Labour has come under fire over accusations that it is “rigging” a public consultation on the definition of “Islamophobia” — a move critics warn could threaten free speech and usher in a de facto blasphemy law in Britain.
Conservative MP Nick Timothy has sounded the alarm, warning that Labour’s consultation process is opaque, biased, and stacked in favour of groups with a vested interest in shutting down criticism of Islam.
In a strongly worded letter to Dominic Moisi, chairman of the Government’s Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred, Mr Timothy demanded transparency, accusing ministers of inviting only “handpicked organisations” to participate and refusing to disclose who those organisations are.
He writes: “The Government is refusing to answer questions about the process, saying your work is independent, so I must ask you for clarity and transparency.”
Mr Timothy raises a series of probing questions, including whether the controversial Muslim Council of Britain or groups with known links to the Muslim Brotherhood are involved in shaping the proposed definition of “Islamophobia”.
He also questions whether critics of the definition — including secular voices and campaigners for free speech — have been excluded entirely.
In his statement to supporters, Mr Timothy explains:
“Angry mobs of people threaten violence against those who criticise their ideas and beliefs. Some have been forced into hiding, fearing for their lives, after simply expressing their opinion. Our public institutions have submitted to intimidation. The police, prosecutors and courts now use the Public Order Act 1986 to convict people who criticise Islam.
And now Labour plan a new definition of ‘Islamophobia’, which will kill our free speech and embolden extremists. Even worse, their ‘Islamophobia’ consultation is rigged.”
Labour’s efforts to push through the new definition have sparked concerns across the political spectrum, with critics warning it could be used to protect ideas, rather than people, from criticism.
Campaigners say this could make it illegal to challenge or debate aspects of Islam — including its record on women’s rights, gay rights, and freedom of expression — under the guise of preventing “Islamophobia”.
Mr Timothy is urging members of the public to respond to the consultation using a prepared template, warning:
“These processes are designed deliberately to be opaque so publicly-funded activists can dominate the debate at the expense of taxpayers like you. So please do lend your support.”
In the suggested answers, respondents are encouraged to oppose the use of the term “Islamophobia” altogether, preferring instead “anti-Muslim hatred” — a term already recognised in law. The rationale?
“’Islamophobia’ elides the protection of individuals from hatred with the protection of ideas from scrutiny. So it is unacceptable in principle.”
Among the examples cited in the consultation response template is former Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s recent remarks, after which she was branded “Islamophobic” for saying: “The Islamists, extremists and anti-Semites are in charge now.”
Also noted is Lord Austin’s resignation after backlash over a tweet criticising UNRWA and another mocking Hamas tunnels — labelled “Islamophobic” by the Labour Muslim Network.
Mr Timothy also calls into question the influence of pressure groups like MEND, accused by former diplomat Sir John Jenkins of promoting extremism, yet allegedly “exerting an important intellectual influence” on the definition process.
In his letter to the working group, Mr Timothy writes:
“Do you still endorse the APPG definition? If yes, what is the point of your Working Group? If not, what do you disagree with in the APPG report?”
He also poses pointed questions on key issues:
- Is it Islamophobic to criticise Muslim rule or Islam’s historical expansion by the sword?
- Is it Islamophobic to show images of the Prophet Muhammad?
- Is it Islamophobic to refer to the religious and racial motives behind the grooming gang scandals?
The consultation — which remains open to the public — has now become a battleground in what many see as a fight for the soul of British democracy. Mr Timothy concludes:
“It should take no more than three minutes. It is vital that moderate, mainstream voices like yours are heard.”
Members of the public wishing to respond can do so via the government’s official consultation page or by requesting a response form by emailing: definitionsecretariat@communities.gov.uk.
Or take part in Labour’s consultation here (suggested answers are below).
Have your say. Before it’s too late.
This article is based on publicly available statements and letters. The Labour Party has been contacted for comment.
Take part in Labour’s consultation here (suggested answers are below).
Suggested answers to consultation below
1. Are you responding on behalf of an organisation or as an individual?
[answer as appropriate]
2. Which age bracket do you belong to?
[answer as appropriate]
3. Please state your sex.
[answer as appropriate]
4. Please state your ethnic group.
[answer as appropriate]
5. If you would be content for the working group to potentially contact you about any of your answers as part of their work on a definition of Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred, please leave your email address below.
[answer as appropriate]
6. When referring to discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, hatred or violence directed at Muslims, which term do you think should be used? For instance, ‘Islamophobia’, ‘anti-Muslim hatred’, ‘anti-Muslim racism’, ‘anti-Muslim prejudice’, ‘Muslimophobia’ etc.
“Anti-Muslim hatred”, as defined in existing law and jurisprudence.
7. Please tell us your reason for suggesting this term
“Islamophobia” elides the protection of individuals from hatred with the protection of ideas from scrutiny. So it is unacceptable in principle.
Pressure to protect Islam and Islamism from criticism – through the campaign for an “Islamophobia” definition, the misuse of the Public Order Act 1986 against critics of Islam, threats of violence, and the submission of our institutions – corrode our freedom of expression.
In a free and pluralistic society, we must be free to criticise ideas. There are laws to protect people; we cannot have laws that protect ideas from scrutiny.
8. Do you think the UK Government should adopt a definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia? (any definition would be non-statutory)
No.
9. Please could you tell us more about why you think that?
Campaigners for a definition want to pressure Muslims with moderate views about women, minorities and our way of life, and non-Muslims concerned about our national identity and freedom of expression.
A definition, prohibiting criticism of people not based on what they immutably are but what they choose to believe, would allow thought and speech to be policed.
Campaigners want to prevent legitimate debate about Islam in the West on everything from animal rights to same-sex marriage. No religion, Islam included, is above criticism, debate, satire, and scrutiny.
10. Do you think Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia is also a form of racism?
No.
11. Please could you say more about why you think that?
Muslims are not a racial group. It is racist to judge a black man because of what he inescapably is; it cannot be racist to judge somebody because of what they choose to believe. Islam is a body of ideas, and ideas are not above the law or debate. There is not even a single body of ideas about which all Muslims agree. There are many differences within Islam.
We already have laws to stop discrimination. No ideas or beliefs should be protected from criticism or mockery. But our public conversation about Islam has been limited through a mixture of self-censorship and more official restrictions, such as the misuse of the Public Order Act to stop criticism of Islam and protest. These restrictions are motivated by fear of a violent response to by those who are offended by free expression. A formal definition of Islamophobia would effectively enshrine a one-religion blasphemy law and provide special protection for Islam and its adherents.
12. Should any of the aspects below feature in a definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia? Please tick all that apply.
None ticked
13. If you wish to, please can you give an example(s) of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia that you have witnessed, experienced or read about over the last two years? Please refrain from disclosing personal information about other people involved in these examples – such as their name, address.
“Islamophobia” is alleged to stifle debate. After Parliament changed its procedures, fearing violence against MPs, Suella Braverman said “the Islamists, extremists and anti-Semites are in charge now.” The MCB called her an “Islamophobe”.
When Lord Austin tweeted a joke about Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, depicting Hamas tunnels, Labour Muslim Network called it “Islamophobia”. A tweet about UNRWA caused such a backlash he resigned as chair of a housing association.
When Nick Timothy questioned the concept of “Islamophobia”, Sayeeda Warsi said it showed his party should be investigated for “Islamophobia”.
Sir John Jenkins, reviewer of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain, says MEND, a campaign group accused of promoting extremism, has “exerted an important intellectual influence” on the definition. The APPG report suggested its purpose is to protect Islam from criticism.
The influence of extremists, and those linked to them, should be considered during this consultation.
