Christians lament government’s recent Islamophobia definition

Christian commentators have reacted with dismay to the federal government’s newly announced definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”, formerly referred to as “Islamophobia”.

Representatives of varied faith groups, including Islam, have previously urged the federal government to drop its plans, saying the definition can be used to stifle free speech.

Tim Dieppe, of Christian Concern, has argued that the brand new definition could itself represent a breach of equality law, in that it provides special protection to Islam and Muslims not afforded to other religions.

Meanwhile, writing for Christian Today, evangelical leader David Robertson warned the definition might even be used someday to silence those attempting to evangelise the Gospel to Muslims.

“I can see a day coming within the not-too-distant future when … writers like me can be prosecuted under the Islamophobia blasphemy law for spreading hate against Muslims. But preaching Christ and his word is just not hatred, neither is it any type of phobia. It is Christian love,” he said. 

The final version of the brand new definition is as follows:

“Anti-Muslim hostility is intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts – including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated – which can be directed at Muslims due to their religion or at those that are perceived to be Muslim, including where that perception relies on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance.”

“It can also be the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim including due to their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, regardless of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.”

“It is engaging in illegal 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.”

The government has sought to provide assurances that this definition, which is non-statutory, is not going to threaten freedom speech, saying: “A definition must not and is not going to prohibit free speech nor stop issues being raised in the general public interest.” 

Others disagree. Christian commentator Adrian Hilton said on X, “The saving grace of this definition of anti-Muslim hostility is that it’s non-statutory. But as public institutions (including universities and schools) adopt it, I believe the appliance may have a detrimental effect on the liberty of expression, especially if policed by those with a mission.

“To warn of the hazards of Muslim bloc voting and creeping sharia may constitute negative characteristics observed of a collective.

“To write or say that Mohammed is a false prophet is well perceived as harassment or intimidation directed at Muslims due to their religion. It doesn’t augur well in any respect for any examination of the socio-cultural and spiritual dimensions of rape gangs.”

Dieppe has stood by his earlier concerns, stating on X, “The positives are relative to how bad it might have been. Tough words on blasphemy are meaningless when accompanied with a proposed definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ which effectively introduces a blasphemy code to appease the Muslim activists.”

The government’s own anti-terrorism tsar, Jonathan Hall KC, has also raised concerns, telling the BBC, “The worry can be with loose language, people will feel inhibited about talking about things that they do think that are genuinely vital today.”

Numerous MPs have spoken out. Nick Timothy, Conservative MP for West Suffolk and shadow justice secretary, called it a “very predictable betrayal” by Labour. 

“Labour said they’d protect free speech. But the entire point of this definition is to attack our freedom to criticise, satirise and scrutinise ideas,” he said. 

He added that he’ll “ignore” the definition and “advise the entire country to do the identical”.

Shadow equalities minister, Claire Coutinho MP, said, “The Government’s Islamophobia definition has had a rebrand, however the underlying challenges remain the identical. Its loose wording will shut down public services attempting to combat grooming gangs, FGM and terrorism, and yet it’ll do nothing to vary the law on harassment and abuse. 

“With ethnonationalism and sectarianism on the rise, it will be important that we hold on to the principle that we’re all equal before the law. Anything else will just breed more resentment and division.”