A couple of days ago, the government showed their definition of Islamophobia to a number of groups. This definition was then published by the BBC. The definition – which avoids the word ‘Islamophobia’ itself – is as follows:

“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 because of their religion, ethnicity or appearance.

“It is also the prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics, to stir up hatred against them, irrespective 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 within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.”

I must admit, when I read this, I struggled to see what anybody might object to in it. But it turns out Tim Dieppe, at Christian Concern, did find things to object to in it. You can read his analysis here.

First, Tim argues there is really no need for a new definition. He insists ‘anti-Muslim hatred’ or ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ are clear and sufficient terms. His fear is that any definition of Islamophobia will risk conflating criticism of Islam with Muslim hatred.

What Tim fails to recognise is that this definition has been mooted to avoid exactly the problem that he fears. Without such a definition, it is more likely that criticism of Islam would be linked to anti-Muslim hatred because there is no agreed definition of what Islamophobia is. As we look at the above definition, it helpfully outlines what would qualify as anti-Muslim hostility and it evidently doesn’t include criticism of Islam. I am surprised that Tim didn’t welcome this.

Second, Tim suggests the first paragraph simply outlines what is already illegal and is, therefore, valueless. This is only a worthwhile comment if the purpose of the definition is to outline illegal behaviour. But, of course, it isn’t designed only to tell us what is illegal. The first paragraph is proposed so that illegal activity that is motivated by hatred of Muslims can be recorded as such. It is to help understand – and therefore more effectively prevent – illegal activity stemming from anti-Muslim views.

Third, Tim insists that ‘dangers lurk’ in the second paragraph. He is particularly concerned that ‘prejudicial stereotyping’ is not defined. He fails to recognise that ‘prejudicial stereotyping’ wouldn’t, of itself, count as Islamophobia being as it is specifically qualified by the clause ‘to stir up hatred against them’. Which makes his question, ‘if I said: “Muslims don’t eat pork” – would that count?’ both obtuse and disingenuous. Perhaps the mere use of the word ‘most’ at the start of that sentence would resolve the issue. But even if one didn’t add ‘most’, it still wouldn’t count because it is not prejudicial  to simply state that Muslims don’t eat pork and it  evidently isn’t going ‘to stir up hatred against them’. When Tim says ‘there is nothing to indicate it wouldn’t [count as prejudicial stereotyping]’, this is simply untrue. There are specific clauses in the definition that do just that.

Tim is similarly concerned about the term ‘set characteristics’ and suggests this is ill-defined. But the definition is clear that the problem would arise only if somebody is ascribing views to a person, suggesting that they must hold this view because all Muslims do so, ‘irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.’ And so you would only be accused of anti-Muslim hostility if you were insisting all Muslims must think X despite being told this Muslim is clear they do not affirm X and you are insisting on it in order to be prejudiced toward them and stir up hatred against them. Does Tim realistically think the mere statement, ‘Muslims don’t believe the Trinity’ would actually qualify? I sense he doesn’t really think so.

Tim also queries the clause on ‘racialisation’. Asking, ‘what exactly does this mean?’ Tim worries that Islam will be exempted from scrutiny of its ideas ‘on a basis that it s racial’. Whilst he is right that Islam is not a race, racialisation does have a specific meaning. When it comes to Muslims – who are a diverse religious group – some seek to stereotype them collectively based on perceived physical appearance, descent or cultural markers. It is not to do with racism per se (which is why the term racism is not used), but the perceived markers of being Muslim, which some associate with particular ethnicities.

What is interesting, particularly given that Tim takes credit on behalf of Christian Concern for helping the government see the distinction between Islam and Muslims and thus the need to avoid the specific term Islamophobia, he does a poor job of understanding that racialisation of Muslims specifically does not mean criticism of Islam. Tim spends a couple of paragraphs railing against any attempt to stop criticism of Islam being cast as racism, but the definition is clear that it is anti-Muslim racialisation that is at issue. This has nothing to do with criticism of Islam and everything to do with anti-Muslim sentiments being levelled at Muslim people based on the perceived markers of their Muslim faith, which includes their ethnicity and cultural dress. Tim insists ‘you can be sure that activists will exploit [this definition] to deem criticism of Islam as racism.’ But the definition itself simply won’t let us do that. Saying ‘Islam is mistaken in its belief that Jesus is not fully God’ has nothing to do with the markers of being a Muslim.

Tim himself notes that the APPG definition of Islamophobia – and the government’s own admissions – clashed with the Equality Act. This is precisely why they have written a new definition. Tim insists that ‘if “racialisation” remains in the new definition, it will also conflict with the Equality Act’. Except, it won’t because – unlike the APPG definition – the new government definition uses the word ‘racialisation’ not ‘racism’ specifically because these are two distinct things that are not equivalent. Racialisation is a technical term that does not relate exclusively to race.

Tim is very concerned about who gets to define what ‘biases’ against Muslims are. I struggle to see why it matters when the clause is clear that the issue is ‘prohibited discrimination… Intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life’. That means it is illegal discrimination (so the government and the courts define it) that is specifically intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.

Tim cites the Michaela School banning Muslim prayers. This is a questionable understanding of what happened there as they banned all forms of ritual prayer and the High Court found in favour of Michaela not making space for ritual prayer. The specific example Tim cites, then, has already been ruled as not a matter of anti-Muslim discrimination. Tim believes if this definition was in place the judge would not have found in their favour, but given that the school policy (also noted in the judgement) was not ‘specifically intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life’, it seems doubtful that this definition would have in any way changed the outcome. Tim lists another series of somewhat dubious and disingenuous questions asking if these qualify as biased. The definition makes most of them deeply unlikely to be deemed ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ specifically because they are not designed to disadvantage Muslims in public life compared to others.

Tim closes by claiming he has shown this new definition is no better than the old one and that it will curb free speech. I think he is much more confident that he has proven his case than I am. I suspect this definition will do more to protect us against the misuse of islamophobia than to curb free speech.

The analysis from Christian Concern is an example of someone who has a priori determined this definition will be a problem and has spent considerable effort trying to prove it is so. That is in the face of the admisson that this definition has avoided the problems that were originally feared. Far from being ‘a de facto blasphemy law’ as Tim claims, it is evidently concerned with prejudicial hostility towards Muslim people. It is hard to find anything to really object to in it.