“If Labour pushes this definition through… no one will be able to criticise grooming gangs, Islamist extremism or political Islam without breaking the law and being branded Islamophobic. That’s a direct threat to free speech, public safety and honest debate.”
Labour’s push to draw up an official definition of Islamophobia is facing fierce criticism amid warnings it could obstruct police from investigating serious crimes.
A legal opinion by Tom Cross KC concluded the wording being prepared by ministers may end up influencing sentencing and hampering the work of the police and security services. Cross said it was “reasonable to suppose that, beyond informing decisions provided for by statute, such a definition would in practice be relied on in objecting to the use of powers by the police and security services to investigate persons who happen to be Muslim for criminal offences, including of the most serious violent or sexual nature.”
The move stems from a working group set up by Angela Rayner over the summer to advise on “appropriate and sensitive language” around discrimination against Muslims. Rayner recently quit as deputy prime minister, but the group’s work continues under new communities secretary Steve Reed.
Campaigners say the definition is unnecessary because existing laws already protect people of faith. Lord Young of Acton of the Free Speech Union warned: “We have put the government on notice that we won’t hesitate to bring legal action if it rolls out an official definition of Islamophobia. We have various laws that protect people of faith from harassment and discrimination and state agencies whose responsibility it is to advise public bodies on how to interpret and apply those laws. Any attempt by the government to trespass on the jurisdiction of these agencies would be unlawful.”
Cross also said the fact that Labour insists the definition would be “non-statutory” does not make it harmless, since “a decision by the government to adopt it… would be likely to have the practical effect of influencing a wide-ranging number of decisions across different fields of activity.”
Labour insiders brushed off the concerns, with one source dismissing the warnings as “the type of complete nonsense you’d expect from an activist lawyer.”
But pressure is mounting from critics outside the party. Claire Coutinho, the shadow equalities minister, said: “Labour have tried to rig this process from the start by appointing a hand-picked group of activists to draw up an Islamophobia definition — and they only allowed the public to have their say after I exposed their secret consultation. This is nothing but a cynical attempt to give special protections to one group in society … The new secretary of state must scrap this dangerous and divisive definition.”
She added: “Labour tried to rig the consultation on Islamophobia. Pushed by radical activists, it seeks to give one group special protections and will hinder our councils and police from grasping difficult issues like grooming gangs. They should scrap it.”
MP Nick Timothy, echoed the concerns, pointing to past Labour positions: “Today Shabana Mahmood defended the 2018 APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’. This said raising the rape gangs, or entryism by the Muslim Brotherhood, is ‘Islamophobic’. These are just two vital responsibilities for the new Home Secretary. Her position is extremely worrying.”
A former Conservative MP told the Post: “If Labour pushes this definition through, it won’t just protect Muslims from hatred, it will shield ideas from scrutiny. No one will be able to criticise grooming gangs, Islamist extremism or political Islam without breaking the law and being branded Islamophobic. That’s a direct threat to free speech, public safety and honest debate.”
The government has set up its own independent group, led by Dominic Grieve KC, to review the issue.
