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 19^th September 2025]

---