Concerns have been raised that a proposed latest definition of “Islamophobia” could encompass even easy statements of fact about Islamic practice.
Earlier this 12 months the federal government arrange a working group to define the term. No further information was made available until the BBC got hold of a duplicate of the definition and published it.
The working group has opted to maneuver away from the term “Islamophobia”, preferring as a substitute, “Anti-Muslim hatred”.
The draft definition states: “Anti-Muslim hostility is engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims due to their religion, ethnicity or appearance.
“It can also be the prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims, as a part of a collective group with set characteristics, to fire up hatred against them, regardless of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.
“It is engaging in prohibited discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases inside institutions – is meant to drawback Muslims in public and economic life.”
Tim Dieppe, writing for Christian Concern, has warned that the definition “poses very significant problems totally free speech”.
Dieppe welcomed the choice to maneuver away from the term “Islamophobia”, saying that this lessened the chance that criticism of Islam as a faith or set of beliefs would come under the definition.
However, he also argued that Muslims are already protected by existing law: “The first paragraph of the definition largely repeats what’s already illegal. Criminal acts are illegal by definition.”
More concerning, the content of the second paragraph, which deals with “prejudicial stereotyping” or the “set characteristics” of Muslims is fraught with danger, Dieppe warns.
“If I said: ‘Muslims don’t eat pork.’ – would that count? There is nothing to point it wouldn’t,” he said.
Dieppe continued, “This doesn’t even get into claims about what Islam teaches – equivalent to polygamy, for instance, let alone jihad! It is obvious that many, many statements about Muslims could fall foul of this definition, although they’re true and bonafide things to say.”
Dieppe also raised concerns about regarding Muslims, who’ve chosen a set of non secular beliefs, as a race deserving of special protection and at rules aimed toward stopping bias against Muslims.
“If the federal government adopts this as its official definition it would be a really significant moment on this country. While it would not actually be a blasphemy law, it would effectively be a blasphemy code in relation to Islam. It won’t actually be a criminal offence to say something which falls foul of this definition, but you may lose your job and have your speech recorded against you as a non-crime hate incident,” he said.
“Anyone working in any government organisation, the entire public sector, police and the courts will begin to implement this definition. This includes schools, the NHS, the civil service etc. Activists will pressure corporations and personal businesses to adopt this definition. We will then have what amounts to de facto blasphemy laws.”
 Concerns have been raised that a proposed latest definition of “Islamophobia” could encompass even easy statements of fact about Islamic practice. Earlier this...){kind=link}