Analysis of the Definition of Islamophobia and Its Potential Conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The definition produced by an all party parliamentary group on Islamophobia reads thus:
The MPs then went on to list examples,
Examples:
• Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing,demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies
about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim
identity having a unique propensity for terrorism, and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.
• Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.
• Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.
• Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying Muslim populations the right to self determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.
• Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, eg loyalty tests.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a
paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.
• Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
This was designed to protect fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech (Article 10), freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 9), and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14). However, the provided definition of Islamophobia contains elements that might conflict with ECHR rights, particularly freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Below is a legal analysis of possible areas of incompatibility.
Potential Conflicts with Article 10 – Freedom of Expression
ECHR Article 10(1):
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
While Article 10(2) allows restrictions on speech (e.g., for the prevention of disorder, protection of rights, etc.), such restrictions must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. Several points in the definition might impose overly broad limitations on freedom of speech:
“Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group”
This could limit criticism of Islamic ideologies, cultures, or communities.
Expressions such as concerns about Islamism, political Islam, or radicalization could be interpreted as “stereotypical allegations.”
ECHR jurisprudence allows robust debate, including offensive or shocking speech (e.g., Handyside v UK, 1976).
“Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim-majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing, or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.”
This could prevent open debate on sensitive political topics, including questioning the extent or nature of certain claims.
Under ECHR precedent, denying an event such as genocide is not automatically illegal unless it constitutes incitement to hatred (Perinçek v. Switzerland, 2015).
“Denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.”
Preventing people from criticizing separatist movements (e.g., Palestine, Kashmir) could infringe upon legitimate political debate.
Under ECHR case law, political expression is strongly protected, even when controversial (Castells v. Spain, 1992).
“Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, e.g., loyalty tests.”
While discriminatory double standards could violate Article 14 (Non-Discrimination), this provision might also be used to limit political discussions regarding national identity, integration, and allegiance.
Some European states apply citizenship tests or loyalty oaths to all groups, including Muslims, making this an ambiguous restriction.
“Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g., Muhammad being a paedophile)”
This could limit historical or religious critique.
Under ECHR law, even offensive religious criticism is protected unless it directly incites violence (E.S. v. Austria, 2018 ruled that insults against Muhammad could be restricted in Austria, but this remains controversial).
Potential Conflicts with Article 9 – Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion
ECHR Article 9(1):
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice, and observance.”
If the definition of Islamophobia is enforced too broadly, it could restrict the freedom to criticize or debate religious doctrines.
ECHR jurisprudence supports open criticism of religion, provided it does not incite violence (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 1994).
Potential Conflicts with Article 14 – Prohibition of Discrimination
ECHR Article 14 prohibits discrimination but does not prevent legitimate debate on social or political issues.
The definition’s restriction on discussions about Muslim loyalty, entryism, or integration could limit legitimate political discourse.
Similar accusations are made about other groups (e.g., claims about Jewish dual loyalty or Christian nationalist movements). Suppressing these discussions selectively could itself be discriminatory under Article 14.
Conclusion: Where the Definition Conflicts with ECHR
While combating anti-Muslim hatred is legitimate, this definition of Islamophobia risks clashing with fundamental rights under the ECHR, particularly freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of thought (Article 9). The broad wording could:
Restrict legitimate criticism of Islam or Islamic ideologies.
Limit open political debate on issues like separatism, national loyalty, or demographics.
Suppress historical or academic discussions about controversial topics (e.g., the spread of Islam, Muhammad’s life).
Create legal uncertainty by criminalizing certain opinions without clear criteria for what constitutes Islamophobia.
