Humanists UK welcomes definition of anti-Muslim hostility

Humanists UK welcomes the newly proposed definition of anti-Muslim hostility, and commends the “Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Definition” for striking the appropriate balance of restricting speech that is harmful to people – whether they are Muslims or perceived to be Muslims – while rightly protecting speech that is critical of Islam as a religion.

The new definition is:

‘Anti-Muslim hostility is intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts – including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated – that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim, including where that perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance.

‘It is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim including
because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a
collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of
encouraging hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as
Individuals.

‘It is engaging in unlawful discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.’

Humanists UK welcomes the use of the phrase ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ instead of the misleading term ‘Islamophobia’. The latter is often used to falsely conflate prejudice against individuals with legitimate criticism of Islamic beliefs. This is wrong in principle. It is also used internationally by closed Islamic states as a tactic to ignore their human rights obligations and suppress dissent.

Humanists UK also welcomes the fact that the target of anti-Muslim hostility within the definition is correctly identified as Muslims themselves, and those perceived to be Muslims – not the religion or institution of Islam. Such clarity is particularly vital to uphold the rights of former Muslims who may wish to talk about why they chose to leave Islam.

Last year, Humanists UK briefed the Working Group stating that any proposed definition would have to meaningfully tackle the ongoing scourge of anti-Muslim prejudice. It expressed the view that, if a definition were to achieve this, it must be grounded in human rights principles, particularly the right to freedom of religion or belief and the right to free expression, and principles of equal treatment. In particular, any such definition must avoid privileging anti-Muslim prejudice over other forms of discrimination, and uphold the rights of former Muslims – and others – to question and criticise Islamic teachings and practices. For this reason, Humanists UK would have preferred to see a definition that treated all forms of hostility based on religion or belief-based identities in the same way.

Nonetheless, Humanists UK also welcomes the definition’s three-limbed structure, which recognises the difference between criminal acts, prejudicial stereotyping, and prohibited discrimination. By separating out different types of harm, the definition could have the potential to enable the use of different types of solutions. Humanists UK hopes that this potential is realised in the way the definition is implemented.

Crucially, the definition is accompanied by examples of free expression that must be read alongside it. It highlights the importance of freedom of expression in a thriving society, and offers the following examples as protected speech:

• ‘Criticisms of a religion or belief, including Islam, or of its practices, or critical analyses of its historical development.  
• ‘Ridiculing or insulting a religion or belief, including Islam, or portraying it in a manner that some of its adherents might find disrespectful or scandalous.
• ‘Criticism of the belief systems or practices of individual adherents of a religion or belief, including Islam.
• ‘Raising concerns in the public interest.  
• ‘Contributing to debates in the public interest, including academic and political  debate.’

Humanists UK welcomes this clarity.

The guidance also explains that the purpose of the new definition is not to grant special privilege or give preferential treatment to a particular community, nor is it about ‘protecting the religion of Islam’. It is about protecting people from unacceptable and divisive hostility, and upholding the principle that everyone should be able to enjoy dignity, justice, security, and opportunity on equal footing. In fact, it states that the definition does not change what is lawful or unlawful in criminal law and equality law – and must not be used in this way. Further, the guidance alleviates the specific concern raised by Humanists UK during consultation, that the protected characteristics of race and religion or belief remain distinct.

Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson said:

‘Hostility against Muslims and those perceived to be Muslims is on the rise in the UK and we all have a duty to stand up against it. We are pleased to see that the new definition of anti-Muslim hostility, along with its supporting guidance, does this while explicitly protecting speech that is critical of religious ideas, in line with international human rights standards.

‘One policy definition alone is never going to be enough to end communal tensions and create the tolerant world we strive for. The law must continue to provide equal protection for all, regardless of religion or belief and we urge the Government and all public bodies to work meaningfully with diverse communities in order to enable a more cohesive society.’