The Government has finally produced its official “Islamophobia” definition - rebranded as “anti-Muslim hostility”.…

The Government has finally produced its official “Islamophobia” definition - rebranded as “anti-Muslim hostility”. It’s even worse than feared. 🧵 bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

As with the last definition endorsed by Labour, this dangerously elides concepts: - The protection of people from harm v the protection of ideas from scrutiny - Racial identity v religious belief - Actions that are already illegal v behaviour that a free society should permit

The inclusion of this language is especially problematic: “The prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims … to stir up hatred against them.” First, “racialisation” is a nonsense term used to in this instance to make something not about race - beliefs - about race.

Of course Muslims cannot be a race. It is morally wrong to hate somebody for what they inescapably are - black, white, whatever. Being a Muslim is about choosing to follow particular ideas. And in a free society we must be free to scrutinise and challenge ideas.

Activists want to elide race and religion in this way because they want to shut down scrutiny and criticism of what they believe by calling other people racist. If the Government signs up to this definition ministers will be encouraging and facilitating exactly this.

An example of why this matters. In Australia Muslims acting in the name of Islamic State killed Jews in an antisemitic attack. Now read this Hadith - believed to be a saying of Muhammad. Some Islamic scholars say it’s inauthentic. Some use it to justify antisemitic violence.

Whether it’s authentic is moot. We should be free to discuss it - not least because moderates who disbelieve the Hadith should be supported in doing so. But with this definition, it’s obvious: even raising this point would be said to be stereotyping and racialising Muslims.

And who decides what stereotyping is? Nobody believes all Muslims are terrorists or abusers. But are we allowed to say that Islamist terrorists carry out their atrocities in the name of Islam? Are we allowed to discuss religiously aggravated rape? Or is that stereotyping?

Now take this: “the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions … to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.” This is a recipe for claims of supposedly invisible forces holding back Muslims.

Look at this case. Michaela bans ritual prayer to encourage togetherness. A Muslim student took the school to court to say this was an act of discrimination. She lost. But this definition would empower her at the expense of the school - and other pupils. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan…

Other examples are obvious. Could a judge instruct a witness or defendant to remove their veil? Could a school enforce a ban on hijabs for prepubescent girls? Could a politician argue for a ban on the burqa in public places?

And what about “harassment and intimidation … directed at Muslims”? Harassment is a clearly defined criminal offence. What does intimidation mean? And who decides whether somebody has felt intimidated?

We know how this would be used in reality. The 2018 definition said it was “Islamophobic” to discuss the rape gangs. Of course those behind that definition would say legitimate political debate about the rape gangs was felt by some to be an act of intimidation.

There are countless other examples. The MCB’s Centre for Media Monitoring claimed it was “Islamophobic” when the media reported a terrorist “shouted Islamic slogans.” Consider how organisations like that would use this definition. telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/0…

And let’s remember this. The people who produced this definition supported the 2018 version. That said we couldn’t talk about important issues like the entryist tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood. And it suggested supporting Indian sovereignty in Kashmir was “Islamophobic.”

This is old wine in new bottles. A terrible idea pushed by activists and extremists rebranded as a compromise. If Labour agree it - meaning the public sector, the police and the courts start to follow it - we will no longer have free speech.

Already the police and CPS are prosecuting people who desecrate the Quran and say things offensive to some Muslims. Already the mob intimidates schools, the police and private businesses into de facto blasphemy laws.

And who wins? The extremists who spew hatred and incitement. Criminals - like the rape gang members - who win themselves an extra defence. And the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organisations - subverting our country unimpeded. We cannot accept this abject surrender.