Britain Has Narrowly Avoided Blasphemy Laws in Disguise

At last, the UK has had a win for free speech—a moderate win, but a win nonetheless. Last week, Keir Starmer’s Labour government thankfully u-turned on its dangerously broad definition of ‘Islamophobia.’ The existing definition, adopted by the Labour Party in 2019, describes Islamophobia as “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” The new definition removes all references to “Muslimness” and even substitutes the phrase “Islamophobia” for “anti-Muslim hatred.” 

The earlier definition was suggested by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims and adopted by the Labour Party in 2019, while it was still in opposition. It was also picked up by several local councils, although successive governments have declined to make it official. Since coming into power, Labour has been under pressure to reaffirm this definition, in the wake of an apparent rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes. In February this year, the government set up a new working group to redraft a different definition, which many suspected would be similar to the last.

This is surely an attempt to reassure those who were worried about the free-speech implications of the old definition. The vague, open-ended reference to “expression of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” was of particular concern. What, exactly, was included in “Muslimness?” What would be classified as racism? Would criticism of women wearing the hijab, for example, or of the practice of Halal slaughter be counted as targeting expressions of Muslimness? The broad wording opened the door to classifying any and all criticism of Islam itself as a form of “racism”—a ridiculous way to describe prejudice against Muslims in the first place, given that Muslims are not a single race. 

The fact that this is now being walked back is a good sign. The change in definition does not, as of yet anyway, have the power to change the law with it. But it would be used by police in how they track hate incidents, and a broader definition of Islamophobia would naturally have led to an ‘increase’ in anti-Muslim hatred being recorded. It would also affect the public sector, as well as universities and private-sector workplaces that would likely then be under pressure to conform to the new definition. 

The push to re-define ‘Islamophobia’ forgets that racial or religious discrimination is already illegal in the UK under the Equality Act (2010)—being a Muslim is considered a protected characteristic. And committing hate crimes against Muslims is certainly against the law—harassing or assaulting someone for any reason, let alone for the colour of their skin or their religious beliefs, is very much a crime. 

Crucially, the old definition paved the way for shutting down any kind of critical discussion about Islam or Muslim communities in the UK. Already, the original APPG report described talking about the grooming gangs scandal—in which thousands of white, working-class British girls were systematically raped and trafficked by predominantly Pakistani Muslim men across the country—as a “subtle form of anti-Muslim racism” and a “modern-day iteration” of “age-old stereotypes and tropes about Islam and Muslims.” This is made all the worse when we recall that the reason this horrific episode flew under the radar for so long was because police and social workers were terrified of being called Islamophobic by pointing out the problem. 

Accepting accusations like these at face value would have made it more difficult than it already is to discuss issues of integration and extremism within the UK’s Muslim population. This is especially important to remember, with the Manchester Synagogue attack just a few weeks ago—Jihad al-Shamie drove his car into pedestrians outside  Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation and then went on a stabbing spree. Three people were injured and two were killed, including one who was caught in police gunfire. It is horrific incidents like these—as well as the Manchester arena bombing in 2017, the London Bridge attacks that same year, and the murder of David Amess in 2021—that prove just how vital it is to be able to name the problem and face it head-on. The UK Muslim community has a very real problem with Islamism, something that is often skirted around for fear of being called Islamophobic or racist. The idea that criticising even “expressions of Muslimness” could be classed as hatred would only make it more difficult to have those tough conversations around extremism and Islamist terrorism. 

Even more recently, we have been forced to have a discussion about the fact that parts of the country have effectively been turned into no-go zones for Jewish people. Last week, West Midlands Police and Birmingham City Council took the decision to ban fans of the Israeli football club, Maccabi Tel Aviv, from attending a Europa League match between their team and Aston Villa in Birmingham next month. This was apparently due to “previous incidents including violent clashes and hate crime offences,” but some MPs—including local MP Ayoub Khan—have demanded that Israeli teams should be thrown out of the European competition entirely. It was also a depressing admission that the police do not have the power to keep Jews safe in Britain’s second city, where the population is around 30% Muslim. These are exactly the kind of issues that the overly broad definition of Islamophobia would try to stop people from talking about. 

The UK clearly has a long way to go before it has truly got to grips with its free-speech problems, especially when it comes to Islam. Changing the Islamophobia definition is one, very small, start. Another positive sign, however, was the recent acquittal of Hamit Coskun, who overturned his June conviction for a religiously aggravated public-order offence after he burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate. Justice Joel Bennathan affirmed that there is no offence of blasphemy in UK law, and upheld the “right to offend.” Bennathan said that, while many Muslims would have found Coskun’s protest “desperately upsetting and offensive,” free expression must nonetheless “include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.” This came as a relief after a series of arrests for Quran-burning in the UK recently. 

This is the crux of the issue. The law exists to keep us safe from actual, real-life harm, not to spare feelings. We should be free to criticise, mock, or dismiss any ideas that we like—including religions. While it’s obviously a good thing that Labour has heeded the cautions of free-speech advocates on the definition issue, there is still so much more work to be done. Currently, Islam and Muslims are given a kind of special treatment in not just British society, but all across Western Europe. This protected class is virtually immune to any kind of criticism of its beliefs or way of life, regardless of how mild or well-meaning that criticism is. 

We cannot allow Labour or anyone else usher in blasphemy laws by the back door. No speech can be off limits.