Where the Parliamentary Definition Conflicts with the Human Rights Act 1998:
The definition of Islamophobia, as written, conflicts with the Human Rights Act 1998 in the following ways:
Violates Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) – Overly broad restrictions on speech could criminalize legitimate debate about Islam, immigration, and national identity.
Violates Article 9 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion) – Restricts religious criticism and debate.
Violates Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination) – Applies selective protection to Muslims while allowing criticism of other groups.
Contradicts Common Law & Legal Certainty – Vague language makes it legally problematic and open to abuse.
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 Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998)
This incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. This means that potential conflicts with the ECHR also apply under the HRA 1998. However, the HRA allows individuals to challenge laws or policies in UK courts, meaning this definition of Islamophobia could be legally contested in Britain.
Below is an analysis of how this definition may conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly in relation to:
Freedom of Expression (Article 10 HRA)
Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion (Article 9 HRA)
Prohibition of Discrimination (Article 14 HRA)
Legal Certainty & the Rule of Law (Common Law & HRA Principles)
Conflict with Article 10 – Freedom of Expression
HRA Article 10(1) states:
“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, regardless of frontiers.”
Although Article 10(2) allows limitations (e.g., to prevent violence or discrimination), these restrictions must be necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.
Conflicting Provisions in the Definition:
“Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group”
Risk of criminalizing political criticism – This could restrict public debate about Islamic doctrines, Islamism, or political movements linked to Islam.
Under HRA case law, offensive speech is still protected unless it directly incites violence or hatred (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.”
Prevents open discussion on controversial historical or political claims.
The HRA protects the right to express controversial opinions, even if offensive (Perinçek v. Switzerland, 2015 ruled that questioning genocide claims is protected speech).
(c) “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.”
This could prohibit political criticism of separatist movements.
Under HRA Article 10, criticism of Palestinian or Kashmiri independence movements is protected, unless it directly incites violence.
(d) “Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g., Muhammad being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword).”
Restricts religious critique and historical debate.
HRA Article 10 protects the right to question religious figures and historical events, even in ways that offend believers (E.S. v. Austria, 2018 ruled that insults against Muhammad could be restricted in Austria, but this remains controversial).
Conflict with Article 9 – Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion
HRA Article 9(1) states:
“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.”
The definition could suppress atheists, ex-Muslims, or critics of Islam from expressing their views.
HRA Article 9 protects religious critique and apostasy.
The right to critique religion is essential for religious freedom itself (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 1994).
Conflict with Article 14 – Prohibition of Discrimination
HRA Article 14 states:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
Conflicting Provisions in the Definition:
“Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, e.g., loyalty tests.”
-
If this prevents discussions on Muslim integration, it may itself be discriminatory because similar criticisms are made about other groups (e.g., Jewish, Christian, or Hindu nationalists).
-
Selective protection of one group over others violates Article 14.
“Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic.”
Criticizing Islamic states (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan) should be protected under freedom of speech.
Many groups face collective criticism (e.g., Western countries for colonialism, Israel for policies in Palestine). Limiting such discussion only for Muslim-majority states is discriminatory under Article 14.
Conflict with Legal Certainty & the Rule of Law (Common Law & HRA Principles)
Under UK common law principles, laws must be clear, predictable, and enforceable.
The definition is vague – Terms like “mendacious,” “demonizing,” and “dehumanizing” are not legally defined and open to subjective interpretation.
Risk of selective enforcement – Could be used to silence critics of Islam, immigration policies, or radical Islamic groups while allowing similar critiques of other religions.
Where the Definition Conflicts with the Human Rights Act 1998
The definition of Islamophobia, as written, conflicts with the Human Rights Act 1998 in the following ways:
Violates Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) – Overly broad restrictions on speech could criminalize legitimate debate about Islam, immigration, and national identity.
Violates Article 9 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion) – Restricts religious criticism and debate.
Violates Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination) – Applies selective protection to Muslims while allowing criticism of other groups.
Contradicts Common Law & Legal Certainty – Vague language makes it legally problematic and open to abuse.
