EQUALITY ACT 2010 v THE APPG DEFINITION OF ISLAMOPHOBIA.
Islamophobia, as defined by the All Party Parliamentary Group on the topic. The APPG recommended that the government adopt it. The Labour Party did adopt it, but the Met police pronounced it unworkable. Lots of local authorities also adopted it, but it is unclear whether they also adopted the examples listed by the APPG
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.
Government Responses
As is shown by the Hansard record below, the Conservative government of the day rejected the APPGs’ definition, and never came up with another. Muslim peers continued to push for its adoption and cared little for the government’s objections that it was incompatible with international human rights legislation and the Equality Act
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2020-02-13/debates/D2C6CF82-DDBD-4AB5-949D-C1205E3AF0A4/Islamophobia
Question Asked by Lord Sheikh: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards the adoption of a formal definition of Islamophobia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to stamping out anti-Muslim hatred and all forms of hate crime. It is unacceptable for anyone to feel unsafe while practising their religion. We continue to take a zero-tolerance approach to Islamophobia. The definition proposed by the APPG is not in line with the Equality Act 2010 and could have consequences for freedom of speech. We recognise the importance of this matter and will interrogate it in further detail.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Islamophobia is of great concern to the Muslim community. I have raised this subject before in your Lordships’ House. Can the Minister assure the House that the process to be undertaken will not involve any preconditions such as recognising Islamophobia as a form of racism? Does he agree that any definition proposed by the Government must have the support of the Muslim community and Muslim representative groups, without which it will have little value? If so, can he confirm that this will be done?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I agree with my noble friend that Islamophobia, while a hate a crime, is not a form of racism as defined by the Equality Act 2010. Section 9 of the Act defines race as comprising “colour, nationality” and “ethnic or national origins”, none of which would encompass a Muslim or an Islamic practice, so conflating race and religion in conflict with any definition could cause confusion.
On the second question, it is important for the Government to listen to and engage with Muslim groups and communities, which we will continue to do.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, the definition of Islamophobia proposed by the APPG, like the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, is not a legally binding working definition, so there is no conflict with the Equality Act. My noble friend will recognise that the Government and the Conservative Party rightly criticised the party opposite when it felt that it could make the definition better and amend it, despite the Jewish community saying, “This is our definition”; that party was wrong for doing so. Does he further recognise the irony and hypocrisy of the Government’s position on Islamophobia, as opposed to the position that we took on anti-Semitism?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
There are a couple of points there. The IHRA definition is widely accepted internationally and, by adopting this non-binding definition, we underline the UK Government’s determination to tackle anti-Semitism wherever it occurs. On my noble friend’s other point, as she will know, Islamophobia is a complex matter and there are different views in this House on the issue. There has been strong opposition to the adoption of the all-party definition from a wide range of organisations, including Civitas, Policy Exchange, the Barnabas Fund and the Henry Jackson Society. It is an ongoing issue and discussions are continuing.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, at a time when anti-Muslim and Islamophobic hate crime has spiked by over 500%, and given that the APPG definition was arrived at after widespread consultation with hundreds of academic organisations and now has the support of most mainstream political parties, chief police officers, councils, trade unions and the Scottish Conservatives, why have the Government decided to appoint two advisers to come up with a different definition? Can the Minister not see that doing that, and delaying coming to a non-binding position on this, leads to the community losing confidence in the Government even further because they appear to be kicking something as important as this into the long grass and not taking it seriously?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Not at all—we take it very seriously. The question asked by the noble Baroness is very similar to that from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I say again that the definition goes against not only the Equality Act 2010 but international human rights law, which treats race and religion separately. Criticising somebody because of their race is regarded in international law as unacceptable, but criticising religions or beliefs is permitted. This remains a challenging issue, and we want to move quickly to resolve it.
2024
The newly elected Labour government gave assurances to the Sikhs in September 2024 that it wasn’t about to adopt this definition either. LORD KHAN OF BURNLEY, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Faith, Communities and Resettlement wrote to Sikhs as follows:
“This Government is committed to tackling religious hatred, and we recognise that the language surrounding this, including the definition of Islamophobia, plays an important role. Defining Islamophobia is a complex issue, and we want to ensure that any definition comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives and implications for different communities. This Government is actively considering our approach to tackling Islamophobia through a more holistic lens, and will provide further information on this in due course.
As you have mentioned, the definition proposed by the APPG is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, which defines race in terms of colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins. More appropriately, the Equality Act 2010 provides protection from discrimination, harassment or victimisation to anyone with a religious belief as well as to those who lack a religion or belief, subject to certain exceptions. A person who experiences Islamophobia from their employer or when accessing goods and services may be able to bring a case of religious discrimination or harassment to an employment tribunal or other civil court.”
