Lawmakers in the United Kingdom are warning of the likely “chilling effect” on speech, as well as the actual threats to those targeted with such accusations, should parliament move forward with a scheme that involves defining “Islamophobia.”
Islamophobia already is defined by those on the left as “the irrational fear of, hostility towards, or hatred against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general.”
They claim Islamophobia is “primarily a form of religious or cultural bigotry.”
They even have a derogatory name for those they arbitrarily convict of such attitudes: “Islamophobes.”
Actually, the term most often is used against those who have criticisms of Islam, whether it be for religious reasons, the fact that Islam is connected today to terrorism worldwide through some of its factions, or whether it involves demands made by Muslims on others in society, such as in European cities where there are now no-go zones for non-Muslims.
Leftists blame the surge in such attitudes on “the radicalization of Christian nationalist and far-right groups with growing hostility towards Muslims.”
But then similar attitudes exist for and against all religious traditions, and seldom do appear the words “Hinduphobe,” or “Christianphobe” or “Buddhaphobe,” “Shintophone” or “Sikhphobe.”
Now a report at the Christian Institute in the U.K. explains members of the House of Lords are warning against adopting a proposed definition.
“In a letter signed by 36 members of the House of Lords, the peers called the attempt at a definition ‘misguided’ and stated that it would only increase division in communities.”
The report said the Labour Party already defines the word as “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
But it’s not that easy to pin down what it means, the report said, and what damage could be inflicted.
Those objecting warned while the definition would be non-statutory, there would be problems, particularly in universities: “defining Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred and urging universities to prohibit it will inevitably inhibit legitimate academic research about Islam.”
They cited Trevor Phillips, who was suspended from the Labour Party for Islamophobia offenses, but later was clear.
And there would be problems with legitimate criticisms of Islam.
They pointed out: “Sarah Champion, the Labour MP who exposed the grooming gangs in Rotherham, was shortlisted by the Islamic Human Rights Commission for ‘Islamophobe of the Year’, as was Baroness Casey.”
Grooming gangs in various U.K. cities are part of those “no-go” zones and have repeatedly assaulted and abused young girls.
“There are already laws on the statute books that protect Muslims and other racial and religious groups from hatred and discrimination, such as the sections of the Public Order Act 1986 that criminalize stirring up racial and religious hatred, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the Equality Act 2010,” the lawmakers noted.
“Embedding an official, government-approved definition of a particular form of racial or religious hatred in civic speech codes – and threatening people with penalties if they breach those codes – is a wholly inadequate way of tackling hatred and discrimination,” they warned.
The institute said, “A new term risks confusing criticism of Islam as a religion – a democratic right – with hostility to Muslims as people. This confusion is most explicit with the term Islamophobia.”
It continued, “Formally embracing a concept of ‘cultural racism’ risks threatening the freedom to criticize aspects of Islamic culture. A member of an organization that has signed up to this kind of definition could be disciplined for Islamophobia if they criticize mandatory female head coverings or suggest that U.K. law is preferable to Shariah [Islamic religious] law.”
The House of Lords members who object to the plan represent multiple parties.
They explained an “official definition” likely would create additional conflicts.
The letter also challenged the logic behind defining “Islamophobia” or “Anti-Muslim Hatred” at all, particularly in light of protections already provided by the law.
Their letter was to Dominic Grieve, head of a “Working Group on ‘Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred,” which, in fact, is made up solely of Muslims or those with Muslim heritages, except for one member.
The letter said, “If you are genuinely concerned about the potential of the definition to have a chilling effect on free speech, why not include members of free speech advocacy organizations in your group, as well as representatives of the world’s other major religions? The monocultural character of your group suggests that whatever definition it comes up with will likely include legitimate criticisms – as well as accurate observations – of the religion of Islam, such as the historical fact that it has, on occasion, been imposed on subjugated populations by force.”
Further, too, there was alarm.
Criticism by Muslims of suggestions already made is “an example of how any definition of ‘Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred’ is vulnerable to being weaponized by Muslims seeking to protect their communities and their religion from legitimate criticism.”