Over 50 councils in England are using a definition of Islamophobia rejected by the government over free speech concerns, according to research.
The statistics amount to around one in seven local authorities adopting the use of the term, which British think-tank Civitas says goes against government concerns its use would limit free speech.
In 2018, the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims defined Islamophobia as a type of racism that targeted “expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
It was accepted by Labour and other opposition parties but rejected by the Conservative government which said the wording needed “further careful consideration” and had “not been broadly accepted.”
Civitas analysis reveals that 52 English councils have passed a motion to adopt the definition.
Thirty-four are Labour-led, with nine having no overall control, five run by the Liberal Democrats and four Conservative-led.
Panoply
The “Islamophobia Revisited” report (pdf) is authored by Network of Sikh Organisations deputy director Hardeep Singh.His latest research builds on a previous collection of essays on Islamophobia published by Civitas in August 2019.
Mr. Singh sent Freedom of Information requests asking all 369 local councils in England, Wales and Scotland whether they had adopted APPG’s definition of Islamophobia.
Just over 15 percent of authorities in England who responded said they had adopted the APPG on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia, despite the central government rejecting it as “not fit for purpose.”
He said the findings indicated “serious implications to free speech, not least when discussing matters of religion, or historical truths, particularly in local authority areas which have now adopted the disputed APPG definition.”
Mr. Singh said he found that local authorities use a “panoply” of different approaches and definitions including the rejected government definition.
“If we are not careful, we may soon find ourselves in the rather peculiar situation in this country where we can talk freely about the crusades but may choose to self-censor when it comes to the jihads,” he said. “Council employees—like history teachers—should especially take note.”
Erosion
The report found that in some councils where opposition voices have been “carefully considered,” a decision was made not to formally adopt the APPG definition.Mr. Singh added that this is highlighted by examples where the National Secular Society intervened.
He said he found evidence of concerns about the impact on free speech having been raised in meetings discussing the APPG definition in several local authorities.
Citing one example of the adoption of the rejected definition, the Senedd Commission’s Diversity and Inclusion team in Wales has developed a glossary that includes the APPG definition.
The definition has been acknowledged by the Senedd’s Race, Ethnicity and Cultural Heritage workplace network too.
The report states, “So, this could be viewed as adoption by the Welsh parliament via the back door.”
Mr. Singh said the “widespread adoption” of the APPG Islamophobia definition was described by one councillor “as part of a ‘tide of little erosions, of which the overall effect is a ‘dilution of one of our most precious values.’”
A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain accused the Civitas report of “wilfully misrepresenting the APPG on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia”.
“The definition has widespread support and has been adopted by most national political parties outside the Conservative Party, which is once again mired in accusations of institutional Islamophobia,” the spokesperson said.
“Acknowledging Islamophobia as a type of racism is—contrary to the report’s positioning—also widely accepted amongst the foremost experts on the topic of academia.
“We strongly support those who take an evidence-led approach to defining the racism that Muslims and others face due to their Muslim identity or their Muslimness, and continue to encourage the adoption of the APPG definition of Islamophobia as a means of doing so.”
Tory Probe
The APPG announced its definition in December 2018, saying the fact Islamophobia had “surpassed the dinner table test” - a term used by Baroness Warsi in 2011 to describe how being Islamophobic had become socially acceptable—still needed addressing.In its report, the group said: “More than 20 years since the term Islamophobia entered our political and policy lexicon, and almost a decade since its ‘passing the dinner table test’ was raised, this is a good time to stop and survey the progress that has been made in challenging this social evil.
“It is with this intent, and to deter a further 20 years before substantive progress is made in tackling its blight on our British Muslim citizens, that the APPG on British Muslims opened its inquiry into a working definition of Islamophobia.
“No amount of documentation of the evidence of discriminatory outcomes faced by Muslims... can satisfy our desire to reverse these results if we cannot begin from the point of an agreed definition.”
However, the government rejected to define the term.
In 2021, an independent report found that anti-Muslim sentiment “remains a problem” within the Conservative Party.
Professor Swaran Singh, a former equality and human rights commissioner, analysed 1,418 complaints relating to 727 separate incidents as recorded in the Tories’ complaints database between 2015 and 2020.
In a 44,000-word report on his findings, he said: “Judging by the extent of complaints and findings of misconduct by the party itself that relate to anti-Muslim words and conduct, anti-Muslim sentiment remains a problem within the party.
“This is damaging to the party, and alienates a significant section of society.”
However, he said that claims of “institutional racism” were not borne out by evidence.
The report was condemned as a “whitewash” by Muslim Tories including Lady Warsi, the party’s former chair, who first demanded an inquiry into anti-Muslim sentiment.
