Definition of Islamophobia Is Not Necessary
UK law applies equally to all citizens. Laws passed through the Public Order Act 1986 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, criminalize threatening words, behavior, or material intended to stir up hatred on religious, racial, or sexual orientation grounds.
Yet, quite surprisingly, the right of freedom of speech and expression includes the right to criticise, express dislike of or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents. The distinction between what is allowed under freedom of speech and what is forbidden in law as stirring up hatred on religious etc grounds, is not very clear.
Nevertheless, a special definition of hatred against one particular religious group, in this case followers of Islam, seems to be a controversial exercise. The background is that a new definition of Islamophobia is being considered by UK ministers. In February this year, the government set up Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Definition to define unacceptable treatment, prejudice, discrimination and hate targeting Muslims or anyone who is perceived to be Muslim. The Group members are: The Right Honourable Dominic Grieve KC, Chair Professor Javed Khan OBE, Baroness Shaista Gohir OBE, Akeela Ahmed MBE and Asha Affi.
The Group was to define Islamophobia within six months and should have done that by now. It is not clear why the ministers feel it necessary to selectively define hatred against one religion when hatred against religious groups is generally unlawful under current law? Such continual special treatment of Islam provokes public reaction and has the opposite outcome to that intended.
According to a news report, a Sikh group, the Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO), has threatened to launch legal action if Communities Secretary Steve Reed pushes ahead with plans for an official definition of Islamophobia. The main argument against such a definition is that it is not necessary and could damage freedom of speech and criticism of Islam, as well as hindering efforts to tackle grooming gangs. A broad definition of Islamophobia will interfere with the ability of Sikhs to manifest their religion and beliefs freely.
Quite rightly, NSO argues that inciting any type of hatred against any group is illegal under current law. Indeed, a selective legal definition of hatred against any particular religious or other community would restrict freedom of speech and can cause difficulties for those who interpret religious texts and history. It is possible that a special definition of Islamophobia can make the work of Sikh and other religious ਕਥਾਕਾਰ (exegetes) of dharam granths and related historical texts more difficult, although, quite surprisingly, freedom of speech allows the right to criticise, express dislike of or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherents. In any case, no Sikh kathakar would express dislike for or insult adherents of other religions.
As reported, NSO has sent a pre-action letter to the Government on September 19, laying out its concerns and explaining that it has been preparing a judicial review. The minister concerned, Steve Reed, is reported as saying that protecting freedom of speech was very important and that he would not adopt a definition at any cost. In that case, why waste all this time and resources for one religious group? Others like the Jewish community and the Sikhs are in the same situation and also need legal protection.
Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has warned that a definition could result in special treatment that increases hatred rather than deals with it.
British Sikhs would agree.
Gurmukh Singh OBE
E-mail: sewauk2005@yahoo.co.uk
https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gurmukh_Singh_OBE