non-statutory definition of ‘Anti-Muslim hostility’ covers behaviours which are already unlawful and criminal and includes victims ‘who are perceived to be Muslim’ – speaking to concerns amongst British Sikhs, Coptic Christians and Rastafarians. The guidance surprisingly uses the term ‘racialisation’, which serves to conflate race and religion, a major source of controversy with the now defunct all-party-parliamentary group (APPG) definition of ‘Islamophobia’. However, the guidance also uses vague terminology to describe what does and does not engage the definition of ‘hostility’, including: ‘prejudicial stereotyping’ and ‘negative characteristics’. Who is the arbiter of what is ‘hostile’, ‘prejudicial’ or ‘negative’?  Such terms are loaded with subjectivity and open to inconsistent interpretation. For example, could the Sikh objection to halal slaughter of animals be considered ‘negative’ or interpreted as ‘hostility’? Or could an honest recounting of Sikh history under Mughal persecution, like the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur (our ninth Guru), be reported to a public body as being ‘hostile’ to Muslims? The lack of clarity in the guidance opens the door to such application.

More worryingly still, the government is promoting the application of this definition throughout the public, private, and charity sectors. This will sow confusion to the extent that the definition and guidance confuses the application of existing practices and standards for combatting discrimination. The application could lead to employers in all sectors taking action to censor or limit discussion about important matters of public interest, such as ‘grooming gangs’, violent extremism, animal rights, cultural history, religious belief, and consanguinity. 

Although the government asserts the new definition is not about giving ‘preferential treatment’, it is crystal clear that this will be the outcome. It does exactly that. Unless all faiths and beliefs are given equal treatment and proportionate funding to report and tackle hate crime, there is simply no other conclusion to come to – this is two-tier public policy and an amplification of the bias we first objected to in Action Against Hate back in 2016.

Last year we sent a pre-action protocol letter to the government, with reference to the Working Group’s ‘call for evidence’ consultation exercise. We have been advised that the arguments set out then still apply now with the new definition.[iii] In relation to our freedom of thought, conscience and religion as British Sikhs, and our article 14 Rights, the definition and guidance pose serious dangers. The same arguments would apply to other faiths too, and also to those with non-faith philosophical beliefs. We believe, the government definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ and appointment of an ‘Islamophobia tsar’ will not only curtail free speech on matters of significant public concern, but it will also foster resentment and further marginalise other faith groups. 

ENDS

[i] A former Labour minister, who is of Sikh heritage had a pig’s head thrown in his driveway, and a there was an attempt to behead a Sikh dentist in Wales in a ‘revenge’ attack for Lee Rigby by a member of the now proscribed Neo-Nazi group – National Action. (The first person murdered in retribution for 9/11 was a Sikh in Mesa, Arizona – Balbir Singh Sodhi).

[ii] Anti-Muslim hostility is intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts – including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated – that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim, including where that perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance.

It is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.

It is engaging in unlawful discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.

[iii] NSO objects to the Communities Secretary’s decision to appoint the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Definition (“Working Group”), and challenges 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 Article14 of the ECHR. [NSO pre-action letter 19th September 2025]

, , ,

‘Islamophobia’/anti-Muslim hatred definition – transparency and public scrutiny

December 15th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Current Issues | Press Releases | Sikhism | Uncategorized - (0 Comments)

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?

Yours sincerely,

Network of Sikh Organisations 

[ENDS]

, , ,

NSO’s decision to send the government a pre-action protocol letter over ‘Islamophobia’

October 7th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Current Issues | Sikhism - (0 Comments)

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]

, , ,

The illiberal push to define ‘Islamophobia’ risks stifling our right to discuss religion and belief

July 15th, 2025 | Posted by admin in Current Issues - (0 Comments)

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. 

Network of Sikh Organisations

, , ,

An Open Letter on the Government’s Proposed Definition of “Islamophobia”

July 3rd, 2025 | Posted by admin in Current Issues - (0 Comments)

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

Free Speech Union

Oxford Institute for British Islam

Scottish Union for Education

,

Lord Khan’s response to our concerns about the APPG ‘Islamophobia’ definition

September 26th, 2024 | Posted by admin in Current Issues | Press Releases | Uncategorized - (0 Comments)
MC2024_20608 ReplyDownload

, , ,

Why all Sikhs should oppose the controversial definition of ‘Islamophobia’

February 21st, 2020 | Posted by Singh in Current Issues - (0 Comments)

The above image of the Mayor of London being greeted at Sri Guru Singh Sabha Southall with the backdrop of the martyrdom of the Chote Sahibzade (sons of Guru Gobind Singh) could be deemed ‘Islamophobic’ by the APPG on British Muslims definition of Islamophobia – a definition City Hall has adopted.

In a recent House of Lords debate the APPG Islamophobia definition which was previously rejected by the government was again discussed. Our Director Lord Singh, responded:

‘My Lords, emotive definitions such as Islamophobia are simply constraints on freedom of speech. A phobia is a fear, and the best way to combat irrational fear or prejudice suffered by all religions and beliefs is through healthy, open discussion. Will the Minister endorse the commitment given last week by Heather Wheeler, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to protect all religions and beliefs without fear or favour?’[i]

The Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) is committed to parity in all areas of policy for all faiths and communities. In a recent debate on anti-Semitism Lord Singh made this very point when he said:

‘My Lords, anti-Semitism is evil and should be combated in every possible way, but will the Minister make it clear that the Government are equally committed to tackling hate crimes against all communities, even those of non-Abrahamic faiths?’[ii]

Despite the pleas for a level playing field, when it comes to resources and policy around hate crime, we’ve consistently stressed in evidence[iii][iv]to the government our concern about the marginalisation of non-Abrahamic faiths. Sikhs have suffered significantly since 9/11 due to the negative reverberations of Islamism, yet we remain an afterthought and are subsumed within the broader ‘Islamophobia’ debate. We’ve previously referred to the government’s failure in addressing this in both Action Against Hate (2016) and Action Against Hate ‘refresh’ (2018) – the government’s four-year hate crime action plan.

Current legislation is enough to protect all faiths from crimes motivated by hatred. We believe the Equalities Act 2010 provides equal protection under law for all racial and religious groups, and those pushing for special definitions like ‘Islamophobia’ an amorphous term – aim to push the boundaries of ‘hate’ to beyond anti-Muslim prejudice, to any discussion of inconvenient aspects of religion and doctrine – which we must all be free to discuss without fear of prosecution or arrest. The same applies to use of the word ‘anti-Semitism’ when it is used to deliberately shut down legitimate discussion about Israel.

Remarkably, we were the only Sikh organisation who realised that under proposals put forward by the APPG, merely discussing aspects of Sikh history (like the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur) could be deemed ‘Islamophobic’ equated to ‘racism’, and quite possibly criminalised.[v] This in turn would cause immediate problems for our gurdwaras who have pictures of shaheeds or martyrs hanging on their walls. Prominent historians like Tom Holland understood the consequences,[vi] meanwhile some prominent Sikhs ignorantly supported the definition.[vii]

Our Director and Deputy-Director were signatories to an open letter to the then home secretary opposing the APPG definition last year.[viii]  However, despite the government rightly rejecting it, it has since been adopted by many councils across the country, with more looking to do so this year. Like others, we remain concerned that this definition could serve as a backdoor blasphemy law, and maintain that ‘anti-Muslim’, like ‘anti-Sikh’ or ‘anti-Hindu’ hate is much clearer language, and something already protected under existing legislation.

[i] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-02-13/debates/D2C6CF82-DDBD-4AB5-949D-C1205E3AF0A4/Islamophobia#contribution-E1E080CF-4115-4F78-A7DB-DB2C4C2B4715

[ii] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-02-11/debates/B70471E8-75CF-414D-805A-A6A1DD1A9081/HateCrimeAnti-Semitism#contribution-E106490B-FC08-4D47-B595-3A2BE62A5909

[iii] http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/home-affairs-committee/hate-crime-and-its-violent-consequences/written/77518.html

[iv]  http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/home-affairs-committee/hate-crime-and-its-violent-consequences/written/45945.html

[v] ‘claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule’ would be deemed ‘Islamophobic’ by Islamophobia Defined.

[vi] https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/1128756384537956352?lang=en

[vii] https://www.islamophobia-definition.com/

[viii] http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/islamophobiaopenletter.pdf

, , , , , , , ,

‘Islamophobia’ definition is detrimental to free speech new anthology warns

August 22nd, 2019 | Posted by Singh in Current Issues | Press Releases - (0 Comments)

An anthology complied by a leading think tank warns that a proposed ‘Islamophobia’ definition has serious consequences for free speech. Islamophobia: An Anthology of Concerns is a series of essays edited by Emma Webb, Director of The Forum on Integration, Democracy and Extremism (a project at Civitas).

Referring to the proposed APPG definition of Islamophobia, she argues ‘The definition would have a chilling effect on necessary discussion around the Islamist threat to the UK. In a free society, there can be no arbitration of which criticisms of any given religion or ideology are legitimate, regardless of perceived motive, level of education or quality of debate.’

On the publication, our Director, Lord Singh of Wimbledon said, ‘This comprehensive anthology of widespread concerns about the danger to free speech and legitimate discussion in the use of the vague catch-all term Islamophobia, is both timely and welcome.’

He goes on, ‘The report will not only help protect free speech and legitimate criticism, but also help us understand why Muslims and other religious communities are sometimes the target for hate crimes that shame society. Perpetrators of such crimes do not carry out a detailed study of a religion before expressing antipathy. Hatred arises out of ignorance in which small differences can assume frightening and threatening proportions. It can only be removed through greater emphasis on religious and cultural literacy.’

Other contributors to Islamophobia: An Anthology of Concerns include Rumy Hasan, Peter Tatchell, Ed Husain, Pragna Patel, Mohammed Amin, The National Secular Society and others.

For further information contact: info@nsouk.co.uk

[Ends]

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Lord Singh contributes to anti-Semitism debate

June 23rd, 2019 | Posted by Singh in 1984 Sikh Genocide | Current Issues - (0 Comments)

Our Director Lord Singh of Wimbledon contributed to a debate on anti-Semitism secured by Baroness Berridge in the House of Lords this week.

He said, ‘I have visited Auschwitz and seen something of the horrors that thousands of Jews—innocent men, women and children—suffered. In the collective madness of the 1930s and 1940s, Jews were vilified not only in Germany but across much of Europe, including this country. As child I was frequently called a Jew by those who wished to hurt me. However, I believe that talk of a worldwide anti-Jewish conspiracy is misleading and, importantly, takes us away from the real problem which is the way in which unprincipled politicians play on ignorance and majority bigotry, regardless of the consequences suffered by others, to achieve their ends.’

Reflecting on the year we mark the 35th anniversary of the Sikh genocide in India and the persecution of Sikhs in Afghanistan today, he went on:

‘In Germany, Hitler blamed the Jews. In the India of 1984, it was the tiny Sikh minority. The killing of innocents in gas chambers is evil, but is it any more evil than dousing men, women and children with kerosene and burning them alive? In Hitler’s Germany, Jews were made to wear distinctive clothing to show their inferior status. More recently, a decimated Sikh community in Afghanistan has been made to wear distinguishing patches and to fly a yellow flag outside their homes to make them an easy target for majority bigotry. Majority bigotry knows no boundaries and, as my noble friend Lord Sacks reminded us, has no constraints.’

He added: ‘We like to believe prejudice is found in only a few. Sadly, it is far more widespread. We are all, in effect, hard-wired to be wary of difference. Unacceptable but understandable prejudice is easily manipulated to become irrational hatred. Since the Second World War, we have seen unspeakable acts of violence against targeted groups in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia, and I could go on. Special sympathy-seeking terms such as anti-Semitism or Islamophobia are understandable, but they take us away from the real problem, which is combating the more widespread bigotry suffered by all faiths. To borrow from Shakespeare, if Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and others are cut, do we not bleed? ‘

Concluding his speech Lord Singh said, ‘Taken to an extreme, this giving of special consideration to some groups at the expense of others is, at best, unintended racism. Bigotry will continue to flourish until, in the closing words of the Sikh daily prayer, we look beyond ourselves and our group to the well-being of all members of our one human family.’

Other contributors included Lord Pickles, Lord Sacks (the former Chief Rabbi), Lord Alton and Lord Finkelstein.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Economist cite NSO’s evidence on ‘Islamophobia’

March 10th, 2019 | Posted by Singh in Current Issues | Press Releases - (0 Comments)

Evidence given by the NSO to the Home Affairs Committee on the APPG on British Muslims proposed definition of ‘Islamophobia’ has been cited in an article in the Economist last month.

The article discusses aspects of our submission (along with that of the National Secular Society (NSS)) which we expect to follow up with oral evidence later this year.

We have previously expressed our concern about the vague term ‘Islamophobia’ and the risks it poses to free and open discussion in a submission to the APPG on British Muslims.

The Economist write:

‘The NSS also drew approving attention to an interesting contribution by one of Britain’s religious minorities. The Network of Sikh Organisations made a submission arguing that the term “Islamophobia” could be used to shut down “free and open debate about matters of public interest” including the treatment of minority faiths in Muslim lands, both in the present day or in history. Nor, the Sikhs argued, should concern with Islamophobia be used to give a free pass to conflict within the world of Islam, such as the ostracising of the Ahmadi Muslim sect which had led to two sectarian murders in Britain.’

, , ,