We need the freedom to criticise faith - Artillery Row By Hardeep Singh

The Critic : The government’s “anti-Muslim hostility” definition is still a problem for free speech. Last week, the BBC revealed a draft version of new definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” devised by the Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred Working Group.

In its final form, it will replace the now shelved all-party-parliamentary (APPG) definition of “Islamophobia” (2018) adopted by Labour, many Labour led councils and unsurprisingly, The Mayor of London. 

I don’t much like the word “phobia” attached to any given word, because I don’t think it is appropriate to attach a mental health diagnosis to opinions. The problem is the new draft “anti-Musim hostility” definition, although an improvement on the flawed APPG one (significantly it sheds the nonsensical subjective term “Islamophobia) still risks censoring free speech, or at least make people think twice before discussing issues of significant public concern, like terrorism, misogyny and “grooming gangs”. 

The existing legal framework in England and Wales provides equal protection for all faiths; therefore, establishing a special Working Group dedicated solely to one group perpetuates a two-tier policy approach (a concern I’ve previously highlighted in The Critic). 

One of the problems is the introduction of the word “hostility”. Like, “Islamophobia” or “Muslimness” (from the APPG definition), it is extremely vague. When it comes to “hate crime”, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) concedes that “hostility” is not defined in law, so is interpreted via its ordinary meaning, which includes: “ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, and dislike”.  

In effect this is simply replacing words open to subjective interpretation, with other words also open to subjective interpretation. Defining “anti-Muslim discrimination” would have made much more sense. Perhaps, even the way someone says “hello” could be interpreted as “unfriendly”? 

Or uncompromising objection to halal slaughter considered “antagonism”? As the National Secular Society (NSS) have warned, “the adoption of any new definition – however benign it appears on its face – risks enforcing a ‘two-tier’ narrative, damaging community cohesion and entrenching grievance-based politics.

Read it all here.......