Labour’s anti-Muslim hostility plans risk becoming an unprecedented assault on freedom of speech, as the government prepares to enshrine definition in law.
Pochin blasted the plans. (Image: Getty)
Labour’s anti-Muslim hostility plans risk becoming an unprecedented assault on freedom of speech, it has been claimed. Critics of the move, which would see a formal definition of Islamophobia enshrined in law, warned that the controversial policies would silence debate, as they accused the Government of appeasing “a sectarian voting bloc at the expense of open debate”.
Sarah Pochin MP said: “This is yet another assault on free speech from the Labour Party. Legitimate concerns must not be censored, whether they relate to radical or extremist Islam, the operation of Sharia courts, or practices such as cousin marriage. No religion should be placed beyond scrutiny or criticism in a free and democratic society. This is simply the latest attempt by Labour to appease a sectarian voting bloc at the expense of open debate and fundamental British values. Reform UK will oppose this latest attempt to silence the British people.”
The furious demolition of the Government’s plans comes as Labour prepares to opt for a new phrase, instead of Islamophobia, with critics warning the move will make matters worse, not better.
Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp, warned that the proposed definition would be weaponized by extremists to secure police action against their critics. Speaking to the Daily Mail he said that the plans would give “the green light to Islamists” and lead to “even more two-tier policing”.
Free speech campaigners have long complained about the plans, saying that they would enshrine in law a slew of special protections for those of the Muslim faith, which would prevent legitimate criticism of the religion and risk making a de facto blasphemy law. And now a report by the Polcy Exchange warns that “anti-Muslim hostility”, a term the Government is considering, would be “more dangerous” than previous considerations by Labour.
The report warned: “A definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ is, in fact, at least as broad and dangerous as one of ‘Islamophobia,’ possibly more so.” It added: “The dictionary definition of ‘hostility’ includes ‘not liking’ something, ‘not agreeing’ with it or being ‘opposed’ to it.”
Founder of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young, warned the definition would have a “deeply chilling effect on free speech” if given official government approval. He said: “Anyone criticising something done by Muslims or by an Islamic regime such as Iran would be vulnerable to the accusation that they are motivated by ‘anti-Muslim hostility’.”
The move could also affect plans by police chiefs to scrap “non-crime hate incidents”, which have led to a series of controversial high-profile cases. The report said the new definition could become “non-crime hate incidents Mark Two” used to pressure police forces and other bodies to record incidents of “anti-Muslim hostility”.
Co-author Andrew Gilligan said: “This proposed new official definition would be non-crime hate incidents on stilts and would not reduce the grave risks associated with an ‘Islamophobia’ definition.” Baroness Falkner, who served as chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission until last year, said the “dangerous and divisive” proposed definition was “even worse than anticipated”.
Last September Shabana Mahmood, Britain’s first female Muslim Home Secretary, indicated that she may not support the move, saying: “It might be the case that everyone is safer when you’re all subject to the same law.”
