Today’s Telegraph splash could have been designed in a laboratory to trigger Tory tempers. After months of deliberation, the paper reports that Angela Rayner’s department now plans to create a council on Islamophobia. This will draw up an official government definition for anti-Muslim discrimination and provide advice to ministers on how best to tackle it. The person chosen to head the 16-strong council? Dominic Grieve, the uber-Remainer and former Attorney-General.
Grieve wrote the foreword to the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims report in 2018 that set out the definition of Islamophobia which the Labour party subsequently adopted. It stated that ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’ Ministers have yet to say whether they will adopt this definition of Islamophobia or an alternative. However, Grieve believes that it is clear that ‘perfectly law-abiding Muslims’ are currently ‘suffering discrimination and abuse.’
The obvious response to this claim is that discrimination and abuse is, of course, already illegal: a substantial body of law exists that prohibits faith-based hate crime or discrimination on the grounds of religion. Such arguments seem to find little favour with Labour ministers who reason that: ‘We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.’ The key battleground instead looks to be on free speech. Opponents argue the current definition is so wide that it will amount to a de facto blasphemy law and stifle legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion.
Straight out of the blocks was Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, who has urged ministers to drop plans for ‘such a deeply flawed definition of Islamophobia’ that serves as a ‘Trojan horse for a blasphemy law protecting Islam.’ Grieve himself has acknowledged the difficulty of legislating in this area, acknowledging that ‘defining Islamophobia is extremely difficult for perfectly valid reasons relating to freedom of expression.’
The timing of the Telegraph story proves why that is the case. It was published less than 24 hours after a 47-year-old pleaded guilty to causing racially and religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm, and distress after setting fire to a Quran in Manchester city centre. Critics claim this ‘effectively instituted de facto blasphemy laws in the UK’. It is not the first incident of its kind: a Batley teacher went in to hiding in 2021 for showing a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad in class while four students were suspended in West Yorkshire in 2023 after a Quran was damaged.
Further laws and regulations risk eroding free expression in this area. As the likes of Patrick West note, the Labour definition refers to ‘perceived’ discrimination, based on subjective notions. Fears that this adoption could quickly become exploited will not be helped by some of the names who are reported to be on the list of the 16-strong council. Among the candidates is Qari Asim, the Leeds imam dismissed as a government adviser by the Tories in 2022 after backing calls for a ban on the film The Lady of Heaven, about the Prophet Mohammed’s daughter.
Labour will no doubt press on with its plans, regardless of criticism. But the debate around free speech is one that is deeply uncomfortable for many MPs and ministers. In November, backbencher Tahir Ali demanded at PMQs that Keir Starmer ‘commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions’. Starmer’s response was to claim he would tackle ‘Islamophobia in all its forms’, describing ‘desecration’ as ‘awful’ and urging it to be ‘condemned across the House’. It took another three weeks before the government completely ruled out the introduction of blasphemy laws.
It is worth remembering of course that we have already been here before. Under Theresa May, the Tory government extensively debated whether to adopt this definition in 2019, before – eventually – deciding against doing so. Angela Rayner and ministers might soon appreciate the reasons why.
Comments